Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 14881 - 14900 of total 22344 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 21, 2013 - 10:49am PT
I want to take Boot Flake into space and play catch with Werner. You could push the thing. The only problem is that it would also force you backwards at a far higher rate.

Hmmm. Scientists. If Werner and I were playing catch with Boot Flake, would it also push us so far apart that the "catch" would be a one time one way affair?

It seems so.

I love the burning smell of Ammonium Perchlorate in the morning. Some day I need to come clean about my old passion of designing high powered rockets. These aren't little science class rockets. The motors used to require a LEUP from the ATF, and one the size of say a Stinger Missile was not uncommon to see.

Some people waste time playing solitaire on their computer. I used to constantly play chess while talking on the phone, and later I tweaked rocket design on a simulation program too much. I set three altitude records. They have now been broken, of course, but understanding transonic drag and the like is super fun.
MH2

climber
Jun 21, 2013 - 11:33am PT
There is so much information locked up in rocks.



That deserves a frame of its own. Thanks, BASE.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 21, 2013 - 11:54am PT
As a reductionist, you are honor bound to reduce things to the basics - quantum

This is how you parse things into silly arguments, JL.

Then as a spiritualist, you must make the case for the spirit.

Reductionism is only one tool. You must always keep the big picture in mind unless you are a physicist looking for something very new.

Reductionism is just a tool for looking at a complex system and trying to be a detective. If you saw a complex system, how would you go about understanding it? Would you examine components or would you sit in the Lotus position and Grok it?

If I want a bridge built, I go to an engineer. If I want to drill a well in the right place and the correct depth, call me. If I want a faster computer, I approach a materials scientist.

If I want to develop an invisible force field of shakra energy, I go to you.

You use all of this science and technical knowledge on the one hand, but you dismiss it in a sneering way, openly using weasel words and other rhetorical no-no's.

Look man. The mind is what the brain does, to borrow a quote from that excellent (and short) New Yorker article that HFCS just posted.
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 21, 2013 - 01:16pm PT
Jogill: A video proves something to you? Really? (I don't admire your standards for evidence and reasoning.)

Oh for heaven's sake, lighten up MileL! Do I come back at you every time you make a statement about science and truth that sounds as if it's coming from another galaxy? When you denigrate scientific inquiries or say that every PhD student feels they are frauds? We should find common ground with the utterly fraudulent crap that comes out of the far east concerning the mystical uses of energy in the martial arts or yoga. Remember the "levitation" of yogis, bouncing off their bed springs, or the incredible power of the mind as demonstrated when a "master" made a whole army of men collapse as they rushed him? It would be easy to draw comparisons with various other asian practices, like zen . . . but I would not do that.

This video is hilarious, as are similar ones that have cropped up. Loosen up and enjoy it!
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 21, 2013 - 02:11pm PT
If you saw a complex system, how would you go about understanding it? Would you examine components or would you sit in the Lotus position and Grok it?
---


The fuuny thing is that in trying to lampoon self reflection, you provide the solution in a sense, though it sure sounds silly the way you say it. If you were trying to find out what was going on INSIDE a concert hall, would you study the floor plan, or go inside and see for yourself? Tastes differ. I always picture in my mind some poor dufus witgh fifty pens in his pocket scrutinizing the out side of the concert hall and scribbling in a notebook when the door is right there and it's open.



If I want to develop an invisible force field of shakra energy, I go to you.
-

Why me, BASE? I don't know a thing about shakra energy? What is it? Why would I know?
--


Look man. The mind is what the brain does, to borrow a quote from that excellent (and short) New Yorker article that HFCS just posted.
-

That quote is one of the howlers of the faux consciousness work people are engaged in (which is very exacting work on objective functioning, but is NOT consciousness work.)

We've already gone over all of this and A is what B "does" is not a paradigm that would ever fly in scientific circles. Like saying gravity is what falling rocks do. It doesn't tell us anything other than the poor rube who said it is holding onto "the brain creates consciousness" but he can't say how.

What's more, I asked you two very straighforward questions and you ducked them entirely. And reductionism is not just a tool to those who believe it. It is a law. In your mind, BASE, when isn't reductionism valid, and why? Where does it break down, and why?

The other thing is this huge myth that some totally objective view of consciousnss or mind is going to explain it. For starters, there is no such thing as a human and purly objective view of mind and experience.


JL
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 21, 2013 - 03:19pm PT
The way I see it this thread is the White Lab Coats versus the Paisely Nehru Jackets ( with a feather boa loosely wrapped about the neck)
MH2

climber
Jun 21, 2013 - 05:55pm PT
I always picture in my mind some poor dufus witgh fifty pens in his pocket scrutinizing the out side of the concert hall and scribbling in a notebook when the door is right there and it's open.


Maybe the dufus is an architect? Maybe deaf? Why do we attempt to denigrate one another? Why not just respond to what people say rather than embellish? Perhaps it is the writer in you being colorful? Humor is okay, but it is better if we laugh with each other and not at each other.

Funny how everyone is a poor dufus to someone. I remember a program on people who had suffered severe brain injury. One of them said, "We like to go places and make fun of normal people." That was funny.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 21, 2013 - 06:26pm PT
It’s amusing to me because as a person who grew up as a Stonemaster, the silly characterizations people use to lampoon wuwu worshipers with Neuru coats are the same that we used to laugh about. In the same vein we would tease the “L 7” (square) science types “who couldn’t get laid with a $1,000 bill.” It was all fun and games and nobody took it seriously, especially those of us in traditions that more resembled boot camp (Renzai Zen) then cocking around in a hot tub up in Carmel. So when Trotter breaks out his absurd generalizations about the subjective work, and lumps me of all people in with Tiny Tim and the Right Reverend Moon, I privately bust out laughing.

But an even greater ignorance is shown toward the imagined way we go about the work, and ultimately, the utter mythology about humans conducting a purely objective evaluation of our subjective lives.

Some people probably get into subjective work to see ghosts and flash energy fields and look at past lives. Most of us, however, are trying to find out what is true about our lives, the bedrock, having long ago realized that looking inside is the only way. On the other hand we have people claiming to be investigating experience “objectively,” and when they are told they are, in fact, examining objective functioning, they balk and say all kinds of silly and impossible things. At the heart of it is a profound ignorance of what is actually happening, pivoting on the illusion that as human beings, they can and should divorce the realities of consciousness and sentience from their work. This is what Bohr and other faced with their Copenhagen definition of QM . Einstein's comments "I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice," and "Do you really think the moon isn't there if you aren't looking at it?" exemplify this. Bohr, in response, said, "Einstein, don't tell God what to do."

But the point is made clear with a few simply thought experiments. Many on this thread consider consciousness to be entirely understandable in purely determined and mechanistic terms. Even when chaotic and random factors enter the equation, people believe they can after-the-fact reverse engineer those factors, once known, to betray a mechanistic causal progression – impossible to know beforehand, but mechanistically understood en toto later on.

This, and other factors, has led people to believe that we can understand consciousness mechanically, or objectively, as an object, or a thing, and do it in a way entirely devoid of subjectivity. Put differently, the objective can “know” and understand the subjective, top to bottom, drawing from no subjective well at all.

Not so fast . . .

To see the folly of this, and to get at the heart of what the Copenhagen folks were, in part, saying, imagine a machine that was fifty times more robust than a human brain. It could examine anything and tell you all about it. Of course as a machine, and not a living thing, it would have no experiential, subjective life (and if it did, it would no longer be objective, but a “subject” of its own experience). But for our purposes, our machine is just a machine, and has no information whatsoever in its data banks about experience and qualia and subjective reality whatsoever, and is only skilled at describing mechanical processes.

Now give that machine a human brain and let it run the numbers. No doubt it would run some incredible evaluations, but none of that data would betray sentience because there is nothing in that data that suggests anything but mechanical functioning itself. Nothing, in any of those flickering neurons shows a flair for Neuru coats, stardust, lybacks, hussies, wankers, engineers, or Yanke Doodle riding on a pony. That’s because the subjective is simply not accessible nor yet comprehensible to a purely objective machine. If a machine’s only reference is mechanical functioning, that is all it can ever know. It would not be able to even come up with – Mind is what Matter Does, because it would not grasp that mind, in experiential terms, was there at all.

JL
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 21, 2013 - 06:37pm PT
WTF?

If I came upon a bridge and wanted to know how and why it was built the way it was built, I would indeed have to crawl all over it to figure it out, which would be a damn hefty job. That is reductionism.

Out of all of the data that I pick in a single day, it is a small part of the whole. I'm zoned in on particular strata, because I have to move fast and produce. I could get distracted and spend a lifetime working depositional environments of the thousand uphole zones that aren't economic. I have to focus. I understand the processes of deposition and structural effects on the other rocks, but they aren't of any economic significance.

I have no clue as to what questions I ducked. Please list them like this:

1) question number one:

2) question number two:

You characterize science in an odd way.

As I said, and this is important, I don't need to know how a watch works to tell what time it is.

Science is such a monstrous topic that nobody can be an expert on the entire universe. Consider all of the applied science. Even a guy like Edison had a limited number of discoveries and inventions.

If you want to understand thermonuclear weapons, ask Ed. If you want to know how oil and gas are found, ask me. I have never claimed to know everything. That is a ludicrous idea.

Ask me anything. I'll do my best, but my knowledge is limited, as is yours. You discount material, which is matter. This is the content of the entire universe, so I do not understand your problem with those who are interested in matter. You actually attack it, which is sort of like stabbing a lake with a sword. There is no point.
WBraun

climber
Jun 21, 2013 - 06:41pm PT
Science is such a monstrous topic that nobody can be an expert on the entire universe.


God is the Supreme expert on everything period.

Man is stupid period until God reveals knowledge.

Not even a blade of grass can move until God himself lets it move ........
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 21, 2013 - 06:52pm PT
Credit: Ward Trotter

"Far out Man"

So when Trotter breaks out his absurd generalizations about the subjective work, and lumps me of all people in with Tiny Tim and the Right Reverend Moon, I privately bust out laughing.

That line is going in my memoirs.

Hahahaha

Credit: Ward Trotter
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 21, 2013 - 06:56pm PT
Why not just respond to what people say rather than embellish? Perhaps it is the writer in you being colorful? Humor is okay, but it is better if we laugh with each other and not at each other.

This is just how Largo treats us. I have been complaining about it for a week.

Ok, John. How would you go about describing the dynamics of the atmosphere of Jupiter?



Credit: BASE104
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 21, 2013 - 06:57pm PT
How would you go about understanding the processes that led to these meander belts of the Mississippi River delta?

Credit: BASE104
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 21, 2013 - 06:59pm PT
This is as close to the Neuru as I ever got LOL.

Credit: Largo
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 21, 2013 - 07:06pm PT
I always picture in my mind some poor dufus witgh fifty pens in his pocket scrutinizing the out side of the concert hall and scribbling in a notebook when the door is right there and it's open

OK, he's not going to change. I think when I met JL years ago he had dropped out of Claremont (Christian Graduate School). He has told us about his conversations with Chuck Wilts, but nothing about any further formal studies apart from Renzai. I suspect that is his background, but he can correct me if I am wrong. On the other hand few of us more or less in the sciences have had formal Renzai training.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 21, 2013 - 07:10pm PT
This is just how Largo treats us. I have been complaining about it for a week.

I don't feel like that . Even if the Largoid is mean and nasty I don't feel slighted or threatened.

I like the dude. I like Werner too. I like all the Nehru dudes. They are solid .

I like Largo because he looks like my Uncle Leon. ( may he rest in peace)

Werner looks like a German tank field commander .

As a matter of fact, I like all the denizens of this thread, and I respect them. ( God help me)

LOL

Lighten up.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 21, 2013 - 07:38pm PT
BRAVO! Largo BRAVO!

I just caught up to ur 11:11am post. And it was MAGNIFICENT!

I'll read it again, then BASES rebuttal. HeHe!

First, I gotta take a wiz.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 21, 2013 - 07:51pm PT
This is as close to the Neuru as I ever got LOL.

That's close enough!
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 21, 2013 - 08:01pm PT
I never thought it was required to list my scholatsic record but if you have to know, or care, I graduated undergraduate with a double major - lit and philosophy, and got departmental honors for the later. I went to CGS in fine arts but mostly took philosophy courses at the School of Theology. I didn't "drop out," but bailed at the masters level, disappointing a lot of profs who invested loads of time and energy on me and presumed I was going to be an academic, which required a PhD. But I wanted to travel and have experiences and after going to college till I was twenty six I was burned out and sick of being so broke. Twenty years later I did an MFT program in clinical psych, not to be a therapist (not interested), but because I missed school and was always interested in psychology, and Antioch had a great and varied staff and I could do it at night.

So far as dissing scientists, or discursive and analytical thinking, you have it entirely wrong if you belive I don't have a privledged take on this approach and in some wise have put myself outside that camp. Nothing is further from the truth. For example, take the following illustration:

Credit: Largo


Before I wrote the first Anchor book in 1989, there was little formal investigation into anchoring in any studied, systematic way, the protocols were not codified, named, or even understood, and while there was a massivve amount of info out there, much of it was contradictory and misleading. Over the years I tackled this quagmire, sorted through 1,000s of pages of enginering reports and test data, codified systems, pulled protocols out of my ass, as well as many of the names for procedures and technical set ups, and put into fairly accessible terms the remarkably complex factors involved in the roped safety system.

With help from various companies, we conducted tests and I had specialists like Rick Goldstone work up mathmatical models and statistical wizards like Callie Rennison do anaylsis on the data and then plowed in and worked up the practical names, set ups and soultions for the whole business of rope management. Again, there was a massive amount of info out there but it had never been collected, analyzed and distilled into practical rules of thumb. And wuwu descriptions would not suffice. It had to be tangible stuff. This was such a nighemare of variables that at times it felt impossible. What's more, I had to get it right, or people would die because in many cases they had nothing to go on per anchors save for my books.

So given that background, it has always amazed me to be accused of not grasping the process and value of objectifying physical things like anchor arrays and falling climbers. I'be been doing that work in spades for decades. And if the same kind of approach would have worked per consciousness, you better believe I would have tried it. If fact I did - all those years doing neurofeedback and so forth.

So when I say that a purely objective aproach to consciousness has limitations, it's not all because I am lacking the analytical wherewithal to understand what science does, or how it works.

JL
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 21, 2013 - 08:10pm PT
Way too fuking complicated.

But hey - thats wall climbing for ya!
Messages 14881 - 14900 of total 22344 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews