Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 14921 - 14940 of total 22351 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 23, 2013 - 12:32am PT
And your comment about scientists believing science can provide solutions for all conceivable problems is a stretch IMHO.

Actually this thought is not too far off the beaten path, given the prognostications of the transhumanists . The " singularity" fantastically proposed for the period 2040-2050 might go way beyond just your standard good old fashioned problem/solution dynamic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 23, 2013 - 12:38am PT
Credit: Ward Trotter
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 23, 2013 - 12:44am PT
Still waiting for that honest question, there Ward buddy. Couple of us have wagers per the probability that constitutionally, you can or cannot ask one. And it has to be about something you do not know about the subjecive, but want to know.

JL
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 23, 2013 - 12:58am PT
And it has to be about something you do not know about the subjecive, but want to know.

Okay , okay you've forced my hand . What I am about to say is not new , I've touched on it before on this thread, but you guys were too busy outfitting the unchanging Nehru look to pay much attention to little ol' nerdy moderate climber me. LOL
To wit :
There is no objective / subjective dichotomy. The entire sum total of human consciousness resides in the observable objective universe. What is normally referred to on this thread and elsewhere as " subjective" is merely an epiphenomenon of biologically-rooted human mental functioning. I am congruent with some of the eliminativists on this score.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 23, 2013 - 01:18am PT
I won the bet. 20 dollars that Ward could not bring himself to ask a questions about what he does not know because, though never actually observed his onw process, he already knows the answer. To wit:

There is no objective / subjective dichotomy. The entire sum total of human consciousness resides in the observable objective universe.

As we have said many times in diferent ways, the subjective is not observable through the investigation of objective functioning. If so, kindly point it out - by default you will be pointing to objective functioning, from from this, you believe, consciousness arises or is produced by the meat brain. Standard physiclist stuff that leading neurobiologists admit is indefensible, and which, as mentioned dozens of times, there is a million dollar prize out there if you can show how this occurs in a peer reviewed journal. So have at it, Ward.

But the fact is, we've pretty much put that argument to rest since it is circular, and for someone entrenched in the physicalist camp, even with all of it's wonky simplifications, there is no way to see past it because as you have just shown, you are constitutionally incapable of asking a question, ergo you have no avenue to learn something new - a kind of self-imposed poverty, on which you have, remarkably, heaped virtue. Perhaps no one can accuse you of being smart on that count, but so it goes.

Now the dichotomy of subjective and objecive is false, but not in the way you have it - of that you may be sure. There is only one reality, and it encompasses both realms. Like the earth is made up of water and land. But you would have us believe both are the same things.

But be that as it may, I still invite you to ask a question about the subjective - or if it is easier for you to get hold of - ask one about the nature of your own experience, something to which you have no answer but remakin curious about. Here's my chance to lose that bet. Come on Ward. Man up.

But seriously, if you really want me to show you how eliminitive materialism runs aground, it's pretty easy. It's tied to this statement: Like Feyerabend, Quine also endorsed the idea that mental notions like belief or sensation could simply be abandoned in favor of a more accurate physiological account.

Not that they aren't so whacky to deny they have sensations in theri body, however as staunch physicalists, with only external objectifying as a mode of inquiry, being ignortant of all other modes, their ignorance led them to the only conclusion possible: lump everythng in a hopper in which we can measure and test, and anythig we can't, simply call it "unreal." Note also that like all physicalists, their objession is with "states," which is the shallow end of the subjective sea. Not till you start approaching bare awareness the realms beyond discursive reasoning does the field open up ibnto terrain blocked to the likes of Feyerabend and Quine. In he end, they actulally wanted to understand, but had no methodology to investigae the subjective with any verity, recognizing right off that the discursive could be better employed by sticking with the physiological. But like all the others, they were left with the untenable position of trying to make the map the territory itself - and no man can ever do that with any accuracy.

JL



Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 23, 2013 - 01:39am PT
I won the bet. 20 dollars that Ward could not bring himself to ask a questions about what he does not know because, though never actually observed his onw process, he already knows the answer. To wit:

Congrats. Geez...only twenty bucks. I don' t know who is ponying up here but it's not me.(send me my $10 cut tomorrow)

I don't play rigged games. And I am not a gambling man. (Okay so I lost $50 on the Spurs)

I have no idea what question is supposed to be asked ,and frankly could care less. I don't play that kind of game.
I didn't agree to a set of rules of order being loosely imposed here.
Nice try though.

Get some rest and we'll tackle a new set of rules of order that I get to impose tomorrow.......maybe.
Depends if I am successful at mowin' the yard .

MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 23, 2013 - 06:41am PT
Please explain how this differs from acting on instinct, which we all do frequently, without thinking through what we are doing.

You don't / can't observe instinct consciously. Digestion, heart rate, etc. are all instinct. Instinct is a primitive structure of consciousness (autonomic processing) that includes no possibility for self-reflection. Instinct is purportedly stored in DNA. You might be thinking of automatic cognitive processes, like driving a car. That's not instinct. That comes from repeated practice. Nor is that what I'm referring to either. Wu-wei is non-action action.

Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention W Schneider, RM Shiffrin - Psychological review, 1977

See, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Shiffrin%2C+R.%2C+%26+W.+Schneider.++1977.++Controlled+and+automatic
+human+information+processing+.+.+.+Psychological+Review%2C+84%282%29.&btnG=
&as_sdt=1%2C50&as_sdtp=


And your comment about scientists believing science can provide solutions for all conceivable problems is a stretch IMHO.

Whoa. That was not my claim. That was other people's claims many times up thread. Perhaps you didn't see those. "No, we don't have X figured out (what I or Largo said was not known, usually about the mind), . . . but it's just a matter of time. We will." The people who took that stand? MH2, HFCS, Ed, and others. Neuroscience will be solving everything cognitive.


The " singularity" fantastically proposed for the period 2040-2050 might go way beyond just your standard good old fashioned problem/solution dynamic.

If only intelligence and consciousness were simply an issue of the number of neurons dancing on the head of a pin. There are really big problems to solve cognitively that have nothing to do with computing power, mainly knowledge representation, manipulation of mental models, and how cognition becomes grounded or transduced to perceptions. Pay attention, Jogill and Base: this is just another example of "we'll get it all figured out very soon." (It's like you guys can write but you can't read.) Science sees itself as potentially omniscient. (IMHO, indeed.)
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 23, 2013 - 09:20am PT
When I was doing some management coaching 10+ years ago, this is a handout I might give out to folks I was working with. I don't agree with everything here today, but it might be instructive for some. You may nonetheless see some of what I write here on this thread in this handout.

The Enemies of Learning

1) The inability to admit we do now know
⇒ Resistance to abandoning our assumptions
⇒ Unwillingness to divest our usual way of making sense of things

2) Given the way I am, I cannot learn that
⇒ Lack of self-confidence
⇒ The “new” inhibits and appears to be beyond reach

3) Cognitive blindness
⇒ We make sense of the world on basis of the repertoire of distinctions, narratives, stories, theories, and competencies we already have
⇒ Learning is based on healthy moment of skepticism – we can’t learn if we don’t admit that we don’t know

4) Not assigning priority to learning (“I don’t have the time”)
⇒ “Workaholism”
⇒ Addictions to “entertainment” rather than learning

5) Significance / important (everything must be / or I am . . . )
⇒ Everything is, or must be, “important,” “critical,” or “serious." This is presents a high level of drama, and it exhausts many who must work with such people
⇒ An “affected attitude,” tinged by contempt for those who appear to be ignorant
⇒ Simple interpretations are scorned
⇒ Knowledge is treated more as an adornment and not placed in the service of others.

6) Triviality
⇒ Take nothing seriously; exposes a high level of cynicism
⇒ Laugh at others but never at self; ridicule; confuses levity with mockery

7) Inability to Learn
⇒ “Not invented here”
⇒ “But we’ve always done it this way…”

8) Forgetting the Body
⇒ Incompatibility of body disposition with actions or learning in a new domain. Given a certain bodily disposition, people cannot “bring in” other perspectives or ways of being (e.g., if your body is expressing a strong sense of determination {think of a boxer}, it is difficult to be open to another’s point of view).
⇒ Behavior; forgetting the importance of practice.

9) Confusing learning with acquiring information
⇒ You need to not only know, but you need to be able to assess, evaluate, and project.

10) Absence of adequate emotional context
⇒ Some emotional states predispose us to learning and others don’t
⇒ Atmosphere of indifference or fear versus one of respect and caring
⇒ Arrogance vs. being open to the new and disposed to question “the known.”

11) Not giving permission to another to teach us
⇒ Not vesting another with trust and authority
⇒ Refusal to admit that we know less than the teacher

12) Mistrust
⇒ Constantly giving long odds against something happening
⇒ Constantly wondering about real motives and hidden agendas of others
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 23, 2013 - 02:01pm PT
Ward wrote: I have no idea what question is supposed to be asked ,and frankly could care less.


The "question" as discussed was any question you had, whatsoever, about your subjective/experiential life. I suspect that "you have no idea what question" you are supposed to ask youself because you are rather in the dark per what your life actually is, beyond a symbolic representation of it as expressed in words of numbers.

How would you know otherwise when, by your own admission, you could "frankly care less" about your own experience. Rather sad to see it expressed so bluntly, and you must wonder what sustains folks marrooned in what could only be considered a kind of existential no-man's land of indiference (which is the opposite of love).

It makes me regret I ever chided Ward in the firt instance, to whom I have no ill will towards and was just fooling away time being thorny and ridiculous. I take it all back. I hope you can find something ihn your experince worth caring about. For real.

Maybe this can stoke the old embers, Ward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB1V--gv3ZE

JL

MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 23, 2013 - 02:19pm PT
because you are rather in the dark per what your life actually is,

Whewf, John, dude, that's frank!

I think I was fumbling around and totally in the dark until I was 35, and only then was it that I began to ask what was what.

We don't live long enough to become wise. Life is just too short, and getting over our own socialization, institutionalization, education is soooo challenging.

We don't even know What We Think about our lives until after we've gotten a few decades under out belt.
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 23, 2013 - 03:36pm PT
Wu-wei is non-action action

Well, I probably should ponder that, but I don't think I will. Looks like it's a school of thought that has been around for a long time. Bon Voyage on your internal journeys.

Rich Shiffrin and I didn't discuss these things when I took him climbing in S. Colorado a few years back. His daughter enjoyed the experience as well. I'll see if I can find a photo or two. He's a pretty bright guy and was an enthusiastic novice climber at the time.

Let's see, your sample of, what, three to five posters provides adequate proof that, generally speaking, scientists believe that all "conceivable" problems can be solved by science? It's the word "conceivable" that triggered my response. OK, how can I fly to the ends of the universe in less than one second? Hmmmm . . . Assuming there are angels, how can I discover how many of them can dance on the tip of a pin? Hmmmm . . .

Just joking. I'm sure there are supporters of science that do indeed believe it can solve all problems. I'm just not one of them.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 23, 2013 - 04:22pm PT
I'm still in the dark about my life, it's just that my eyes have started to adjust a little. A very little. As I have said all along, life in the round is ungraspable.

JL
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 23, 2013 - 05:49pm PT
John G. I should have said that folks believed that science could explain anything / everything in time. I shouldn't have said solve any conceivable problem. There is a difference. My error.

(Largo, I like how you phrased that.)
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 23, 2013 - 06:19pm PT
Good post, JL.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 23, 2013 - 08:02pm PT

generally speaking, scientists believe that all "conceivable" problems can be solved by science? It's the word "conceivable" that triggered my response.

What sparks my response is the word "problem". What problems? Arent The only problems scientists have are the ones they invent? What is science? Isn't it just the study of the natural world and learning how to manipulate it? All the answers to the problems are already there. Scientist only have to discover them.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Jun 23, 2013 - 08:05pm PT
Michael Shermer, today...
"Limitations of neuroscience does not mean mind and brain are separate. They are one and the same. No Brain No Mind."


Sound familiar?

.....

Good post, JL.

You gotta be kidding.

.....

life in the round is ungraspable.

Life in the full is ungraspable.

No duh.
WBraun

climber
Jun 23, 2013 - 08:11pm PT
When there's no intelligence then the mind is wasted and stupid.

Just like the HFCS usual monkey analysis ......
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 23, 2013 - 08:36pm PT
It makes me regret I ever chided Ward in the firt instance, to whom I have no ill will towards and was just fooling away time being thorny and ridiculous. I take it all back. I hope you can find something ihn your experince worth caring about. For real.

This could be a good class in inlightenment. From two directions..

Sometimes the right banter will make the roster stand up and crow. Other times it'll drive the hens to roost.

Some climbers still have to nail there way up the Nose. While others free climb it.
As a guide, it's your job to know what rack to bring

All climbers gotta take whippers once in awhile or their not pushing their ability to meet their goals... Cept' for the puzzies hangin at the deli Talk'in shite. They need to be coddled and pampered.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 23, 2013 - 08:57pm PT

"Limitations of neuroscience does not mean mind and brain are separate. They are one and the same. No Brain No Mind."

But no mind doesn't mean no brain.

The limitation is that the brain doesn't know the mind. (it's a tool in the shed. Just like the kidney.) and for most people the mind doesn't know the brain. (considering most people take such poor care of their body's.)

Experiment; take the brain out of Jan and put it in Johns body. Do you think John would start wearing dresses?
go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Jun 23, 2013 - 09:53pm PT
Rock of Ages, Cleft for Me

Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
let me hide myself in thee;
let the water and the blood,
from thy wounded side which flowed,
be of sin the double cure;
save from wrath and make me pure.

Not the labors of my hands
can fulfill thy law's commands;
could my zeal no respite know,
could my tears forever flow,
all for sin could not atone;
thou must save, and thou alone.

Nothing in my hand I bring,
simply to the cross I cling;
naked, come to thee for dress;
helpless, look to thee for grace;
foul, I to the fountain fly;
wash me, Savior, or I die.

While I draw this fleeting breath,
when mine eyes shall close in death,
when I soar to worlds unknown,
see thee on thy judgment throne,
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
let me hide myself in thee.





“His Robes for Mine”

“His robes for mine: O wonderful exchange!
Clothed in my sin, Christ suffered ‘neath God’s rage.
Draped in His righteousness, I’m justified.
In Christ I live, for in my place He died.

“I cling to Christ, and marvel at the cost:
Jesus forsaken, God estranged from God.
Bought by such love, my life is not my own.
My praise-my all-shall be for Christ alone.

“His robes for mine: what cause have I for dread?
God’s daunting Law Christ mastered in my stead.
Faultless I stand with righteous works not mine,
Saved by my Lord’s vicarious death and life.

“His robes for mine: God’s justice is appeased.
Jesus is crushed, and thus the Father’s pleased.
Christ drank God’s wrath on sin, then cried “‘Tis done!”
Sin’s wage is paid; propitiation won.

“I cling to Christ, and marvel at the cost:
Jesus forsaken, God estranged from God.
Bought by such love, my life is not my own.
My praise-my all-shall be for Christ alone.

“His robes for mine: such anguish none can know.
Christ, God’s beloved, condemned as though His foe.
He, as though I, accursed and left alone;
I, as though He, embraced and welcomed home!”

“I cling to Christ, and marvel at the cost:
Jesus forsaken, God estranged from God.
Bought by such love, my life is not my own.
My praise-my all-shall be for Christ alone.


by Chris Anderson and Greg Habegger





Messages 14921 - 14940 of total 22351 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