Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 14961 - 14980 of total 22761 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
jogill

climber
Colorado
May 16, 2013 - 11:37am PT
Meanwhile, outside Plato's Cave the real world goes on . . .

Kind of puts the quest for no-thingness in perspective

X-47B&#40;1&#41;  &#40;2013&#41;
X-47B(1) (2013)
Credit: jogill
X-47B&#40;2&#41;
X-47B(2)
Credit: jogill
X-47B&#40;3&#41;
X-47B(3)
Credit: jogill

Range: 2,100 N. miles
Max Altitude: 40,000 ft
Speed: Mach .9+
Wingspan: 62 ft
Length: 38.2 ft
Two weapon bays.

Flies with or without a ground pilot's control . . . autonomous entity
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
May 16, 2013 - 01:31pm PT
^^^^^^

You have it backwards.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
May 16, 2013 - 01:36pm PT
Yeah. That was my point. Manipulation of the short hair of the public imagination is now a highly refined science with a perfect delivery system, the internet. We are all ripe participants in the allegory of the cave.

You don't have to go full blown crazy to be manipulated. It can be just a little nudge, and we all fall for it. From this, I see a "matrix" sort of future where the truth is entirely irrelevant.

Just look around. I visit some websites and there are 15 companies tracking me and collecting data of my every mouse click.

At the same time, there is a company right out in the open who sells some incredibly sinister software. They found it being used on computers in Egypt after the revolution.

http://www.finfisher.com/FinFisher/en/index.php

Welcome to the brave new world. I kind of feel for the kids.
jstan

climber
May 16, 2013 - 01:38pm PT
Not that many years ago Mr. Long would have had no choice but to have his leg amputated. As it happened a couple million dollars of all of our money was spent to shield him from the real world. So he could continue saying there was no real world. Did we get our money's worth?

Jan is right. I am emotional. It is just I am convinced we don't reach good decisions out of emotion. Teabaggers are emotional. You like what they are peddling? Just look at all the good that has been accomplished on ST using emotion. So many problems resolved to everyone's satisfaction. It is staggering.

In the above I let it rip. When we let it rip we assume we are RIGHT. Assuming one is RIGHT saves a lot of work. I did not break a sweat on this one. So prove me right people and have at me.

Jan tells me this is the basis of meditation as established by Buddha. Does not surprise me. He was a pretty smart cookie. It is a shame parasites make a living off people like Buddha by convincing others he was a "god". You want to reach god? Follow the dollar.
jogill

climber
Colorado
May 16, 2013 - 01:59pm PT
You have it backwards

You've got to be kidding, Mike. This thing is real, solid, and dangerous. To argue that it is merely image or illusion or "reified object" is ridiculous. But if you mean I haven't touched it, experienced it as it really is, been on the bad end of its capabilities, and until I do so it is some sort of illusion promulgated by the internet you might have an argument. But not one I would place a bet on.

Objects are reifications. When you no longer see objects but simply experience, then you've stood up and started to leave the cave


Guess this means Ed is trapped inside the Cave, as am I. Your statement says you "see experience" or dwell entirely in the land of "experience" without seeing (or hearing or feeling, I suppose) objects. Good trick. Or does "experience" mean some kind of deep meditation in which objects disappear?

If you are saying that you become engulfed in the experience to the extent that you no longer discriminate between objects and are caught up in some sort of cosmic flow that is all-encompassing I postulate the objects are still there and that some faculty is guiding you through your "experience." (Of course, if you argue that there is some external "projector" in play then perhaps you have short-circuited that mechanism)

I have had the experience of weaving in and out of the rock in some climbs, with objects and experience merged in a kind of unity - but the "objects" rock, hands, feet, shoes, wind, sky, etc. are there, and I certainly "saw" them.

I don't think we live in a "Matrix" where "objects" are projections, but maybe we do. Are there "scientific tests" that could determine if that were so? It seems I once read of a physicist who was designing such tests. It's probably somewhere on the internet.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
May 16, 2013 - 02:30pm PT
Not that many years ago Mr. Long would have had no choice but to have his leg amputated. As it happened a couple million dollars of all of our money was spent to shield him from the real world. So he could continue saying there was no real world. Did we get our money's worth?
---


Sorry to have taken money out of your wallet, John? When did this happen, exactly? How much do I owe you?

Strange how things get distorted here.

My comments about "reality" are just these:

There is an indisputably real and material (though sometimes a wave) quantum world out there. Our sense data and brain organized things into patterns recognizable to others having our same brains and sense data. What we perceive as aggregate "things," what some of us call "objective reality" is in large part an artifact of our brains and sense data. This leads us to believe that "out there" is a self same world of things that remain exactly the same regardless of whether we are here or not. In fact, what is "out there" is a mental representation and configuartion that, for example, other life forms would not see or experience at all, given different brains and sense data.

For me, as a human being, relative to how I am made, gravity can hurl me into the ground and break my leg. This is undeniably real - for me. But it is not an undeniable objective fact for someone, say, who's physical body is fashioned from cosmic rays, or whatever. Their "objective world" would appear quite different then ours, and so would their measurements because they wouldn't be experiencing the self same "world."

What remains the same, in a relative way, is not a grouping of things out there, but us, and the creative nature of our perceptions, which keeps feeding us a world with what Bergson, de Chardin, Whitehead and others called "duration."

I never said this was easy to grasp. Or explain.

JL
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
May 16, 2013 - 02:39pm PT
(though sometimes a wave) quantum world out there

This is the type of language that, IMO, comes out of an as#@&%e and does nothing but obfuscate any basic statement. Seriously. What the hell does it mean?

I'm not sure if I am a wave or if I am a particle. Ed help me.

You need to use small and well defined words if you are trying to communicate a difficult idea. After reading them for a few years, I'm almost convinced that there is no-thing to these statements.

You do realize that JStan was not being funny when he said that we now take all possible paths from A to B, don't you? That is Feynman's path integral, which after you understand it, is damn cool.
jogill

climber
Colorado
May 16, 2013 - 04:13pm PT
That is Feynman's path integral, which after you understand it, is damn cool

And it is from what little I know of it. Integration over a space or field of paths is somewhat abstract stuff. I don't believe Dirac proposed computational techniques when he advanced the idea. The acceptance and use of this tool by physicists (because it works) points out a difference with mathematicians, who have not been entirely successful in justifying all aspects of the theory, incuding the measures involved.

But, you know, if it works it works. Dirac & Feynman were touched with genius.

This stuff lies outside my expertise, although I enjoy working with integration of functions of a single complex variable along contours. Interestingly, when these functions are "holomorphic" in a suitably defined region integration along all paths (from A to B) in the region leads to the same answer - basic complex variable theory.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
May 16, 2013 - 04:46pm PT
(though sometimes a wave) quantum world out there

This is the type of language that, IMO, comes out of an as#@&%e and does nothing but obfuscate any basic statement. Seriously. What the hell does it mean?
It's an example of Male Answer Syndrome.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
May 16, 2013 - 05:25pm PT
Not that many years ago Mr. Long would have had no choice but to have his leg amputated. As it happened a couple million dollars of all of our money was spent to shield him from the real world. So he could continue saying there was no real world. Did we get our money's worth?

This is a manifestly uncool statement. I don't dig it.

You been puttin the wrong ingredients in your consumme.

Don't make me go devil's advocate on all ya'll.
jogill

climber
Colorado
May 16, 2013 - 05:27pm PT
Thank you, Malemute.

Male Answer Syndrome


OK, found it:

Scientific Test of the Matrix Theory

Oh darn . . . sounds like they use discursive thought. Won't impress the anti-grinders. The mysterious Deeper Issues and More Important Problems cited on this thread, but not defined, I suppose are far more critical than this.
MH2

climber
May 16, 2013 - 06:28pm PT
If jstan were blaming Largo for costing us money, that would be uncool, but it is more likely that he is merely using that example to direct our attention to the reality outside the cave-within-a-cave here on Supertopo. I prefer the comfort of my illusion of comfort.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
May 16, 2013 - 06:53pm PT
See if you can get your acorn around this one, BASE, LOL.

Look at so-called physical reality like this: You have a puny atomic world, and you have a macro (bigger) world comprised of things. The first you can look as a kind of flux - soup. The second, macro world appears to be much more solid and "real" and seems to respond to laws of this and that. So far so good.

Now worth mentioning is that the transition from puny to the macro, the actual threshold, presents all kinds of interesting challenges where one set of rules seem to leave off and another takes over, at least in part. I present this not as a physics question, which is not my point, but as a thought experiment.

Imagine that it is the puny atomic world that is the closest we have to "objective reality," and the the world of forms, of things, to principally be the fruit of our brains and our sense data.

You say, "Our brains didn't "make" El Capitan. I say our brains didn't make the atomic building blocks that are swirling around in the Captain, but virtually all of our descriptions of El Cap being dense, steep, hard, this color, and so forth are matters of how our brains and sense data are organizing the puny into recognizable stuff - recognizable so long as we have the same aperati to input said stuff. If our sense data and brains are radically different than our own, so is what we perceive to be "out there."

The promise of the discursive mind to absolutely nail down what is "out there" in absolute terms, in a way that we can say, "This is indisputably what (fill in he blank) really is," is true so long as it is us humans doing the looking.

Humans see a human world and call it real. Others, if they exist, will no doubt see another world relative to how they are made.

JL
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
May 16, 2013 - 07:10pm PT
But apart from your purely imaginary cosmic-ray beings, the sensory apparatus of all life forms fall within a fairly specific range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Birds and bees see ultraviolet, dogs and cats hear really high frequencies, etc. And extinct australopiths couldn't have even heard our speech, apparently. I pointed all this out earlier with the usual lèse-majesté, but you conveniently ignored it. Just a heads-up: there aren't any cosmic-ray beings, and even if there were, they would still be having equally dismissable "experiences" on par with our own, in terms of all this no-thing business you're on about.
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
May 16, 2013 - 07:20pm PT
You do realize that JStan was not being funny when he said that we now take all possible paths from A to B, don't you? That is Feynman's path integral, which after you understand it, is damn cool.

This was interesting to note since I had never heard of Feynman's path integral before. What instantly flashed into my mind, was some of the hypothetical maps of neuron grids I have seen with pulses of energy simultaneously flying through multiple grids sometimes leaping to the level above or below (those non sequitors in dreams). I saw the cerebellum involved as well since we often twitch and make noise in dreams.

All of this kind of illustrates largo's idea that we all perceive differently including MH2's characterization of jstan's contributions as being hard to follow at times because he takes several paths simultaneously and we sometimes are unable to follow. Forever in the future when I puzzle over jstan's remarks I will think of multilevel brain tasking with jstan's brain buzzing and popping away while I'm trying to get mine reved above 50 watts!

As for what the Buddha taught and how it is practiced, I was very interested to learn some years ago of a Burmese Buddhist master who was shown emotionally charged photos of suffering while hooked up to a brain scan. At first he registered the impact of the photo in the emotional center as did everyone else. The difference was that he quickly shifted his energy to the left rational side of the pre frontal cortex and then explained the Buddhist view of suffering and karma. This does indeed seem to be the same process jstan is describing using science and logic.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - May 16, 2013 - 07:28pm PT
Just a quick look see, to check in and monitor what's going on here

apparently the sleestaks have infiltrated this thread, so please keep an eye out for these inner earth aliens.
and if you see any, report them to the admin.
Credit: Dr. F.

smoking ducks have also been implicated to be related to the sleestaks, we all know that Ducks Don't Smoke, right?

Credit: Dr. F.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
May 16, 2013 - 07:52pm PT
Emotions are experiential actualities, Jstan. It constitutes a prejudice to deny a part of you. Emotions may have served primary purposes in our past when we didn't' have more developed reason and rationality, but throwing them out with the bathwater may not be reasonable, either. Deep, silent unconscious awareness, sleep, instinct, emotion, myth, and reason are all emergent, unfolding bases of being. It doesn't make sense to me to think that one obviates the preceding capability.


Jogill, I think John gave a good response to the issues you raise. I can't add too much more to the ideas he expresses.

Let's forget that I'm in a weird place right now in my experience. (Things for me are not quite real anymore.) But I don't have to be completely normal to cite scientific literature suggesting that we create the worlds that we live in. Socialization, institutionalization, typification, habituation, education, simulations, as well as the very discursive mind that inhabits you is almost endlessly spinning webs of confusion, stories, and contexts such that you cannot tell what is what with any certainty. What seems hard and solid when looked at very closely shows up as almost entirely space (nothing, really). What seems incontrovertibly solid and concrete or serious appears radically different to another person or from another context or from another time. Even the notions of what makes a concept or classification or category is highly problematical. Indeed, any definition of anything is woefully incomplete and practically dysfunctional. All in all, in fine-grained detail, nothing really works. Every articulation is an approximation, all the better when gross and broadly applied.

You say you have no doubts about what exists and what doesn't. I wonder how you can be so sure of things when you only have perceptions to support you. You seem to be a man of science (or at least scientifically empathetic). I don't understand how you can so sure of things in the face of thousands of studies that tell us that not only are people get things wrong all the time, but also how.

All these things above are why the dramas (and the objects in them) appear to be so real to us. (And I haven't even brought in philosophy).

Do I think a drone exists? In my everyday mind--most likely. But if I'm careful and honest, no, not really. Your "drone" is just a phenomenon, one among an endless array. All phenomena are empty and a display of mind.

For the record, I'm caught in the web of maras almost as much as the next person, Jogill. Occasionally I see them for what they are (images, illusions), and the experience affects me deeply.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - May 16, 2013 - 07:54pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
jogill

climber
Colorado
May 16, 2013 - 08:27pm PT
Your "drone" is just a phenomenon, one among an endless array. All phenomena are empty and a display of mind. For the record, I'm caught in the web of maras almost as much as the next person, Jogill. Occasionally I see them for what they are (images, illusions), and the experience affects me deeply

Interesting perspective, MikeL. Can you say with even the slightest degree of certainty that when you "see things for what they are (images, illusions)" what you are "seeing" is not itself an illusion?

Like a hall of mirrors.
pa

climber
May 16, 2013 - 09:27pm PT
It might be of interest at this point to note the etymology of the word "person".
The Latin "persona" was a blend of the Etruscan "phersu" and the Greek "prosopon"...both of which originally meant "mask".

:))
Messages 14961 - 14980 of total 22761 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