Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 15381 - 15400 of total 22747 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
MH2

climber
Jun 6, 2013 - 08:39am PT
A good spine in action:


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/06/06/bc-bear-car.html
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 6, 2013 - 08:48am PT

What the hell is this life that we have unfolding before and inside of us. When we hear objective descriptions it's not really addressing the question at all, and we all know it in our gut.

First sentence, well that's the $64M question, now isn't it. All of science and of course our history of religions in large part are a response to it. Second sentence, it's a shame you choose to phrase so much of your postings like this, it's such a losing strategy.


If you want to see how the discursive mind runs a very jealous ship, just look at the last sentense. Of course anything but staunch reasoning is "a losing strategy," although even Fruity doesn't actually live his life like this. If he has kids, we can be sure that he uses his "gut" to get a feel for where they are in life and what he should or should not do. Trying to avoide sensing into the intuitive and feeling tones (NOT emotionality) is to ignore life as a living organism and to treat it as a thing or a machine. The discursive powers are what you bring to bear AFTER you have done the required gut check. Miss the gut check, and get played by life as a kind of autistic fool.

---


What's more, the same slavery to the discursive mind is seen in this post:

-
Question: What the hell is this life that we have unfolding before and inside of us.

Answer: Seems like a reasonable question to me, although to some it might be like trying to explain a joke to Mr Spock. Either you're awed by the mystery, or not. Too bad, though, this field of study is dominated by bizarre fantasies, and populated by charlatans and the insecure people who follow them.



Trying to explain a joke to Mr. Spock is of no value because Spock is basically autistic and doesn't generate emotions, which are our personal barometer per our surroundings and our internal goings on. Here is another poor fellow cut off from his own personal process believing that evaluating things as a machine is actually an advantage, while the discursive mind unconsciously heaps virtue on doing just that.

Lastly, we're back to the entire field of the subjecive arts being "populated by charletans and insecure people."

-


This last bit is dishonest because it is drawn on no personal experience at all, but is most likely the common speculation that people in meditation halls are escapists motivated by the selfsame stuff of religious freaks.

I have no idea how the person who wrote that silly stuff came to those conclusions, but I would invite her to our Sangha to check those insecurities she envisions in others. It usually takes about five to ten minutes for such a person to come face to face with their own. That's the surface layer we all work with. The idea that the strong and manly and "together" dudes find all of this internal stuff untoward and needless is often - but by no means always - the mark of the narcisist, the alcoholic, and the poor sap "bound by self," sectectly terrified of peering within, and perfectly content to remain ignorant to their own corners, ramparts and gullies.

As they say, the work is certinly not for everyone, but it certainly isn't that way for the jackass reasons provided above. Again, the real shame here is that these evaluations are made befor a person has done any personal research. A guess will get you nowhere in this work,

JL
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Jun 6, 2013 - 09:10am PT
even Fruity doesn't actually live his life like this. If he has kids, we can be sure that he uses his "gut" to get a feel for where they are in life and what he should or should not do.

Careful now, you're on the cusp of name calling again. Of course I rely on my gut feeling (aka intuition) and have always acknowledged this. Carl Sagan would once in awhile refer to this as our nervous system's "arcane calculus." This "gut feeling" system IS so impressive and mysterious it's led many (e.g., Oprah Winfrey, Sylvia Browne, etc.) in the past to call it infallible - and when there's a mishap to explain it away as a case of someone simply not listening to their gut feeling or intuition. Aughh, if only dystropy (bad happenings) were this simple, eh? For the record, I've never once walked the streets of New York City or Budapest or Cairo or gone climbing without my "arcane calculus" circuits in full-on mode.

Yes, I am machine with "gut feeling." Yes, I am an evolved, and evolving, machine equipped with intuition, moreover reason (reasoning capability), which prides itself on (values) being reasonable. Yes, I am machine that climbs rock. Yes, I am a living machine, chockful of mechanisms, chockful of the "machinery of life." I ack this, do you? You should. Of course you don't have to but you should. Because once thru the briar patch, it makes a lot of things (e.g., your "practice" of living in the 21st century) easier.

Carry on with your caricatures now, you internet brainiacs, you're already so deep in them why stop? In for a penny, in for a pound. ;)
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Jun 6, 2013 - 09:11am PT
John, do you really believe that everyone who disagrees with you does so because they are dishonest?
WBraun

climber
Jun 6, 2013 - 09:19am PT
A machine ultimately is always controlled by an operator.

The operator is ultimately never the machine.

The operator can remotely control machines.

The operator can program a machine to run independent of the operator according to the original operator programing.

The machine and the operator are simultaneously one and different.

The modern lab coats "believe" and have "faith" in their defective theory that the machine and the operator are all one and same,

because they ultimately do not have full understanding of "Life" itself ......
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Jun 6, 2013 - 09:36am PT
Research "ghost in the machine" and "the cartesian theater." These are the traditional ideas or beliefs or views. (Institutionalized and maintained by religious systems.) Umpteen millions have rejected them, or are in the process of rejecting them - yes it's a revolution underway - as a result of acquiring a science education and also respecting that education enough to uphold it. Of course I count myself among them. Revolutionary! It's tough though sometimes. It's a process... a briar patch... and progress is difficult. Esp in a culture and time that are still so superstitious and/or theistic.
WBraun

climber
Jun 6, 2013 - 09:38am PT
There's no ghost in the machine and there never was.

You keep repeating this stupid nonsense.

You keep making stupid statements that you are a ghost when you are the operator of your car.

You are stupid .....
WBraun

climber
Jun 6, 2013 - 09:48am PT
You are the real operator of the machine you are controlling to type your message.

Fruitcake is a biased mess ......
rectorsquid

climber
Lake Tahoe
Jun 6, 2013 - 10:09am PT
Who operates the operator?
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Jun 6, 2013 - 10:13am PT
I think Fructose is making a valid point, like it or not. In my generation it was not acceptable to be an atheist and you had to be very careful about it. You might as well tell everyone you had AIDS. This is changing rapidly now, because it's harder and harder to indoctrinate children since the advent of the internet. When I was a child my family did everything possible to force me into their religion. In my opinion this is the worst possible thing you can do to a child, teach them that they must accept an entire belief system that they know is impossible. It teaches blind obedience to authority, and teaches them not to think for themselves. Often, it messes up their minds for life. It's no coincidence that religion and authoritarianism go hand in hand.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 6, 2013 - 11:25am PT
MikeL and Largo have, that science is not an appropriate way of discussing them, yet they cannot provide any means, other than direct experience whose interpretation is "guided" by a master... which is another way of saying "revealed truth" another ancient technique.
-


Ed, you know perfectly well that the above is a silly charicature of poor saps Mike and I being "guided by a master," as we lack the empirical wherewithal and required slide rules to make our own mind up and to do the real and true heavy lifting of the modern man amongst men(scientist). And try and imagine what shape this "master" might take as projected from Ed's silly description. He'd be an old fart, possibly an Asian or Indian, with pockets full of wampum and crystals, or maybe a hipflask, is given to runes and incantations, howls at the moon, was abducted by aliens early on, and "knows" things lost of science.

What Ed is really doing here is trying to lump us into some camp with dusty old deluded rubes from the middle ages, meanning what we are really talking about is a kind of witchcraft or white magic, suitable to the Game of Thrones but not viable in these modern times.

Here is where Ed is toally in the dark. What he believes is that what we and our "masters" are really trying to do is the work of science, but we are using outmoded "revealed truth" and "fuzzy feelings" as our guide. Along with some old Japanese dude we run our ideas past. But we are not trying to do science and are not even focused on the objectifying physical reality in that sense. What Ed is "not getting" is the there is another game in town other than objectifying physical reality, or what he considers to be the blowback of emergent functions of physicality. Of course this is not taken seriously because Ed and others have made no effort whatsoever to probe anything beyond their own thoughts and methods, so how woudl they know otherwise. The "dishonest" part that someone mentioned earlier is to make these kinds of sweeping statements and insist they are true, when in fact what is going on is someone is just serving up evaluations based on no first hand experience at all, and they are simply speculating. That's not only dishonest and misleading, it's strictly bullshit by any definition.

Charicterizing all subjecive adventurs as a bunch Burning Man freaks practicing shamanism or "ancient techniques" is like saying all scientists are geeks with ten pens in their pockets, who never got picked for games in school and who couldn't get laid in a whorehouse with a 1,000 dollar bill.

JL
Da_Dweeb

climber
Jun 6, 2013 - 11:26am PT
Credit: Da_Dweeb

Bump for a better Supert... oh wait.
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Jun 6, 2013 - 11:37am PT
The "dishonest" part that someone mentioned earlier is to make these kinds of sweeping statements ....

You can't even keep track of all the people you call dishonest.
rectorsquid

climber
Lake Tahoe
Jun 6, 2013 - 11:46am PT
I avoided it for a while now but this thread has driven me to reading Dawkins book; the God Delusion.

I assumed that he would be preaching to the choir, so to speak, but he includes quite a lot of information about logical arguments. Not just for or against God but in general. I had no idea that some religious philosophers had used Bayesian methodology in this area.

What I am finding is that every argument that I see made here for the supernatural is just a way of saying that "I don't know why therefore it must be magic." In the end, that is the argument that religion and spirituality always make.

I might force myself to read a book by a theologian that tries to convince me of a God. I'm not sure that it is necessary since Dawkins is kind enough to quote most of them in great detail while trying not to quote anything out of context. Checking his references might be a good idea just in case he is fudging things a bit. I somehow doubt it since his goal is comparison, not conversion.

Dave

P.S. The bible is not a book that argues for or against God so it doesn't count. It starts out assuming that the reading believes already. The same is true for the Koran, etc...





High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Jun 6, 2013 - 11:53am PT
Climbers ought to know this better than most: It pays to have an accurate map or model in your head for how the world works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVZiF0eDSf8

That's why we have an instinct or urge to get it right, to improve upon it where we can, to correct the errors - at the individual, group and species levels.

First pool jumper's performance: Suggests accurate model, also accurate model-muscle action followthrough.

Second pool jumper: Not so much.

From the video, it's easy to imagine the excitation of the slow C fibers (those that tell the brain to perceive pain) traveling the body length to the brain.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 6, 2013 - 12:10pm PT
The "dishonest" part that someone mentioned earlier is to make these kinds of sweeping statements ....

You can't even keep track of all the people you call dishonest.


That's not true, Paul. What I call a bullshit artist is someone who makes sweping statements about something they have no experience with or knowledge about. We have all seen these kinds of people in the climbking world, who talk a big game and diss wall climbing, say, having never actually been on a wall.

What makes this tricky here is that human reality cleraly involves both objective and subjective facets, which are qualitatively quite different. And if you want to know either at depth, you need to deal with each on their own terms. One of the delusions many people have is that the only way to deal with the subjective is to try and objectify it from the outside. Only a bullshit artist would say this because only someone who has never done the inside work would be so deluded.

If yu have the sac to jump into your own process (the deep end) and swim with the sharks, have at it and tell us what you find. But if you never leave the deck, and insist you know about the deep end having never gone swimming, I reserve the right to call bullsh#t.

JL
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 6, 2013 - 02:27pm PT
Fine. My "new" paradigm is just this:

To "know" your own subjective world, which is the world you actually live in, you have to first develop the capacity to separate and detach from your evaluating mind and to spend a good long time simply observing your own process, until you can get below your individual content (thoughts, feelings, etc.) and into universal terrain, which is not different person-to-person because it is not that which shifts (content).

If you never do the hard work of detaching from your discursive mind, what you will know will be your evaluations, NOT your own process. These are fundamentally differnt, different, say, from what you might think and believe about Paris from being chained in a Parisian dungeon, as opposed to going out and living in the city for a number of years.

The evaluating or discursive part comes AFTER you do the detaching and settling and have spent all those years listening, which is the subjctive version of gathering your basic data.

What Ed is saying is that subjective experience is radically different person to person, and in the sense he is saying so he is correct. But he is basing "subjective experience" on content, qualia, the stuff and things of experience, the geyser that never stops blowing. But this is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the unborn, the unchanging, the "face you had before you were ever born." NOT the so-called 10,000 things (content). Quite naturally this sounds like jibberish to the evaluating mind that hasn't done the subjective work.

So the paradigm is: Develop some steady awareness that can observe your discursive mind. See what happens. Then over the long term, relate your thoughts associated with no-mind. Objectify all you want. But make these evaluations and comments grpounded in direct experience, and NEVER try and guess what that is till you go there and really settle for a good long time.

Quantifying pyhsicality from the outside is NOT what we are doing. This is not at all playing the same game, no matter how much you insist that it is. When you insist that it is, that is when I call bullsh#t, just as you would call bullshit on me if I said I was doing science when meditating.

JL
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 6, 2013 - 05:11pm PT
Ed, you know perfectly well that the above is a silly charicature of poor saps Mike and I being "guided by a master," as we lack the empirical wherewithal and required slide rules to make our own mind up and to do the real and true heavy lifting of the modern man amongst men(scientist). And try and imagine what shape this "master" might take as projected from Ed's silly description. He'd be an old fart, possibly an Asian or Indian, with pockets full of wampum and crystals, or maybe a hipflask, is given to runes and incantations, howls at the moon, was abducted by aliens early on, and "knows" things lost of science.

This is very entertaining, John. Part of the reason I still come back to ths thread.


;>)
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Jun 6, 2013 - 05:48pm PT
Easy there, Werner.

.....

This might be too specialized otherwise "elitist" for a climbing site, but... hope springs eternal:

http://www.edge.org/conversation/napoleon-chagnon-blood-is-their-argument
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 6, 2013 - 05:56pm PT
I hope someone is saving some of this thread.
I will never delete it, but you never know what the admin may forget to back up
Credit: Dr. F.
So Much Great Stuff!
Messages 15381 - 15400 of total 22747 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