Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 15621 - 15640 of total 22344 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
MH2

climber
Aug 5, 2013 - 10:59am PT
For an additional perspective on mathematics and its future:


For the good of future mathematics we need generalists and strategians who can see the big picture. Narrow specialists and tacticians would soon be superseded by computers.

http://www.math.rutgers.edu/%7Ezeilberg/Opinion104.html







who has an unusual co-author, Shalosh B. Ekhad


http://www.math.rutgers.edu/%7Ezeilberg/ekhad.html





If our machines became smarter than us it might not be unlike the direction in which some schools of meditation are headed. If you profoundly advance or otherwise alter your understanding of the world you might find it unnecessary or even impossible to communicate with your unenlightened brethren.



http://www.math.rutgers.edu/%7Ezeilberg/MathHorizons.html
Dr. F.

Boulder climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 5, 2013 - 11:45am PT
So the consensus is:
None of us know what Largo is talking about, except MikeL.
but none us know what MikeL. is talking about either.

Other than sure, there are many states of mind that produce curious states of mental activity.

But does it change anything here in Reality? NO
Reality can be observed and measured by repetitive observations, therefore it's real, and those mental states are all in your mind, and end outside the mind.
Dr. F.

Boulder climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 5, 2013 - 11:54am PT
BB
we would love to talk about evolution, but your understanding is so below low, that we don't know where to start with you
But first you have to understand Geologic Time, and the Tree of Life

Plants evolved from single celled plant life forms
Humans and animals evolved from non-plant single celled life forms
They split off over a billion years ago!! bacteria, viruses, WB, plants, fungi, animals, have been evolving all separately since them.

Like evolved into like, there was No mutations that created new radical life forms, it was all one tinzy wenzy step at a time, over 100,000s of years.

Google
Evolution: How We Know it Happened
and some great introductory stuff will come up

The Skeptical Society, which I belong to has some good stuff, especially in terms for showing why Creationism or Intellectual Design is wrong.

Watch this
http://www.skeptic.com/past-lectures/evolution-how-we-know-it-happened/
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 5, 2013 - 12:57pm PT
But couldn't we put the title "morals" in the conscious[ness] column?

BB:

We must put Everything in the consciousness column, my friend. There's no place else to put anything. There's no such place as "outside consciousness."

But that's not what you're talking about, though, is it? You're concerned about being good and in harmony with God.

This issue is the same as the one Jgill posted openly up thread. Does spiritual practices or observations make one a better X (person? architect? climber? scientist? mathematician?). Sadly, the answer is, I think, no.

Morality of any sort appears to be based upon social convention (consensus). Those social conventions (to include compassion, mindfulness, humility, etc.) serve institutional power. They are the mechanisms of crowd control. Whether it be the Green movement, the Catholic church, Buddhist orders, the scientific community, or the U.S. government, what is right is what serves those who are in-power. And no one who is in power is realized or awake. Anyone who claims differently is selling a bill of "goods" (and "bads").

"The kind man does something,
yet something remains undone.
The just man does something,
and leaves many things undone.
The moral man does something,
and when no one responds
he rolls up his sleeves and uses force.

"When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos."

Skillful action is what leads to wisdom, evolution, unfoldment, or rightful action--but "right" is not quite right. There's no reason to think that being an alcoholic, pedophile, murderer, or mean parent will keep you from becoming more aware. All sorts of terrible situations have shown people what's true and real, or what isn't. Each person has their own path / karma to stumble through. No one can say what leads to what.

There is an old Buddhist story of a pirate who captures a boat of 500 peace-loving monks. The pirate starts killing one monk a day until he gets a ransom paid to him. The most senior monk kills the pirate not because of what the pirate is doing to others, but what the pirate is doing to himself karmically.

Walking by a pond you see a young girl drowning, and you jump in and save her. But she turns out to become the next Hitler 20 years later.

No one can say what's good or what's bad ultimately.

So what Should We Do? What is skillful action?

"If you want to accord with the Tao,
just do your job and let go."

". . . unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 5, 2013 - 01:07pm PT
MikeL

You say: "If you want to accord with the Tao,
just do your job and let go."

". . . unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Comment:
Is that a dogmatic statement MikeL? A do or die statement? A heaven or not statement. In my view you have according to your own words entered morality and ritual - and chaos is at your heels...
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 5, 2013 - 01:27pm PT
Just to change it up a piece . . .


Gulf coast highway, he worked the rails
He worked the rice fields with their cold dark wells
He worked the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico
The only thing we've ever owned is this old house here by the road

And when he dies he says he'll catch some blackbird's wing
And we will fly away to heaven
Come some sweet blue bonnet spring

She walked through springtime when I was home
The days were sweet, our nights were warm
The seasons changed, the jobs would come
The flowers fade, and this old house felt so alone
When the work took me away

And when she dies she says she'll catch some blackbird's wing
And she will fly away to heaven
Come some sweet blue bonnet spring

Highway 90, the jobs are gone
We kept our garden, we set the sun
This is the only place on Earth blue bonnets grow
And once a year they come and go
At this old house here by the road

And when we die we say we'll catch some blackbird's wing
And we will fly away to heaven
Come some sweet blue bonnet spring

Yes when we die we say we'll catch some blackbird's wing
And we will fly away together
Come some sweet blue bonnet spring

Emmylou Harris
Emmylou Harris
Credit: Largo
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 5, 2013 - 01:32pm PT
Other than sure, there are many states of mind that produce curious states of mental activity.


Where does talent come from, and what is it?

You may have something that you're particularly good at, and you may not be able to look into your past to discover how you came to an acute sensibility or capability. You may be good at photography, mathematics, climbing, writing, teaching, engineering, management. You may have some training, education, or found your way serendipitously to different experiences in life (right place, right time), but folks say that you have natural talent.

What is that, and how did you get it?

You could point at Jung or Neumann and say that you've somehow connected with or tapped the Unconscious. You've had talent all the while lying dormant. but ready to be used and applied. Indeed, some of us suspect we have great wealth of natural talents when we start to tap them.

That's one relatively mental explanation for talent. But it's just a construct and theory.

Talent is magic. Can't say what it is, can't quite grasp it, can't say where it starts or stops, can't define it, can't measure it, can't even put it into a context very well.

Anything that appears weird, unexplained, sparkle'ly, firework-like, strange, curious, or in any way out of the ordinary in consciousness is another dimension of perception beyond the 5 or 6 that we typically talk about. Each and every dimension is infinite, and there are an infinite number of those dimensions.

You have to put out all of your antenna and open up your awareness to sense these dimensions / capabilities / sensitivities / perceptions. I tell my research fellows in the field to become aware of weak signals when working with clients. It's no different. Each of us has access to so much more than we rationally think we do. (You just need to quiet the heavy-handed labeling, evaluations, and categorizations going on internally.)

Of course, if you're going to say that things like talent is neurons jumping from one axion to another (or other materialist views), then (i) you probably won't become very aware or sensitive to any of those weirdnesses, and (ii) you probably won't be able to exercise any of those "skills" that lie latent in you.
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Aug 5, 2013 - 01:34pm PT


Emmylou must have had a little "Work" done if that's current...

MH2

climber
Aug 5, 2013 - 01:50pm PT
if you're going to say that things like talent is neurons jumping from one axion to another


Uffish thought, there, MikeL. Who said that? Lewis Carroll? Talent undoubtedly has something to do with neurons in the human, if only in the expression of it, but not because neurons jump from one axion to another. It is better to stay away from such statements as, "talent is..." The world is a complex and interconnected place and an individual human consciousness is not likely to pin it down so neatly.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 5, 2013 - 01:53pm PT
Is that a dogmatic statement MikeL? A do or die statement? A heaven or not statement. In my view you have according to your own words entered morality and ritual - and chaos is at your heels...

Metaphors, all. Words are so far away from conceptual definitions in practice or in-use, and concepts are so far away from reality . . . it's a wonder at all that we can communicate. "All communication is mis-communication" (Derrida). Also, see Shannon-Weaver's model of communication below. At best we point. (See also, Lakoff & Johnson's, "Metaphors We Live By")

Shannon-Weaver's Mathematical Model of Communication
Shannon-Weaver's Mathematical Model of Communication
Credit: MikeL

It's all the more difficult when we're attempting to talk about something as ephemeral as spirit. Reading the Tao the Ching or the Bible is not something that can be done literally. It's the whole pointing-at-the-moon thing: don't look at my finger; look at what it's pointing to.



MH2: I'm just pointing. The more definitive a person's communication is, the less that can be said and communicated easily (e.g., here). Consider it a stupid writing error.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 5, 2013 - 02:07pm PT
If I follow your reasoning MikeL, then there isn't any taoistic statements/rules/dogma, there isn't any right or good statements/rules/dogma, there isn't any moral statements, there isn't any ritual statements. There are only metaphors. Taoism, goodness, morality, ritual are just so in action, when acted out.

If I say "If that evil bastard doesn't get his ass out of here, he should be killed", it's only a metaphor?

And if I instead of "kill him", say "give him hell" - is it more according to your rule of a pointing non-precision metaphor?

And is also your rule of a "pointing non-precision metaphor" not a rule, but a metaphor?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 5, 2013 - 03:48pm PT
For instance, JL, has it ever occurred to you that you are wrong?


In what sense?

If you notice, I have made a big point in saying if you want to encounter what it is we are talking about, you have to take certain steps your very own self to find out. You have to actually delve into the non-discursive and encounter the crux of it. I contend that I am not wrong about that aspect of the work. You actualy have to go there to "know."

Invitations to go there have been met with spectacular resistance on this thread, with justifications galore per remaining on the purly discursive side of the fence. I once thought this was owing to terror, but have come to realize this is mainly the habituated ways of us old folks, who simply can't muster the sac, the wonder and the curiosity to move, even for five minutes, out of the old comfort zone.

This is, IMO, tryly "old dog" behavior, people waiting for some convincing discursive argument to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER but to think about it once more.

If even one person on this thread would take the small step instead of complaining about it, then we could start discussinig something besides arguing like two bald men over a comb. As is, the Marlows of this thread continually carp about me not providing discursive facts and figures about the hyper-discursive realms, while at the same time accusing me of circlinig the same wagon.

As I mentioned earlier, we can start to see the limitations of the discursive by a simple investigation of how awareness and focus actually work in our consciousness - a simple empiracle investigation that everyone can understand and vouchsafe for themselves - but that investigation demands first person work, and anything but third person objectifying is the "boogy man" to most people on this thread. Like children afraid of the dark, and refute this simple fact with high flow rherotic, but notice thy never, under any cirmcumstances, move toward the shadows. Ever. They simply cannot go there - and that is what all the resistance and rhetoric is all about - making sure you never shift your perspective, even for five minutes.

Old dogs, old ways. Try and roust the old fellow and hear the growl or all the fancy talk . . . but movement or expansion you simply will not see.

JL
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 5, 2013 - 04:02pm PT
Marlow:

We're getting technical.

There are "live metaphors" and "dead metaphors." The live ones we have to think about what they mean, and we'll struggle over those considerably. The dead ones, not so much. When I say, "do you see what I mean?", I'm not asking you what your eyes are showing you. That's a dead metaphor, and our language is full of them. Even the word "getting" in my first paragraph in front of this one is a dead metaphor. (We all "get" "get.")

Some of the words that you've written (even if not metaphors) are unclear to me exactly what you mean by them (even assuming that you knew EXACTLY what you meant when you wrote them).

Perhaps you've seen this model from a number of different disciplines.

semiotic model
semiotic model
Credit: MikeL

What the "thing" or "object" (referent) that you're pointing to with a symbol--we may both see the referent differently. (Why? See Shannon-Weaver's model, once again.) Understanding becomes impossible IF one sees "referent" as not referent'able (as I argue). I argue that one cannot find any referent in reality, because reality is infinitely great: can't get a handle on Reality. If reality is uncontextualizable, unfindable, indeterminate, undefinable, without beginning or end, blah blah blah, then any real communication about it must fail--and miserably. What is the referent? Your consciousness, your experience, your subjectivity.

Am I arguing for a rule? No. I'm simply observing / arguing that you can't come up with definitive answers about anything. If you can, please do so. This is not a theory, principle, or rule. It's simply a set of observations. (Yeah they look pretty consistent.)

Perhaps this makes the point more simply.

Rene Magritte's "The Treachery of Images"
Rene Magritte's "The Treachery of Images"
Credit: MikeL

Magritte's image (in French, the words say "This is not a pipe") suggests (once again) that no map is a territory. Magritte's painting of a pipe is not a pipe. It's a representation of a pipe. At first we are a bit shocked by what Magritte's painting is telling us, but that just shows us just how much we take conventional, consensus-based reality for granted. We just aren't looking closely or carefully or systematically.

"If that evil bastard doesn't get his ass out of here, he should be killed" is only a metaphor?

Don't know. It could be. And it could not be. We'd have to talk about it. That's what communication is supposed to be all about: talking, back-and-forthing, dialogue, feedback, zeroing in, ranging, etc. Since when did anyone or any statement clear anything up once and for all?

And is also your rule of a "pointing non-precision metaphor" not a rule, but a metaphor?

Yup. Could be. Look, rules are essentially useless (although they can be used productively--but they should not be taken concretely or seriously). Reality won't fit.

Rules tend to produce contradictions, paradoxes, and dilemmas. All of those characterizations that we make about reality are indications of what reality really is.

WHAT THE HELL IS IT?

Can't say. But you can experience and know it.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 5, 2013 - 04:10pm PT
Largo

To speak for myself and for no other marlows:

 I have never doubted that you will have another experience during meditation than you have during discovery of things hidden in the external world.
 I have never doubted that you can let impulses from the external world stream through your consciousness without anything being stuck in your awareness.
 The map will never be the landscape.
 The subjective experience will never be the same as the perfect description of the subjective experience.

Largo, you are closing open doors all the time. It is as if you imagine having something valuable that you want to close other people off from. And at the same time you insist on the value it will have for them to find their hidden inner land. To use freudian terms - maybe you're stuck in the anal phase? You, the greatest of ST pretenders. ;o)
MH2

climber
Aug 5, 2013 - 04:19pm PT
What does Shannon-Weaver have to do with what you are saying, MikeL? The theory concerns information, e.g. bits, not meanings. We all think we know more than we actually do, but I see signs that what you think you know confuses you rather than informs you. You and JL routinely misrepresent and misinterpret math and physics.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 5, 2013 - 04:21pm PT
MikeL

To start where we started:

If I understand you right, you are now saying that your words: "If you want to accord with the Tao, just do your job and let go." ". . . unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." - are just a starting point for a dialogue.

Question: Are you willing to change your original words as a consequence of something that turns up in the dialogue? Or: Are your words/starting point a belief that you will not change?

Many things can be "discovered" with Tarot cards as a starting point, but many things can also be planted...
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 5, 2013 - 04:27pm PT
Marlow, your English is either loopy or your logic is screwy.

Let me put it to you simply.

I don't have anythig to offer. At all. But you have at your disposal a vast world totally unknown to you. It has NOTHIGN to do with beliefs, fuzzy feelings, faith, juju, magic, or measurements.

You cannot get there by thinking about it or loopong around saying I am closing all doors on you etc. Nor yet by evoking long-ago junked Freudian concepts. Psychology marched past Sigmond in the 1950s.

The "door" of riches is marked "first-person, non-discursive." It's what we all sink into when we shut upo and be present. But we're not used to hanging here without thinking about it. Or providing ourselves a kind of live running commentary. That's the hard part. Not doing that.

How far are you willing to go past the threahold? One inch? Half an inch? Or are you content to simply talk about me closing doors. We all know about the discursive. No need to hammer on that. It's all well known.

So there's the door. What do you do? Talk, or make a move?

No theory. No claims. No arguments. No bullsh#t. No "misrepresenting math and physics. Let it all go for a minute. Just drop it.

Put up or shut up.

You're move, Hombre...

JL
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 5, 2013 - 04:33pm PT
What do you know about Marlow and the first-person, non-discursive Largo? Do you see yourself, the strength of your illusions about "the others"? Or to use your words: Your bullsh#t (gold as you see it yourself). Or: using my former words: how you're stuck in the anal phase (it's just a metaphor)...

And your theory-in-use Largo: Count your words on this thread and the Mind thread and compare the number of words to the number of words from other STers. The result would be remarkable - and what would the result say about Largo-being-in-the-discursive-mode compared to other STers?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 5, 2013 - 04:57pm PT
What do you know about Marlow and the first-person, non-discursive Largo?
-


I cordially invite you to put forth whatever you can say about the first-person, non-discursive.

No extra words. No yammering. Just a simple, direct invitation for you to say what you have experienced. Nothing more. Nothing less.

JL
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Aug 5, 2013 - 06:36pm PT
I once thought this was owing to terror, but have come to realize this is mainly the habituated ways of us old folks, who simply can't muster the sac, the wonder and the curiosity to move, even for five minutes, out of the old comfort zone

I couldn't resist reprinting this, after bursting into laughter when reading it. Great entertainment.


;>)
Messages 15621 - 15640 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