Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 15641 - 15660 of total 23233 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 5, 2013 - 08:29pm PT
What does Shannon-Weaver have to do with what you are saying, MikeL? The theory concerns information, e.g. bits, not meanings.

With all due respect, I don't think you're up on where and how the model has been applied most widely. It's a simple model, perhaps the right level of analysis for this audience. I meant to show where things go wrong in communication. If anything, communication has become far more complex, nuanced, and problematical.


MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 5, 2013 - 08:39pm PT
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?

Well, my script is out there in the ether, and there's no way I can take them back even if I wanted to. Those marks (writings) are no longer mine. They belong to you as much as they belong to me.

Yes, dialogue . . . always. (Have I suggested that I'm not open to dialogue? Bad me. I apologize.)

BTW, those quotes are not my words any more than Beckett's are yours. They have a ring of truth to them for me. I'm hesitant to repackage them and claim them as my own when I cannot say more or better.

On the other hand, I'll just concede to whatever it is that you want to challenge. We've gone on for so long on whatever the issue is that I no longer remember or care about it. Really. Perhaps I'm getting old and senile.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Aug 5, 2013 - 09:30pm PT
MH2 - Point taken, but until it is common science and for lack of a better term "everyday happenings" this is an idea that has not been rigorously test and proven to be so. As it stands my previous statement holds true:
Also, it should be mentioned (if it wasn't already clear) that I quoted Werner who had noted the following
This is why people in a coma are not able to communicate in normal ways.

The source of Consciousness is not from the brain but within the heart.

I was merely pointing out his speculative statement "Consciousness is not in the brain, but in the heart"… which seemed like utter crap when I read it… also, if it were true that consciousness is in the heart… why not run the MRI on the heart instead of the brain… seems to me the young doctor Owen is looking in the wrong cavity to get his questions answered…. according to Werner…


Interesting what they have to say in the attached Nature article: “I realized there weren't any. We all realized that.”

Family needs to find out detail of a will…. maybe useful…
Doctor needs to know what hurts? Maybe not
MH2

climber
Aug 5, 2013 - 09:32pm PT
With all due respect, I don't think you're up on where and how the model has been applied most widely.

It saddens me to hear that. I hope the "applications" benefit from some of the error-correction methods outlined in the original.
WBraun

climber
Aug 5, 2013 - 09:49pm PT
Jingus said -- "Consciousness is not in the brain, but in the heart"

I never said any such thing .... You did Jingy.

You made your own statement that's not even true because you really are stupid.

The source of Consciousness is not from the brain but within the heart.

You forgot all about the most important word "source".

Consciousness is spread all over the body but still it ultimately has a source.

You remain fool number one ......
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Aug 5, 2013 - 10:00pm PT
Sorry to be so tardy, but this was addressed to me.

I've been asking people around town if they believe in evolution. And almost all say "yea I do"
Without understanding what it means. I guess this is what you refer to willful ignorance?

The best evidence of evolution is by far the fossil record, but you can see it in living species, as Darwin did by studying finch beaks in the Galapagos. Biology, past and present, is rich in evidence.

If people believe something, it all depends on how well they understand it. When does "belief" become outright "knowledge"?

Almost all ignorance is just plain old ignorance. I just don't know. I could look it up and learn a little, but most of us don't have the time or the need.

Willful ignorance is a special case. When I watched those youtube videos, I was seeing willful ignorance.

This special case is where they specifically do not learn about a topic, while at the same time making grand claims that involve this topic. It is so bad that it rivals criminal con men in ability.

The outright drop dead best place to look for deception is not in religion. It is in politics. If you go click on the Climate Change thread and read some of those posts, it is downright scary. People believe all kinds of crazy stuff.

If you want to understand Evolution, just go read the Wiki page on it and follow the links. There is so much knowledge and experience on the taco that somebody should be able to point you in the correct direction.

You can't deny the evidence. How life began is unknown, but after it got started, it is pretty easy to follow.

As I've said before, I work with geologists who are Christians. You may think that this would be impossible, but somehow they have zero trouble with it. I assume that they look at the history of the Universe and just say that this is the way God did it. It seems to me that if evolution threatens your faith, then you need to beef up your faith.

HFCS is going to kill me for being nice. Oh well. The Chief could drop back in.

WBraun

climber
Aug 5, 2013 - 10:05pm PT
How life began is unknown

If you do not know how life began then all your knowledge remains completely incomplete and ultimately defective.

Just as your mathematical models are ......
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Aug 5, 2013 - 11:32pm PT
The simple and clear reasons I keep inviting you to explain yourself is that you keep making sweping statments about both the discursive and non-discursive, and it is my opinion that you are basically lost in both arenas.

Are you talking to yourself? I've been listening to you for three years.

Remember when you dripped the single word Qualia out there and didn't explain it? When I read the dictionary definition, it isn't hard to understand at all:

Qualia ; singular form: Quale: is a term used in philosophy to refer to individual instances of subjective, conscious experience. The term derives from a Latin word meaning for "what sort" or "what kind." Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, or the perceived redness of an evening sky.
That wasn't so hard, was it?

Now lets try with the Discursive Mind:

Discursive psychology (DP) is a form of discourse analysis that focuses on psychological themes.

Discursive psychology starts with psychological phenomena as things that are constructed, attended to, and understood in interaction. An evaluation, say, may be constructed using particular phrases and idioms, responded to by the recipient (as a compliment perhaps) and treated as the expression of a strong position. In discursive psychology the focus is not on psychological matters somehow leaking out into interaction; rather interaction is the primary site where psychological issues are live.

It is philosophically opposed to more traditional cognitivist approaches to language. It uses studies of naturally occurring conversation to critique the way that topics have been conceptualised and treated in psychology.

Somehow I get the idea that JL is using it in a different way.

This is a decent link. It at least explains discursive mind chatter in two sentences.

http://mymeditativemoments.com/?p=4989
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Aug 5, 2013 - 11:33pm PT

If you do not know how life began then all your knowledge remains completely incomplete and ultimately defective.

Just as your mathematical models are ......

Werner, just shut up...

edit: I don't make mathematical models. I just map where the rocks are and how they got into that relationship. Sometimes it is easy. Sometimes it is so hard that your head nigh explodes. At this stage of my career, I tend to get the latter assignments.

I'll post something if I can make it fit into the small size ST allows.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Aug 5, 2013 - 11:38pm PT
This is cool:

Our practice in meditation and mindfulness helps to guide us in working with… and regulating our mind chatter through open, receptive awareness and relaxed, stable concentration. What most people have trouble understanding about mind chatter is the inability we have to exercise control over its presence through an intellectual process. It knows us better than we consciously know ourselves. However, what mind chatter does not like is to be objectively watched or witnessed. As an abiding witness to this rambling of mind, we can diffuse its persistence and its virulence when we stop feeding and identifying with it. We skillfully continue watching or observing it intentionally and nonjudgmentally as nothing more than another event of mind rising and passing in the realm of our self-awareness.

Attitude, perspective, and discipline are key to regulating mind chatter. To simply sit and observe as we have frequently discussed is not as easy as it sounds. However, once the spaces of silence between our thoughts are recognized, the intellect tends to fumble, an influx occurs, and inspiration and intuition begins to flow more freely as we disconnect our automaticity and the reactionary cycle that generally follows. Observing mind chatter with the open & receptive awareness of mindfulness can be the beginning of a transformative process that has real potential to not only quiet the mind and relax the body, but to change the way we are able to work, play, and live free from being drawn into the recurring performances of mind.
MH2

climber
Aug 6, 2013 - 12:28am PT
Here is a nice snippet from the BASE104 link:

We skillfully continue watching or observing it intentionally and nonjudgmentally as nothing more than another event of mind rising and passing in the realm of our self-awareness.


Here, 'it' refers to what the link succinctly calls mind chatter. I do not claim to be skillful and am not sure whether my observation is intentional but the above otherwise describes my own experience, minus the parts of the day when my brain appears to be empty of thought.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 6, 2013 - 01:16am PT
BASE, you're trying to describe all of this in third person terms, objectifying qualia, discursive, and so forth. This gives you something to evaluate and "know" in the normal sense of the term. You're rightfully frustrated with mje because I have for all these years pretty much avoided using third person angles on any of this, since most everyone else does. It's not that I cannot doi this, but for sake of this conversation, I stick with 1st person.

Anyway, consciously switch from 3rd person (objectifying) to 1st person experiential, which is the POV that the person used, more or less, in describing mindfulness and mind chatter - using discursive powers to look at the experience AFTER spending some time in intake mode, sans evaluating. Just watching.

The idea here is not to "get clear" on the content, but to start to get jiggy with the process: what is happening in the broad sense, and how are you participating. How does consciousness work and unfold from the 1st person POV. Qualia is content. Forget all that for a monent and look at things throgh a much wider lens.

Getting hypnotized by content is like Narcissis getting transfixed by his own image.

What, in the broadest sense, is actuall happening in terms of the process? Make it as tangible as you possibly can.

JL
WBraun

climber
Aug 6, 2013 - 01:23am PT
BASE104 -- "I don't make mathematical models."

I wasn't very clear on that.

I wasn't referring to you as an individual with that statement to begin with.

I was referring to the mathematical models we make towards, life.

Had nothing to do with you at all actually.

Try not to go to far over the deep end with this stuff.

Too many jump too far and miss the landing .....



Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Aug 6, 2013 - 10:00am PT
I never said any such thing .... You did Jingy.


 No, werner, you wrote:
The source of Consciousness is not from the brain but within the heart.

 Please point out the differences.


Some of you may need to watch this video.. its instructive to your arguements...

MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 6, 2013 - 12:22pm PT
Jingy:

All of the "models" that Mr. Cohen presents in the video you posted (arguments as war, proof, and performance--all metaphors) are oriented to power--of domination, of being right or correct, of showing-off or that one is better than another. Without an orientation to power, there is no argument for arguments. Arguments are the supports for belief systems, and belief systems are also artifacts of efforts towards power. All of them seem to close off possibilities, which is unfortunate considering that not one of them can be proven to be true.

Most arguments appear to rely strictly upon reason and logic in our mental-rational world. Contradictions, paradoxes, or dilemmas are viewed as indications that something is not quite right. (Belief systems!).

There appear to be just So Many things that logic and reason (and science) cannot handle very well. Here's a short list.

Values, culture, visions, art, heroes, God, human aspirations, heart, soul, mystery, great passions, doubt / skepticism, religious experiences, uniqueness, folk mind, death, great men and women, ambiguity, nobility, taste, brilliance, paradox, glory, war, chaos, awareness, primitive feelings, taboos, action, intuition, indeterminacy, truth, deeds, perfection, danger, nonconformity, contrast, humor, passions, salvation, creativity, truth, virtue, genius, extremes, demonic beings, good & evil, leadership, dignity, decisions, polarities, instinct, sleep, dreams, history, entrepreneurship, faith, unconsciousness, authenticity, commitment, poetry, charisma, ends, the sacred.

It's unfortunate that TED is so cognitively oriented. There is so much more to see and become aware of than just cognitive speculations, theories, and abstractions. Cognitive abstraction and orientations tend to dismiss subjective experiences as irrelevant and foolish.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 6, 2013 - 12:58pm PT
It's unfortunate that TED is so cognitively oriented. There is so much more to see and become aware of than just cognitive speculations, theories, and abstractions. Cognitive abstraction and orientations tend to dismiss subjective experiences as irrelevant and foolish.
--

The irony here is that cognition itself transpires within a subjective arena. No matter how much people try and transform themselves into objective things, they remain subjects to their own cognitions. Remove the subjectivity and the whole tottering show comes tumbling down - that seems lost on many here, a most fantastic fact that says volumes about the trance of cognition. Many people are so hoodwinked by their own mental processes that the experiential is buried and beyond reach till some life event basically overwhelms their ability to escape intol thinking. Others have to get up on bivy ledges a mile in the sky to ever feel themselves in the here and now beyond their thoughts about it.

Tryng to get people to go there, even for a second, cajoling, teasing, riling, bullying, is nolt only like hearding cats, but verifies what Dennett was saying - that everyone considers themselves an expert on consciousness - till you ask for a 1st perspon description of the particulars. Then the chorous goes quite in a hurry, or you get a load of verbiage deflecting the issues and the question or throwing it back on me or others. What you don't get is a straight and honest answer, like: I have no idea what any of this is about as anything but a 3rd person phenomenon.

JL
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 6, 2013 - 01:14pm PT
Largo,

Now you're pretending again. We've been through this before. If you try putting the 1st person description of the particulars into words you end up without 1st person non-discursive particulars. I wonder why you keep on with your fancy footwork. The best answer I can come up with is that you consider this thread to be a good marketing channel for some business of your's.

Are you working within the meditative business?
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Aug 6, 2013 - 02:24pm PT
The best answer I can come up with is that you consider this thread to be a good marketing channel for some business of your's.



I did some P-eye research on Largo and uncovered this interesting link :

Punjab business directory providing a comprehensive database of Punjab Nehru jacket Manufacturers Exporters Suppliers Wholesalers & Distributors. Punjab and all world Buyers can find the catalogs of Nehru jacket manufacturers exporters also post your Requirement to Sellers. Find Nehru jacket Buy Sell Offers at Punjab B2b Marketplace

For today's on-the -go meditator

Hip...happening...today...and "now"

Credit: Ward Trotter
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 6, 2013 - 03:01pm PT
Are you working within the meditative business?

Ha-ha. Good one.

I don't think he'd have many followers or clients, Marlow. Not gentle enough.

The first three rules of consulting are: get the job, get the job, get the job. (You must be nice.)
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Aug 6, 2013 - 03:21pm PT
It's unfortunate that TED is so cognitively oriented. There is so much more to see and become aware of than just cognitive speculations, theories, and abstractions. Cognitive abstraction and orientations tend to dismiss subjective experiences as irrelevant and foolish.

I did not look at the video in question, or many of the TED talks. I prefer to interact with the thinkers on this thread rather than brokering off-site third party wholesaler or retailers, however brilliant

MikeL , I assume you are referring to information based upon rational , scientific ,logical analysis when you say " cognitive".

You averred there is "...so much more" than cognitive speculations.

Actually there is "so much less". And by that ,I mean ,if the gold standard for general validity is the relative absence of "theories, speculations ,and abstractions" then the subjective experience, or what we know of it, in the objective arena, is second to none in this horse race of speculation and invalidity.

In the world of the cognitive we have perhaps a handful of serious theories under consideration regarding the origins of life, or the probable formation of the solar system.
In the non-cognitive we have ...how many paths to knowledge??
And these paths have led to how much speculation and metaphysical theorizing ?
How many gurus, how many "systems of enlightenment"?
How many acid trips?

There is way ,way too much noise there for anyone interested in a primary focus on the relatively non-dissonant knowable -- like protons, diphtheria , and forensic archaeology-- or the implications that proceed from them.

Messages 15641 - 15660 of total 23233 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