Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 15661 - 15680 of total 22344 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 6, 2013 - 03:23pm PT
Ok, possibly not business then.

Here's a person I think would end up being sued in America because he is saying things that are bad for the meditation business:


Dalai Lama: Sleep is the best meditation...

Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 6, 2013 - 03:36pm PT
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.


Nope. This is not true at all - although you're language and phrasing is once more nigh bass-ackwards. You haven't been reading the parts about intake and after-the-fact break downs. Nor yet the difference between content (particulars) and process. This is not easy material, BTW.

My invitation was to describe the PROCESS, in the broadest possible terms. What is it about that question that strikes you as "fancy footwork?" Put differently, what part of that question do you NOT understand.

If scientism has you by the short hairs, you will not be able to admit to being in dark about anything, which is the curse of many on this thread. The defalt being to say I am confused or mistaken. Just kindly note the aversion to even start to address the question: Describe the PROCESS of consciousness from the 1st person. What do you see and what are you aware or in terms of how consciousness happens and how, say, you come to evaluate one thign as opposed to another.

The reason I keep on with my "fancy footwork" is that eventually, you and others will start focusing on the process and the conversation will get interesting from there. The reason I'm a bully and cantankerous is that I have no interest in positioning myself as anyone's teacher, as an expert, as a master of any kind (I'm not), or someone pandering for a response or selling a product.

Focus on the process and jot out what you see. Then we WILL have something to talk about. The 1st person stuff has been done to death.

And Ward, this betrays your position: "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."

You have said, in clear language, that your own subjective experice is, by your reckoning, purly "speculative and invalid." What more, you have gone on and made the common but amateur mistake of universalizing your beliefs about YOUR subjective to apply to all mankind. What experiences have you had that led you to that conclusion? And I don't mean experiences vectored off someone elses words or ideas or accounts, but rather, your very own personal experiences, what is really and truly your own, however speculative and invalid they may feel to you.

JL
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 6, 2013 - 03:52pm PT
Largo:

First you said:
«… 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.

Note the original words: «… till you ask for a 1st perspon description of the particulars»

Now you say:
«… You haven't been reading the parts about intake and after-the-fact break downs. Nor yet the difference between content (particulars) and process. This is not easy material, BTW.

My invitation was to describe the PROCESS, in the broadest possible terms»

Note the new words: «…My invitation was to describe the PROCESS»

Do you see your fancy footwork? The coinage of your mind is a contradictory mess…
... and you change position every time you are challenged...
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 6, 2013 - 03:55pm PT
And this is what's happening in the political world around you:

"Two young children in Pennsylvania were banned from talking about fracking for the rest of their lives under a gag order imposed under a settlement reached by their parents with a leading oil and gas company.

The sweeping gag order was imposed under a $750,000 settlement between the Hallowich family and Range Resources Corp, a leading oil and gas driller. It provoked outrage on Monday among environmental campaigners and free speech advocates.

The settlement, reached in 2011 but unsealed only last week, barred the Hallowichs' son and daughter, who were then aged 10 and seven, from ever discussing fracking or the Marcellus Shale, a leading producer in America's shale gas boom.

The Hallowich family had earlier accused oil and gas companies of destroying their 10-acre farm in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania and putting their children's health in danger. Their property was adjacent to major industrial operations: four gas wells, gas compressor stations, and a waste water pond, which the Hallowich family said contaminated their water supply and caused burning eyes, sore throats and headaches.

Gag orders – on adults – are typical in settlements reached between oil and gas operators and residents in the heart of shale gas boom in Pennsylvania. But the company lawyer's insistence on extending the lifetime gag order to the Hallowichs' children gave even the judge pause, according to the court documents.

The family gag order was a condition of the settlement. The couple told the court they agreed because they wanted to move to a new home away from the gas fields, and to raise their children in a safer environment. "We need to get the children out of there for their health and safety," the children's mother, Stephanie Hallowich, told the court.

She was still troubled by the gag order, however. "My concern is that they're minors. I'm not quite sure I fully understand. We know we're signing for silence for ever but how is this taking away our children's rights being minors now? I mean my daughter is turning seven today, my son is 10.""

Any thoughts?
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Aug 6, 2013 - 04:02pm PT
You have said, in clear language, that your own subjective experice is, by your reckoning, purly "speculative and invalid." What more, you have gone on and made the common but amateur mistake of universalizing your beliefs about YOUR subjective to apply to all mankind. What experiences have you had that led you to that conclusion? And I don't mean experiences vectored off someone elses words or ideas or accounts, but rather, your very own personal experiences, what is really and truly your own, however speculative and invalid they may feel to you.

Is this any way to talk to a potential customer? And just when I was about to glom on to a few crates of them Nehrus.

No seriously , you have taken my post above way, way out of context.
Read MikeL's post at the top of the page in which he laments on the preponderance of the cognitive on TED.
That was the context of my response and comments. That is why i used the language:

then the subjective experience, or what we know of it,

The "we" clearly illustrates that I was not making any declarations or " betrayals" whatsoever about the nature or content of my own personal ,so-called, subjective experiences .
You did not observe this crucial qualifying distinction because you are a 'one note Johnny' and primarily focused upon your own foot work.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 6, 2013 - 06:26pm PT
The amazing ability to deflect answering a question, rather than to frankly and honestly admit that you don't know, is astonishing.

Dear Marlow. Eliminating fancy footwork here: Kindly describe the particulars of your experiential process. NOT the particularts of the content (the qualia), but rather, the particular aspects of your subjective PROCESS that you notice. Your responses suggest that my lack of clarity in asking the qustion makes answering it impilssible. Surely that makes it clear to a three-year old.

Now lets see who does the dancing, because one thing is for sure - none of you punters will take an honest crack at the question. How do you honestly hold down a job in Norg if you cannot even addres a simple inquiry? What about the question fries your circuits?

And Ward, of course I am focused on my own process, it's a default position since you pikers are terrified of mentioning one word about your own, and instead circle the qustion endlessly, but never rpoping up and making an honest move for glory. You're like what Tillich said of the logicians: They sharpen the knife, but verily, they never cut the loaf.

And what was not "lost on me" was your language, "so-called" subjective expereience. What else would you call your experience, Ward. "So-called" suggests alternatives. What might those be. Surly you're not reverting to the recently debunkled fiction that subjectivity and experience are in face cultural and cognitive inventions. And for once, try and answer sans the forked-tongue, deflecting and yammering and doing nigh everything but honestly and directly addressing a simple question.

Now sac it up and pull down.

JL
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Aug 6, 2013 - 06:30pm PT
JL,

I think that you should approach this with a dose of third person content. That is, if I can go out in five minutes on google and learn more about some of these ideas than I can with years of you, then you must understand the frustration many of us have now and then.

Haven't you noticed that nobody ever seems to "get it"? If it were me, I would do my best to help people understand difficult concepts. The only point in being mysterious is to impress somebody, or enjoy watching them making mistakes. No real teacher behaves this way.

After spending a few hours searching out definitions and explanations of terms, for the first time I feel like I have a grasp of what you are getting at.

Mike explained the discursive mind some while back, but it never caught on.

It is pretty simple. Anybody reading this should just stop and listen for the chatter going on in your brain. That chatter is the discursive mind...I think, and it is damned hard to make it stop. JL and Mike meditate to quiet the discursive mind and find some sort of distilled experience there.

These are assumptions, but I'm doing my best.

I do try to understand this stuff. I have better things to do with my time than just trying to win the adjective contest.

An idea should be easy to explain. I think that this idea is capable of easy understanding if the teacher starts out with first grade and moves forward.

I believe that the root of the word discursive is from the word discourse, which means communicating using words as one example.

We are limited in this forum by our inability to use anything other than written words.

Anyway, I certainly have a running discourse in my mind. When I get overworked, it is hard to shut down, so I don't enjoy it.

If the point is to silence discursive thought through meditation, what is the point? Or rather, what is the goal?

I've made a lot of statements in this post, but they are just my best attempt. It is always better to correct somebody than to berate them, so please don't berate me for attempting. Just straighten me out, and use small words.

edit: See? You are doing it with Marlow and Ward. Cut it out and just teach, otherwise this is a fruitless direction of discussion. We are all adults (I'm accused otherwise, though) and this conversation should be to share ideas.

Then we can gleefully try to shoot down the ideas. This is an important part of any learning process.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Aug 6, 2013 - 06:57pm PT
I should say that while I can't stop the discursive chattering, I can steer it in certain directions.

When I get to working, it takes a lot of concentration and recall. I then go to sleep and dream geology of a particular area. It drives me nuts trying to get it out of my noggin sometimes.

To decompress, I go to the boonies. After a few weeks alone in an already remote place performs a duty similar to meditation. These are moments where you do not think. You do. I've described it enough times for everyone to have an understanding of it, and I've done so much crazy stuff that no sane person would believe it anyway.

Perhaps I am able to turn the volume of the discursive chatter down. Say from 11 to 3 or so on the dial.

Right now I am at 11, and it is exhausting.

John, that last post above is a total waste of our time. Do better than that. A lot of this falls on your shoulders, because you would rather fight than teach. You also get to use your thesaurus in order to not repeat an insult. This is dumb. Pointless.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 6, 2013 - 06:58pm PT
An idea should be easy to explain. I think that this idea is capable of easy understanding if the teacher starts out with first grade and moves forward.
-


Okay. We'll start at 1st grade. I was trying to make you do the work, so you couldn't ascribe your insights to anyone but yourself, but I'll start the ball rolling and we'll see how far you take it.

First, none of this is an idea. We derive ideas and evaluations from what we experience in the 1st person world.

Think of the "discursive" mind as that part of your cognition that evaluates something, internal or external of our subjective bubble, inside of which we live. Whether we are mindlessly "thinking" about something or looking for a fosile from the pleocine, we can see that to do either task implies an idea or a fossile, and a consciousness that for a time can focus on said things at the exclusion of the "10,000" other things in the world.

No need to look at or consider either focus or things in absolute or literal terms. Just get jiggy with the general principlas, ask a few questions till you're perfectly clear on the basics, and we'll plow forward.

JL
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Aug 6, 2013 - 07:25pm PT
Think of the "discursive" mind as that part of your cognition that evaluates something,

OK. Right off the bat I see trouble with the way you phrased that.

If I think of anything, I am evaluating it. An apple is red, for example. These are qualia rather than objective, but I rarely think in objective terms. I don't understand how it is possible to stop that discursive chattering, and actually control what I am thinking about in that background chatter. By that, I mean to allow this discursive chattering but to disallow adjectives. It seems to me that you have to rid yourself of the chattering discursive mind completely in order to do away with adjectives. Qualia and Quantity are really not that different.

Here is where I stand...

The discursive mind is a description of that part of your mind that is constantly thinking. Hopefully I'm not the only one who has a constant quiet chatter going on in the background even as I sleep. I've taken to considering these things when I take a break. By that I mean I observe what my mind is up to. That isn't difficult at all. Controlling it is an entirely different matter.

If you think of any "thing," it seems to follow that it evaluates. It could be color, or an emotion, or any "thing." The only path to eliminating the evaluating mind is to convince it to stop. I assume that this is what you do in meditation. Correct?

I ask for instructions on how to think without evaluating. We constantly evaluate. Any adjective is an evaluation. How do you rid your mind of adjectives?

Also feel free to correct incorrect statements.
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Aug 6, 2013 - 07:47pm PT
According to the researchers, it took the 82,944 processors about 40 minutes to simulate one second of neuronal network activity in real, biological time. And to make it work, some 1.73 billion virtual nerve cells were connected to 10.4 trillion virtual synapses.

http://io9.com/this-computer-took-40-minutes-to-simulate-one-second-of-1043288954
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 6, 2013 - 07:58pm PT
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.

(I can't keep up and get my work done.)

Ward: Please return to my paragraph of things that can't be dealt with using logic and reason. Are those thing "less" in your eyes? Do you deal with them by making theories, abstractions, models, speculations? if so, where did Those come from? From experience?

In the non-cognitive we have ...how many paths to knowledge??

I think you're serious, aren't you? You see no other paths to knowledge.

I prefer to interact with the thinkers on this thread rather than . . . .

What reason could you give for denying that certain sight unseen data that are consensually well-respected in the community are not relevant?

Are you using another path to knowledge than a cognitive approach?
NutAgain!

Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
Aug 6, 2013 - 08:01pm PT
I ask for instructions on how to think without evaluating. We constantly evaluate. Any adjective is an evaluation. How do you rid your mind of adjectives?

Maybe this has been hashed through here, but the framework that works for me is thinking of myself in a somewhat schizophrenic manner: intellect, emotions, spirit, body. Considered in this framework, Base's question is essentially "how do I turn off the judgments of my intellect, how do I be present and receive sensory input without evaluating what I am perceiving?" In my personal experience, it is possible to learn to COMPLETELY silence the chatter and to just be, receiving input and not having any running dialog to interfere with the sensory input. The result is a much richer experience of the sensory input. The first time I learned and experienced this, when I snapped out of it enough to realize that is what was happening, I was giddy and had a prema-grin on my face. And it is possible to step out of it long enough to have that realization, and to enter back into that state at will.

If you want to get really anal about it, there must be some level of judgment or object association to realize that the raw data of light frequencies perceived by the eyes correspond to something more than just a pretty blob of colors. There is awareness of "trees" and "sky" and "leaves" though verbalizing these identities and dwelling on their properties as objects would be a distraction from the state of just being present to the experience. It seems to me there is a spectrum of judgment and analytical engagement rather than a discrete on/off switch.

But to answer the original question: for me, the most effective method has been a process of internal dialog between my intellectual and emotional parts, directly confronting and giving voice to the different impulses and reaching a state of peace where each part can work cooperatively with the other. It helps to think of it like a parent settling a squabble between two children who are fighting in the back seat instead of experiencing the beauty of a beautiful place they are driving through.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 6, 2013 - 08:41pm PT
Nice post Nutagain!
I especially like this part;

But to answer the original question: for me, the most effective method has been a process of internal dialog between my intellectual and emotional parts, directly confronting and giving voice to the different impulses and reaching a state of peace where each part can work cooperatively with the other.

This is the key for me to. It is imparitive to distinguish between the two.
You can through any'ol subject in the brain, and it will clamer to come up with the right picture.
But do you notice you can't have an emotional response until ur brain settles on that picture?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 6, 2013 - 08:57pm PT
If I think of anything, I am evaluating it. An apple is red, for example. These are qualia rather than objective, but I rarely think in objective terms. I don't understand how it is possible to stop that discursive chattering, and actually control what I am thinking about in that background chatter.
----------


First sentense. Exactly. When you are thinking of anything, anything at all, you are evaluating it. But the rest you are getting ahead of yourself.

The problem with this discussion on this thread is that you can only get so far into something and instead of asking another question, you go into expository drifts and get WAY ahead of the conversation. I've been working on this very terrain for over 40 years.

But back to BASE.

Think of qualia as ANYTHING in your field of awareness. It is all subjective in one sense because you are a subject experiencing same. However when you focus on one thing either outside or in, be it a feeling, a thought, or Lost Arrow Spire, your focus narrows on that thing, largely to the exclusion of all else.

Can you follow that so far? It is easy to verify in the first person. But go no further till you can get hold of this and how it works in your consciousness. There is no if, and, or buts about it. If you want to evaluate something, anythgn at all, your focus HAS to narrow to that thing, whatever it is. Just observe haow you do that.

Do NOT worry about quieting the discursive right now. We are not nearly there, and for now, the aim is to get a good look at the discursive, NOT quiet it.

BASE asked: "I ask for instructions on how to think without evaluating."

You can't even approach that question untill you do some prelim spade work.
Otherwise you'll never get it at any depth. One step at a time. Like anything else. And the first step is to just see and understand the perceptual mechanics of quantifying or evaluating or "paying attention" to one thing - whtever it might be - largely at the exclusion of all else.

Incidentally, Nutagain almost perfectly described a method developed by Hal and Sidra Stone in Voice Diaologue and later adopted by a Matzumi Roshi trained Sensai for a program called Big Mind. But we can't go there yet.

JL
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Aug 6, 2013 - 10:49pm PT
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.

 To answer to the list… Which of this list is important enough to make it to register on the scale.
Values = Personal, group and cultural in nature… What value would science gain from the study of values of a person, group or culture? Oh, but there are are plenty researchers doing the work… but nobody seems to care because, well… Values may not be entirely necessary for survival, however goo for bad you may find that.

Culture = not necessary for survival. Helpful, but not entirely necessary.
Visions = WTF are you even talking about? Like the kind that the coma patients communicate back to use through the FMRIs?
This last one is as far as I an go with this list. You've just stepped into the loon file, sorry MikeL. There is no getting through to someone who is so steeped in the doctrines of the church, just as you may think it may be too difficult to get through to a secure atheist.

But I try to continue this list…

Art - Not needed. Good, bad, beautiful, ugly, saddening, provocative… all those things… But on your death bed will you be asking to see more art?
Heroes - Giant fail. Read comic books much? Again, ask yourself if heroes are necessary for survival? Or just more wishful thinking?
God - More wishful thinking, really, is this necessary for you know the rest.
Human aspirations - don't get me wrong, but the same question holds..
Human - major organ - Needed for life… now you're on the right track, unless you are referring to the "she has a big heart" schizzle, as if her heart is larger than all the others… we know its not. Its just a future of speech and should only be used as such.
Soul - Are you so sure that humans are the only sourish animals on the planet? If you are willing to say that humans have a soul, then you must also apply the same standard for all other animals on the planet. Unless you're one of those "I'm a human, so I'm better than the rest" type people… How do you think that looks?
Mystery - Tricks humans play on themselves to invoke wonder and awe…. necessary for life?
Great Passions - looks good to watch on you tube. Some people have really great passions… even when some are ridiculous as all get out. But I can't knock even them… ten the most pathetic of passionates have one more than I do.
doubt / skepticism - best kept secret of the church… certainly hasn't been tried yet. May be necessary for life, or at the very least the prolonging of ones life….
religious experiences - More wishful thinking, really, is this necessary for you know the rest.

Just looks at the rest of the list… Finding it tarded", "Folk Mind"? Isn't that the same as culture, or is that values, or any number of others listed above.

Poetry is still art, right?


I agree, according to you I would be foolish. And according to the list, I would due just as necessary as you (as I have a different point of view than you, completely different non-religious experience than you and the rest….

Try again. You started with a point, then got caught up in your own whimsical droll.
Don't get me wrong, you may found a church in a few years, and catch a few wealthy backers… just need to shore up those latter points.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 6, 2013 - 11:01pm PT

First sentense. Exactly. When you are thinking of anything, anything at all, you are evaluating it. But the rest you are getting ahead of yourself.

Evaluating x 2 ? Don't we evaluate it first as; round, red, stem, etc. And determine, Yes Apple! Then we search our emotions to evaluate where we stand on that particular "subject"?

We B Jamm'in!
Tanks Mon! Tis is get'tin guud now, Mon! May-B yu start a bizznuss from tis, Mon!
May-B yu write a buuk, A Mon?
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 7, 2013 - 12:24am PT
Thanks Jingy for the response. I didn't think anyone would have the guts to respond as you did.

There is no point. A person either identified those topics or issues as meaningful, or they didn't.

There is no argument here. There can be no argument about any of those topics. They are all beholden to value judgments. Logic and reason cannot be applied to them properly.

A minor clarification: "vIsion" referred to the kind of thing that Steve Jobs or President Obama were / are known for. (Not necessarily important, though.)

Be well.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 7, 2013 - 12:26am PT
Anytime you say that anything is anything, you're in delusion.

P.S. Welcome, Nutjob. I like your post, and certainly your writing skills.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 7, 2013 - 12:32am PT

There is no argument here. There can be no argument about any of those topics. They are all beholden to value judgments. Logic and reason cannot be applied to them properly.

Isn't this what the original point was anyway?
Messages 15661 - 15680 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