Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 15681 - 15700 of total 22771 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Jun 13, 2013 - 04:13pm PT
This is looking at meditation as a kind of task-oriented gig aimed at an outcome. Never works.

I'm afraid that I've become dangerously addicted to my daily dose of Largoism. Thanks for the fix.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 13, 2013 - 04:36pm PT
A great meditation is to allow yourself to make no effort. None. Do not concentrate on something. Do not move towards or away from something, any thought, feeling, impulse, desire, etc. Don't try and figure out something. Don't vegitate (keep a good but relaxed posture and eyes open and be present) and don't try to relax, be wise, enlightened.

What you find at first is that you have almost no idea how your awareness flits around to the thing with the highest voltage, and second, you have almost no control over the aperature-like vascilations of your awarenes, which zooms in on things before you know it.

JL
MH2

climber
Jun 13, 2013 - 05:53pm PT
What is the third thing you find?


Apologies for using the word 'thing.'
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Jun 13, 2013 - 05:59pm PT
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 13, 2013 - 06:18pm PT
This is the stanard external view

Should be Stannard. Maybe it's not his external view?

I'm afraid that I've become dangerously addicted to my daily dose of Largoism

It is damn compelling . . .
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Jun 13, 2013 - 06:48pm PT
I believe Buddha himself taught that one should meditate to end suffering.
Is that not a goal?
WBraun

climber
Jun 13, 2013 - 07:34pm PT
And one must first understand the real cause of suffering ........
MH2

climber
Jun 13, 2013 - 08:06pm PT
"The whole is other than the sum of the parts."


The math involved may go beyond addition. Depends on what you are talking about.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 13, 2013 - 08:55pm PT
"The whole is other than the sum of the parts."

The math involved may go beyond addition. Depends on what you are talking about.


MH2. You give every indication of having a brain but I can't remember anyhwere where you had the sac to actually aasert an idea of your own. It's like waiting for someone to sneeze. We trust thre is something in there beside snide little digs and road apples chuckd from the sidelines, but verily, where are YOU in your own conversation? Someone with yur background would quite naturally have some interest in the inner workings of the human mind, but I haven't gottne the impression that you've taken up any of this work, whatsoever. For instance, it seems you are intrigued with the concept of no-thing. What is your sense of what poeple have been talking about, given that this is a concept that has been around for centuries.

JL
MH2

climber
Jun 13, 2013 - 09:29pm PT
You are not listening to what I say, JL. Or not hearing. Or not understanding.
WBraun

climber
Jun 13, 2013 - 09:42pm PT
By mere academic qualifications one can never understand the absolute truth.

Thus the academics will remain perpetually in their theories and mental speculations in relative understandings, bewildered and puffed up in their limited knowledge .....
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 13, 2013 - 10:17pm PT
Thus spake Braunothustra. Lol
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 13, 2013 - 10:20pm PT
I can't stand it...

look Largo, ask your car pool about superfluids, or superconductivity...

more than the sum of it's parts.

and it is material, it is physical, and quite accepted... don't beat up on MH2 with your schtick, you're very incorrect here.
--

Of course you can't stand it Ed because I'm not buying a fundamantalist physicalist stance, nor yet the idea that the brain - a physical "thing," creates sentience. And how many times do you have to say that I am "incorrect" and don't know what I'm talking about? I'm not even addressing the external/objective much of the time, rather, the internal/
experiential, which you also insist is a physical thing, or at any rate has a physical "basis." Fine. It makes perfect sense. From the outside.

And schitc? There are a lot of smart people who have sufficicnt experience to know that a staunch physicalist platform is not the end all, and that anyone who has even the slightest motivation to explore the internal can quickly find out how the discursive works by way of narrow and wide focus. Because the internal, non-discursive stuff is by your own admission, not your game, why not take up some of the technical discussion on discursive reasoning, focus, thought generation, awareness fusion and so forth which yu can probably get your head around. Hounding me about "being wrong" is hardly increasing your point or broadening your understanding by the sound of it.

What's more, you know perfectly well that my comments about more than than the physical parts had nothing to do with superfluid vacuums or any of the other stuff I've been bludgeoned with over the years from my riding partners per superfluids, or superconductivity. I no longer mention any of this suff here lest you nit pick it for what is wrong, instead of trying to see how it might make some sense in the interior world.

Tell me, Ed, do you believe there is anything in our experience that is in and of itself (NOT your underlying material fetish) not material?

Don't forget, I went to SOT, where Panphycism (Whitehead, etc.) was the main course. That's not quite what we are driving at here, only that the physical, as you describe it, is a brain forumlation specific to humans, and that when you remove the observer, you're left with the undiferntiate soup, NOT the movie of reality our brains conjusre for us. I am convinced that you don't understant this concept, which is NOT an attempt to say that the mind "creates" physical reality. That's not it.

JL
And MH2, what ARE you and what HAVE you actually said, or are saying?

JL
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 13, 2013 - 10:22pm PT
Hi, Ed:

I do understand how statements like, "This statement is false" present inconsistencies or contradictions. But that's how IT is. When the obstructions start to fade, then you can see for yourself that there is no coherence. The notion is easy. The universe fits into your consciousness, not the other way around. Recompiling personality is the tough part. Worry about the meaning, not the wording. If everything were logical, obvious, empirical, measurable, tightly interconnected, then there'd be nothing different to see than what you see now: a little consciousness in a great big universe. But it's just not like that. It can't be. Even if it were, no one could prove it. On the other hand, the most obvious and perfect theory is the other way around, and if one looks closely, it's the only thing that one will see for themselves. It's unavoidable. Scrape away all of the falsehood, and what will be left (finally) is the truth.

No one said this would adhere to the laws and principles of mental-rational conceptualization. Why should it?

Am I so dependent on the body and the senses that without these I cannot exist? But I had the persuasion that there was absolutely nothing in the world, that there was no sky and no earth, neither minds nor bodies; was I not, therefore, at the same time persuaded that I did not exist? Far from it; I assuredly existed, since I was persuaded. But there is I know not what belong, who is possessed at once the highest power and the deepest cunning, who is constantly employing all his ingenuity in deceiving me. Doubtless, then, I exist since I am deceived; and, let him deceive me as he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I shall be conscious that I am something.(Rene Decartes)

The only thing anyone can know for sure is: "I am." Focus on that long enough and hard enough, and you will end up where I'm getting to.

Yes, it's insane and absurd. It's crazy. It's completely bonkers. Nonetheless, it is what must be true, and I am starting to see it for myself.

As Sherlock Holmes was made to say: ". . . when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."


EDIT: I forgot to say to Rectorsquid: re-read everything you said and see if you would or could say it for your experiences in a dream. What about prediction, rules, and explanation then?
MH2

climber
Jun 13, 2013 - 10:41pm PT
And MH2, what ARE you and what HAVE you actually said, or are saying?


I am a butterfly dreaming I am a human.

I am a human who spends most of the day chasing after butterflies.

I circle a different star than you do.


Never mind what I say. Here is a pointer to how I see the conversation, here.





from

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/288/1/pooh.pdf

The Brain of Pooh, an essay on the limits of mind, by Robert L. Sinsheimer






This is hard to do since this ground has been gone over before and you get further with a self-avoiding walk.


But I am a bear of small brain.
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Jun 13, 2013 - 11:27pm PT
I read the article recommended by Ed on panpsychism and think the final sentences are worth quoting.

Panpsychism is an abstract metaphysical doctrine which as such has no direct bearing on any scientific work; there is no empirical test that could decisively confirm or refute panpsychism. One might complain about this remoteness, as Thomas Nagel does with the remark that panpsychism has “the faintly sickening odor of something put together in the metaphysical laboratory” (1986, p. 49). Nonetheless, metaphysical views form an indispensable background to all science. They integrate our world views and allow us to situate our scientific endeavors within a larger vista and can suggest fruitful new lines of empirical enquiry (as the example of Fechner's psycho-physics illustrates). In particular, panpsychism accords with an approach that rejects physicalist reductionism at the same time as enjoining the search for neural correlates of consciousness, and it sees, or wants to see, a fundamental unity in the world which emergentism denies. Thus it is not a doctrine at odds with current empirical research.

It has always been and remains impossible to resist metaphysical speculation about the fundamental nature of the world. As long has there been science, science has informed this speculation and in return metaphysics has both helped to tell us what the point of science is and paved the way for new science. Panpsychism remains an active player in this endless speculative interchange.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jun 14, 2013 - 08:41am PT
But that, by definition (sorry) is the end of the discussion.

thank God it's over
MH2

climber
Jun 14, 2013 - 08:43am PT
Thank you, Jan.

People who say that science reduces the world to physics do not understand science or physics. The natural world is at least as strange as any spiritual, meditative, or supernatural experience I've seen reported on this thread. My view is that it is a lot stranger, actually, and far more interesting as a field of exploration.

Science gets help from reason and logic, but also from intuition and our aesthetic sensibility. When something new and fundamental is discovered, those who make the discovery often experience joy and connection to the physical reality outside the self. An analogy: a blind person who knows nothing of Stonehenge walks here and there among the stones and at some point goes, "Aha! These are laid out within a circle."

Very few people will ever experience the full impact of making a scientific discovery. Examples would be Archimedes' eureka moment, Newton and every other thought he had, Kekulé and the benzene ring, Dyson and QED, Feynman and weak decay.

Scientific discovery is not equally accessible to everyone. A powerful mind, hard work, and fortunate circumstances are needed. It is quite possible that meditative experience and spiritual knowledge are also not equally accessible to everyone, no matter how hard they try.

For most of us, it goes more like this:





http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/288/1/pooh.pdf
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 14, 2013 - 08:59am PT
Ed:

how do you make sense out of . . .


I would like to make you aware of an equivocation here. To make sense means to *construct* understanding, or to literally *make sense,* as in, *to construct sensations.* Neither is direct, unassisted, unadulterated observation or seeing. In other words, to make sense is to make things up. This is what the mind does, and it does so soooo naturally and I'd say even unconsciously. It doesn't make any difference if it does so mentally rationally, mythologically, instinctually, or emotionally. We cannot help but create our universe. We do this through consciousness. Hence, consciousness is our universe.

Jan:

Ed's choice of a label (panpsychism) is a pointer to experience, but it is not the experience. Both are equal (both are phenomena) yet the understanding of the two would not seem to be the same. One presents an obscuration (a label), while the other could be a pointer to a direct apprehension (an experience). Both are empty, but the label is not the same experience to which it points. Just because you know the name does not mean you know the experience. (Moreover, the label is exceedingly broad and includes a swath of different philosophies and ideas. But this is how concepts and labels work. Without grounded experience, one has no opportunity to know just what they're talking about--other than their own thoughts.)
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 14, 2013 - 10:17am PT
Ed, It wasn't till you used he word "schtick" did I finally understand what was bothering me about your approach to this discussion. It also is tied up to your common refrain, "What isn't physical?" Also, even though you would never confuse a topo map for the real climb, and you too know that the map is not the territory ITSELF, as a physcalist of the fundamntalist type (absolute faith in quantifying, and only quantifying as the viable mode of truth seeking, all others being "soft" versions of same), you can not get your head around the idea of non-physical reality, because to you, reality IS physical. What's more, the question, is the sum more than it's parts, is in this usage an exercise not to be able to point to some other physical function created by physical underpinnings. It is aimed at something else, but that's another issue.

The reason we have this go arond is pretty simple, really. Jan, Mike and I and perhaps a few others, to varrying degrees, know from years and decades of practice that discursive reasoning has limitations. It is certainly the way to go with the objective world, but it runs aground in the subjective because it cannot get around the whole, or the unbounded, which is the point of going there anyway.

What a physicalist will do with the subjective is simply say that as blowback of the physical brain ENTIRELY, the subjective is actually just a function of the physical, ergo there is no stopping us from quantifying the subjective by way of the objective. In other words, the way to really understand the subjective, which is itself an objective thing in and of itself, is to objectify it from the outside. Because this is the only way to derive numbers, and since quantifyihng is the only provable way to know anything for sure, for "certain," seeking to understand the subjective by way of objective processes is not only the best mode of inquiry, it is the ONLY mode that can possibly yield numbers, i.e, truth.

And so those of us who have decided to try anothr tact, and to actually venture inside the house, as opposed to trying to study it from the outside, will work - accortding to the physicalist - wtih the distinct disadvantage of having neither instrumentation or numbers to quantify what we believe we are encountering. Therefor according to Ed and the physicalits belief and point of view, what we are actually doing with these far-fangled internal excursions is science, is a discursive exercise, they believe, but lacking any of the tools and discipline and wherewital. In other words, we are simply winging it. And what we "discover," for the lack of quantifiable data, is stuff that I just make up, or imagine, or "believe," illusions drummed up by physical causes for which we render poetic interpretations and adn then trot out a "schtick" that seeks to make a mockery out of legitimate scientific inquiry.

This makes perfect sense to the discursive mind, and even though Ed clamims he knows how the discursive works, he is entirely mistaken - that's a plain and easily verifiable fact.

I think the only way to wind out of this quagmire is to conduct an informal and very proscribed set of thought experiments about how the discursive works, discovering in the process it's limititations.

Who's game? I've been through this one 1,000 times.

JL



Messages 15681 - 15700 of total 22771 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 Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews