Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 15941 - 15960 of total 22765 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 22, 2013 - 06:25am PT
Science has a big time issue with accepting things for what they are. It always struggles to induce the human element into it all. Ego. All human manifested ego. Nothing more.


I see you guys are now blessed with the contributions of an astute observer of the human condition
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 22, 2013 - 12:26pm PT
To the extent that one lives in a mental-rational worldview and believes in its concreteness, one misses the wonder

Perhaps so ,but the the trade off is giving a little boy the capability to hear the human voice.

Kudos to the scientists ,surgeons, and other rationalists who gave the gift of sound to a little boy and his family who were otherwise condemned to a long life of subjective silence .

Imagine that , a worldview so alienated from reality, such as scientific empiricism , managing to nonetheless give a young boy the ability to hear his own father speak and perhaps a Beethoven Symphony thrown in for good measure.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jun 22, 2013 - 12:58pm PT
I liked that one, Gobee !

open door policy
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 22, 2013 - 01:51pm PT
. . . the the trade off is giving a little boy the capability to hear the human voice.

Like I wrote, one can read the story as a triumph of technology. You did. The fact that it can be read another way should indicate how significant interpretations are--and how much they impact not only objectivity (my discrete words) but subjectivity (their meaning) as well.

So, . . . are you're saying that if you Had To Choose, you'd choose hearing a human voice to wonder? (I painted a false dichotomy, didn't I?)

We're very strong in objective side of reality here on this thread, Ward, but not so strong in the subjective side of things. People almost fully discount subjectivity as wu-wu.

My reference to wu-wei suggests that it may be possible to engage in action without all of the rationalization that people tend to employ. It may be a difficult notion to get one's head around. I say it is possible to relax, be in the here and now, without being so overly concrete, serious, objective, and analytical.

Whadathink? Possible? Advisable?
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 22, 2013 - 02:40pm PT
Like I wrote, one can read the story as a triumph of technology. You did. The fact that it can be read another way should indicate how significant interpretations are

I not only regard the story as a triumph of technology but I also regard it as a triumph, albeit small , for humanity in general. The hard work ,dedication , intelligence and brilliance of countless individuals behind the scenes, many unknowingly ,stretching back perhaps years, to make this a wonderful outcome for a little boy born deaf and his family grappling with his disability.
I don't know how anyone looking at this story could "interpret " it's apparent nature and import in any other way, frankly. Certainly one could , but to do so would be a paen to senselessness and insignificance., and irrelevance.

So, . . . are you're saying that if you Had To Choose, you'd choose hearing a human voice to wonder? (I painted a false dichotomy, didn't I?)

You're right , it is a false dichotomy. As if hearing (or any sense perception) and 'wonder 'could be rendered oppositional in any kind of meaningful way.
In fact, if this story is about anything it is about the ignition of wonder seen in the boys face ,or felt deep inside him, when hearing his dad's voice for the first time, or a bit of music, or the rain falling on the roof.

We're very strong in objective side of reality here on this thread, Ward, but not so strong in the subjective side of things. People almost fully discount subjectivity as wu-wu.

I don't know about that. Largo ,WBraun, and yourself seem to do quite well at establishing the Nehru jacket perspective . Albeit with a little too much hand- wringing from time to time. You guys are hardly an overly- beleaguered camp rendered majestically heroic by your "fighting to the last man " efforts.

I say it is possible to relax, be in the here and now, without being so overly concrete, serious, objective, and analytical.

I agree with that sentiment. It is why Martinis were invented.
Just don't overdo it......or you'll get a kundalini hangover.

Credit: Ward Trotter


Thanks for posting the story MikeL.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57590253/deaf-boy-with-auditory-brain-stem-implant-stunned-after-hearing-dad-for-first-time/
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Jun 22, 2013 - 03:13pm PT
re: "free" will
re: pride and shame (as constraining emotions)
re: mindbrain works

Damn, wish I had said it...

"Thoughts and intentions (as a result of brain processing) simply arise in the mind. What else could they do?

"Now some of you might think this sounds depressing. This seems to take something away from us. It does. It takes away an egocentric view of life. But I think this can be tremendously liberating. We are not truly separate. We are linked to each other and to our past and to history. We are part of a system. And therefore what we do matters. You can't take credit for your talents, but it matters that you use them. You can't really be blamed for your weaknesses, but it matters that you correct them. So pride and shame don't make a lot of sense in the final analysis. But they weren't much fun anyway. These are isolating emotions. What does make sense is a commitment to wellbeing and to improving your life and the lives of others. Love and compassion make sense."

Worthy, I think, of 1,000 iterations per year. So it sinks in really deeply.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 22, 2013 - 06:40pm PT
the Nehru jacket perspective.


Yeah, I think that sums it up brilliantly.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 22, 2013 - 06:43pm PT
Science has a big time issue with accepting things for what they are. It always struggles to induce the human element into it all. Ego. All human manifested ego. Nothing more.

Aww....sh#t.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 22, 2013 - 08:16pm PT

I don't know about that. Largo ,WBraun, and yourself seem to do quite well at establishing the Nehru jacket perspective


This kind of sand lot tripe totally discounts your credibility as a legitimate thinker on this thread, and posits you as a kind of glib but insolent yahoo. Or else, like I suspect, you either don't read the material, or don't grasp it.

If you want to put all your egges in a discursive bucket, that fine. Most do. But to actually believe that the other bucket is stuffed with Nehru jackets betrays a fantastic and Homeric ignorance for what is going on, especially in your own life.

To me, and probably to most anyone who's bothered to empiracally look at their own process, bottom to top, outside to inside, you are the avatar of the faceless man who is a stranger to himself, while smearing the very process which could trip the light switch on what you are totally in the dark about. Rather than ask legitimate and honest questions and perhaps learn somethign about yourself, you keep riding this straw horse off the cliff.

But I am curious what you would really like to know about the subjecive, or whether or not you too are pole-axed by scientism, believing as many do that anything else is the soft stuff. In my view, my hard-core objective work is in the service of culture. However on this thread, the cultural aspect is often shockinly subsumed to calculations, to where some poor saps have said that such lightweight thinkers as Aristotle, Socretes and Plato are of no consequence these day since quantifying has usurped all they had to offer mankind.

And Jesus wept . . .

JL



jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 22, 2013 - 08:44pm PT
My reference to wu-wei suggests that it may be possible to engage in action without all of the rationalization that people tend to employ

Please explain how this differs from acting on instinct, which we all do frequently, without thinking through what we are doing.

And your comment about scientists believing science can provide solutions for all conceivable problems is a stretch IMHO.

Your posts are indeed interesting.

(JL, watch those metaphors! ;>) )
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jun 22, 2013 - 09:03pm PT
And your comment about scientists believing science can provide solutions for all conceivable problems is a stretch IMHO.

I agree. I don't think that even Dr. F has gone that far. Science is just understanding nature, and nature is a very big topic.

Then again, I think that Plato's Allegory of the Cave should be required reading for anyone with a brain. It applies to many real life situations.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 22, 2013 - 09:06pm PT
This kind of sand lot tripe totally discounts your credibility as a legitimate thinker on this thread, and posits you as a kind of glib but insolent yahoo. Or else, like I suspect, you either don't read the material, or don't grasp it.

Dang. You could've led with the "don't read the material" line and kept the "insolent yahoo" in reserve . I mean if you suspect I don't read it or grasp it ,why lead with the "discounts your credibility ..." shot.

" Homeric ignorance " in my own life. Wow, It's as if you've been reading my diary.

Seriously, I'm about to quit and take my ball home.
Y'all Nehru dudes gotta watch the attrition factor, boss.
My feelings are hurt.

I won't post again here until you accuse me of honesty. straight up.



Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 22, 2013 - 09:32pm PT
And your comment about scientists believing science can provide solutions for all conceivable problems is a stretch IMHO.

Actually this thought is not too far off the beaten path, given the prognostications of the transhumanists . The " singularity" fantastically proposed for the period 2040-2050 might go way beyond just your standard good old fashioned problem/solution dynamic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 22, 2013 - 09:38pm PT
Credit: Ward Trotter
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 22, 2013 - 09:44pm PT
Still waiting for that honest question, there Ward buddy. Couple of us have wagers per the probability that constitutionally, you can or cannot ask one. And it has to be about something you do not know about the subjecive, but want to know.

JL
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 22, 2013 - 09:58pm PT
And it has to be about something you do not know about the subjecive, but want to know.

Okay , okay you've forced my hand . What I am about to say is not new , I've touched on it before on this thread, but you guys were too busy outfitting the unchanging Nehru look to pay much attention to little ol' nerdy moderate climber me. LOL
To wit :
There is no objective / subjective dichotomy. The entire sum total of human consciousness resides in the observable objective universe. What is normally referred to on this thread and elsewhere as " subjective" is merely an epiphenomenon of biologically-rooted human mental functioning. I am congruent with some of the eliminativists on this score.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 22, 2013 - 10:18pm PT
I won the bet. 20 dollars that Ward could not bring himself to ask a questions about what he does not know because, though never actually observed his onw process, he already knows the answer. To wit:

There is no objective / subjective dichotomy. The entire sum total of human consciousness resides in the observable objective universe.

As we have said many times in diferent ways, the subjective is not observable through the investigation of objective functioning. If so, kindly point it out - by default you will be pointing to objective functioning, from from this, you believe, consciousness arises or is produced by the meat brain. Standard physiclist stuff that leading neurobiologists admit is indefensible, and which, as mentioned dozens of times, there is a million dollar prize out there if you can show how this occurs in a peer reviewed journal. So have at it, Ward.

But the fact is, we've pretty much put that argument to rest since it is circular, and for someone entrenched in the physicalist camp, even with all of it's wonky simplifications, there is no way to see past it because as you have just shown, you are constitutionally incapable of asking a question, ergo you have no avenue to learn something new - a kind of self-imposed poverty, on which you have, remarkably, heaped virtue. Perhaps no one can accuse you of being smart on that count, but so it goes.

Now the dichotomy of subjective and objecive is false, but not in the way you have it - of that you may be sure. There is only one reality, and it encompasses both realms. Like the earth is made up of water and land. But you would have us believe both are the same things.

But be that as it may, I still invite you to ask a question about the subjective - or if it is easier for you to get hold of - ask one about the nature of your own experience, something to which you have no answer but remakin curious about. Here's my chance to lose that bet. Come on Ward. Man up.

But seriously, if you really want me to show you how eliminitive materialism runs aground, it's pretty easy. It's tied to this statement: Like Feyerabend, Quine also endorsed the idea that mental notions like belief or sensation could simply be abandoned in favor of a more accurate physiological account.

Not that they aren't so whacky to deny they have sensations in theri body, however as staunch physicalists, with only external objectifying as a mode of inquiry, being ignortant of all other modes, their ignorance led them to the only conclusion possible: lump everythng in a hopper in which we can measure and test, and anythig we can't, simply call it "unreal." Note also that like all physicalists, their objession is with "states," which is the shallow end of the subjective sea. Not till you start approaching bare awareness the realms beyond discursive reasoning does the field open up ibnto terrain blocked to the likes of Feyerabend and Quine. In he end, they actulally wanted to understand, but had no methodology to investigae the subjective with any verity, recognizing right off that the discursive could be better employed by sticking with the physiological. But like all the others, they were left with the untenable position of trying to make the map the territory itself - and no man can ever do that with any accuracy.

JL



Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 22, 2013 - 10:39pm PT
I won the bet. 20 dollars that Ward could not bring himself to ask a questions about what he does not know because, though never actually observed his onw process, he already knows the answer. To wit:

Congrats. Geez...only twenty bucks. I don' t know who is ponying up here but it's not me.(send me my $10 cut tomorrow)

I don't play rigged games. And I am not a gambling man. (Okay so I lost $50 on the Spurs)

I have no idea what question is supposed to be asked ,and frankly could care less. I don't play that kind of game.
I didn't agree to a set of rules of order being loosely imposed here.
Nice try though.

Get some rest and we'll tackle a new set of rules of order that I get to impose tomorrow.......maybe.
Depends if I am successful at mowin' the yard .

MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 23, 2013 - 03:41am PT
Please explain how this differs from acting on instinct, which we all do frequently, without thinking through what we are doing.

You don't / can't observe instinct consciously. Digestion, heart rate, etc. are all instinct. Instinct is a primitive structure of consciousness (autonomic processing) that includes no possibility for self-reflection. Instinct is purportedly stored in DNA. You might be thinking of automatic cognitive processes, like driving a car. That's not instinct. That comes from repeated practice. Nor is that what I'm referring to either. Wu-wei is non-action action.

Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention W Schneider, RM Shiffrin - Psychological review, 1977

See, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Shiffrin%2C+R.%2C+%26+W.+Schneider.++1977.++Controlled+and+automatic
+human+information+processing+.+.+.+Psychological+Review%2C+84%282%29.&btnG=
&as_sdt=1%2C50&as_sdtp=


And your comment about scientists believing science can provide solutions for all conceivable problems is a stretch IMHO.

Whoa. That was not my claim. That was other people's claims many times up thread. Perhaps you didn't see those. "No, we don't have X figured out (what I or Largo said was not known, usually about the mind), . . . but it's just a matter of time. We will." The people who took that stand? MH2, HFCS, Ed, and others. Neuroscience will be solving everything cognitive.


The " singularity" fantastically proposed for the period 2040-2050 might go way beyond just your standard good old fashioned problem/solution dynamic.

If only intelligence and consciousness were simply an issue of the number of neurons dancing on the head of a pin. There are really big problems to solve cognitively that have nothing to do with computing power, mainly knowledge representation, manipulation of mental models, and how cognition becomes grounded or transduced to perceptions. Pay attention, Jogill and Base: this is just another example of "we'll get it all figured out very soon." (It's like you guys can write but you can't read.) Science sees itself as potentially omniscient. (IMHO, indeed.)
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 23, 2013 - 06:20am PT
When I was doing some management coaching 10+ years ago, this is a handout I might give out to folks I was working with. I don't agree with everything here today, but it might be instructive for some. You may nonetheless see some of what I write here on this thread in this handout.

The Enemies of Learning

1) The inability to admit we do now know
⇒ Resistance to abandoning our assumptions
⇒ Unwillingness to divest our usual way of making sense of things

2) Given the way I am, I cannot learn that
⇒ Lack of self-confidence
⇒ The “new” inhibits and appears to be beyond reach

3) Cognitive blindness
⇒ We make sense of the world on basis of the repertoire of distinctions, narratives, stories, theories, and competencies we already have
⇒ Learning is based on healthy moment of skepticism – we can’t learn if we don’t admit that we don’t know

4) Not assigning priority to learning (“I don’t have the time”)
⇒ “Workaholism”
⇒ Addictions to “entertainment” rather than learning

5) Significance / important (everything must be / or I am . . . )
⇒ Everything is, or must be, “important,” “critical,” or “serious." This is presents a high level of drama, and it exhausts many who must work with such people
⇒ An “affected attitude,” tinged by contempt for those who appear to be ignorant
⇒ Simple interpretations are scorned
⇒ Knowledge is treated more as an adornment and not placed in the service of others.

6) Triviality
⇒ Take nothing seriously; exposes a high level of cynicism
⇒ Laugh at others but never at self; ridicule; confuses levity with mockery

7) Inability to Learn
⇒ “Not invented here”
⇒ “But we’ve always done it this way…”

8) Forgetting the Body
⇒ Incompatibility of body disposition with actions or learning in a new domain. Given a certain bodily disposition, people cannot “bring in” other perspectives or ways of being (e.g., if your body is expressing a strong sense of determination {think of a boxer}, it is difficult to be open to another’s point of view).
⇒ Behavior; forgetting the importance of practice.

9) Confusing learning with acquiring information
⇒ You need to not only know, but you need to be able to assess, evaluate, and project.

10) Absence of adequate emotional context
⇒ Some emotional states predispose us to learning and others don’t
⇒ Atmosphere of indifference or fear versus one of respect and caring
⇒ Arrogance vs. being open to the new and disposed to question “the known.”

11) Not giving permission to another to teach us
⇒ Not vesting another with trust and authority
⇒ Refusal to admit that we know less than the teacher

12) Mistrust
⇒ Constantly giving long odds against something happening
⇒ Constantly wondering about real motives and hidden agendas of others
Messages 15941 - 15960 of total 22765 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