Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 16001 - 16020 of total 22744 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 25, 2013 - 09:01pm PT
Toss those I-phones, people! Especially students.


Surge in digital dementia
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Jun 25, 2013 - 09:08pm PT
Man, you're trying to have a conversation with BES1'st? Man that's going to be challenging.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 25, 2013 - 10:15pm PT
Every one of us must come to terms with the manifestations of ever- accelerating change .

It seems like that, doesn't it? It looks like there is nothing but change; change happens by itself, one should accept change, and one should maybe even promote change, everywhere.

Is there nothing that doesn't change? Shouldn't there be some kind of substance or matter than never changes, ever?

No??! That's a pretty strange reality, don't you think? How could anything not have a bottom to it, a final resolution, a final answer materially? How could there not be some ultimate substrate upon which everything springs forth and upon which Everything depends upon?

When you look at any thing closely and try to get to its essence or core, it appears to be a infinite process up, down, and sideways. You just can't pin anything down. Not one thing. Well, I take that back; technically, there is one thing, but as an answer, it seems hardly satisfying. There is just consciousness. That's all we really know.



Rene Descartes goes to his favorite bar, and his bartender asks Rene: "Would you like your usual drink, Monsieur Descartes?" Descartes replies, "I think not" and promptly disappears.
go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Jun 26, 2013 - 04:51am PT
Malachi 3:6 “For I am the Lord, I do not change;

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. 9 Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines. For it is good that the heart be established by grace
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 26, 2013 - 08:22am PT
State your question in one concise sentence followed by a question mark.

No traveller returns, puzzles the will, and makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of?

JL
specialistclimber

climber
Jun 26, 2013 - 11:26am PT
Possibly a neuru type was wearing red sweats and the non neuru type
wearing white sweats?

neuru types shoes were maybe the same color Merrils and non
resoles. Years later neuru type was probably in white grammicis with
probably either Sportivas or Boreal Fire's and non neuru type now
in blue or green sweats? neuru type at this time silently and
without inner sound probably asked if non nueru type JL or Nauru
type was investigating Valhalla from the eastern parking lot.

What is Nauru?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 26, 2013 - 11:55am PT
Possibly a neuru type was wearing red sweats and the non neuru type
wearing white sweats?


Unlikely. Non neuru type would be in highwater jeans, black wingtips, white socks, slightly pideon-toed, porthole glasses, buck teeth, two dollar hair cut, nasal green Jansport pack containg seventy-six pens, sliderule, gay porn, Walkman with BeeGees, Olivia Newton John and Abba tapes, top, yoyo, bullfrog, and size 14 Robbins boots, lol.

JL
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 26, 2013 - 12:24pm PT
No traveller returns, puzzles the will, and makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of?

Hamlet's soliloquy presents a dilemma: live with pain and suffering in this world, or commit suicide. We take Hamlet's words to mean the death of the body and all of one's life.

The speech can also be used to investigate death--of the smaller self, not the Big Self. One might be able to kill off the lesser inferior self so that the Big Self can emerge nakedly.

Hamlet has it wrong, which explains his existential angst. Is it the flesh that is heir to heartache and a sea of troubles, or is it one's sense of self via the mind? Hamlet's interpretation in his soliloquy is that heartache and suffering is Man's natural human condition (samsara).

Instead, what could be at issue is not "life" or "not-life," but (i) the sense of self that mind creates, versus (ii) the awareness of a timeless Self that no-mind uncovers. Kill the former to reveal the latter.

It's tougher than almost anyone can achieve. It might be impossible. The ego is especially strong and stable. It posits all of reality as "other" in the face of mutually-reliant interdependence, and makes all of not-self (phenomena, really) into objects with independent existence. The layering of projections by the discursive, analytical mind supports the achievement of an ego / sense of self to an almost god-like position (omnipotence, omniscience, and the center of all that is known).

How Could such an entity commit suicide? It can't.

One cannot fight the ego (one's self). One must devote less attention to it and let it go. One way this can be started is to simply notice experiences as experience rather than as either content or objects. This is what simply sitting (e.g., shikantaza) is good for. Objects / things, evaluations, feelings, etc. are all simply watched coming, residing, and going. After a while, they all tend to subside or self-liberate. What one ends-up with is a timeless awareness of content-less perceptions . . . just phenomena (akin to mirages or movie-like projections). Reality becomes less concrete, less serious, more open, with more potential, more unified (a greater sense of interdependence), and more spontaneous.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 26, 2013 - 12:27pm PT
two dollar hair cut

Why I never paid less than $10 for a haircut in my entire life...and that's a factoid.

either Sportivas

I got 2 pairs of high top La Sports

The layering of projections by the discursive, analytical mind supports the achievement of an ego / sense of self to an almost god-like position (omnipotence, omniscience, and the center of all that is known)

Even if this were true, which it isn't , how would the mind or its belay slave, the ego, know that it is manufacturing essences to be magically superimposed upon external reality?
The act of perception is too instantaneous , Not analytical .There is no content within our genes that we can point to and say: " that gene is responsible for the external manufacturing of an apple". If there were , certain individuals would inevitably be born without that gene and apples would not exist for them, and we know that this is not the case. Even Helen Keller experienced apples.
For the ego to prosper under those unlikely circumstances, to god-like proportions thus outlined, it would have to be convinced that it is making the moon silver and the sun rise tomorrow morning.
I know of no one who automatically thinks his/her mind Is inherently capable of such god-like de novo creativity. Not anyone outside the nearest megalomania support group , that is.

The elevating of human consciousness to " master of the world" status is letting things get a little out of hand.
Human consciousness, in whatever mode, has become the new deity; born out of the existential mind and its need for an indissouble monolithic category as a bargaining point for its contentions and arguments.









Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 26, 2013 - 01:18pm PT
Even if this were true, which it isn't (because I have hereby proclaimed as much - LOL), how would the mind know that it is manufacturing essences to be magically superimposed upon external reality?
-------

No cigar on that one, Ward. There is no "external, fixed reality as you posit it here, over which "mind" superimposes or projects a kind of skrim. Crazy as it sounds, it might be more usful to consider this process in the way my buddies suggest - that at the level of forms, your "external reality" is arranged, or the quantum stuff is reified by consciousness itself, much as the old QM doods suggested with the Copenhagan jive. And of coure we all know the "dangers of projecting QM onto the meta world." I am told they are doing so as we speak. Starting with light itself. But that's not my field or wheelhouse. So check with the quantifiers about that one.
-


There is no content within our genes that we can point to and say: " that gene is responsible for the external manufacturing of an apple". If there were , certain individuals would inevitably be born without that gene and apples would not exist for them, and we know that this is not the case. Even Helen Keller experienced apples.


There's no gene or any piece of neuro matter that we can reverse engineer in a way suggesting it "procuces" any particular form ie an apple. Such a model is not viable in today's world. You're harking back to a kind of reostate, diode, transistor model or something entirely mechanical.


Few appreciate that Fruity's very own 007 ocassionally rocked the Nehru, here with the comely Pussy Galore. Oh yeah!

Credit: Largo

JL
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 26, 2013 - 01:35pm PT
There is no "external, fixed reality as you posit it here,

How did I know , beforehand, even whilst penning that line ,that this would be the Nehru response.
I almost edited to read "....upon a hypothetical external reality" LoL

There's no gene or any piece of neuro matter that we can reverse engineer in a way suggesting it "procures" any particular form ie an apple.

Exactly my point. Therefore the apple exists in the external world. The neuro mechanisms we humans employ are merely encoded to receive the image, taste, the feel of external things.
There is nothing contained within our sensory apparati that is anything more than strictly interpretive.
In the same way that MikeL interprets a Shakespearian line without being its author.

Now I'm hungry for an apple.

Later...goin to the store for some apples...

Largo, I amended my line to read:

Even if this were true, which it isn't , how would the mind ,or its belay slave, the ego, know that it is manufacturing essences to be magically superimposed upon external reality?

You might want to back -edit your copied version accordingly.
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 26, 2013 - 03:36pm PT
Crazy as it sounds, it might be more useful to consider this process in the way my buddies suggest - that at the level of forms, your "external reality" is arranged, or the quantum stuff is reified by consciousness itself

I'd like to hear from a few more physicists on this point. Sometimes I think that JL's buddies are egging him on.
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Jun 26, 2013 - 04:09pm PT
I'm going to quibble about words now.

Please find some other term than Nehru to denigrate Indian metaphysics. Jawarharlal Nehru the Indian freedom fighter and first prime minister of a free and democratic India, was idealistic, but also an eminently practical man. He managed the political practicalities of winning freedom for what was then 450 million people, through the use of nonviolence. He then established and administered a democratic government and way of life that has survived 65 years now, no small feat in a country of 200 official languages, six major religions and four identifiably different looking ethnic groups belabored with a thousands of years old system of social stratification - in a population that was 809% illiterate at the time.

The fact that he practiced yoga and meditation every day does not in the least distract from the fact that he had an elite British education. Far from being a symbol of woo woo, he was an extremely self actualized being who put his ego, his excellent education, and his health at the service of hundreds of millions.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 26, 2013 - 04:32pm PT
Poor Ward doesn't mean to denigrarte Indian mystics. He's tryng to smeer anything but an old school physicalists interpretation of "reality" by drumming up an association he thinks has some bearing on - well, you'd have to ask our boy Ward about that. What an Indian mystic has to do with any of this is perhaps evidence that Ward is curating his ideas from the wind cellar.

There's no gene or any piece of neuro matter that we can reverse engineer in a way suggesting it "procures" any particular form ie an apple.

Exactly my point. Therefore the apple exists in the external world. The neuro mechanisms we humans employ are merely encoded to receive the image, taste, the feel of external things.

You're still not getting it. What you are envisioning is a fixed, external reality and a passive "mind" that mirrors the external in a kind of one-to-one semblance. That's not at all how perception works. The brain is not passive like that. But consciousness is an even bigger issue. However without experiences that would show him otherwise, Ward and many others will go with what their discursive, common sense minds tells them is "out there," never relizing the extent that perception is largely an inside game. Ward's position was common before we got any instumentation, and before people started watching their own perceptual process. The world indeed appeared flat, and that everything revolved around the earth. The truth turned out to be very counterintuitieve, not at all what we mkight think at first blush. Our brains tell us: There's an apple out there. I will eat it. Seems terribly straightforward.

And John, I am not being "led along" by my science buddies. All of these insights come from my own practice. I am just scrubbing around for examples that might or might not illustrate my point by way of language and models others might recognize, since only a few on this list understand the experiential realities - not for lack of ability, but rather because no one can get hold of these without practice, just as nobody masters "real analysis" by accident.

But I can totally see where and why Ward is defending a purely physicalist take on what he experiences. Lest you experienced otherwise, how would a person ever realize that the discursive mind is limitd, and that it doesn't have an exclusive on "knowing." At all. Till someone comes to the truths for themselves, they will keep brayngn about Nehru jackets and apples "out there" just as a man in Plato's cave will argue for a shadow world, having encountered nothing else, while imagining anything else would perfoce be imagined itself.

Can you appreciate the closed loop, and the knee-jerk conviction that anything outside is "magic" for the lack of measurements? If nothing else, people can come to appreciate how the discursive mind works, and the MO by which it operates. One can never see or learn this from the outside, which is limited to objecrtive functioning.

JL
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 26, 2013 - 05:22pm PT
Please find some other term than Nehru to denigrate Indian metaphysics

My use of the term " Nehru" has absolutely nothing to do with the man himself , nor of Indian mystics in general, nor of India, or anything of the sort.
Way back up thread WBraun used the term "lab coats" as a backhanded reference to those extolling the scientific viewpoint. I therefore found myself casting about for a sartorial equivalent-- all in fun, with no slight intended.

I settled on " Nehru" jacket because it was a perfect counterpoint to " white lab coats"
To myself, the Nehru jacket represents a passé bit of cultural tourism that looks rather absurd on a westerner, sort of like seeing a Buddhist monk with a black dinner jacket thrown over his saffron orange uttarasanga.

Largo knows all of this but prefers to see me " hung out to dry" on this issue.
He is also hiding his own Nehru jacket and refuses to bring it "out of the closet" as it were.

If I decide to " denigrate" metaphysics, Indian or otherwise, I'll let everyone know ahead of time.
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Jun 26, 2013 - 05:22pm PT
And yet it remains his bold fashion statement that continues to go the distance...

http://io9.com/simulation-proves-that-big-groups-require-big-brains-585749092

Our bulbous brains require a lot of energy to function. Like, a lot of energy. That one organ alone requires 25% of our body's total fuel stores. So from an energy allocation perspective — and thus from an evolutionary perspective — it sure as hell better be worth it.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 26, 2013 - 06:03pm PT
Ward: I sometimes think you're being obtuse purposefully.

how would the mind or its belay slave, the ego, know that it is manufacturing essences to be magically superimposed upon external reality?

That's the point. It doesn't. You might consider reading up on a couple ideas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism

There is no content within our genes that we can point to. . . .

There's no need.

god-like proportions thus outlined, it would have to be convinced that it is making the moon silver and the sun rise tomorrow morning.

Don't be silly. There are many posts in this thread from Ed, MH2, Dr. F. who have expressed the beliefs that Man promises unlimited capabilities to understand anything in the universe, and that there is no higher power. Sorry but that sort of makes Man into a God (albeit an inchoate one, but a god nonetheless). As for empirical proof, I think anyone here would say that Man IS the supreme being on this planet. That attitude gets shared in many ways (look at how Man behaves). If there is a support group, it is other Men themselves. There seems to be very little respect for the planet, for other life forms, or for each other even here on this thread by others on this thread (e.g., you).
WBraun

climber
Jun 26, 2013 - 06:19pm PT
Ward

When you used the Nehru sartorial equivalent to lab coats I knew right away what you meant.

I thought it was funny ......

But !!!!

You're a rascal

just like me ..... :-)
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 26, 2013 - 07:33pm PT
That's the point. It doesn't. You might consider reading up on a couple ideas

Let me get this straight: not only does the individual mind superimpose de novo essences and
Platonic categories, of its own choosing ,upon the nonexistent external world, but this individual mind does so thoroughly at the behest of societal norms. An individual mind becomes a type of existential automaton.

In other words, the contrived external world is nothing less than reiterated social propaganda?
Even more uncanny and fantastic than I at first imagined.

Apparently this viewpoint connotes to me:
All of human experience is laced through and through with a sort of undermining and nefarious conspiracy that never ends. An exasperating dilemma, if ever there was.
It's either our own consciousness or our own societies that are constantly in process of undermining true consciousness, genuine awareness .Which,by the way, is based upon nothing at all. A Largoid nothingness.

Don't be silly. There are many posts in this thread from Ed, MH2, Dr. F. who have expressed the beliefs that Man promises unlimited capabilities to understand anything in the universe, and that there is no higher power. Sorry but that sort of makes Man into a God (albeit an inchoate one, but a god nonetheless). As for empirical proof, I think anyone here would say that Man IS the supreme being on this planet. That attitude gets shared in many ways (look at how Man behaves). If there is a support group, it is other Men themselves. There seems to be very little respect for the planet, for other life forms, or for each other even here on this thread by others on this thread (e.g., you).

MikeL , you are covering a lot of territory here. First of all, the persons you mentioned might want to know you are associating them with a species of megalomania that inevitably leads to a death of the planet and disrespect for other life forms-- and even, eventually , for a breakdown of respect due their fellow Supertaco thread denizens.
I might be wrong on this count. Maybe their computers haven't been rigged with a notification alert for just such purposes. I know mine is.

Perhaps we willl deal with your thumbnail characterization of what constitutes " God" at some other time. Suffice to say that such a deterministic definition, forced as it is through the prism of this particular polemic, is too circumscribed and too tainted to be of much transcendental or instructive value, at this time.


MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 26, 2013 - 08:54pm PT
[what constitutes a god is] too circumscribed and too tainted to be of much transcendental or instructive value, at this time.

Well my friend, that's up to you. What is a god? Don't you want a clear and concise definition of a god? Everything relates to the eye of the beholder. Again, that's my point.

Ward, I don't need to get you to seeing reality as a complete projection of pristine awareness (with the help from the ego and Mara). All I need to do is to get you to admit that some things get socially constructed. Then it becomes a question of what is socially constructed and what is not--and how does one draw a line? What is that basis, and how do you know?

Additionally, I would point you to how cognitive science, cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence, communications theory, linguistics, and neurobiology suggests the operations of filters and processes that translate, interpret, supplement, or amend raw sense data into understanding.

For example, here is the abstract for an NSF call for research proposals:

http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5686

"Supports research on perception, action and cognition. Emphasis is on research strongly grounded in theory. Central research topics for consideration by the Perception, Action, and Cognition panel include vision, audition, haptics, attention, memory, reasoning, written and spoken discourse, and motor control. The program encompasses a wide range of theoretical perspectives, such as symbolic computation, connectionism, ecological, nonlinear dynamics, and complex systems, and a variety of methodologies including both experimental studies and modeling. The PAC program is open to co-review of proposals submitted to other programs (e.g., Linguistics, Developmental and Learning Sciences, Cognitive Neuroscience, etc)."

Perhaps you notice the different variables and topic areas mentioned in the abstract. Those indicate intervening states and variables between raw sense data and understanding or knowledge. I hope that I don't need to say that there is slippage between each and every step / process. Influence over "what's what" is subtle, unconscious, subconscious, psychological, social, institutional, and personal. WYGIWYS, and what you believe is what you see.

How can it be any other way? What explains the constant, overwhelming disagreement about the world and what happens in it among educated people? Are we all possessed by guile? Are none of us meaning to play fair and avoid telling what we think is true? Do you believe that Man is evil and lies unabashedly at every turn? Or do you believe that people are merely mistaken very often? If the latter, then that suggests powerful intervening processes in perception and cognition.

It's clear to everyone that we don't observe consistent perceptions among all people. People see things differently. Nor do we consistently observe random perceptions among people (subgroups and groups). What people believe post facto tends to explain how they see their worlds; and how they see their worlds greatly influences (we believe) how they behave. Indeed, education is based upon those beliefs.

People see different worlds? How's it possible? How is it that people don't see exactly the same world and circumstances?
Messages 16001 - 16020 of total 22744 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