Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 16081 - 16100 of total 23059 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Jun 28, 2013 - 05:12pm PT


The nature of reality.

And Hollywood.

DMT
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 28, 2013 - 05:22pm PT
(It's a trick question, silly.)

Yeah I considered that possibility but gave Largo the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, solipsism is about as convincing as a blow-dryer in a tornado.

Imagination is not the right tool. There is no tool to be used; no tool will be helpful.

Nonsense.

Making any conjecture is derelict--real, not useful, worthy of ignorance.

More nonsense. A Salton Sea of negative, nihilistic, nonsense . Lol
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 28, 2013 - 05:47pm PT
Nonsense.

Are you saying that you cannot imagine when a conjecture would be useless, or vice versa?
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 28, 2013 - 05:51pm PT
A Salton Sea of negative, nihilistic, nonsense .

What is negative about saying that a particular thing (any conjecture) is not productive?

What is the lack of meaning behind making a distinction that something is not useful?

What is nonsensical about a claim, any claim for that matter?

(Do you understand what you're writing?)
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 28, 2013 - 06:28pm PT
It is not work that everyone can or should attempt - for many reasons

Doc Savage
Doc Savage
Credit: jogill

Doc Savage could handle it!



Mike: . . . fundamental level of reality (singular). . .
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 28, 2013 - 07:56pm PT
The individual who imagines his rarefied subjective state as not being driven by content and agenda is involved in a little self-foolery.


I missed thisw whopper from Ward, who is amusing if nothing else.

Ward has no doubt derived this opinion by exploring his own "rarifided subjective states." How else would he conclude as much - unless old Ward is simply guessing.

And the idea that observing is not possible without an operative factor of content and an underlying agenda is the testimony of someone who has never done any of the work.

These speculations are in fact so wildly erronous that if one were to try Ward's approach - just tossing stuff out there with no empirical nor yet any experiential data to draw from - we would have to brand him at once a fraud and a fabricator.

This kinds of blindly dismissing sniping is not so much a mere distraction, like a common horse fly, nor even a rude and mindless kind of dross we often associate with the "turd in the punchbowl," but is most likely either a boze soaked rant or a garden variety tactic of self-avoidance. Note that nothing Ward has suggested betrays the slightest hint of introspection or respect or curiosity for his own process, but is simply a kind of mental silly putty.

Now Ward, it's time to take yourself seriously and to buckle down. Every Nehru is rooting for you to quit betting against yourself, to drop the physicalist fundamentalism and to go back to what BASE was asking about and just see if you too can start to grasp how your discursive mind actually works, starting with the simple focus exercise provided for you. Take an honest crack at that, THEN report back to us. Just this once, do a touch of the work BEFORE shooting off that pie hole, lest you keep firing blanks.

Again, we're rooting for you. We're claping for you. Go Ward. Do it.

JL
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 28, 2013 - 08:28pm PT
Base said,
Many of the Baptists were huge hypocrites, and everyone knew it.

I'm sure you've heard the saying " do as I say, not as I do!". I think this is a very wise statement. I used this last week when I was coaching my 7yo daughter "Olive", to bat.
To her amazement she went 3 fer 4 and scored 2 runs Wed. night. But we still lostˇ
But I was proud as an Eagle!

Mine me while i peer into ur "subjective". Coming from a "Method-ist" up-bringing. You,
( and especially at the age 13), and ALOT of others coming from the other multiple labels of
Christianity. Have been taught to follow a "righteous" set of rules, and if you live by these rules you will surely be righteous. But more exact; prosperous. (just like Joel Olsteen) But these "rules" of good will also work in the secular world also! If ur disciplined in doing "good" you will surely receive good. I would almost stake my left nut on Ed being a really GOOD
person without ever having met him.. But he's NOT very spiritual. ( meaning, understanding
God). All i mean is, most of these "labeled" churches of Christ that were started some 1500 yrs ago were devised by man to "dumb" down the bible to an experienceual level of "by being good, you are good in Gods eyes, and thus acceptable." and if ur bad,God doesn't want you. Now this all goes hand in hand of what Moses and the old testament taught. Seems to me this is a good way to teach my 7yo "righteous" living, but by the time she's 13 shes gonna come to expect something good for being good. And that's not good! It might motivate her self esteem,
But it won't get her into heaven. Theres NOTHING anyone can DO to get to heaven and everlasting life.. Except to pleed for mercy through the blood of Jesus Christ. With that said:
I do believe that everyone that calls on "God" in their life, will be answered. And upon death
They will come face to face with their creator, Jesus. And have the opportunity to repent.
But for those who believe and repent without "seeing" Him,(taking action by faith) The rewards in heaven are GLORIOUS!!! Glory To God! Amen.

Mans experience brings about his Truths.
Gods Truth was brought to us by Jesus' experience.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 29, 2013 - 07:30am PT
Mike: . . . fundamental level of reality (singular). . .

I'm not sure what you mean by this response, John. I think you either see different levels of reality, or you think I'm saying there are different levels of reality.

I doubt there are levels of any sort. I understand that's how we look at reality with disciplines (from string theory or at least quarks to galaxies and universes), but the idea of nested realities (as it were) seems difficult to resolve into One Reality.

So, there are all these things or objects in the universe, right? And the objects or things are nested and linked-up with each other, purportedly creating causes and effects which drives the whole thing from one state to another, right?

A few problems I (and others) have with this picture of reality are the following:

1. What is any object or thing other than the summation its components? There seem to be infinite levels of components (quarks to galaxies). Beyond the convenience of a label that selectively brackets part of a whole, what is any object or thing in and of itself? Is it really anything at all? Doesn't any object hence seem like complete artificiality?

2. Which level is the proper level to refer to or focus upon? The bottom (which seems unfindable), or the top (which also seem unfindable) or somewhere in-between (and how to choose which in-between level)? Which is the fundamental level? Which level provides the greatest amount of intelligence or meaning? Will everything be explained by physics, or do human behaviors best give us human significance, or do the highest summations of change put everything into perspective (at the level of galaxies)? Is the choice of levels simply fiat and unimportant? If it's unimportant, then what are we talking about with all of our talking anyway?

3. As HFCS continues to bring up, where is free will, autonomy, or independence in any of this? There's a zillion parts to the universe, they seem to fit with each other (maybe), so it looks like a great big machine (sort of). I understand that we have a part, but do we have any influence or effect on any of it? Or, how is it that we can't seem to predict everything with great certainty and explanation (the R-square statistic)? Aren't there some things that are so simple that we have them completely and unequivocally figured out for all instances under all conditions?


I can imagine that I'm a population of one here, but the more I look at what I've been told and taught, and the more I look closely at what appears directly in front of me, the less sense with less consistency I make of this "story." Perhaps I'm making too much of small details.

I think, on the other hand, that everyone else is accepting far too much without a reasonable amount of skepticism. On its surface, the typical view of the universe is comforting, and widely shared, and supported culturally, intellectually, and with so many resources. But it presents so many loose ends, conundrums, and paradoxes. Those in turn seem to generate even more projects, more education, and more resource commitments into the same veins of investigations. As a result, the world appears to become more complicated (a form of "progress?"), but we never seem to get to the bottom or to the top of anything? If I cared, I would find that disturbing. These days I find it perversely or ironically interesting.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 29, 2013 - 07:40am PT
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=financial-flimflam

2011, March, p. 77, by Michael Shermer, Scientific American Magazine

Why are experts (along with us nonexperts) so bad at making predictions? The world is a messy, complex and contingent place with countless intervening variables and confounding factors, which our brains are not equipped to evaluate. We evolved the capacity to make snap decisions based on short-term predictions, not rational analysis about long-term investments, and so we deceive ourselves into thinking that experts can foresee the future. This self-deception among professional prognosticators was investigated by University of California, Berkeley, professor Philip E. Tetlock, as reported in his 2005 book Expert Political Judgment. After testing 284 experts in political science, economics, history and journalism in a staggering 82,361 predictions about the future, Tetlock concluded that they did little better than “a dart-throwing chimpanzee.”

There was one significant factor in greater prediction success, however, and that was cognitive style: “foxes” who know a little about many things do better than “hedgehogs” who know a lot about one area of expertise. Low scorers, Tetlock wrote, were “thinkers who ‘know one big thing,’ aggressively extend the explanatory reach of that one big thing into new domains, display bristly impatience with those who ‘do not get it,’ and express considerable confidence that they are already pretty proficient forecasters.” High scorers in the study were “thinkers who know many small things (tricks of their trade), are skeptical of grand schemes, see explanation and prediction not as deductive exercises but rather as exercises in flexible ‘ad hocery’ that require stitching together diverse sources of information, and are rather diffident about their own forecasting prowess.”



Read around outside of your area, talk to folks not like you, try something new, try to piece together larger and more inclusive worldviews.
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Jun 29, 2013 - 08:02am PT
I doubt there are levels of any sort. I understand that's how we look at reality with disciplines (from string theory or at least quarks to galaxies and universes), but the idea of nested realities (as it were) seems difficult to resolve into One Reality.

Why? They're just an organizational tool, "map is not territory," as the wise like to say.

1. What is any object or thing other than the summation its components? There seem to be infinite levels of components (quarks to galaxies). Beyond the convenience of a label that selectively brackets part of a whole,

Labels, yes.

...what is any object or thing in and of itself? Is it really anything at all? Doesn't any object hence seem like complete artificiality?

Right here is where you tend to lose some of us here, I think.

Which level is the proper level to refer to or focus upon? The bottom (which seems unfindable), or the top (which also seem unfindable) or somewhere in-between (and how to choose which in-between level)? Which is the fundamental level? Which level provides the greatest amount of intelligence or meaning? Will everything be explained by physics, or do human behaviors best give us human significance, or do the highest summations of change put everything into perspective (at the level of galaxies)? Is the choice of levels simply fiat and unimportant? If it's unimportant, then what are we talking about with all of our talking anyway?

Uh... because it's the only way we can, if we're going to at all? Or we could all sit in a circle and hum. That works too, I've heard.

Aren't there some things that are so simple that we have them completely and unequivocally figured out for all instances under all conditions?

I hope so.

I can imagine that I'm a population of one here, but the more I look at what I've been told and taught, and the more I look closely at what appears directly in front of me, the less sense with less consistency I make of this "story." Perhaps I'm making too much of small details.

You are sort of a fan of Derrida, Foucault, et al., right? That would sure put this thread on a different tack, eh?

I think, on the other hand, that everyone else is accepting far too much without a reasonable amount of skepticism. On its surface, the typical view of the universe is comforting, and widely shared, and supported culturally, intellectually, and with so many resources. But it presents so many loose ends, conundrums, and paradoxes. Those in turn seem to generate even more projects, more education, and more resource commitments into the same veins of investigations. As a result, the world appears to become more complicated (a form of "progress?"), but we never seem to get to the bottom or to the top of anything? If I cared, I would find that disturbing. These days I find it perversely or ironically interesting.

It's what keeps things interesting, to the discursively blinkered of course. If we ever could know it all, we would perhaps be as Largo, and enter a whole new (smirk)level(/smirk) of things. Which wouldn't even be things at that point anymore, apparently.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Jun 29, 2013 - 09:07am PT
Levels…

Human construct with no basis in reality.

The whole idea of there being levels is fabrication plain and simple.
Though it does help get us through a viewing of Enter The Dragon


When talking about levels of human existence we may as well be talking to the Mormans and their different levels of heaven and goddom.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 29, 2013 - 09:34am PT
...what is any object or thing in and of itself? Is it really anything at all? Doesn't any object hence seem like complete artificiality?

Right here is where you tend to lose some of us here, I think.


But you don't nedd to get lost. Getting lost is a result of tryhing to wrangle this concept discursively. And we all can. We can isolate out most any "thing" and grock our discursive mind onto it and derive qualities and aspects and measurements et al. But when you open up the frame, so to speak, and these "things" are no more "figure," then the seeming, stand-alone independence of said thing vanishes. I.E., nothing has an independent existence.

But even the simpliest exercise to get at this has been ran away from like the black plague, saying in pretty clear terms that while a larger understanding of these things is available to one and all, most people's self avoidance reflex is so great they simply can't go there, or as they say, they are "constitutionally incapible" of going the next step.

That, as I have said all along, is not a knock on discursive reasoning, but a bet against yourself.

JL
go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Jun 29, 2013 - 09:43am PT
The Rifleman - "The Boarding House"...

Lucas McCain - "That man has to live with his past you don't."

Julia Massini - "No I don't, not any more."


...for real Jesus does this for us when we're boarding in Heaven!

photo not found
Missing photo ID#308877


Psalm 103:12 As far as the east is from the west,
So far has He removed our transgressions from us.

Hebrews 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

2 Peter 3:13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Jun 29, 2013 - 09:47am PT
But even the simpliest exercise to get at this....

I think you tend to exaggerate or completely fabricate this supposed mortal terror of the "unborn," as if those who offer any criticism are in some kind of gibbering Lovecraftian mind-blown state of dread and denial. T'ain't so, really. What the greater "we" would like is if you would finally get on with it and explain what the process and benefits of attaining this putative state of broadened awareness might entail. But of course you've now got the chance to say that "wanting" and "benefit" and the idea of a "broader state" all miss the point completely, thus keeping a window open to keep saying some-thing about no-thing. Do you not appreciate the Sisyphean nature of your struggle here? [So there's a question. :-)]
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 29, 2013 - 10:49am PT
I doubt there are levels of any sort. I understand that's how we look at reality with disciplines (from string theory or at least quarks to galaxies and universes), but the idea of nested realities (as it were) seems difficult to resolve into One Reality

Funny how my comment about levels took off on its own. What I meant was levels of understanding or comprehension, not some strange bifurcated universe. The subjectivists among us sometimes allude to experiencing reality at a deeper, truer level, while scientists putter away on the surface.

And yes, Mike, you are a singular presence on this thread - astute and provocative. Carry on, please.


;>)
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 29, 2013 - 11:05am PT
What the greater "we" would like is if you would finally get on with it and explain what the process and benefits of attaining this putative state of broadened awareness might entail.


Cintinue, you simply cannot be as dense as you let on to be. I can say 1,000 times that I am not talking about a "state," "putative" (assumed to exist or to have existed) or otherwise, but you keep parroting back your own understading (that it IS a state). I can tell you that discursive reasoning ("explaing the process") will not make clear to you what is being discussed, but you insist on it anyway. I can say the starting point is to look at discursive reasoning itself and get some idea about how it works, in the simpliest, most tangible terms, but you want to know the benefits before lifting a finger, so to speak. I can tell you from seeing these reactions literally 1,000s of times that al lof this spinning around you are doing is an unconscious tactic or self-avoidance tied to the discursive mind itself, which wants everything to "check out" before proceeding one inche. And you insist that this hesitancy is no fear at all but healthy skepticism and caution.

The point is you have done nothing to expand your understanding whatsoever. I haven't invited you to a dundgeon to drink blood or worship at the feet of a guru in a Nehru coat, rather to simply look at the way your awareness works in the most basic terms. If yu would take a leadership position here and sepnd ten minutes looking into your own process as described, instead of dashing off another post, THEN post your comments, then maybe we cover some ground. It's almost painful to watch you jog in place when the same enegy could be spent on the simple exercise I laid at your feet.

I suspect that scientism is once more choking off your adventurous nature and instead of tieing in and pulling down, you keep revising the topo. Why not make a move. You''ve sharpened the knife with all of your discursive training. Now cut the loaf my brother.

JL
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Jun 29, 2013 - 11:36am PT
I can tell you from seeing these reactions literally 1,000s of times that all of this spinning around you are doing is an unconscious tactic or self-avoidance tied to the discursive mind itself, which wants everything to "check out" before proceeding one inche. And you insist that this hesitancy is no fear at all but healthy skepticism and caution.

No fear, no caution. Unless it's outrageously suppressed as you suggest, I don't sense any of the classic symptoms of avoidance; no increased heart rate or excessive blinking, no uneasiness or nervous sweats. I'm curious as to what leads you to project this edgy condition onto me. I'm curious about a lot of things, but the chance of having the psychic rug pulled out from under me isn't one of them. Been there, in lots of different ways.

The point is you have done nothing to expand your understanding whatsoever. I haven't invited you to a dundgeon to drink blood or worship at the feet of a guru in a Nehru coat, rather to simply look at the way your awareness works in the most basic terms. If yu would take a leadership position here and sepnd ten minutes looking into your own process as described, instead of dashing off another post, THEN post your comments, then maybe we cover some ground. It's almost painful to watch you jog in place when the same enegy could be spent on the simple exercise I laid at your feet.

Your invitation is generous, but I'll post when I want to, thanks, and again, I've done those things. The ones you've mentioned, and the candle flame gazing, and the breath-following, and the mantra repetitions, and the yoga positions and the mudras, all over the spectrum, really. Grew up in the U.S.A. in the sixties and seventies; I really had no choice in the matter. So all well and good, I see what you are saying and in fact always have. What makes me curious and skeptical is what seems to be an adversarial position you take toward the "discursive" brand of awareness (disavowals thereof notwithstanding), when they're really only complimentary modes of apprehension. Even the imaginary hard-boiled wonky scientists you set yourself up against have had these experiences spontaneously at least once or twice, they just don't seek after them as you are advocating. And meanwhile they can be out there usefully discovering penicillin and exoplanets and inventing instant coffee and jetpacks, which doesn't require squelching the evolutionarily-dictated brand of consciousness we use day-to-day, and certainly poses no threat to anyone who wants to go the full looking-inward distance.

This might be interesting: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mind-reviews-brainwashed

It is this desire to understand the intricacies of what makes us us that keeps science endlessly exciting.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 29, 2013 - 01:28pm PT
Awwwwlright its settled, going multipitchin' on Thursday.

My partner is a Medical Doctor so I can bump my climbing up a grade or two , figuring I can get medical treatment right there on the rock. LOL
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Jun 29, 2013 - 01:33pm PT
“Watch wound and buried by the watchmaker, before he died, whose ruined works will one day speak of God, to the worms.”
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Jun 29, 2013 - 01:37pm PT
“But I pushed and pulled in vain, the wheels would not turn. It was as though the brakes were jammed, and heaven knows they were not, for my bicycle had no brakes. And suddenly overcome by a great weariness, in spite of the dying day when I always felt most alive, I threw the bicycle back in the bush and lay down on the ground, on the grass, careless of the dew, I never feared the dew.”
Messages 16081 - 16100 of total 23059 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