Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 16281 - 16300 of total 22374 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Sep 25, 2013 - 02:52pm PT


http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-experiencing-peace-resuscitated,33998/
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 25, 2013 - 04:36pm PT
To be sung to the melody of the Beatles " Nowhere Man"

He's a real Nehru Man,
Sitting in his Nehru Land,
Making all his Nehru plans
For nobody.
Doesn't kave a point of view,
Knows not where he's going to,
Isn't he a bit like you and me?
Nehru Man, please listen,
You don't know what you're missing,
Nehru Man, the world is at your command.
He's as blind as he can be,
Just sees what he wants to see,
Nehru Man can you see me at all?
Doesn't kave a point of view,
Knows not where he's going to,
Isn't he a bit like you and me?
Nehru Man, don't worry,
Take your time, don't hurry,
Leave it all 'till somebody else
Lends you a hand.
He's a real Nehru Man,
Sitting in his Nehru Land,
Making all his Nehru plans
For nobody.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Sep 25, 2013 - 04:57pm PT
MH2:

You and Mr. Llinas have a theory on your hands.

Now I believe the next step is prove it. (I wonder what it would take to do so?)



Fun quote by Overbye, Cintune.



Clever mimic, Ward. It hence seems ironic that Lennon and most of his brothers made shifts in their views philosophically after that song, especially after they got into drugs, met Ravi Shankar, and visited India. (But, it's the "spirituality thing" that you were going for.) I thought Rubber Soul was perhaps their best work. Cheers.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 25, 2013 - 05:34pm PT
It hence seems ironic that Lennon and most of his brothers made shifts in their views philosophically after that song,

I was never able to confirm the provenance of " Nowhere Man" even after reading Spitz's 860 page biography of the Beatles ( excellent book BTW) .
At first it was rumored and thought to be about Lennon's wayward father, Freddie.
Apparently Lennon wrote the song about himself:

Lennon claimed that he wrote the song about himself. He wrote it after racking his brain in desperation for five hours, trying to come up with another song for Rubber Soul. Lennon told Playboy magazine:
"I'd spent five hours that morning trying to write a song that was meaningful and good, and I finally gave up and lay down. Then 'Nowhere Man' came, words and music, the whole damn thing as I lay down".[6]

My spoof of same is all in good fun.





What's not fully appreciated in this recording is the excellent footwork of Ringo on his Ludwig bass drum. Some of his chorus-entry flam rolls on the snare are just the right combination of nuance , restraint, and accentuation.
Genius all the way around lads!!

It was recorded on 21 and 22 October 1965. "Nowhere Man" is among the very first Beatles' songs to be entirely unrelated to romance or love, and marks a notable instance of Lennon's philosophically-oriented songwriting.[4
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 25, 2013 - 06:15pm PT
These dissipative electrical events of the brain, rich enough to represent all that we can observe or imagine, constitute the mind. These electrical events in our networks constitute "us."


What this says is what most everyone thinks who launches into subjective adventures. Once you separate from content and experience the fact that qualia - or "dissipative electrical storms" - are not "you," then the heavy lifting begins. Seen from an external, sterictly mechanistic POV, you can conclude nothing much more than what Lineas observes. But also, externally, there is no evidence of "us" whatsoever in said "storm."

So how is it that we "know" any of this? If you say, "Because of neural activity," you've yet to understand the question.

JL
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Sep 25, 2013 - 07:19pm PT
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-24-2013/richard-dawkins

"It worked!"

.....

Here's Dawkins and Stewart having trouble over the word "faith" - learning to distinguish between its different forms helps.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-24-2013/exclusive---richard-dawkins-extended-interview-pt--2

There's more to the word "faith" than the Abrahamic religious variety.
go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Sep 25, 2013 - 07:46pm PT
Jesus is the lock and key to heaven, but will you use it?

photo not found
Missing photo ID#322909

Jesus paid a debt He did not owe, for one I could not pay!
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Sep 25, 2013 - 07:52pm PT
So, Gob, just what exactly did you do that was so awful?
go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Sep 25, 2013 - 08:01pm PT
Romans 3:21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Sep 25, 2013 - 08:42pm PT
Okay then, never mind. Whatever works for you, dude.
WBraun

climber
Sep 25, 2013 - 08:52pm PT
The spiritually lacking living entity is a dying fish out of the water .......
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Sep 25, 2013 - 09:00pm PT
Basically, as terrestrial vertebrates, we are a kind of very specialized, very bizarre fish that about 370 million years ago went on land and lost its fins.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130925-fish-fossil-paleontology-science-evolution-face/
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Sep 25, 2013 - 09:27pm PT
"The spiritually lacking living entity is a dying fish out of the water ......."

Really depends on the definition of "spiritually." I would say anyone that looks at the starry sky with wonder exhibits a kind of spirituality. One doesn't have to believe in untenable Gods to feel the awe and wonder of being, to feel a part of the awe and wonder of being. In fact, the rigidity of some religious dogma can corrupt that very experience.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Sep 25, 2013 - 11:04pm PT
"dissipative electrical storms"

From what I gather these electrical storms, are pulses of energy jumping from one Neuron
to another. I say jumping, because there are gaps inbetween them. Sorta in the manner that electricity runs through a copper wire. Always moving and jumping from the orbit of an atom to the next. The meat copper has nothing to do with the production of the energy. It's just a conduit. And we don't really know if this energy storm resides in the meat of the neuron or if its jus hanging out inbetween (floating in water?) waiting to jump aboard the neuron which leads to the desired route to express materially what said energy means to communicate.

To presume that the meat brain's workings creates this energy storm is a leap of faith. The brain does work Exquisitely precise when working with the body's function. But why doesn't it remember exactly everything we ever learned or read? And if the meat brain were in charge why couldn't it produce emotions without some sensory input? Seems a logical brain would have us joyous all the time.

If we look in Genesis. We read how God created the universe. He spoke it into form. What does it take to speak? Don't we first need "will". Then thought to speak? I think this is a fine example of how we are creators each and everyday. I'll bet a burger if when we figure out how the mind works, we'll understand how the universe was created.
MH2

climber
Sep 26, 2013 - 01:22am PT
You and Mr. Llinas have a theory on your hands.

Now I believe the next step is prove it. (I wonder what it would take to do so?)


Not me. I wouldn't touch consciousness with a 10-foot unreal thing. I was only giving an example of a neuroscientist who after many years of work on the physiology of neurons and their connections believes that consciousness could be accounted for by them.

Llinás suspects that synchrony of oscillations in membrane voltage across widely separated parts of the brain may play a role in consciousness. The next step is to come up with hypotheses in the form of, "If my idea is right, then we should find such-and-such when we do this or look there." Llinás is almost 80 years old. He may have kicked back a bit. If you are interested you can read an interview with him:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/electric-brain.html




Myself, I prefer this:

In actuality, however, the above philosophical discussions concerning the extent to which our perception of reality and "actual" reality overlap or match are truly of little importance. All that is required is that the predictive properties of the computational states generated by the brain meet the requirements for successful interactions with the external world.

I of the Vortex, R. Llinás
chapter 6, p. 129



You don't need to know that water is molecules to surf a wave. You don't need to know how an engine works to drive a car. You don't need to know how your neurons function to lead a good life.



MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Sep 26, 2013 - 11:15am PT
You don't need to know that water is molecules to surf a wave. You don't need to know how an engine works to drive a car. You don't need to know how your neurons function to lead a good life.

This appears to be an orientation to doing or getting things done, rather than to being. Folks like me aren't so very interested in doing and "achieving," because we see that doing doesn't really do any thing. It just looks like it.

It seems to me that there is a very different orientation between almost anyone who is a spiritualist as opposed to someone who is more of a physicalist. A fellow by the name of Stephen Levine, in a book entitled, "Who Dies?", suggests that we are spiritual beings with physical experiences, not physical beings with spiritual experiences.

What most strikes me about the differences between the two groups, especially as I've seen it in our most recent conversations here, is the difference in perception of what is special / awesome / remarkable.

It seems to me that you (or someone who shares the same views) think that objects and all the things that you are aware of are special: DNA, neurons, nebula, cellular structures, chemical reactions, igneous deposits in the ground, the big bang, membrane voltage, and so forth. You think objects are the most interesting and puzzling things, so when it comes to talking about mind, consciousness, being, you most naturally look to other objects and processes to explain them. You appear to think objects are marvelous, amazing, and maybe even mysterious.

I, and other spiritualists (perhaps of a certain ilk), see mind, consciousness, or being as most interesting and mysterious. Moreover, we personally experience mind, consciousness, and being as astounding, as if touched by the hand of God. It is that very experience that may lead to some folks to claim or call out God--because the very experience of existence (perceived pristinely) is so utterly remarkable (undefinable, ungraspable, yada yada). To me, when I'm paying attention to it, experience of any sort (pain, joy, eating, looking out my back window, tasting coffee, having an argument, etc.) is beyond words and thought. Experience is so palpable and rich that I could cut it with a knife. It's multi-dimensional and uses every sense (and many that I don't have names for).

I think climbers can use metaphorical ways to illustrate or highlight these differences. Some love the very experience of climbing, of motion, of being one with the rock, in synchronous symbiosis with the 3 feet of terrain right in front of their face, of feeling the grandeur of making moves high above the ground; such climbers seem to be explorers of experience, of being, where the discursive mind is put to minimal use (maybe even or turned off).

People who solo may especially agree with these descriptions.

There may be other climbers who seem especially enamored with the more technical issues of climbing: being able to circumvent or solve certain climbing problems, rope work, gear placements, setting-up complicated stations, using aid, having new or lots of gear, etc. Perhaps there is also an orientation toward achievement (grades, ratings, summits) in this group. Here, climbing might be viewed more as the planning and execution of expedition rather than the free-flowing experience and the feeling of movement up high and away.

Perhaps my descriptions (or my choices) aren't keenly drawn. But I'm trying to show some difference between the perceived awesomeness and intricacies of objects and the almost raw perceived awesomeness of experience. They present very different views, which I think can be distinguished by juxtaposing doing / achieving and being.

Today I don't teach, so I can bake bread here at home. We love eating this bread, but for me, the very experience of baking provides its own reward. It feels like a virtue.
Credit: MikeL
MH2

climber
Sep 26, 2013 - 11:19am PT
You need to know very little to be. That is my favorite orientation. But your cells go on "achieving" even without "you."
WBraun

climber
Sep 26, 2013 - 11:46am PT
But your cells go on "achieving" even without "you."

Without "YOU" they will be dead .....
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 26, 2013 - 11:57am PT
You need to know very little to be. That is my favorite orientation. But your cells go on "achieving" even without "you."
-

It appears that way, that consciousness is "soluble" to the the material which "keeps on going" even when we are knocked out sleeping or during surgery. But there's no instance of anything every happening or being separate from consciousness, which many claim "produces" the later by way of chemical processes. When someone is sleeping, we "know" as much only by virtue of some other consciousness, which goes against the common sense notion that he still sleeps even we're not there to see him do so.

And the reason he L. got rid of the notion that matter somehow "crosses over" and becomes mind is that he knew he could never prove it. Ergo the default = matter IS mind. His Uncle IS his Aunt. Heads ARE tales.

Of course such a fanstastic simplification this would never stand in other areas of science - saying A IS B. And not in terms of qualities (the tree IS green), but of basic natures.

Very tricky stuff and very counterintuitive once you start wrangling with it at depth.

JL
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Sep 26, 2013 - 12:08pm PT


"The spiritually lacking living entity is a dying fish out of the water ..."...

Old news!!!...

Stupid people need to move on!!!...

photo not found
Missing photo ID#322729
...

Messages 16281 - 16300 of total 22374 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