Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 16401 - 16420 of total 22785 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Sep 30, 2013 - 01:25am PT
What do you see? (MikeL)

Well, Mike, I see an image on my screen of what appears to be a photo of a painting of a red flower. I don't think I want to enter a meditative dimension that confuses this perception. Sometimes images are illusions, but I believe what is there is there. I'm too old to flirt with confusion!

Nice post, JL


P.S. The Law of the First Ascent thread has collapsed into that flux.

;>)

MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Sep 30, 2013 - 09:48am PT
MikeL. He has said that he cannot define consciousness. In that case it would be better to choose a different word. For example,pottlewhim, so as not to give up any syllables. He is free to choose another word. It just seems better to not give the appearance of meaning when there is none.

poeomge uke xcoj bemm eshlem asie.

(Better?)
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Sep 30, 2013 - 10:56am PT
If you develop an ear for sounds that are musical it is like developing an ego. You begin to refuse sounds that are not musical and that way cut yourself off from a good deal of experience. - John Cage
MH2

climber
Sep 30, 2013 - 10:59am PT
poeomge uke xcoj bemm eshlem asie.

(Better?)


At least as good. IMHO.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Sep 30, 2013 - 01:43pm PT
Hydrogen bonds have now been imaged:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/30/4786994/first-imagery-hydrogen-bond-atomic-force-microscopy

Credit: BASE104

Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Sep 30, 2013 - 01:44pm PT
What am I looking at, base?

DMT
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Sep 30, 2013 - 01:59pm PT
Largo has said:

"We can insist on a literal translation of material reality, can call any deviance of it an "inconsistency," but such an observation is based on the aforementioned freeze-frame modeling which itself is inconsistent with how things are constantly morphing into something else. Sure, there are laws, but are these "things" in the regular sense of the word? And if so - how?

It's not all so perfectly logical as our minds make it out to be, though there is every reason for us to want it to be."

«Everything is nothing»

Comment:

A girl wrote to me lately. She had met a dark- or greyheaded man called Largo. A big man. The man had no eyes. And upon a closer look, neither did he have ears. He didn’t have hair either, so he was called a dark- or greyheaded man arbitrarily. Our poor dark- or greyheaded man hadn’t no mouth neither, no nose, no arms, no legs, no stomach, no back, no spine, nor insides. There was nothing! So, we don’t even know who we’re talking about. We’d better not talk about him anymore.

BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Sep 30, 2013 - 02:06pm PT
Is that Papaver Somniferum in your wife's painting?

You can grow them, and they are quite beautiful, although the flowers only last 2 days. It would take thousands of them to produce any significant amount of opium.

You can get all sorts of weird plants at this website, including the ingredients for Ayahuasca:

ethnobotanicals.com

I'm reading Doug Robinson's new book, and he devotes a lot of time to DMT, the active molecule in Ayahuasca.

I am friends with a guy who studied under Schultes at Harvard, and is a full professor in the biology dept here. He is doing research on all hallucinogenic drugs in order to understand the chemical makeup of the mind. Hallucinogens shine a very bright spotlight on specific and differing receptor sites, and from that he characterizes the "meaning" of various receptor groups. His theory is that the brain has various "mental organs."

He has a book online. I would post the link, but I'm not sure if he wants it read quite yet. It is really interesting. I'll ask him if I can share the link. It is quite long, probably a couple of hundred pages.

Schultes was a very interesting character. He more or less started the study of ethnobotany. He spent years hacking through jungles to meet with various tribes who used some form of hallucinogen in rituals.

There is a great wiki page on him and his work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Evans_Schultes

I've never heard of Buddhism using any sort of hallucinogen, but among many primitive tribes, they were very important.

They now have places in S America where you can go and participate in Ayahuasca trips. I've heard that it is a very scary experience. Full blown psychosis.

edit: He has a scale describing how intense various hallucinogens are. Peyote is the mellowest. I agree, from my small sample of them.

There was a time when LSD was very popular in Camp 4, even with people who didn't smoke weed. Climbers back then seemed to be more of the "seeker" type than they are today, where it is a much more physical oriented sport.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Sep 30, 2013 - 02:25pm PT
DMT,

Those are actual pictures of hydrogen bonds in molecules. There is a link to the story at the base of the picture. I'll move the link to above the picture.

Very cool. Physicists and chemists predicted all of this by theory. There are ways to test the theory to prove its accuracy, but now we can actually image molecules. We can actually see the atoms, their structure, and the bonds between them that make up the molecule.

I think that this is pretty cool. I've seen pictures of diamond, where the molecules are extremely orderly as they build a coherent crystal.

You need to understand the definition of atom, molecule, crystal, etc. Just the basics.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Sep 30, 2013 - 02:27pm PT
Whoa...it just hit me.

DMT is about the most powerful hallucinogen by weight.

Does DMT equal Dingus Milktoast? My advice is to stay away from it. A yage trip is supposedly a really scary experience.
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Sep 30, 2013 - 02:47pm PT

I'm saying that what is real "out there" only seems that way because our brains organize the flux according to our physical bodies and sense organs (JL)

OK. It's hard to argue against your perspective, which I respect. It's a little like stating the fundamental building blocks of the universe is pure mathematics.

Mathematical Universe Hypothesis
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 30, 2013 - 03:26pm PT
" . . . it's actually quite difficult to construct a theory where everything we see is all there is."

Impossible, really, since we can never "see" subjective experience. At best we only see and can measure objective functioning.

JL
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 30, 2013 - 04:07pm PT
Consider this:

From the positivist POV it is meaningless to discuss the existence of something which cannot be measured (position and velocity, within certain limits). From this came the idea that the electron is an unreal, causeless "possibility" which only achieves actuality upon observation. Thus positivism became twisted into subjectivism (aka "solipsism") and the idea that the observer somehow creates reality by the act of observation.

Common sense, for instance, says that a physician who attempts to measure a patient's blood pressure is faced with a problem. What she measures is not simply blood pressure, but the blood pressure of a person having his blood pressure taken by a physician. A physician would be wiser to look for indirect means of determining true blood pressure than to assert that her "observer-created" reality is all the reality that exists — and that the patient has no blood pressure until she tries to measure it.

This seems preposterous. But it underscores two big challenges. First, the belief that one ting "causes" another as advertised, whether by observation or other means. And second, the idea that unless we can measure something, it is unreal (non-physical). This had led people to say that experience IS brain function, and that by measuring brain function, we are measuring experience.

But this is not so,and there lies the rub. Or one of them.

JL
WBraun

climber
Sep 30, 2013 - 04:10pm PT
After God created the entire cosmic manifestation and exhaled, ...... one molecule of that exhalation was photographed .....

and then the lab coat monkeys jumped ........
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Sep 30, 2013 - 04:15pm PT
and then the lab coat monkeys jumped

But none of the science-illiterati would've even seen it otherwise.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 30, 2013 - 06:14pm PT
I'm saying that what is real "out there" only seems that way because our brains organize the flux according to our physical bodies and sense organs.

"Seems" hmmm.

No the brain only determines what it is presented.
Implicit in the above quote is just a bare hint of the sensory-apparatus-and-integrating -brain-as-creator-of-the-universe thinking I have subtly debunked in divers instances up thread.

An alien with vastly different cognitive faculties doesn't "see" El Cap because his system oraganizes the flux relative to the particulars of "his" system

This is pure unadulterated guessing. My guess would be that our alien, with his 3 or 4 unaided eyes, more or less sees the same El Cap as we do, with all the same features in the exact dimensions and locations.
This would allow him to steer his flying saucer around the Nose in just the precise degree that would enable him to avoid the Roswellian fate of his unfortunate colleagues.
Just ask Werner.
rectorsquid

climber
Lake Tahoe
Sep 30, 2013 - 06:47pm PT
and then the lab coat monkeys jumped

So who is it that you won't insult? You don't even know those guys who took those pictures and you still insult them for it.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Sep 30, 2013 - 07:34pm PT
. . . . "it's actually quite difficult to construct a theory where everything we see is all there is".
(from jgills' wiki reference on Mathematical Universe Hypothesis--as stated in Chown, Markus (June 1998). "Anything goes". New Scientist 158 (2157)).

I see Largo picked out the same quote.

What is apparent to our senses and most naive interpretations (some of Ward's views--and I don't mean this in a derogatory sense) has been challenged by academics since the the earliest of recorded times (cf: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism, for example) who have said that there are invisible objects that give rise to the surface features of the universe.

How naive is it to think that objects are what they seem to be on the surface? How reasonable is it to believe that things are really made up of things that are unobservable to the senses, except by theoretical construction and sensing (such as Base showed with his article on imaging hydrogen bonds)?

The seminal article that I remember reading on the subject is: Medin & Ortony, 1989, Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Medin and Ortony said there is good reason to think that the theoretical essentialism one ostensibly senses about objects ("categories" for Medin) are good heuristics of what things really are (in a deep-structured sense).

Ward, you might like this conversation: http://twelvelinks.blogspot.com/2006/03/notes-on-psychological-essentialism.html

On the other hand, none of this is a big deal. My point here is only that there are many unresolved views of "what is really what" (e.g., atomism, psychological essentialism, etc.) that are similar to some current and old spiritual views.

Just because some so-called object or behavior been useful in an evolutionary sense does not make it necessarily true. We may have developed useful heuristics that posited particular states and objects in the universe (God, atoms, rationalism, etc.) that fostered new behaviors and ideas, but that is not a good reason to think that they are real. People forget that heuristics and maps can get one to the grocery store--but there may be no grocery store, or groceries for that matter.

That which evolution has wrought does not mean it is true. Just because something works, doesn't mean that it is true. Even cause and effect could well be simply ways of thinking and ways of talking.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 30, 2013 - 07:47pm PT
This is pure unadulterated guessing.

Actually all of this comes from direct experience from a practice. That's why both Mike and I can yank out the same quote from a long article - because it squares with a particular aspect of universal experience that's obvious if you do the practice, and which seems like we are rocking the same delusion if you don't.

Of course your brain is going to tell you that it is reporting back to you what is objectively "out there." Getting behind this illusion prompted the koan: What is the reality of the moving flag?

JL
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 30, 2013 - 08:30pm PT
Of course your brain is going to tell you that it is reporting back to you what is objectively "out there." Getting behind this illusion prompted the koan: What is the reality of the moving flag?

This is precisely my point . What is objectively "out there" is not an illusion. Just jump into the tiger enclosure at the nearest zoo and discover this for yourself.
You can hold hands with Mike and do it together.
Don't forget to sprinkle some rock salt on your neck.

Credit: Ward Trotter

This guy knows those koans by heart.
Messages 16401 - 16420 of total 22785 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