Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 16701 - 16720 of total 22711 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 6, 2013 - 03:58pm PT
An idea should be easy to explain. I think that this idea is capable of easy understanding if the teacher starts out with first grade and moves forward.
-


Okay. We'll start at 1st grade. I was trying to make you do the work, so you couldn't ascribe your insights to anyone but yourself, but I'll start the ball rolling and we'll see how far you take it.

First, none of this is an idea. We derive ideas and evaluations from what we experience in the 1st person world.

Think of the "discursive" mind as that part of your cognition that evaluates something, internal or external of our subjective bubble, inside of which we live. Whether we are mindlessly "thinking" about something or looking for a fosile from the pleocine, we can see that to do either task implies an idea or a fossile, and a consciousness that for a time can focus on said things at the exclusion of the "10,000" other things in the world.

No need to look at or consider either focus or things in absolute or literal terms. Just get jiggy with the general principlas, ask a few questions till you're perfectly clear on the basics, and we'll plow forward.

JL
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Aug 6, 2013 - 04:25pm PT
Think of the "discursive" mind as that part of your cognition that evaluates something,

OK. Right off the bat I see trouble with the way you phrased that.

If I think of anything, I am evaluating it. An apple is red, for example. These are qualia rather than objective, but I rarely think in objective terms. I don't understand how it is possible to stop that discursive chattering, and actually control what I am thinking about in that background chatter. By that, I mean to allow this discursive chattering but to disallow adjectives. It seems to me that you have to rid yourself of the chattering discursive mind completely in order to do away with adjectives. Qualia and Quantity are really not that different.

Here is where I stand...

The discursive mind is a description of that part of your mind that is constantly thinking. Hopefully I'm not the only one who has a constant quiet chatter going on in the background even as I sleep. I've taken to considering these things when I take a break. By that I mean I observe what my mind is up to. That isn't difficult at all. Controlling it is an entirely different matter.

If you think of any "thing," it seems to follow that it evaluates. It could be color, or an emotion, or any "thing." The only path to eliminating the evaluating mind is to convince it to stop. I assume that this is what you do in meditation. Correct?

I ask for instructions on how to think without evaluating. We constantly evaluate. Any adjective is an evaluation. How do you rid your mind of adjectives?

Also feel free to correct incorrect statements.
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Aug 6, 2013 - 04:47pm PT
According to the researchers, it took the 82,944 processors about 40 minutes to simulate one second of neuronal network activity in real, biological time. And to make it work, some 1.73 billion virtual nerve cells were connected to 10.4 trillion virtual synapses.

http://io9.com/this-computer-took-40-minutes-to-simulate-one-second-of-1043288954
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 6, 2013 - 04:58pm PT
MikeL , I assume you are referring to information based upon rational , scientific ,logical analysis when you say " cognitive".

You averred there is "...so much more" than cognitive speculations.

Actually there is "so much less". And by that ,I mean ,if the gold standard for general validity is the relative absence of "theories, speculations ,and abstractions" then the subjective experience, or what we know of it, in the objective arena, is second to none in this horse race of speculation and invalidity.

(I can't keep up and get my work done.)

Ward: Please return to my paragraph of things that can't be dealt with using logic and reason. Are those thing "less" in your eyes? Do you deal with them by making theories, abstractions, models, speculations? if so, where did Those come from? From experience?

In the non-cognitive we have ...how many paths to knowledge??

I think you're serious, aren't you? You see no other paths to knowledge.

I prefer to interact with the thinkers on this thread rather than . . . .

What reason could you give for denying that certain sight unseen data that are consensually well-respected in the community are not relevant?

Are you using another path to knowledge than a cognitive approach?
NutAgain!

Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
Aug 6, 2013 - 05:01pm PT
I ask for instructions on how to think without evaluating. We constantly evaluate. Any adjective is an evaluation. How do you rid your mind of adjectives?

Maybe this has been hashed through here, but the framework that works for me is thinking of myself in a somewhat schizophrenic manner: intellect, emotions, spirit, body. Considered in this framework, Base's question is essentially "how do I turn off the judgments of my intellect, how do I be present and receive sensory input without evaluating what I am perceiving?" In my personal experience, it is possible to learn to COMPLETELY silence the chatter and to just be, receiving input and not having any running dialog to interfere with the sensory input. The result is a much richer experience of the sensory input. The first time I learned and experienced this, when I snapped out of it enough to realize that is what was happening, I was giddy and had a prema-grin on my face. And it is possible to step out of it long enough to have that realization, and to enter back into that state at will.

If you want to get really anal about it, there must be some level of judgment or object association to realize that the raw data of light frequencies perceived by the eyes correspond to something more than just a pretty blob of colors. There is awareness of "trees" and "sky" and "leaves" though verbalizing these identities and dwelling on their properties as objects would be a distraction from the state of just being present to the experience. It seems to me there is a spectrum of judgment and analytical engagement rather than a discrete on/off switch.

But to answer the original question: for me, the most effective method has been a process of internal dialog between my intellectual and emotional parts, directly confronting and giving voice to the different impulses and reaching a state of peace where each part can work cooperatively with the other. It helps to think of it like a parent settling a squabble between two children who are fighting in the back seat instead of experiencing the beauty of a beautiful place they are driving through.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 6, 2013 - 05:41pm PT
Nice post Nutagain!
I especially like this part;

But to answer the original question: for me, the most effective method has been a process of internal dialog between my intellectual and emotional parts, directly confronting and giving voice to the different impulses and reaching a state of peace where each part can work cooperatively with the other.

This is the key for me to. It is imparitive to distinguish between the two.
You can through any'ol subject in the brain, and it will clamer to come up with the right picture.
But do you notice you can't have an emotional response until ur brain settles on that picture?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 6, 2013 - 05:57pm PT
If I think of anything, I am evaluating it. An apple is red, for example. These are qualia rather than objective, but I rarely think in objective terms. I don't understand how it is possible to stop that discursive chattering, and actually control what I am thinking about in that background chatter.
----------


First sentense. Exactly. When you are thinking of anything, anything at all, you are evaluating it. But the rest you are getting ahead of yourself.

The problem with this discussion on this thread is that you can only get so far into something and instead of asking another question, you go into expository drifts and get WAY ahead of the conversation. I've been working on this very terrain for over 40 years.

But back to BASE.

Think of qualia as ANYTHING in your field of awareness. It is all subjective in one sense because you are a subject experiencing same. However when you focus on one thing either outside or in, be it a feeling, a thought, or Lost Arrow Spire, your focus narrows on that thing, largely to the exclusion of all else.

Can you follow that so far? It is easy to verify in the first person. But go no further till you can get hold of this and how it works in your consciousness. There is no if, and, or buts about it. If you want to evaluate something, anythgn at all, your focus HAS to narrow to that thing, whatever it is. Just observe haow you do that.

Do NOT worry about quieting the discursive right now. We are not nearly there, and for now, the aim is to get a good look at the discursive, NOT quiet it.

BASE asked: "I ask for instructions on how to think without evaluating."

You can't even approach that question untill you do some prelim spade work.
Otherwise you'll never get it at any depth. One step at a time. Like anything else. And the first step is to just see and understand the perceptual mechanics of quantifying or evaluating or "paying attention" to one thing - whtever it might be - largely at the exclusion of all else.

Incidentally, Nutagain almost perfectly described a method developed by Hal and Sidra Stone in Voice Diaologue and later adopted by a Matzumi Roshi trained Sensai for a program called Big Mind. But we can't go there yet.

JL
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Aug 6, 2013 - 07:49pm PT
There appear to be just So Many things that logic and reason (and science) cannot handle very well. Here's a short list.

Values, culture, visions, art, heroes, God, human aspirations, heart, soul, mystery, great passions, doubt / skepticism, religious experiences, uniqueness, folk mind, death, great men and women, ambiguity, nobility, taste, brilliance, paradox, glory, war, chaos, awareness, primitive feelings, taboos, action, intuition, indeterminacy, truth, deeds, perfection, danger, nonconformity, contrast, humor, passions, salvation, creativity, truth, virtue, genius, extremes, demonic beings, good & evil, leadership, dignity, decisions, polarities, instinct, sleep, dreams, history, entrepreneurship, faith, unconsciousness, authenticity, commitment, poetry, charisma, ends, the sacred.

It's unfortunate that TED is so cognitively oriented. There is so much more to see and become aware of than just cognitive speculations, theories, and abstractions. Cognitive abstraction and orientations tend to dismiss subjective experiences as irrelevant and foolish.

 To answer to the list… Which of this list is important enough to make it to register on the scale.
Values = Personal, group and cultural in nature… What value would science gain from the study of values of a person, group or culture? Oh, but there are are plenty researchers doing the work… but nobody seems to care because, well… Values may not be entirely necessary for survival, however goo for bad you may find that.

Culture = not necessary for survival. Helpful, but not entirely necessary.
Visions = WTF are you even talking about? Like the kind that the coma patients communicate back to use through the FMRIs?
This last one is as far as I an go with this list. You've just stepped into the loon file, sorry MikeL. There is no getting through to someone who is so steeped in the doctrines of the church, just as you may think it may be too difficult to get through to a secure atheist.

But I try to continue this list…

Art - Not needed. Good, bad, beautiful, ugly, saddening, provocative… all those things… But on your death bed will you be asking to see more art?
Heroes - Giant fail. Read comic books much? Again, ask yourself if heroes are necessary for survival? Or just more wishful thinking?
God - More wishful thinking, really, is this necessary for you know the rest.
Human aspirations - don't get me wrong, but the same question holds..
Human - major organ - Needed for life… now you're on the right track, unless you are referring to the "she has a big heart" schizzle, as if her heart is larger than all the others… we know its not. Its just a future of speech and should only be used as such.
Soul - Are you so sure that humans are the only sourish animals on the planet? If you are willing to say that humans have a soul, then you must also apply the same standard for all other animals on the planet. Unless you're one of those "I'm a human, so I'm better than the rest" type people… How do you think that looks?
Mystery - Tricks humans play on themselves to invoke wonder and awe…. necessary for life?
Great Passions - looks good to watch on you tube. Some people have really great passions… even when some are ridiculous as all get out. But I can't knock even them… ten the most pathetic of passionates have one more than I do.
doubt / skepticism - best kept secret of the church… certainly hasn't been tried yet. May be necessary for life, or at the very least the prolonging of ones life….
religious experiences - More wishful thinking, really, is this necessary for you know the rest.

Just looks at the rest of the list… Finding it tarded", "Folk Mind"? Isn't that the same as culture, or is that values, or any number of others listed above.

Poetry is still art, right?


I agree, according to you I would be foolish. And according to the list, I would due just as necessary as you (as I have a different point of view than you, completely different non-religious experience than you and the rest….

Try again. You started with a point, then got caught up in your own whimsical droll.
Don't get me wrong, you may found a church in a few years, and catch a few wealthy backers… just need to shore up those latter points.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 6, 2013 - 08:01pm PT

First sentense. Exactly. When you are thinking of anything, anything at all, you are evaluating it. But the rest you are getting ahead of yourself.

Evaluating x 2 ? Don't we evaluate it first as; round, red, stem, etc. And determine, Yes Apple! Then we search our emotions to evaluate where we stand on that particular "subject"?

We B Jamm'in!
Tanks Mon! Tis is get'tin guud now, Mon! May-B yu start a bizznuss from tis, Mon!
May-B yu write a buuk, A Mon?
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 6, 2013 - 09:24pm PT
Thanks Jingy for the response. I didn't think anyone would have the guts to respond as you did.

There is no point. A person either identified those topics or issues as meaningful, or they didn't.

There is no argument here. There can be no argument about any of those topics. They are all beholden to value judgments. Logic and reason cannot be applied to them properly.

A minor clarification: "vIsion" referred to the kind of thing that Steve Jobs or President Obama were / are known for. (Not necessarily important, though.)

Be well.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 6, 2013 - 09:26pm PT
Anytime you say that anything is anything, you're in delusion.

P.S. Welcome, Nutjob. I like your post, and certainly your writing skills.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 6, 2013 - 09:32pm PT

There is no argument here. There can be no argument about any of those topics. They are all beholden to value judgments. Logic and reason cannot be applied to them properly.

Isn't this what the original point was anyway?
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 6, 2013 - 09:33pm PT
^^^^^

Well, I thought so, but you can never be sure about communication. Very iffy stuff--communication.

And, I liked your post 'bout Nutjob's, BB.
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Aug 7, 2013 - 03:25am PT
Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong. - Richard Feynman
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Aug 7, 2013 - 06:27am PT


Steven Pinker, spot on again...
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Aug 7, 2013 - 07:06am PT
There is no comfort in infinity. There is no solace in outer space. There is no majesty in being an infinitesimal bit of a giant spinning machine we call the universe. There is nothing personal in random death.

So if religion is bunk and these mental play games discussed here are simple delusions of emotion and recursive thinking, to where do we turn for comfort, solace, majesty and personal connection? What if we can't summon those things from internal resources?

Answer me that....

I've long held the belief (lol) that the magic of religion is not held within the tapestry of the creation stories. I don't think the 'sticky' part of religion is the mores and parables. No.

I think the sticky part of religion is also the strongest - the personal-emotional connection each person builds to the 'congregation' and a church. How do you dislodge loyalty earned in dark times? WHY would you seek to denigrate it or destroy that bond? Why?

At the most fundamental level of personal freedom, why is it any of your businesses? Keep in mind please I am talking about individual choice to hold and keep a religious belief, in a manner consistent with the laws of the land.

DMT
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Aug 7, 2013 - 07:23am PT
Nutjob,

dmt poses some challenging, thought-provoking questions for this brave new world beyond "traditional forms" - care to take a stab at it?
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Aug 7, 2013 - 07:27am PT
In the meantime, I'll post this "super-normal stimulus" -
photo not found
Missing photo ID#314861

It's ripped from a TED Dennett lecture. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzN-uIVkfjg
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 7, 2013 - 09:28am PT
Jingy,

What you jotted out there is sound advice for the cave man, who's first task was to stay alive. But even he had moments on the sea shore when he looked out at the horizon, beyond his last thought, and sensed something MORE.

Put differently, once you secure your cave, you start looking for things to put in it, to make it more comfortable, more homey, more artistic, more better. It's called quality of life.

The way you have it, grade school should be a series of classes on hand to hand, farming, and other practical concerns. Where you might have it slightly wrong is in believing practical concerns are the sole valid provence of man, and that anything not hooked directly to survival is impractical and needless.

JL
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 7, 2013 - 09:34am PT
Community seems to be what DMT is honoring, HFCS, however one comes to it--be it religion or otherwise. I see no "brave new world beyond traditional forms."

You're trolling and setting up an ambush.

Pinker's essay is the same as it ever is (SOS).

As for your cartoon, clever, but it doesn't make sense. You need to read a bit more closely, my friend. "Mystery" cannot, by its very nature, be explained. Get it? If you take that panel out of the cartoon, it loses its meaning and its comedic content. Rhetorically, it's an example of a sleight-of-hand. Mystery means, can't explain it.

What is it that you think you can explain once and for all? What can you get to the bottom of without equivocation, without uncertainty, without ambiguity, incontrovertibly, incorrigibly?
Messages 16701 - 16720 of total 22711 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