Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 16881 - 16900 of total 23476 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 26, 2013 - 01:48pm PT
You are completely incorrect. Humans use technology to create new culture all the time. Its happening all around you. There is virtually no aspect of our American culture that is not touched or shaped entirely, by technology


You forget: You need a conscious being to operate the technology. The operator is the creator, not "Hal."

So often we try and take consciousness out of the equation, leaving us believing in gearheads.

There is no part of a lawn that is not touched by the mower. But take the gardner out of the equation and the grass never gets cut.

It's just that simple, which is why so many of us miss it.

JL
FörtMental

Social climber
Albuquerque
Aug 26, 2013 - 02:24pm PT
I never confuse 'things' for science.

For what it's worth, your culture, as it were, has kept women out of science for far too long. Thankfully, that is changing, as is evidenced by awkward glances at ones own shoes in labs the world over .

In addition, entire cultures, in the distant past, from the middle-east to Asia have disappeared under the weight of commerce, because with it comes ideas, communication, and insights. Even you, of all people, should be aware of indigenous peoples whose ways of life have been irrevocably changed by even the simplest technology brought by trade, either directly or indirectly.

Don't you know this?
FörtMental

Social climber
Albuquerque
Aug 26, 2013 - 02:30pm PT
ut we can all imagine a resident geek believing with all his heart and soul that the gadget, the reostat, the yardstick is the very totem of God, much as a person clings to the bible as the end-all source of truth. Both are driven by the same psychological drive to be "right," to know really and truly, and both "can prove it." Both are, at the psychological level, the selfsame folk.

What nonsense....

Every answer yields eight more questions. You clearly understand nothing of the (human) mind.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Aug 26, 2013 - 02:32pm PT
You forget: You need a conscious being to operate the technology. The operator is the creator, not "Hal."

I forgot nothing. You're not speaking to some illiterate here, I can process your words.

Two points:

1. A solo human has no culture, at all.
2. The social animals homo sapiens, have created tools. Whether by divine intervention, multi-'lives' memory or simple brain-power-creativity, its not really relevant. Culture, like morals, is built for humans, by humans, using the tools at our disposal.

Tools like Facebook and Supertopo, where in the case of ST a culture certainly extsts BECAUSE of the underlying technology.

Sliderule it all you want, shake a kumbayah stick over it, it changes nothing - humans build culture. And if humans use technology to build that culture, then technology does in fact create culture, much like trees create a house.

DMT
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Aug 26, 2013 - 02:38pm PT
Fort Mental-

I assume you are addressing me?

Remember that what is new technology to one group was still originated in the culture of another.History is full of indigenous people who could not adapt to new technology and culture and those that could, though often in ways that are mysterious to us. I think the Cargo Cults of the South Pacific are some of the most interesting and creative such adaptations myself.

As to who will survive in the long run, I will always bet on the less technological - those who can provide for themselves when the electricity goes out.
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Aug 26, 2013 - 02:43pm PT
Dingus-

I'm not sure what you mean by a solo human has no culture at all? We now know that fetuses can recognize certain tunes in the womb and respond to them more positively after birth than to others they have not heard before.

The only humans who come close to not having a culture are ferrel children who were abandoned at birth and raised by animals of which there are very few. Even then you can argue that they have the culture of the monkeys or dogs among whom they were raised as it is not genetically programmed that kids walk on all fours and howl at the moon for example.

Generally though, we have already established on this thread that homo sapiens culture is established by language which has been around for 50,000-100,000 years.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Aug 26, 2013 - 02:57pm PT
I mean exactly what I said - a solitary human has no culture. I didn't qualify the statement. Culture is an invention of society. No society, no culture, full stop.

If that society uses technology then that technology will be used to construct culture. Fire-containment would be a perfect example of a culture-shaping technology.

DMT
WBraun

climber
Aug 26, 2013 - 03:03pm PT
HFCS -- "United States now ranks 25th in math, 17th in science."

And last place in intelligence.

Stooopid idiots waring and killing all over the world ......
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Aug 26, 2013 - 03:24pm PT
So I happen to be reading this book in evolutionary psych right now on differences, e.g., between gender, and how these differences are rooted mainly in tradeoffs. Primed by this, it's made me wonder recently how much jlo's ability with rhetoric, words, some ideas too, but mostly rhetoric and words - fascinating to all for sure for their color, uniqueness, angle (in some ways, not unlike Weeg, btw) - brings with it tradeoffs.

Interestingly, this same source says...
"One of the most important traits that make us human is our ability to create and sustain giant social systems that can evolve and adapt and compete against each other. These systems are called culture."

Finally,
"cultures find men more useful than women for certain tasks."

And not just for opening jars or killing bugs, either.

.....

we have already established on this thread

There's that funny queer phrasing again, if we've "already established" anything on this thread it's a dozen things apart from the items you've mentioned.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 26, 2013 - 03:41pm PT
You might get you head around it this way: People on this list love to play reductionists. That means if we had all the data, including random and chaotic elements that make it impossible for us to predict the future, we could nevertheless reverse engineer any person, place or thing to antecedent "causes." Any piece of technology we can reverse engineer back to a dude. Technology did not arise from Nature, but from us, and we are in charge of it's use, ergo we create what technology does and does not do. We pull the trigger. Not till AI comes along that can pull it's own trigger, sans previous programming from us, in any shape or form, then we can never say technology creates anything.

We can blame technology for polluting ancient culture, but if you remove man's part, in making and deciminating the sh#t in the first place, no harm, no foul. We have nobody but ourselves to blame for this, and trying to shut it off on machines with no minds is akin so saying global warming is a scientific creation.

These are old arguments, really, that have been decided long ago.

JL
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Aug 26, 2013 - 03:43pm PT
And you complain about others' brick walls....

DMT

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Aug 26, 2013 - 03:44pm PT
People on this list love to play reductionists.

People on this list ARE reductionists. (There, that's better.)

Your rookie mistake - glaring to any hardcore science junkie - is that you're mixing (mechanistic) reduction with data (info) and prediction, which only makes a mess of it. Back to the studies, you ol' duffer.

A basic grasp of the fundamentals makes it clear.

.....

You might get you head around it this way...

If you arranged your atoms point for point with those of Miley Cyrus (presumably with some to spare) at time t=0, then you would be Miley Cyrus at time t=0.

That is reduction. Those who accept reduction are reductionists. Acceptance of, or belief in, reduction is reductionism.

I am a reduction-ist. I am an evolution-ist. I am a natural-ist. I am a mechan-ist. All in the context of The Scientific Story (say, for clarity sake, as presented by Carl Sagan). All acquired through a hard-won science education. Proud!
WBraun

climber
Aug 26, 2013 - 04:17pm PT
reductionist means cessation of material activities, almost nil.

HFCS = hypocrite

HfCS = more and more material, increasing.

No wonder you are stooopid .....

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Aug 26, 2013 - 04:26pm PT
Any piece of technology we can reverse engineer back to a dude.

The "dude" being a chimp or human or even a bird. Maybe even a romulan or vulcan or their equivalent somewhere else.

.....

Btw, nothing scares me more nowadays than middle-aged white Christian Republican politians in leadership roles. Already saw three in a row on cable news today criticizing Obama either for dithering or for "leading from behind" in the Syrian civil war.

I'm a middle-aged white guy, they sure give my demographic a bad reputation. :(
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Aug 26, 2013 - 04:41pm PT


When I was nine years old
Way back in Ohio
The hired man was digging up a well
On my father's land
He found a fossil there
It was a massive bone
And since then I’ve known
That a race of giants lived in the northern hemisphere
Ten thousand years ago they lived right here
It seems incredible
But yet it's the truth
That a fossilized and petrified
Calcified primeval brute
Was turned to stone
But he was not alone
There were hundreds of them walking on the sands of the river
Even giants think they'll always live forever....
The bible speaks of this
There were giants in our midst
But they slaughtered one another in a meaningless war
Thank your lucky stars that we don't do that anymore
That gravel-encrusted skull
That was found on the river shore
Double rows of very sharp teeth
The massive jaw measured twenty-five feet
Well it's turned to stone
There were hundreds of them walking on the sands of the river
Even giants think they'll always live forever
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 26, 2013 - 06:06pm PT
Actually, Fruity, reductionism is intimately connected to causation. The assumption is that the present can be "reduced" to prior or antecedent "causes" or factors that "created" the present. Owing to random and chaotic factors in the mix, we cannot PREDICT the outcome of things all the way down the line, but we could "reduce" the present to the past if we knew what factors were involved after the fact.

If you don't accept the causal connection of reductionism, then you have things arising from nothing, from no previous factor, and that can never jibe with as mechanical view of reality.

So no matter how you fumble your explanation of reductionism, you cannot escape the two centrqal benchmarks of the term, as it is commonly used in both science and the philosophy of science:

A: That "a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be REDUCED to accounts of individual constituents." And:

B: "Reductionism strongly reflects a certain perspective on causality. In a reductionist framework, phenomena that can be explained completely in terms of relations (i.e. "causes, factors and influences") between other more fundamental phenomena, called epiphenomena."

Often there is an implication that the epiphenomenon exerts no causal agency on the fundamental phenomena said to explain it. This is clearly not so in human beings, because we can think about a climb and get sweaty pamls, even if said palms are hairy as Fruitcake's.

Also: Reductionism does not rule out emergent phenomena (such as "mind" leaping off the meant brain like a Hawaiian hula dancer), but it holds to the belief that the ability to understand emergent phenomena rests completely in terms of the processes from which they are composed. Hence the inconrovertible causal connectdness between emergent qualities and the so-called "fundamental phenomea," which is always matter.

A more enlightened view to 'emergence' is that what emerges is more than the sum of the processes from which it emerges, is more than it's parts. And then further on down the line, coming to understand there are fundamental aspects of reality like consciousness and possibly gravity that are not "created or influenced" by matter but are part of the fabric of things. Of course none of this can find play with a physicalist, who seeks to REDUCE and dumb down all things material and otherwise to to "fundamantal phenomenon," thereby tying itself to a rigid causal chain of events, from the fundamental on up. There is no escaping this.

So while you might do-se-do on and on about reductionism, Fruity, if you would have taken some courses on the material instead of just reading pop neuroscience books and Zap comics, you would know the simple facts of the very material you continually and handsomely butcher.

JL
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Aug 26, 2013 - 06:13pm PT
So no matter how you fumble your explanation of reductionism, you cannot escape the two centrqal benchmarks of the term, as it is commonly used in both science and the philosophy of science

wtf are you talking about? Do you read others' posts for comprehension, meaning, or just hopscotch the words.

Remember which of us has an engineering degree, eh? Regarding your first two paragraphs, you're preaching to the choir.

Remember it was my love affair, yeah you could call it that, with how things work, with reduction and construction, with causality (aka causation) that inspired me to take an engineering path for 8 years, it wasn't just dreams of a career, doofus.

This time I won't even read your remaining paragraphs, it's a waste of time.

P.S.

It's truly a wonder how, once upon a time, you could've written How To Rock Climb with such organization and clarity given your presence on these threads going back three or more years now.

You're truly out of your league. What's more, at this choss pile, YOU are the poster child for arrogance, narcissism (to which you refer so often), egomania who seemingly, strangely, doesn't know he's run out, overexposed, falling...

Disappointed. :(
WBraun

climber
Aug 26, 2013 - 06:45pm PT
HFCS admits he's out of his league here.

HFCS also admits he's a poster child for arrogance, narcissism and egomania.

Time to take your vacation, fruitcake .......

BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 26, 2013 - 07:27pm PT

Remember it was my love affair, yeah you could call it that, with how things work, with reduction and construction,

. All acquired through a hard-won science education. Proud!

Obliviously when you love Things, and all puffed up and proud of yourself. It's hard to tell when someone is actually trying to help you.

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world-the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life-is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away and the lust of; but he who does the will of God abides forever.
1 John 2:15
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Aug 26, 2013 - 07:31pm PT
This thread is truly a wonder to behold. Sophomoric psychological babble punctuated by weird comments. It emerges as less than the sum of its parts.


But it does entertain.
Messages 16881 - 16900 of total 23476 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