Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 18001 - 18020 of total 23171 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 15, 2013 - 09:44pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
Everyday, there is something flowering
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Dec 15, 2013 - 09:59pm PT
Moosedrool:

Thanks. I found 64,000 hits on Google Scholar, also. (Sorry I'm so slow--grading.)

I'm just not sure that researchers can yet produce "pretty much any feeling," unless we agree that there are not all that many feelings to feel.

I don't know of any experiments that have shown that a feeling or emotion could arise before the neurons had fired.

I think we're agreeing.

I question what a feeling is, or is not, . . . irrespective if it is "real" or induced. (What's the difference?) I should think you're going to say any feeling IS simply an electrical or chemical event . Would you then say that subjective feelings are illusions, or would you say that subjective feelings are real (stimulation or non-stimulation)? Or would you say that subjectivity doesn't exist (an illusion, itself)?

I think that's the question when dealing with subjectivity versus objectivity.

People here are pretty sure there are objects (like electrodes, electricity, brains, etc.) because folks consensually posit those objects analytically into existence (per se). On the other hand, subjectivities don't look to be there analytically, consensually, or formally because subjects' subjectivities are inaccessible to observers (even though behaviors are the same). Second, subjectivities cannot be directly found empirically; they are ungraspable, but we know them. Indeed, the very existence of subjectivities (experience) seems to be completely and totally undeniable to every being. Concept, and objects, on the other hand, are questionable. That's why there are not simply 101 journal articles that would posit all truth.

Direct experience versus conceptualization; personal undeniability versus widely-shared, (consensual), empirical, analytical formalism.

Do feelings exist or don't they? If they do, empiricists want proof of existence (not just purported explanations of causality). Do mental images really exist? Do concepts really exist? Does consciousness really exist? Does awareness really exist?


No subject or object, but a verb: no perceiver, nothing perceived--yet perception?

I think it happens all the time in various ways. Selective perception means that there are always some sensations that the mind is not paying attention to, yet it's aware of them. That implies no perceiver and no object of perception. But the perception is on-going. Look to your own experience.

Look, if you stare at something long enough, it will begin to disappear to turn into something else as an image; you'll lose the object, possibly not even replace it with another object--and viola, perceiving without a perceiver. (You can make physiological arguments about ocular rods and cons about it if you want.) The thing is that we are perceiving many different things all the time but we're not paying attention; and those things are in our awareness but not in our consciousness.

Of course there is a huge issue with what constitutes a perceiver. If the perceiver does not identify with his body and his mind--but instead with everything within perception, then the whole idea of a perceiver becomes a . . . er, identification issue. What is a perceiver? A physical body?

Awareness is always going on in the background of consciousness. It never seems to turn off, while consciousness seems to (when we go to sleep, etc.). I don't believe that awareness is an experience as it is typically thought of. Experience relies, I believe, on a body as a vehicle or instrument for sensing. Isn't that what a body is? A sensing instrument?


Whether religious or non-religious people should portray different experiences should be no surprise. People will attest to whatever their experiences, because they have them. What more can you say? Why must you beat this horse? Why does it matter so much to you?

DMT says that since no two reported experiences are the same, it makes him suspicious.

DMT should be suspicious of everything--especially consensus reality. Looked at closely, it seems that we don't agree about almost anything. And when we do agree, we only agree about the big, general things. Looked at closely, the big general things / statements / facts are as fuzzy as anything else looked at closely. Nothing is resolvable.

If reality were so clear and incontrovertible, then what would account for all of the disagreements around the world at any one time (politically, technologically, scientifically, artistically, etc.) on just about any topic? How are disagreements even possible in a universe that is clear, unambiguous, and singular?

Suspicion should be applied equally to everything. (If you follow down that road far enough, you can look me up.)

You express a modern bias when you apply an analytical tactic or tool to a particular issue but ignore a similar issue that's been brought to your attention. You show yourself to be more open-minded when you see that what's good for the goose is good for the gander: apply the tactic or tool to all appropriate situations. You show yourself to be postmodern when you use the tool on yourself and itself and question the very question you bring forward.

What is it about manufacturing thoughts and feelings that gets you so riled up? If what's real is so important, then start from the beginning: what do you know without a scintilla of doubt? On the other hand, I might venture that certainty, ground, and predictability are very important to you.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Dec 15, 2013 - 10:00pm PT

Next, go to a revival church meeting with some kook holding a gunny sack full of rattlers and speaking gibberish and explain to any sensible person how the strict discipline and mind training of the first person can possibly result in same thing as the dood with the snakes talking in tongues. WTF!

These two guys are certainly not dipping from the same well.

One is digging for oil, and one is digging for water..

I don't sense Largos conversions as a change in mind, but a change of mind.

Thus having nothing to do with heart.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Dec 15, 2013 - 10:06pm PT
ad I spent all those years degrading it I shudder to think of the possibilities!


I have no idea why you are hearing it that way becasue I have said 1,000 times that seeking what lays outside the discursive is not a knock against logic. To my way of thinking, that's like saying that whenever I throw a dynamic move I am denigrating static climbing.

But what if one invests the discursive with an end-all status, making it a kind of God, for which nothing in reality is truly beyond it's grasp. Saying this is not so is perceived as blasphemy, for you have challenged the hegemony of the almighty discursive. Fact is, you're betting against yourself by taking this stance because nobody who has ever cast off on non-discursive adventures is doing somethihg that you cannot do just as well if not better. While evolution has not provided a natural perogative to these ventures, awareness is not an exclusive to us humans and the sky is literally the limit so long as you understand that you're not chasing after a "beter" version of narrow-focused evaluating. This is "wholly other."

And DMT, I know you don't buy it. The only way you would is if you have direct experiences to that effect. That's how it works for all of us. Till then, things like Zen, which is really just learnign to control your attention, and to get out of your own way, will seem to some as the same thing as old time religion as you shovel all your conditioned beliefs onto what is in fact not there at all.

JL
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Dec 15, 2013 - 10:09pm PT
Nothing particularly bothers me about the manufacture of thoughts and feelings. I simply do not buy largo's experience as a door to some other realm or an awakening to a higher plane of existence. I think its all in his head, period. Just as you are all in your head and I am in mine. I do not accept that by thinking of nothing you're thinking of nothing. Sorry.

You said I should question the question - I will but only until you answer it first, and directly, unambiguously: are the experiences of the shakers and tongue speakers REAL? Are they the immaterial hand of god? Are they voices of angels? A simple yes or no will do...

DMT
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Dec 15, 2013 - 10:11pm PT
And DMT, I know you don't buy it. The only way you would is if you have direct experiences to that effect. That's how it works for all of us. Till then, things like Zen, which is really just learnign to control your attention, and to get out of your own way, will seem to some as the same thing as old time religion as you shovel all your conditioned beliefs onto what is in fact not there at all.

Yup!

DMT
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Dec 15, 2013 - 10:24pm PT
Expectingly another good one MikeL!

I question what a feeling is, or is not, . . . irrespective if it is "real" or induced. (What's the difference?)

Real? Aren't they both "real"? Shouldn't the question be; which came first??

Did the electrical- whatever cause the emotion, or did the emotion cause thee electrical-humscal?

Ur precepts of what's "real" from decades past eludes me. HeHe.
MH2

climber
Dec 15, 2013 - 10:27pm PT
I have said 1,000 times that seeking what lays outside the discursive is not a knock against logic.


Warning: meditative practice can turn you into a robot.
moosedrool

climber
Stair climber, lost, far away from Poland
Dec 15, 2013 - 10:30pm PT
Somehow I get this feeling that the mystics here accuse the atheists of not being able to experience higher emotions. Well, I can assure you I do feel "spiritual" from time to time. A beautiful sunset, or a melody, or a woman make me me feel all warm and fuzzy, etc. I am not less of a human because I don't believe in Higher Power. The difference between you (mystics) and I (atheist) is how I explain what happens when we experience those various feeling. Through many experiments scientists have shown that there is no need to evoke supernatural phenomena to explain feelings, emotions, out of the body experience, etc. Seriously, it doesn't take much effort to research all of this and find out which part of your brain create a specific feeling.

Is it the need for mystery that make you reject scientific knowledge?

I question scientific findings all the time. But when an experiment was repeated many times and the outcome was the same every time, I accept that it was real.

If the mind lives outside the brain, why people with brain defects have defective minds?
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Dec 15, 2013 - 10:32pm PT
They always have a slippery Pete answer for brain damage and dogs and primates and such.

DMT
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Dec 15, 2013 - 10:35pm PT
I am attempting to become more spiritual by applying the discursive mind . . . to some a contradiction in terms. Here's another image:

Another fixed-point continued fraction image.
Another fixed-point continued fraction image.
Credit: jgill

. . . that seeking what lays outside the discursive is not a knock against logic (JL)

Of course it isn't. My point was that as one ages, spending considerable time in meditative states might detract from maintaining one's intellectual abilities. In fact, it might contribute to some forms of dementia - this is pure speculation and I would be pleased if you were to refute it. Usually, advice for the aging mind centers on keeping the intellect more or less intact, but maybe that should not be the case. Throw away those puzzles and meditate, you might recommend? One cannot do both simultaneously. And what of one's physical body? Meditate your way to fitness? What proportion of one's time should be allotted to meditation vs the intellectual and/or physical?

You are still relatively young. Thinking of these things before you reach my age might be a good idea.


;>)
go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Dec 15, 2013 - 10:41pm PT
You can't change the past or know the future, but now is the time...


Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,


Mark 13:32 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is.


2 Corinthians 6:2 Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.


:)
moosedrool

climber
Stair climber, lost, far away from Poland
Dec 15, 2013 - 10:47pm PT
You can't change the past or know the future

Actually, the Wheeler's delayed choice experiment showed that we can change the past.

I thought that somebody knows the future. God?

;)
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:13pm PT
Moosedroll,
It's not for me about a feeling of higher emotion. Or maybe it is?
I go through the day feeling emotional jus like you. The difference is throughout or at the end of the day I give homage and thanks to the creator for the joy and agony gifted to me.

The Definitive root to this thread and all mankind is weather or not one can give homage to someone other than themselves for their experience. Point blank! The understanding of this is understanding 99% of life.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:29pm PT

Of course it isn't. My point was that as one ages, spending considerable time in meditative states might detract from maintaining one's intellectual abilities. In fact, it might contribute to some forms of dementia - this is pure speculation and I would be pleased if you were to refute it.

Can't refute that, I agree. The thing about becoming old and being unphysical is all the time you have meditatively contemplating experience. And the continual circling without a sum. Isn't that the definition of dementia?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:41pm PT

Warning: meditative practice can turn you into a robot.

HAHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHOHOO! The belly laughs are why I'm here.

My perception of God is He's always laughing, not pissed off.

Jus meditate on how being mad affects others, compared to being nice.

Did I jus hear Santa?
MH2

climber
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:44pm PT
Yes.

Have you also heard Ann Mayo Muir singing Sunday Morning on the Gordon Bok record Turning Toward the Morning?

The lyrics are apparently the same as a tune called The Hymn by Mary Travers of Peter, Paul, and Mary.
WBraun

climber
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:45pm PT
The gross materialists are the robots.

They're stuck in the trench.

You can hear them screaming out from down there all day long.

At night they have nightmares.

They keep wanting everything to be like them.

That's why the world is becoming all robotic.

They are programmed what to think and can't think at all anymore except what they're told.

All nonsense everyday on the stupid television into their heads to become as stupid as the television.

Just see how stupid the world has become.

The robot people think it's wonderful that everyone is like them and thus feel safe .....
moosedrool

climber
Stair climber, lost, far away from Poland
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:54pm PT
The gross materialists are the robots.

Materialist

Mystic
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:55pm PT
Another Pleasant Valley Sunday...

DMT
Messages 18001 - 18020 of total 23171 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