Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 18101 - 18120 of total 22989 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
FortMentäl

Social climber
Albuquerque, NM
Nov 8, 2013 - 03:22pm PT
First, you are conflating brain with mind or consciousness. I'm sure you consider them the same things

No. I don't consider them the same thing. But they are linked in a physicality that you utterly fail to appreciate. I will re-phrase the question that you are clearly afraid to answer. Hopefully, we'll get more out of you than three-card-monty:

When do humans acquire consciousness?

This is not a trick question.

Take your time.












...but hurry the fuk up.
WBraun

climber
Nov 8, 2013 - 03:42pm PT
Consciousness is eternal and has no beginning.

When the infinitesimal soul enters the womb of the female as the sperm it's consciousness is already conscious.

Modern medical science has no clue because it's centered on the gross material plane only.

By the way FortMentäl .....

You're a nutcase, and it has nothing to do with this thread or any here,

It's just plain YOU .....

MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 03:45pm PT
Yo, Ward:

I'm a little unclear what you hear me saying or claiming. (I think I'd be confused too, if it weren't me.) Without writing another tome (poor you guys), here are some bullet points in partial response.

▪ All constructs are artificial. (I think there is plenty of research that supports this claim)
▪ To the extent that a person understands micro-levelled actions, they can identify with what's going on at a higher level. (Please see "Action Identification theory" http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/actid.htm) What Vallacher and Wegner did not talk about is what I'm trying to point to: what happens at the highest of levels? What is the highest identification [sic] level? I'm contending that that's where "things" and "self" fall away. (Maybe this doesn't work for you.)
▪ You seem to be saying that categories and abstractions are necessary heuristics for evolution. I might agree, but only within a given point in the stream of evolution. I don't suppose you are implying that we are at our Omega Point (our final place in evolution).
▪ I'd have difficulty believing that reality comes pre-packaged in discrete forms since there is a fair amount of disagreement about what is what in any domain or discipline.
▪ You say the brain becomes useless when attempting to grasp raw experience. Mmm, maybe so. I am talking about the mind. I don't see them as the same.
▪ It could certainly be that the brain is fooling fully realized folk with enlightenment (a breakdown of the corpus callosum or some such event). For me, nothing is impossible. For me, impossible is impossible.

Hi, Jgill:

Hmmmm, I'll skip by the comment about my microwave. "What works" is based upon one's worldview.

I don't think I'm dissing science, least not in my mind. I'm simply recognizing its limitations. Wouldn't you say that most things have limitations?

I've had a few MRI in my tattered life, and as technological marvels go, they left much to be desired for platoons of doctors and oncologists. (You're aware of this, aren't you?) What a person experiences in a lab gets transformed into a colored image on a computer screen. To do that, the event gets transformed through a great number of steps, the meanings of which are somewhat uncertain, ambiguous, and reliant upon human judgement by a bevy of experts in various fields such as tomography, physics, display rendering, oncology, and internal medicine. Color is assigned, shaped are developed, resolutions are engineered, interpretations are made, and finally some guy in a white coat says to you, "Well, here's what the most current research says."

Technology affects what and how we "do work," and how we "do work" affects how we understand technology. It's a conversation.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Technology+as+an+occasion+for+structuring&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=the+social+construction+of+technology&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

At every step there is some looseness in systems. Multiply that looseness. A 90% approximation of 6 interrelated variables affecting each other multiplicably (is that a word?) results in 53% of a final effect.

(Back to grading.)
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Nov 8, 2013 - 05:18pm PT
Cintune noted Alain de Botton in the past. So did Jan via...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/opinion/sunday/kristof-learning-to-respect-religion.html?hp&_r=0

I've finally gotten around to him, too. Seems to be on the right track in a lot of places. Here he is at TED.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oe6HUgrRlQ

I'm about to read his book, Religion for Atheists, for insight. Many positive reviews. Along with Haidt and Rue, I think they help point the way to things coming down the line.
MH2

climber
Nov 8, 2013 - 07:44pm PT
Try and concentrate on something, anything,


What happens, without exception, is that our minds narrow focus on the thing at hand



What you said in that post was that if I concentrate on something then I narrow my focus on that thing. You are saying the same thing twice with different words. Might as well say that if I narrow my focus then I narrow my focus.

Must I narrow my focus to just one thing? I am not allowed, or cannot think of a second thing at the same time? Are you sure that is even possible, let alone natural? Is a feather just one thing? (To me it isn't.)

Where do you suppose my focus was before looking at an item on my desk? If on one thing, then no need to narrow it further, eh? If on more than one thing, then maybe the Moon was or could be one of those things.


I still see no reason to expect "the evaluating mind" to fear meditation.


WBraun

climber
Nov 8, 2013 - 07:52pm PT
The mind must evaluate, ... no ... it's forced to evaluate.

But the soul must control its mind, just as the driver controls the steering, brakes and throttle .....
WBraun

climber
Nov 8, 2013 - 07:59pm PT
The brain is not the operator, but the machine.

You tell your brain what it must do, and the brain acts on that basis.

The physical brain does not think, reason, experience love and emotion, or have the capacity to discern between truth and error, justice and injustice, right and wrong, etc.

You are not the body nor the brain ......
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Nov 8, 2013 - 08:00pm PT
I don't think I'm dissing science, least not in my mind. I'm simply recognizing its limitations. Wouldn't you say that most things have limitations? (MikeL)

Of course. As an expert in organizations and management you have more of an overview of the entire process of using and interpreting a technical marvel. I'm talking about the inventions themselves. And, yes, I have experienced what appeared to be inefficient processes in a hospital, with someone coming in with a notebook asking questions, then an hour later someone else coming into the room asking the same questions, the doctor reading the wrong x-ray and telling me I had advanced emphysema when the previous week I had sprinted up and down hills, breathing lightly, being forgotten in my room for four hours while due to be released, being prescribed a medication that worsened my condition, etc.

But the device used to perform my heart ablation worked beautifully and precisely. Bully for science!
MH2

climber
Nov 8, 2013 - 08:03pm PT
Technology affects what and how we "do work," and how we "do work" affects how we understand technology. It's a conversation.


True! Sometimes I have to slap the microwave twice before the turntable goes 'round. It does heat reliably, though.
WBraun

climber
Nov 8, 2013 - 09:29pm PT
The microwave is absolutely the worst source of heat to cook.

Numba one is cow dung.

Modern science has no clue why that would be.

Frontmental and HFCS would never ever get it period.

Well maybe in 108 more lifetimes .....
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 09:48pm PT
Jgill:

Really, I'm no expert. I just have read a lot in areas that were of interest to me. These are those areas, thank goodness.

I wasn't dissing hospitals, either. I'm a bit in awe of what was done to me . . . no, for me. Let me say that I'm a bit amazed how much comes out well and apparently accurately. I did note with interest how I was being diagnosed and when therapies were being weighed and considered. I was surprised how often the doctors informed me about the latest research studies, how far they could be extended, or how narrowly their results could be interpreted. If I were not familiar with research, I would have been intimidated, lost, and unhappy that they were throwing studies at me and expecting judgments. How different medicine is these days from when I was a kid. Then, you simply did what the doctor told you to do.


Ditto, MH2, with regards to my own microwave. I'm still impressed with what it does. :-) However, I agree with Werner. . . absolutely the worst cooking method. Turns everything into cardboard. Next to cow dung is wood, I believe.


Hey, you guys know me by now. I'm an aggravating nitpicker about what I think I can honestly say that I know. Half of my conversations with you are really conversations with myself. (You didn't mean to be willing dupes in my own process, did you?) I certainly don't hope or expect to be converting anyone to anything.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Nov 9, 2013 - 02:28am PT
Even from a position as absurd as the pope position you can do something good:

Pope Francis
Pope Francis

"This week's images of the pope kissing and praying with a man severely disfigured by illness are truly gothic. I do not say that intending to belittle or caricature the condition, apparently neurofibromatosis, from which this man who attended the pope's general audience in the Vatican is suffering. What is gothic is the return to 13th-century values in this picture of a Christian leader showing humility and charity by physically interacting with someone visibly sick and visually different from those around him. St Francis of Assisi, whose name Pope Francis has adopted, was a master of simple, powerful popular gestures: he invented the Christmas crib and reputedly preached a sermon to the birds.

Disease, in the world of St Francis, was mysterious and awe-inspiring. There was virtually no effective medicine. The sufferings of Job were a reality for all those infected by illnesses no one understood. Few illnesses today can inspire the deep sense of awe that once attended leprosy and plague: so it is harder to inspire saintliness, kissing the boils of the sick. Francis has found a face so unusual and estranged from the normal that as he touches and prays with its possessor he seems to reenact the spirit of St Francis himself.

Is this a publicity stunt? No, because it expresses more than an empty gesture ever could. Charity and humility and love really are Christian ideals, and for someone in the pope's position of power to so graphically express them is full of concrete meaning. Be like Christ: identify with the outcast. This pope's idealism is so clearly readable in his actions that it is missing the point to call him a clever communicator. He knows that he is a living symbol and that by identifying with this man he is making the church itself grow more human.

Can politicians emulate this pope's bold symbolic language? They'd be laughed at and called cynics. So why can he get away with it? The word we are looking for is authenticity. Pope Francis appears utterly authentic and honest. He does not seem cynical in this image because we accept his sincerity and seriousness. This is what politicians have lost in modern democracies. It is why people turn to Russell Brand. There is a deep crisis of belief in democratically elected leaders but Pope Francis has the answer: you who seek to lead, look at this picture, it has a message for you.

A simple message. Do and say what you believe."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/pope-francis-kisses-disfigured-man
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Nov 9, 2013 - 06:40am PT
Mike, I enjoy your posts, so don't take this the wrong way, but you grossly mis-characterize models. Many models make absolutely perfect predictions of physical events.

Perhaps you are thinking of weather models, which measure a chaotic fluid type of mechanics. If you looked at them, you would understand this. You would need a little primer on meteorology, but they are getting better and better. One of the big problems is simply the coarseness of the data. Weather balloons go up at selected sites around the world at 00Z and 12Z. Unfortunately that grid is too course to make perfect predictions.

Let's just say that we take a Newtonian model of the universe. If you don't go too fast, or get too close to a large mass, relativity won't affect the trajectory of, say, the Cassini or Galileo spacecraft. You can send them on complicated orbits where they may dive down and slingshot around Venus and even fly right back to Earth in a year or two to get a slingshot from the Earth. You can trace out an extremely complicated trajectory and hit it on the money. There is no great mystery here, but if Jesus had sent Galileo and Cassini to Jupiter and Saturn 2000 years ago, it would have been regarded as an actual miracle.

Every second of your life, even right now at this very instant, your body is being pierced by many neutrinos from distant supernovae, 13 billion year old light from the edge of the known universe, and the cosmic microwave background radiation from the beginning of the Universe (which was predicted before it was discovered, by the way). Yep, a few photons here and there are making it through the atmosphere and hitting you, 24/7. Now why don't you find this interesting?

Feynman wrote a fantastic little book: QED. He explains the weird behavior of light in that book in a form that we can all understand. His path integral explains the behavior of light.

I've never really ragged on these mental voyages, because there may be something to it. I would say that everything is matter, so you are looking at awareness the wrong way. Perhaps I am wrong. I don't discount you guys looking to be totally aware.

I'll toss a hundred bucks on that bet, but the time frame would have to be infinite. We can't do it now, but we are learning how to understand consciousness from a material perspective. Since we can't experiment on live brains very much due to ethical concerns, there are still many people working on this with non-invasive techniques.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Nov 9, 2013 - 06:50am PT
Regarding some of the Christian values, I still share a lot of them without a need for God.

I do not believe in the God of the old testament, and to believe that Jesus walked on water is a bit of a stretch (Where are all of the miracles today?).

Jesus taught love, compassion, empathy, and humility. There are some beautiful Bible versus that some people ought to read.

This is mainly ethical and moral. I see a shortage of these qualities in the real world.
go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Nov 9, 2013 - 07:45am PT
Mark 10:18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

Jesus said that to him because the guy asking the question didn't know who he was talking to, God in the flesh!

God IS Good, we on the other hand can do good at times!
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Nov 9, 2013 - 07:52am PT
Werner?
Werner?
Credit: MikeL
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Nov 9, 2013 - 08:12am PT
Base, I don't think I grossly misrepresent models. I think I have plenty of other people's research to back up my characterizations, as well as a fair amount of consideration on my own. That models "work," unfortunately, is hardly proof-positive that they represent or truly map reality. I apologize for putting it this way, but I think it's just a little naive and uninformed to think that any model is reality. You don't have to be a philosopher or a teacher of the scientific method to see that. There is only one reality, and you're experiencing it right now in the only form it comes.

With that said, I am fine with what they do and enable. They are excellent puzzles to while away one's time on this planet. They are necessary for conversation. They contribute to people's feelings and subjective well-being. It's almost impossible to think how anyone could live without them. But some purportedly do. (That's MY puzzle.)

Here's a little question for you: How is it that testing any model generates residual effects that the model doesn't capture or predict? Where is the model that generates no residual effects? What model perfectly predicts all effects?

I hope you're taking all of this for just what it is: just some conversation to while away the morning. :-)

Be well.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Nov 9, 2013 - 08:16am PT
Michaela, I enjoy your cooking, so don't take this the wrong way, but you really screw up the meats not to mention the desserts.



Be well.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Potemkin Village
Nov 9, 2013 - 08:19am PT
That models "work," unfortunately, is hardly proof-positive that they represent or truly map reality. I apologize for putting it this way, but I think it's just a little naive and uninformed to think that any model is reality. You don't have to be a philosopher or a teacher of the scientific method to see that. There is only one reality, and you're experiencing it right now in the only form it comes.

Didn't we all learn this by 8th grade?



Oh, I see, just whiling away the time. While away, then.

.....

It's almost impossible to think how anyone could live without them. But some purportedly do.

Only those without a nervous system.


Please, somebody gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon.


.....

photo not found
Missing photo ID#329362

"In 1445, the Paris Faculty of Theology explained to the bishops of France that the Feast of Fools was a necessary event in the Christian calendar."

Everything has its place, I guess.
MH2

climber
Nov 9, 2013 - 08:23am PT

I'm an aggravating nitpicker about what I think I can honestly say that I know.


And I am a liar. I don't actually have a microwave oven.


MikeL,

Isn't it a bit tricky to rely on just your own knowledge to assess what you honestly know? How about testing your knowledge in the world around you? Doesn't knowledge come from experience?
Messages 18101 - 18120 of total 22989 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