Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 19581 - 19600 of total 23145 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
MH2

climber
Jan 13, 2014 - 12:30am PT
Minds prove absolutely nothing. Can't be done.


Ah. Mathematics is nothing.
Randisi

Social climber
Dalian, Liaoning
Jan 13, 2014 - 07:10am PT
Randisi suggests going to Merleau-Ponty or perhaps Heidegger, but these too are conceptual thinkers. Most folks are so wrapped up into a mental-rational, scientific, material point of view that the point of view is all they are aware of.

You clearly know little about these thinkers.
go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Jan 13, 2014 - 10:32am PT

Psalm 119:105
Your word is a lamp to my feet
And a light to my path.

photo not found
Missing photo ID#340229

...Jesus is the bright and morning star that will guide us to heaven!
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 13, 2014 - 10:38am PT
Hey Werner, I'm curious..... whats your take on Klimmers substantiation of the existence of god? (see above)

I think he said something like "Because we have Math, god exists.... so there!"


Or maybe I'm missing something....
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jan 13, 2014 - 11:28am PT
Randisi: You clearly know little about these thinkers.

Thinking is conceptualizing. Please verbally articulate what cannot be thought.

MH2: Ah. Mathematics is nothing.

All things (objects) are conceptualizations, including mathematics.

Andrzej: What are you searching for?

No thing. That which is sought is always the seeker. (Sorry if I misinterpreted you.)

DMT: We continue our presumption, eh teach?

People who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

DMT: And my notion of god goes beyond pictures and concepts.

If God is not conceptual or an image for you, then how do you argue that Man will become God, or that a belief in God is unjustified, inappropriate, wrong, or incorrect? What can you KNOW of God that IS NOT conceptual or by imagination? How do or could you know it? If you can't KNOW what you're talking about, then what do your claims portend or mean? I think you're speculating. Do you have experience in this subject of God? Is this something that you've studied, let's say to the extent that Go-B or Klimmer obviously has? If you haven't, then doesn't that amount to superstition, an ideology, or a presumption?

(BTW, I'm curious what you think teaching is or looks like. You seem to have an idea in mind when you make those references to my writing. Did you have a terrible teacher when you were last in school? Is this too something that you haven't studied, also?)
MH2

climber
Jan 13, 2014 - 11:40am PT
All things (objects) are conceptualizations, including mathematics.

You seem to say that objects are made from ideas rather than the other way around. The world appears to be too patterned and consistent for that to be the case. To at least a limited degree, we are able to compare views with others.

By 'conceptualization', what do you mean? All conscious thought?
jstan

climber
Jan 13, 2014 - 12:17pm PT
Could it be possible that materialism and concepts are all that there is?

Curiosity is something we create for ourselves.

As is purpose.

Even religion is something we create for ourselves.

This thread, for example. pits those who think the things we created are all there is, against those who think there actually are things whose existence does not depend upon us.

The nihilistic posts could not make this any clearer.

Nihilism is the end game in man's anthropocentrism, narcissism, and ego.

There is nothing outside of ME.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Jan 13, 2014 - 12:26pm PT
MikeL it doesn't matter what I think or conceptualize. You said you were beyond all that.

I think you're making things up, wholesale fabrications of nothingness.

You got something.

DMT
moosedrool

climber
Stair climber, lost, far away from Poland
Jan 13, 2014 - 01:11pm PT
MikeL, I am still not sure what you are looking for. Is it your soul? Interesting. Good luck.

Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Jan 13, 2014 - 01:13pm PT
Whatever it is moose its beyond your conceptualization.
DMT
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Jan 13, 2014 - 01:19pm PT

"What can you KNOW of God that IS NOT conceptual or by imagination?"...


Going out on a limb here...

One need not KNOW, if one is in the habit of making up stories...


LOL!!!...




MH2

climber
Jan 13, 2014 - 01:25pm PT
The world is filled with things strange. Here is a newspaper item whose last paragraph made an impression on me. Part of the force had to do with the lead-up.



Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jan 13, 2014 - 02:15pm PT
This thread, for example. pits those who think the things we created are all there is, against those who think there actually are things whose existence does not depend upon us.

The nihilistic posts could not make this any clearer.

Nihilism is the end game in man's anthropocentrism, narcissism, and ego.

There is nothing outside of ME.
--


I don't quite see it this way - not nearly so black and white.

The point Mike has been making is not that there is no external world that is different then us, but that it is only through mind that such a concept, or any person, place of thing, is ever known. These does not exist some independent, objective "knowing" of anything because knowing is not a kind of digital recognition, or verification, rather a subjective experience particular to an individual. How so?

No sane person would deny that our fundamental reality is our 1st person subjective reality. Our personal "lives." Call it our conscious human experience, AKA our sentience.

Sentience itself (NOT the objective functioning some believe creates sentience) is not a thing we can bottle and pass around for review, as we might pass around a vase or a CD or a rose. I cannot pass around how I felt this morning, and you can't measure it either.

Ever instance of human sentience is particular and exclusive to one human subject. We cannot prove that we are conscious, even though we "know" as much and by talking and interacting with each other, we live under the assumption that the other person is also conscious, lest we'd never get on the freeway etc. No mater how intelligent a machine is, it will never be able to directly detect consciousness in anything. Only another sentient being, self reflecting on it's own sentience, can recognize consciousness. Otherwise all one will see is objective functioning. No review of a brain, no matter how fine, will betray human experience.

Our sentience is known, in it's pure, subjective form, only to ourselves. I cannot know exactly what John S. is feeling or thinking or sensing or remembering. Insisting that I do involves mind reading and other such "magic" that most of us doubt and mistrust as anything but bullsh#t. Neurologists hope that someday they will be able to know the content of someone's experience by way of neurological activity but the best they can know is an evaluation of content. They cannot know, through objectifying, subjective experience because the later is not objective but subjective.

Despite the fact that we have a language for our subjective lives and we all know what we mean by the terms "experience" and so forth, people often want to conflate the subjective with the objective and insist that they are the same sides of the same coin, that the objective is what the subjective really IS, or what the objective DOES. But what is it that it DOES, and if it's the selfsame with the objective, what are we talking about that this matter is believed to be DOING? And why do we need terms for it if it is the same as the objective?

Is blue what the sky does or is that what our brains do with the light? Is gravity what falling rocks do?

If we were to go back to John' s comment that "There is nothing outside of ME," the myth of conflation insists that "there is nothing but the objective." Or put differently, the objective "creates" everything. But that's another story . . .

JL
MH2

climber
Jan 13, 2014 - 02:57pm PT
JL:
They cannot know, through objectifying, subjective experience because the later is not objective but subjective.


That's what the words say.


"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."

—Prime Minister Jean Chrétien
clarifying exactly what type of proof
Canada needs;
Sept. 5, 2002
PSP also PP

Trad climber
Berkeley
Jan 13, 2014 - 03:34pm PT
Try not making i, me , my in your internal dialog. Also don't make You. During the time you are not making I and you what is your experience? Try it right now for just 30 seconds.

There will be moments when you can do it and experience it and then I my me will have a tendency to interject, notice that, and then go back.

We spend so much time dwelling on I, my, me and You; that if you can let them go even for a moment you become much more aware of your surroundings, So you can see, hear, touch, feel more clearly. You can live more clearly.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jan 13, 2014 - 06:09pm PT
Much of this discussion tries to clarify the question of whether or not any thing (the sound of a tree, humans, integers, the lasw of physics) exist independent of observers?

This qustion uncderscores the falacy of a purly objective (stand alone, imndependent) point of view, for in no case with no experiment can we remove ourselves from the universe and also observe the result. No mind can escape it's subjective bubble and become a stand alone independent object.

JL
moosedrool

climber
Stair climber, lost, far away from Poland
Jan 13, 2014 - 06:46pm PT
No mind can escape it's subjective bubble and become a stand alone independent object.


JL, I thought that it was exactly what you wanted to achieve through meditation. No?

Otherwise we have no choice but to act as it the reality exists outside your head and we are not a figment of your imagination.

Although, if I am the one fabricating the reality, it is quite complicated and beyond my comprehension. Why would I then make something I can't understand if all I want is to understand? Did I create this world in my mind to challenge myself? Why can't I remember creating it? When I die, will I reconcile myself with Myself?

If YOU are the Creator, JL, do I exist, or you just talking to yourself.

Since we can't solve this dilemma, we have no choice but to assume the outside world is real. How much we can know and understand is another question altogether.

Andrzej

Edit: If we all live in a simulation-like world, we still have no choice but to assume the outside world is real.
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Jan 13, 2014 - 07:04pm PT
Does anything exist outside the observer? Yes, it must, as the outside is predicate to the observer. If the phenomenological experience isn't constructed on an ontological reference then where did the observer come from? How did the observer come to experience?

When a tree falls in the forest it causes an effect whether anything is there to experience that effect as a "noise" or not. A noise is comprehended as an experience, but that experience is predicated on a tangible effect of which a variety of measurements can be made.

What some seem to be saying here is simply, "I think (or don't think) therefore I'm not and neither is anything else."
moosedrool

climber
Stair climber, lost, far away from Poland
Jan 13, 2014 - 07:20pm PT
Does anything exist outside the observer? Yes, it must, as the outside is predicate to the observer.

Hmm, how do you explain the feeling of reality in your dreams, then?

Andrzej
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jan 13, 2014 - 07:45pm PT
JL, I thought that it was exactly what you wanted to achieve through meditation. No?

In a word, No. Meditation involves the slow melting away of the observer as a thing. What's left is the All. No divisions.

And Paul, you are simply parroting a materialists POV, the belief in which everything is predicated on material antecedents that can be measured, and which gave rise to all things, including the observer. This is normally countered by seeing deeply into the mind and realizing that it's basic nature is emptiness, that mind is nothing or no thing - an impossible noting without some kind on internal work. This no-thing or nothingness is posited as being that which gave rise to matter at the big bang - also an impossible idea. A flip side of what you are saying is that matter is predicated on nothing at all, since on both sides of us there is - no thing, void, infinity.

The rational mind can make the whole thing nice and tidy: Matter IS and all reality is physical. The plot thickens when we start delving into how we know that (mind), what the nature of mind is (empty, nothinig), and where did all that matter come from in the first place (nowhere).

But again, if your interests don't extend beyond discursive info by way of measuring, and you understand nothing else (all else being "magic" the thinking goes), then all such talk is a "waste of time."

JL



Messages 19581 - 19600 of total 23145 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