Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 20861 - 20880 of total 23145 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
STEEVEE

Social climber
HUMBOLDT, CA
Feb 25, 2014 - 07:01pm PT
Stevee, you must not have kids?

Quite the opposite. I'm raising a teenager and his lessons are hard. I have no illusions that he is trustworthy. I still love him none the less, but if he behaves like a child as an adult, he has no place in my life. He's on his own. He knows that and behaves accordingly.


edit:He earns my trust.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Feb 25, 2014 - 07:16pm PT
Says Ward: "The qualities the moon possesses: roundness and light, was suggested by Largo not to be "out there" but somehow "in here" presumably. Nothing can be more demonstrably incorrect , illogical, wrong-headed and plainly stupid. There is no other way to put it.

I would answer the question posed above by declaring that the moon is exactly the thing beheld by the human observer.



Nice rant, Ward. But now we put the rubber to the road and test drive what I have been goading you to say for a week: a clear and unequivocal statement per the belief that "qualities" are inherent in the persons, places or things materialists believe exist, "exactly like we see them," but totally independent of sentient (subjective/observer) import or influence.

Take "light" for example. Ward insists that in the imagined world without observers, "light" in the objective world of no subjects is "exactly the thing beheld by the human observer."

For starters, in a world with no observers, there is no "beholding," no observing at all. So in seeking to describe stand alone objects that are "out there," that existed before we were ever born, and are totally independent of observers, we can't default to anything you or I "behold." Why, because we are not there and our subjective experience of the light that we see is the very thing totally and entirely excluded from the reality of our stand-alone moon.

The second and most crucial thing is that the way in which Ward is using light is not light in the objective, purely physical sense, which is
"electromagnetic radiation usually defined as having a wavelength in the range of 400 nanometres (nm), or 400×10−9 m, to 700 nanometres."

Since there is no one there to see, the only objective reality "out there" is electromagnetic radiation, NOT luminosity, not somethign shiny, which is a subjective response to the electromagnetic radiation, but is not the radiation itself, the stuff that exists when there is no one there to "see." Shininess, brightness, and so forth are not objective qualities, they are subjective experiences of said radiation.

Some would say that the radiation "creates" the brightness, or if you make the mistake of conflation, you might say that brightness is what the radiation "does." But again, brightness is not an objective thing ("Electromagnetic radiation") but a subjective quality.

We might come up with various "Electromagnetic radiation" band widths that correspond to our increasing or decreasing sense of brighntness, but those measurements do not describe our subjective experience of brightness, they describe the various wave lengths of "Electromagnetic radiation."

As Mike said many posts back, objective reality does not "have" any qualities. These are all cognitive/subjective overlays spontaneously emerge between an object and a subject. An orange is not objectively the color orange. We can easily describe the physical measurements (wave lengths) that correspond to our experience of the color orange, but in those measurements and those wave lengths you will never find color itself because color is not an objective thing. There is no such thing as an unseen color in Ward's stand alone world, a color inherently in something that is just as colorful if Ward is there or not there to see it. Standing alone there is only energy is a certain band width. "Color" only emerges when Ward opens his hemp-addled peepers and "beholds" the fruit itself.

This can all sound like double talk till you experientially realize what is actually happening in perception, that all the subjective qualities we assign to the objective world of objects out there are subjective responses to matter sans qualities.

Some wisdom traditions would say this was all a false dichotomy or false dualism. That there is objective/subjective spit as described above. This would, of course, mean that there are no stand alone qualities sans an observer. If we took that subjectivity out of the "moon" Ward keeps talking about, we'd only have a bunch of objective measurements of matter. Any qualities are of our own making - but we do NOT make what we measure.

Again, this might all sound like jibberish on the level of ideas, but once we experience reality in light of this it will change your entire POV of the world. But IME it is a process.

JL


Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Feb 25, 2014 - 07:25pm PT
For starters, in a world with no observers, there is no "beholding," no observing at all. So in seeking to describe stand alone objects that are "out there," that existed before we were ever born, and are totally independent of observers, we can't default to anything you or I "behold." Why, because we are not there

This is the meat in your stew?

Seriously???

DMT
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Feb 25, 2014 - 07:33pm PT
These are all cognitive,subjective overlays spontaneously emerge between an object and a subject (JL)


We have instruments to detect massive bursts of X-rays in distant galaxies. So you are saying that if we were not detecting the radiation it does not exist in some peculiar sense. However its effects do, no matter how we measure it.


This whole line of "thought" is absurd.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Feb 25, 2014 - 07:43pm PT
This whole line of "thought" is absurd.

I forget who it was who said something like, and I paraphrase:

" A certain portion of an individual's life is always devoted to either generating or counteracting absurdity; a duty which is proverbially inescapable---like dying , or paying taxes"

Wait ....I now remember who said it....

WT

And ye all can quote me on that.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Feb 25, 2014 - 07:44pm PT
We have instruments to detect massive bursts of X-rays in distant galaxies.

Actually its better than that! We have instruments that detect massive bursts of X-rays that occurred billions of years ago.

With these instruments science can literally peer back in time. This perceptual (hehe) time travel completely dismisses the 'can't observe without an observer' point. We humans can perceive things that no longer exist.

Don't like that idea? Then don't be so quick to seize the big bang = nothing schtick either (baby, meet the scientific bathwater)

DMT
STEEVEE

Social climber
HUMBOLDT, CA
Feb 25, 2014 - 07:53pm PT
"I think a beer exist in my refrigerator and I shall drink it"

-Anonymous Alcoholic
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Feb 25, 2014 - 08:23pm PT

These are all cognitive/subjective overlays spontaneously emerge between an object and a subject. An orange is not objectively the color orange. We can easily describe the physical measurements (wave lengths) that correspond to our experience of the color orange, but in those measurements and those wave lengths you will never find color itself because color is not an objective thing

I don't know bro?
When I go so sleep at night the flowers outside my window are red. When I wake up there still red. When the hummingbird shows up to suck it, I believe it's the color red that attracts him/her not the shape of the flower, not even the smell. The red is there before we look. Light makes it red because of the wavelengths installed. And that's reinforced through our eyeballs.
Even without our eyeballs peering, light makes red objective!?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Feb 25, 2014 - 08:38pm PT

I would answer the question posed above by declaring that the moon is exactly the thing beheld by the human observer.

Beholding objectively you can say the moon looks like an old mans face on a round of cheese.
But to know man couldn't live on earth without it because the climate would be out of control, that takes imagination. You can't see how the moon effects the tides, but that doesn't make it non-objective. Does it?


paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Feb 25, 2014 - 09:38pm PT
I just think it’s a mistake to disengage the sensory observation of an object from the object itself. The senses are structures of measurement that communicate to an interior entity the construction of the phenomenological world.

The measurement of a fever with a thermometer is not a replication of the reality of a fever but it is an accurate indication of the fever’s strength.

What we see as the color orange may be wholly a structure of the mind but it is the product of a stimulus coming from the object perceived allowing a certain understanding of that object.

Observational sensory stimulus is not simply arbitrary; it participates in a relationship of cause and effect.

Those sounds you hear and those colors you see are products of sensory measurement that create an understanding of the world around us that is validated as accurate by both the fact that those sensory apparatus have come to exist and the evolutionary success those senses bestow.

If we think of those interior manifestations/structures based on sensory observations as a kind of constituting consciousness they can bring us as close to the reality of the observed object as we can get as a separate entity.

I don’t think the forms of sensibility are constructed haphazardly but rather through the strict crucible of natural selection in which the primary paradigm is acuity and accuracy for the sake of survival.

Calling attention to the possibility that orange is really a wavelength and not the color in our crayon box is really irrelevant to the sophisticated and highly accurate tool of perception we call vision.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Feb 25, 2014 - 09:56pm PT
sophisticated and highly accurate tool of perception we call vision.
You might change your mind if you were trying to pick 20 colors that people could distinguish from each other on a map.
MH2

climber
Feb 25, 2014 - 09:59pm PT
Or trying to distinguish the orange route from the red route.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Feb 25, 2014 - 10:03pm PT
^^^ i bet you can get 20 people to distinguish the tint of that orange.
MH2

climber
Feb 25, 2014 - 10:07pm PT
^^^^

Depends on the angle of light and the gender.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Feb 25, 2014 - 10:18pm PT
I did t say it would be easy.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Feb 25, 2014 - 11:01pm PT
We have instruments to detect massive bursts of X-rays in distant galaxies. So you are saying that if we were not detecting the radiation it does not exist in some peculiar sense. However its effects do, no matter how we measure it.
This whole line of "thought" is absurd.
-
I agree that it is absurd. You're not reading what I am saying closely enough, John, which is surprising. Do you really and truly think I am guessing here? Apparently you are.

In my previous discussion I was careful to state that the objective stuff like “massive bursts of X-Rays” are exactly massive bursts of X-rays with or without an observer.

But Ward was not talking about bursts of X-Rays, but a moon that hung in the sky EXACTLY like an observer sees it. All the subjective qualities are right there on that moon, says Ward. When I asked for Ward to describe exactly what those qualities were, the only thing he could possibly describe is matter at the objective level, such as X Rays. In fact all the qualities he wants to describe belong to us, not the stuff out there.

But even this kind of conversation is so nuanced that it confounds a person as smart as Paul, who said: “Calling attention to the possibility that orange is really a wavelength and not the color in our crayon box is really irrelevant to the sophisticated and highly accurate tool of perception we call vision.”

Of course this comment is totally irrelevant to what I was saying because “perception” and “vision” are particular to an observer, which is precluded from the physicalist belief – and this conversation - that “orange” is itself an objective quality resting entirely with an object, sans observers, perception, vision and all the rest. There are other examples that can make this clear but there is little point now. People are just hearing their own beliefs on it.

To understand this at depth you need to go into your own perception and see how it works, and in the lack of that effort, it’s just senseless words.

Case closed.

JL

TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Feb 25, 2014 - 11:15pm PT
A Crazy Oculus Rift Hack Lets Men and Women Swap Bodies

By Kyle VanHemert
02.25.14
6:30 AM


BeAnotherLab is using the Oculus Rift to experiment with embodiment.

The great promise of the Oculus Rift headset the chance to inhabit fantastic new worlds. A group of researchers in Barcelona are already using it for something even more radical: inhabiting new bodies.

BeAnotherLab, an interdisciplinary group of students at the University Pompeu Fabra, in Barcelona, has relied on an early version of Oculus Rift as part of an on-going research project called “The Machine To Be Another.” The concept is just what the name suggests. An early experiment let participants experience the creative process through someone else’s eyes, in real time. The latest undertaking is even wackier. It lets men and women swap bodies. (Note: The video below contains nudity.)

Here’s how it works. Each subject is outfitted with an Oculus Rift headset. Those are supplied with video streams from point-of-view cameras attached to the other person’s rig. The participants are instructed to mimic each other’s movements, wordlessly dictating the action in tandem like kids playing with a Ouija board.

The effect, says Philippe Bertrand, a Digital Arts student and co-founder of the group, is profound. “Deep inside you know it’s not your body, but you feel like it is.”

Over the last several months, the group has found a diverse group of researchers interested in their “embodiment experience platform,” from artists to therapists to anthropologists. The latest project was focused on VR’s potential for fields like gender studies and queer theory, but they’re already formulating applications from artistic performances to neurorehabilitation.

BeAnotherLab is far from the first to dabble in body swapping. Their project was inspired by teams like Group Ehrsson, in Stockholm, and Event Lab, also in Barcelona, both of which have combined neuroscience and virtual reality in an attempt to untangle complex mysteries about consciousness and the self. Bertrand and company don’t see themselves as pioneers so much as a “low-budget, Creative Commons” division of this greater movement.

“The discovery of ‘mirror neurons’ by Giacomo Rizzolatti has shown us that you can’t conceive an “I” without an “us,” Bertrand explains. “Other recent investigations on embodied simulation are reporting a blurriness of the self related to familiar individuals. Other studies suggest the effectiveness of embodiment for reducing implicit racial bias.” In other words, new research and cutting edge technology are giving us a better understanding of empathy–and new tools for tapping into it.

“It’s a pretty interesting scenario,” says Bertrand. “Science is proving out some very hippie concepts, and we’re using a video game head mounted display to bring people closer to each other.”

http://www.wired.com/design/2014/02/crazy-oculus-rift-experiment-lets-men-women-swap-bodies/
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Feb 25, 2014 - 11:44pm PT

Of course this comment is totally irrelevant to what I was saying because “perception” and “vision” are particular to an observer, which is precluded from the physicalist belief – and this conversation

Isn't vision universal to all eyeballs?

Perception should be particular to the observer.
MikeL

Trad climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Feb 26, 2014 - 12:19am PT
Steevee: . . . ethics are bullsh#t. They serve only the people who believe them. Trust only works for those who can be trusted.

Ethics are codes or standards that communities hold dear. Every community has them. Accountants, doctors, climbers, school teachers, etc. all have standards of behaviors--norms. Without them, communities would fall apart. Every organization creates its own sense of work ethics, for example. They are community choices. They concern the roles that people play in life and what's good and bad in them.

I think you're really thinking of various moralities, which apply to entire societies, but even those tend to be created and held by a consensus of communities they're willing to go along with. I mean if you want to complain about something that's meaningful, try "consensus" or "order."

Every community gets to decide who can become a member or not; and every member gets to decide if they want to become a member. If that doesn't occur, then you have issues with your contract with sovereignty.

On the other hand, there is anarchy. (Yippee.) I'd say that if everyone were grounded in reality, there'd be no need for either anarchy or community.


Largo: This can all sound like double talk till you experientially realize what is actually happening in perception, that all the subjective qualities we assign to the objective world of objects out there are subjective responses to matter sans qualities.

This is a kind of technical point being made for technical people, when in all likelihood it doesn't exist any more than the technical people do. And it's an interesting thing to me that technical points cannot be taken by technical people. Weird. But that's usual--weirdness.

Ward, DMT, and others: If you are careful, if you pay attention to the purest data you can access, if you are honest with yourself, and if you know how the process of determination works empirically, then you must come to admit that you cannot show or prove that anything exists--other than yourself. It's completely elementary. But to admit that, you'd have to start a fight with your ego or an untrue self, and that will be a long and heroic battle that almost no one finishes. It's all a facade. It looks as real as anything could look, but even that is a concept. I mean, you must know something about how any of this stuff gets done, don't you? I just can't believe that you guys will not admit that IT'S A STORY!!! A really really good one, but a story nonetheless.

I know. I know. It's just something that you can't admit. I mean, what would be left? Ye Gods!!!
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Feb 26, 2014 - 12:20am PT
Nice, Tom. Interesting. Reminds me of a comment I made some time ago about perceiving the world as if someone else.


you need to go into your own perception and see how it works (JL)

In mathematics self-referential explorations lead to peculiarities and paradoxes. I take it this doesn't happen with meditation?
Messages 20861 - 20880 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