Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 21101 - 21120 of total 23481 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
MH2

climber
Feb 22, 2014 - 11:01am PT

Auld Nature swears, the lovely dears
Her noblest work she classes, O:
Her prentice han' she try'd on man,
An' then she made the lasses, O.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/events/enpv4f/acts/a2fv4f#p01qvcgz


WBraun

climber
Feb 22, 2014 - 11:47am PT
jstan -- "More often than not, belief systems are all about surrender and obedience."

The United States of Americas belief systems are all about surrender and obedience.

There are more stupid laws and rules that require surrender and obedience in America then anywhere else in the world.

We are and have approached the surrender and obedience police state.

"You're either with us or you're not."

If you're not then you're toast!

We have our fake democracy and a 1 party system with 2 factions and a Congress that is beholden to a global cabal of corporations.

Bow down, and surrender to the the mighty American religious belief system and offer all your worship and obeisances onto the mighty dollar .....

http://www.stewwebb.com/Inside_The_Bush_Crime_Family_Part1_07112011.htm
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Feb 22, 2014 - 01:23pm PT
There are more stupid laws and rules that require surrender and obedience in America then anywhere else in the world.

Fresh indications of the spoiled nature of the Post-WWII crusading ,hyper-critical baby boomers who have never lived under or experienced a genuinely tyrannical,dictatorial government.

Just a passing acquaintance with real oppression, economic and political, would make the above comment look foolish in the extreme.

Despite all its problems and difficulties ---the US does not represent an oppressive society where personal freedom is continually proscribed---which has been the historical norm in much of the world.

I can't believe I'm having to make this obvious point at all. It seems like I'm doing it all the time recently.
This kind of thing actually saddens me.
---------------------------------------------------------------


I had always thought the Inquisition for example, was waged by true believers, but after mulling it over, I think Ward was right, that was just used as an excuse for power.

Jan:
Oh yeah, especially in the case of the Inquisition.The Roman Catholic hierarchy responded to the various sectarian heresies in the same way one would expect modern Nazis or Communists ( or other nominally atheistic authoritarian regimes or theocracies ) to react to challenges against their totalitarian control---by ruthless and deadly suppression: torture, imprisonment , and murder.
It's interesting to note here how the Dominican Order was central to the implementation of the divers Papal Bulls and decrees aimed at suppression of heretical sects arising throughout Europe starting as early as the 14th Century. In fact the raison d'etre of the Dominicans was the rooting- out of wayward heresies.
Ironic is it not? Given the origins of many of the Monastic Orders---as I outlined upthread---that one priestly order closely allied with same, such as the Dominicans (at least nominally) would be put in charge of what amounted to the 'grassroots' campaign section of the Holy Inquisition.
Part of a Byzantine sleight-of-hand and somewhat clever ruse. The other end of the ruse was carried out by the Church hierarchy pretending to hold elaborate "trials" resulting in irrefutable evidence against what the Holy Decrees termed "affronts to the authority and sanctity of God"
Thousands were murdered, tortured , and imprisoned, as we all know.






MikeL

Trad climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Feb 22, 2014 - 01:48pm PT
Ward:

Thx. To clarify . . .

Life is about living, not about objects. Experience = living. Objects are not. Objects are furniture. The ability to recite dates, locations, conditions, circumstances, and objects is the list of "stuff," knowledge, concepts, and interpretations that come only from a mental view of living. They are the results of simulations.

To be fully alive, one must be fully present. That includes more than the cognitive part of oneself. When all facets of whatever-the-self-is is engaged in any task, then one is fully present. What are those facets? One cannot say. There are more than the five senses and thinking.

Psychologists point to authenticity, openness, vulnerability, connectedness, integration, focus, attentiveness, etc. as hallmarks of being full human beings--of being "there," in-the-moment, fully alive and engaged in whatever or wherever one finds oneself. When full engagement occurs, duration becomes timeless, space collapses to a single unitary point as consciousness, and no perspective is held onto.

Psychologists and therapists help bring people to that state of being by showing what is blocking their view. What they say is that one must call all of the voices, feelings, views, etc. of one's personality AND *role* forward and integrate them right here, right now. But I suspect that psychologists are not going deep enough into "being." Meditative practices can pick-up where psychology leaves off. So can plain old self-reflection if one has enough discipline and courage.

The experience of being totally in-the-moment is like being drawn into a whirlpool. Neither choice nor determinism apply. Instead, one feels like a puppet. It's like watching a movie of oneself and being in the movie at the same time. It seems appropriate to say that what one is, is simply the performance, the action--but there is no self to contend with--no "I" as subject and no "me" as object. Even "action" seems to be the wrong term. "Being" is the only word that seems accurate. What is "being?" One must look for themselves.

(I think I said this without woo woo, didn't I?)
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Feb 22, 2014 - 02:37pm PT
It's not of question of hanging on to "my" moon at all ---or believing anything for dear life, as if it were a desperate endeavor. The moon simply exists , and it exists not strictly because of an observer , as I have illustrated time and again, but it exists in and of itself , independent of an observer.'

The moon orbited the Earth long before a human observer came upon the scene. The unassailable proof I have provided has demolished your faulty argument that the moon requires an observer to exist.
Jeeeez

Case closed.


Unassailable proof? And by your very own estimation, right? You're a beauty, Ward.

I have asked the question fifty times and you have yet to answer it whatsoever: This "moon" that you have proven - what is it? Simply describe it in a way that does NOT require an observer, or the sense organs and sentience of an observer, or that is not an observation itself. A simple, straightforward objective description of what your proven "moon" really and truly IS.

The contention is that any answer to this question can only be a catalogue of measurements. Any description on the meta level of forms, or of Ward's "unassailable" moon will either be poor poetry aka doggeral, or the observations of an observer (the moon is white, round, etc).

I have all along used language and tone that was meant to wrankle people. This is the Rinzai way. To get the MH2's of the world to stand up on their hind legs and tell me how I have so much so terribly wrong. Once a person's attention is up like that, a few will get some idea that there are other possibilities having nothing to do with beliefs, faith, submission, me, God, and so forth. The others will stay exactly the same, and place virtue on being frozen in place.

If nothing else this thread shows how the amazing panoply of obstacles the mind places in front of us to avert change, and the all the perfectly good reasons to "keep thinking about it."

No harm in that, but how much has changed for you? What new insights into your own process or the world around you have opened up, or have you merely cemented your existed beliefs in order to be "right?"

More to "think" about.

JL
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Feb 22, 2014 - 02:50pm PT
http://lt11.com/tv/

Never mind mind and the moon. Check out the bouldering national championships live.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Feb 22, 2014 - 03:25pm PT
Life is about living, not about objects. Experience = living. Objects are not. Objects are furniture. The ability to recite dates, locations, conditions, circumstances, and objects is the list of "stuff," knowledge, concepts, and interpretations that come only from a mental view of living. They are the results of simulations.

Interesting to note the degree with which such pains are taken to separate "experience" from "objects"---a thoroughly artificial distinction whipped up to lubricate this medieval notion that experience ---now in the form of existentially flowing experience --- is the new Spiritus Animus.

Objects are now to be considered a collection of pitifully empty and irrelevant things that function as mere backdrops for the new deity --- the new deity that incorporates primarily nothingness as its mainframe.
Meanwhile, the little corpuscles simulated in your bloodstream---little fomitic bits of furniture---somehow possess this marvelous unsung capacity to make it all possible --- little "object" brain cells on the lower end of the Platonic scale ; brain cells and corpuscles that patiently await the life-giving breath of their master, who knows at least one thing, and can recite it to his minions of furniture corpuscles : " life is about living--not objects"

Edit: wow I finally got to use the word "fomitic" which is a derivative cognate of "fomite" a term I learned in Biology Lab meaning "...an object such as a dish or article of clothing or furniture item capable of transmitting pathogenic organisms..."
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Feb 22, 2014 - 03:26pm PT
Wow, bouldering national championships indoors… man I am getting old.

With regard to a non-observational proof of what the moon is I would say that lies in between the observations of multiple sentient beings. That is: the agreement itself is a function of those multiple observations and is a validation of their reality. In a sense that agreement also exists outside of the function of observation even though observation through the senses was that agreement's basis. If only one sentient being is observing the moon then that individual might be a "lunatic". However, the agreement predicated on shared observational conclusions has a validity that individual experience cannot be said to have.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Feb 22, 2014 - 04:22pm PT
Unassailable proof? And by your very own estimation, right? You're a beauty, Ward.

Yes , by Ward's estimation. I have estimated centuries of empirical scientific amassing of evidence+thousands of hours of lab and field work+thousands of hours of study and education+intuitive flashes of insight by a dedicated and enlightened few+ a couple of actual trips there (and all the brilliant man-hours which that space adventure represented)= our current knowledge of the moon= the moon is billions of years old= moon existed long before any human observer.

Where is Largos estimation that the above addition results in a different set of "equals"?

Where oh where is his unassailables? LOL

BTW I ain't no beauty. Here is beauty, Makaela Schiffrin , who won Gold yesterday in Women's Slalom---youngest to win Gold in an Alpine Event and first Gold for US in this event in 40 yrs:

Credit: Ward Trotter

Credit: Ward Trotter




Byran

climber
San Jose, CA
Feb 22, 2014 - 05:15pm PT
Mike, JL, and moon deniers: do you guys eat food? I'm assuming you probably do, and probably almost every day. Do you believe this food objectively exists? That it is nourishing your body and that you would weaken and die without it? Or is eating just one of the many pleasures of subjectivity? When driving an automobile, do you (mostly) do so with your eyes open or closed?

When it comes down to it, everyone recognizes that there is an objective reality out there. Every time you tie into a rope you are confirming this is your belief. After all what is the purpose of a rope if it doesn't even exist? Evolution by natural selection has bred in us a powerful instinct to trust the data our sense organs and nervous system are feeding to our brains at every moment. It is the objective world which creates subjectivity, not the other way around. And contrary to what you might say, deep down you must truly believe that colliding with objectivity at 80mph just might be the end of your subjective experience, or else you probably wouldn't have lived this long.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Feb 22, 2014 - 05:36pm PT
Largo is not necessarily a "moon denier" he just wants you to deny the moon for him. You end up doing all the heavy lifting and he gets to secretly kick back with a beer and enjoy that very moon described modestly by James Joyce in Ulysses :

LOL

“Her antiquity in preceding and surviving succeeding tellurian generations: her nocturnal predominance: her satellitic dependence: her luminary reflection: her constancy under all her phases, rising and setting by her appointed times, waxing and waning: the forced invariability of her aspect: her indeterminate response to inaffirmative interrogation: her potency over effluent and refluent waters: her power to enamour, to mortify, to invest with beauty, to render insane, to incite to and aid delinquency: the tranquil inscrutability of her visage: the terribility of her isolated dominant resplendent propinquity: her omens of tempest and of calm: the stimulation of her light, her motion and her presence: the admonition of her craters, her arid seas, her silence: her splendour, when visible: her attraction, when invisible.”
― James Joyce, Ulysses
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Feb 22, 2014 - 05:44pm PT
I have all along used language and tone that was meant to wrankle people. This is the Rinzai way.


ah, seriously, thank you for explaining just why your tone tends to upset people

it is because you meant to

and therefore not an otherwise natural part of your make up, as I assumed

and you wrankle people intentionally to....get them to open their minds, leave the discursive, and try to get them to understand another world, or meditation, right?

ok, if so I now understand

but, why the repeated attacks on "science" then?
moosedrool

climber
Stair climber, lost, far away from Poland
Feb 22, 2014 - 05:47pm PT
Byran:

When it comes down to it, everyone recognizes that there is an objective reality out there

There is a reality out there, but it is not objective. It depends on the frame of reference, for once, and on the measuring tools as well.

just saying

Andrzej
MH2

climber
Feb 22, 2014 - 07:31pm PT
I have all along used language and tone that was meant to wrankle people. This is the Rinzai way. To get the MH2's of the world to stand up on their hind legs and tell me how I have so much so terribly wrong.


You got that wrong, too. Your method is based on false premises.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Feb 22, 2014 - 08:01pm PT
Interesting to note the degree with which such pains are taken to separate "experience" from "objects"---a thoroughly artificial distinction . . .


Artificial because it is your distinction, Ward, and is every bit as bogus as the rest of your thesis and every bit as predictable as MH2 responding in the negative, or spewing an issue out sideways, as Mike pointed out. He can’t help his own self, and is constitutionally incapable of stating clearly and honestly where he stands on anything because he has no stance without first hearing what yours is. Then his stance become the counter of yours. A most curious game, but you don’t want to study it too hard lest it starts rubbing off on you.

Per the dog-eared moon: Ward has been given a simple assignment that he failed to address (the dog ate his homework, maybe):

Simply describe the “moon” in a way that does NOT require an observer, or the sense organs and sentience of an observer, or that is not an observation itself. A simple, straightforward objective description of what your “proven" moon" really and truly IS.

No need to cobble in “medieval notions,” whatever those are. And Ward, it is not experience that sources the attributions we ascribe to the moon – and which you believe with all your soul are inherent qualities of said moon. Mind sources the attributions, but not the fundamental energy or stuff “out there.” This distinction seems to be lost to you altogether.

JL
MikeL

Trad climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Feb 22, 2014 - 08:04pm PT
Ward:

Too many words next.

One of the many conversations in education over the past 20 years is whether it is more important to teach "stuff" (dates, times, interpretations, models, etc.), or whether to teach "how to learn." Cognitive science said, stuff. More importantly, it said that it was not truly possible to teach "how to learn" in all or in multiple domains because expertise relies upon previous knowledge in a domain. That is, one must learn the basic models, terminology, and central topics of a domain. As education scholars told us, "knowledge is essentially a language game," and there are too many languages to learn. I agreed because I came from cognition studies.

Recently, however, I have some doubts. With the introduction of the internet, students' almost innate ability to use multi media with discrimination, and their open-perspectival inclusive views of situations, they seem to be able to learn much more than we or Gen-X ever did. Rather than being the teacher with all the answers, I have become more of a coach and facilitator.

Ward, there have been no pains to separate objects from experience on my part. Why should there be? In my mind, they are the same. Moreover, the distinctions are a part of the field in the study of education. Should we teach the "1001 Things Everyone Should Know," or should we teach wisdom and general learning skills and let students have at it?

B.F. Skinner and a few others thought that wisdom came too late in life; maybe wisdom could be taught first, and then "stuff." (See, "Walden Two.")


Bryan:

In your dreams do you have your eyes open or closed when driving? Do you eat food or do anything at all in your dreams? Ever have a dreamed accident?

I can see that you are another person here who anthropomorphizes concepts (e.g., evolution, the objective world, etc.). Animals breed, not concepts. What do you know about perceptions and their processes, even scientifically? When I dream I think it's all real, too. Everyone does.

Listen to Andrzej.


cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Feb 22, 2014 - 08:22pm PT
Simply describe the “moon” in a way that does NOT require an observer, or the sense organs and sentience of an observer, or that is not an observation itself. A simple, straightforward objective description of what your “proven" moon" really and truly IS.

How about asking for this description in a way that doesn't require an observer?
Otherwise, the whole setup is a meta-category error.
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Feb 22, 2014 - 08:55pm PT
The experience of being totally in-the-moment is like being drawn into a whirlpool. Neither choice nor determinism apply. Instead, one feels like a puppet. It's like watching a movie of oneself and being in the movie at the same time (MikeL)

Well Mike, that's one take on it I suppose. However, I have frequently been "totally in-the-moment" while searching for proofs to theorems or discovering conjectures, and there is a lot of choice and determinism there, and it is most definitely not like watching myself in a movie where somehow you extract your consciousness and watch the primate play. You describe a scenario of helplessness and abandonment that leaves one to the cruel ebbs and flows of nature (and politics).

Get a grip on yourself, man!


;>)


When I dream I think it's all real, too. Everyone does.

Not true.
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Feb 22, 2014 - 08:57pm PT
Any individual observer is unnecessary to the consensus of all observers. The consensus is in its own way separate from any observation and in that consensus is the described reality of any object. To say the phenomenological world is a product of observation is to put the cart before the horse. The prerequisite to observation is first an object and then an observer. How can there be an observation if there is nothing to observe?
Byran

climber
San Jose, CA
Feb 22, 2014 - 09:55pm PT
In your dreams do you have your eyes open or closed when driving? Do you eat food or do anything at all in your dreams? Ever have a dreamed accident?
I'm not sure it's possible to close your eyes in a dream, or at least I don't think I've ever had that experience. And while it's possible to be in a car wreck in a dream, it's not possible to be rear-ended by a bus you never even saw coming. A dream is pure subjectivity and therefore you cannot interact with objects of which you are unaware. If in a dream you believe the sliding glass door to be open, it will be open. The waking experience is much different because you are actually navigating an environment made up of concrete objects. Every time you stub your toe on the corner of the bed, that's proof there's an objective reality outside your mind. Your physical toe collides with the physical corner of the bed, and only later does your subjectivity learn of the mishap.
Messages 21101 - 21120 of total 23481 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