Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 21121 - 21140 of total 22761 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
MH2

climber
Feb 22, 2014 - 07:37pm PT
every bit as predictable as MH2 responding in the negative


Me negative? Only when you are wrong, JL. Check it out, empirically if necessary. You are allowed to use an observer.

I see myself more as discriminating.

;>)
WBraun

climber
Feb 22, 2014 - 08:10pm PT
It is non other than the spiritual soul that is the real observer ........
go-B

climber
John 6:44
Feb 23, 2014 - 06:44am PT
DESTINATION, David Jeremiah
DESTINATION, David Jeremiah

...get instep with God!



John MacArthur New Testament Commentary John 1-11
John MacArthur New Testament Commentary John 1-11
John MacArthur New Testament Commentary John 1-11
John MacArthur New Testament Commentary John 1-11
John MacArthur New Testament Commentary John 1-11
John MacArthur New Testament Commentary John 1-11
John MacArthur New Testament Commentary John 1-11
John MacArthur New Testament Commentary John 1-11
John MacArthur New Testament Commentary John 1-11
John MacArthur New Testament Commentary John 1-11

...all about Jesus! :)
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Feb 23, 2014 - 07:01am PT
I have all along used language and tone that was meant to wrankle people.

Ah yes the Rev. Largo's Wrankle Sermon! Provoke the flock toward the payment of attention.

I know it well...

DMT
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 23, 2014 - 07:48am PT
How can there be an observation if there is nothing to observe?
paul roehl

Case closed.
Now can we go back to science, the speculation has been asnwered
WBraun

climber
Feb 23, 2014 - 07:56am PT
Largo is observing the "No-Thing".

But yes, .... there is always an "Observer" present.

The "Observer" is eternal.

Always .....
MikeL

Trad climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Feb 23, 2014 - 10:08am PT
Jgill: You describe a scenario of helplessness and abandonment that leaves one to the cruel ebbs and flows of nature (and politics).

This seems to be your description. It is not mine. Is your contention that freedom is open and infinite choice? How would that work in-the-moment, John? How could you be so in the moment that there is no I and no object, yet you also feel as though you have choices? Doesn't the idea of choice require an observer? Who could choose if there was no observer? How could choice possibly occur? With all due respect, I believe you're running mental simulations and not talking from experience.

Get a grip on yourself, man!

Ridiculous. How can this be done or get done? Read anything in psychology, ever? Is it your contention that "you" can get a grip on "you"? That's just an image that you're creating. People who talk about "the self" in science are referring to models that they've built. If you think you know what the self is, please do us the favor of telling us what it is. Then we can all follow along with your understanding.


Bryan: . . . you are actually navigating an environment made up of concrete objects.

You should read through some past posts here, Bryan. This is really old ground for most of us, as much of it has been responded to already. Like I said earlier, what do you know about how perceptions are stipulated to occur scientifically (at least)? There are a great many steps in how so-called physical objects become interpreted to create impressions, feelings, and cognition. Rather than pour through the cognitive science or cognitive psychology literature, it might be far simpler to look up renditions on how technological systems are attempting to solve the same problems of pattern recognition and interpretation (e.g., Mars Rover control). Tom might be able to give you some pointers, as he appears to know a lot about artificial intelligence. Any artificial intelligence system (robotics, for example, or visual recognition systems) has scads of conceptual issues to solve--none of which are as remotely simple as you portray. Sensing simple movement among background and foreground is immensely complicated and requires layers of data selection, organization, and interpretation.
MikeL

Trad climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Feb 23, 2014 - 10:17am PT
Paul: Any individual observer is unnecessary to the consensus of all observers.

Paul, I don't think this is quite true or accurate. What you've said is a bit mis-leading from my point of view. I might be wrong, but you (and others here) seem to be suggesting that we can know the truth with very high probability because so many other people have also done their homework and conferred with each other to come to a consensus.

Most everything that most people think they know, they know because someone else told them. Granted that the person that told them seemed to have some credibility or authority, but in the end, much of what we believe is hearsay. Been to Greenland? Seen an atom for yourself? Have you studied what constitutes the elements of trust? No? Then how can you know for sure? You can't, but you accept what others tell you because they have legitimacy and all of the bona fides.

Consensus is an insidious process, hardly out in the open as we might think. It's not quite the rational process that we might think it is. It might be more like the behavior of lemmings.
MikeL

Trad climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Feb 23, 2014 - 10:51am PT
Ward:

I have to say that your reference to Mikaela Shiffrin is a good one for my post to you. If you happen to be able to find the video of the Slalom runs with her rivals at the Olympics, you'll see a number of slow motion shots of competitors' eyes / gaze as they skied through the gates. Mikaela's rivals' gaze all show fleeting emotional states as they went through and to and from the gates. You could see them bear down preparing for the moment in the event. That is, they were not quite in the moment but somewhere else in their heads partially. I would say that Mikaela's gaze was different, not dissimilar to watching high-speed slow motion videos of downhill mountain bike champions Steve Peat or Sam Hill, especially their eyes as they come down steep terrain. Mikaela's gaze seemed to be impartial, open, forward. When asked how she corrected her error in the second run, she was at a loss for words and came up with a response for the interviewer, but it appears that she didn't know and she didn't know at the time it happened. There was just the action, no observer, no object. Just being.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/02/21/sports/olympics/womens-slalom-results.html?_r=0

We can come up with interpretations all day long on what's happened, what's happening, what will happen, but those are all conceptualizations--not the being / the experience. What's real? The conceptualizations of the so-called objects, or the being?
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Feb 23, 2014 - 11:06am PT
The problem here is epistemological: how can we know the reality of the phenomenological world?

Unfortunately Heidegger threw a monkey wrench into the works in the early part of the last century in what was a kind of return to pre–Socratic Sophist philosophy. In my opinion Socrates handled this question quite handily in the 5th century BCE.

Heidegger has become a kind of cornerstone of post modern and Deconstructionist thought… too bad. That kind of thinking has all but destroyed the notion of aesthetic quality, for instance.

If only one person perceives the moon through his senses he may be crazy, or mistaken or a liar. If five billion perceive it then the likelihood of its reality is markedly increased, this despite the rather romantic notion of the lone genius going against the grain of “lemming” opinion.
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Feb 23, 2014 - 01:24pm PT
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 (Duck)


“John, count your lucky stars you live in the USA” . . .

Col. George Bristol, USMC Ret

(Designed the martial arts requirement for the USMC; USMC representative to joint military and political seminar at Harvard/MIT ; Inspector General for USMC Special Ops; Commander of JSOC, AfriCorp 2012/13 ; most decorated special ops marine when he retired in 2013 . . . and an old friend and fellow free-solo climber and rope-climber. A true warrior/poet who has seen and experienced things we can only imagine.)
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Feb 23, 2014 - 02:03pm PT
z&#40;1&#41;=z&#40;0&#41;:   F&#40;z,t&#41;=z+7*Cos&#40;2&#960t&#41;+7*Sin&#40;2&#960t&#41;i
z(1)=z(0): F(z,t)=z+7*Cos(2πt)+7*Sin(2πt)i
Credit: jgill

Another simple example of the leaf returning to its original position at one minute. These two examples are almost trivial: when Φ(z,t)=F(z,t)-z is an integrable function of t one can determine z=z(t)=x(t)+iy(t), a parametric form for the contour. Sometimes z(1)=z(0).

F(z,t)=z+exp(zt) is not quite as accommodating.


;>)
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Feb 23, 2014 - 05:20pm PT
. . . but those are all conceptualizations--not the being , the experience. What's real? The conceptualizations of the so-called objects, or the being? (MikeL)

She was on autopilot. Being = autopilot? We've all had those experiences. Why dwell on them as if they reveal our "true" nature? What's the big deal here? Just wonderin'


Heidegger: "'Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy"
Jan

Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
Feb 23, 2014 - 06:46pm PT
As for the U.S., both opinions are true. We are lucky to be Americans no matter what the faults of the system. I've lived in several dictatorships including one where the absolute monarch claimed to be the reincarnation of a god. We are free and lucky compared to that.

But we must also be careful with this line of reasoning. Of course a first world country looks good compared to a developing one but it's not a fair comparison. Let us compare ourselves to the western Europeans, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders and the Japanese instead.

If we do that, we find our society is not the best in the developed world at anything but the military and the technology developed alongside it. We are not the best in social welfare and interactions, education, health or longevity for example. We've also become very inefficient with bad service compared to other developed countries.

Our society is also the least safe thanks to all the guns and nuts with guns in America, and our police the most brutal, with the two no doubt connected. Our government makes us the most surveiled developed society and one of the most regulated by inefficient bureaucracy. Perhaps the amount of mindless bureaucracy that has developed in the past 30 years was the thing that surprised me the most on my return.

That said, we have the good fortune to live in the country with the most wide open spaces, the most varied and beautiful scenery, and the cheapest energy and most physical comforts of all societies developed and otherwise. I guess we should thank our pioneer ancestors and the Native Americans for that.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Feb 23, 2014 - 06:46pm PT
Mount Chimborazo, in the Andes, is a 20,000-plus-foot peak sitting on top of a bulge on the Earth. Mount Everest is a 29,000-plus-foot peak sitting lower down on that same bulge. Because Chimborazo is a bump on a bigger part of the bulge, it is higher.

According to Senne, Chimborazo is 1.5 miles higher than Everest! Or, if you will, 1.5 miles closer to outer space.

If you define "highest" as highest from sea level, Mount Everest is still champion.

But if you want to stand on the place on Earth that is closest to the moon, that would be Mount Chimborazo!

https://www.google.ca/search?output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=neil+de+grasse+tyson+ecuador+everest&btnG=&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1
MikeL

Trad climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Feb 23, 2014 - 07:38pm PT
Jgill:

You were a marine? Semper Fi.

We've all had those experiences.


Not really. Your implication is right, though. They're going on all the time.

Why dwell on them as if they reveal our "true" nature?

No "as if."

(But, it doesn't really matter--nor can it.) As you were.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Feb 23, 2014 - 07:59pm PT

. . . but those are all conceptualizations--not the being , the experience. What's real? The conceptualizations of the so-called objects, or the being? (MikeL)

If I head-butted you, that would be real. If I argued you about the leaf taking 62 seconds, that would be real. If I told you were wrong and stupid and you got mad, that would be real.

Even a rock casting a shadow, is being. That's real.

What's not real? A dinasoar? A unicorn? Certainly our ideas and drawings of these animals are real.

My stumbling block is the term reality.
MH2

climber
Feb 23, 2014 - 08:04pm PT
Doesn't the idea of choice require an observer?


That depends (TM Lord Slime).

If you flip a coin to decide, is that a choice?

If a robot turns right instead of left, is that a choice?

Or do you mean it in the sense of Largo, that we can say nothing exists sans observer?

Or, to put it differently, nothing can be observed without an observer?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Feb 23, 2014 - 08:14pm PT

How can there be an observation if there is nothing to observe?
paul roehl

This conceptualization keeps reminding me of the 'ol "what came first, the chicken or the egg?".

Can you imagine the universe without any observers? Seems like a waste.

Maybe that's why rock would invent emotions??
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Feb 23, 2014 - 08:19pm PT
If you flip a coin to decide, is that a choice?
Yes.
If you are okay with the result, choose it.
If you dislike the result, choose the other.
Messages 21121 - 21140 of total 22761 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