Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 22641 - 22660 of total 23145 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Apr 23, 2014 - 04:45pm PT
Indefinitely? You are not correct, Sir. Not with just the listed ingredients. Humans will not survive in sterile environment, long term. We need those bugs, they need us.

DMT
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Apr 23, 2014 - 04:48pm PT
What bugs are you referring to? If it's gut bacteria - they go where we do. If it's pollinators - that's a mechanical process that has already been synthesized. If its rhizobia n stuff for growing things - you can culture it indefinitely.

Is there a theoretical reason why organic material can't be recycled indefinitely with an input of energy? Can't think of one. The Three Laws certainly allow it.

I wonder if peeps would eventually grow taller on the moon?
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Apr 23, 2014 - 05:03pm PT
Not saying it would be a picnic or anything, unless a picnic at a maximum security underground prison run by Dr. Strangelove is your idea of a good time.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Apr 23, 2014 - 06:36pm PT
Yeah, I've rewired/plumbed/insulated/modeled 2 old houses, built rooms/additions (including 2 bathrooms), garages, Japanese gardens, decks, stone patios, LOTS of custom lighting, concrete floors, a brick chimney, put in a gas furnace/on demand water heater (and a tiki bar) - pretty much everything but tile...as well as designed heart monitors and automated assembly lines.

Welcome to Planet Assumption.

The whole blue collar v white collar thing is a bit dated. Sorry to disappoint, but many folks play on both sides of that field, now.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Apr 23, 2014 - 07:10pm PT
So does that mean you don't need any help up there?

While ur still here. With regards to the low gravity, Maybe you could design a pump to help get the poop out of ur bungholyio?

Sorry it's gotten hotter down here. My inventiveness and sense of humor drips like my sweat.
As far as that pump design. In all seriousness, lets design a garbage disposal inside a toilet. When you flush, everything is chopped up fine and exits a 1" pipe instead of this 3" that takes up so much space to get the grade right. It's really a problem with framed floors compared to slabs. What ya think? The Vita-mix Toilet. Could be worth millions. Ill split it with ya!
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Apr 23, 2014 - 07:36pm PT
Composting toilet.

Problem solved.

Happy gardening.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Apr 23, 2014 - 08:26pm PT
I agree! I used one for a couple yrs untill I bought a well.
But their illegal in SB Co. some liberal green act. Now their fighting solar farm proposals. It disrupts the tortoise habitats and they don't look good out my window. You can NEVER please the Liberal types.

But I think I got something with the Vita-mix toilet. In the next yr or two, everyone from Yucca to 29palms will have to disconnect from their septic tanks and hook up to the new sewage treatment plant. This will bring a $10k + to each household. And 30k bill to every commercial owner. The Vita-toilet could reduce overall volume. Thus overall costs. It would only use 1-2 Qrts for flushing compared to 1-2 gal. And you could have a two stage flush. One flush for jus pee which drops into the upper of two tanks under the seat. When you flush a poop the pee tank would open and help flush the poop soup. Not bad aye?

This town is losing its water rights to LA. It may dry up? Any type of water conservative products will prolly be mandated soon. Good time to jump on the money raking bandwagon.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Apr 24, 2014 - 11:12am PT
Inspired by Cintune after I expressed some disappointment in Cosmos II a few days back, I started checking out other Neil deGrasse Tyson stuff. I learned he did a six-episode series for The Great Courses program entitled The Inexplicable Universe.

Best of all, it's now playing on Netflix.

I've watched a few episodes and I think in many ways it's better than Cosmos II - the show seems to have more content, presents to a more experienced audience, and Tyson does a significant bit of thought-provoking philosophizing re issues dealing w reason, evidence and science vs theism stuff.

The third episode, Inexplicable Life, treats many of the issues raised on this thread. Incl genetic code, one primordial ancestor, panspermia (e.g., from Mars or comet), even chirality (enantiomers) stuff.

photo not found
Missing photo ID#355443

.....

3, 2, 1... ikel

.....

I see that you Zen guys have been having your way since the science types got bored of this thread.

What am I, chopped liver? lol!

.....

Lollie wrote,
What exactly do you mean by this?

Well, just so there's no confusion and to help set the stage, how do feel about this one...
There shouldn't be any doubt that the under-representation of women in physical aggression, violence and bloodshed in a group setting is due, in part, to genetics.

Is this one okay. Agree?

Or do you think it's (edit: gender differences) entirely cultural (iow, nurture) as opposed to genetic (iow, nature)?

That said, I do get the fact that this is controversial on the left and indeed splits the left - at least here in America - which I confess is precisely why I posted it. I was looking for something thought-provoking in that hour to stimulate my brain cells. Anything to get us off that silly empty meditation and sentience woo or prideful science illiteracy was the aim, I guess.

I don't know if you know the story of Larry Summers at Harvard from a few years ago. But that irked me. A case of the pendulum swinging too far back, imo.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Apr 24, 2014 - 11:15am PT
Having to play fiddle for Sagan's ghost cannot be easy.

These boomer-2nd-effort movies, shows, etc... I mean wtf? Is our generation drowning under the maudlin waves in the Sargasso-sea of Nostalgia.

Its like remakes of Twilight Zone... so sad.

DMT
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Apr 24, 2014 - 11:32am PT
Good lord. How do you come up with this stuff? How could you possibly know such things?

Yes, good lord!

This has to rank right up there with Blu's posts on two counts: (a) ignorance and (b) arrogance.

Mercy!

I also happen to be a narratives junkie - from great historical lit to today's film productions - in large part, for the narrative's role ("Tell me a story") in any future post-religious belief system. I could start with the so-called Evolutionary Epic or The Scientific Story (which the Great Sagan laid out very well in his works incl Cosmos). But let me just say, imo, you disparage narrative, otherwise myth or mythology, and the invaluable role they play in the human condition by the way you post about them in relation to science and facts and truth. :/

.....

"I think the humanities would do themselves a favor by not insisting on staying in a silo. If they are wanting to attract the smartest minds from the next generation, it would be wise to hold out the promise that there will be new ways of understanding things—the same expansive mindset that attracts smart, ambitious people to the sciences could also attract them to the humanities."

Steven Pinker

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/science-undeniably-making-world-better-place-conversation-steven-pinker-76083/
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Apr 24, 2014 - 11:36am PT
One word: V'ger

Thanks a lot, Carl.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Apr 24, 2014 - 12:24pm PT
Something John S. said several days ago got me thinking. I didn’t agree with it, in fact I knew better as a matter of empirical fact, but I needed a few days to frame it in words.

The triggering argument was that the unconscious would never have been discovered by an external examination of objective functioning, and it took Freud to go internal and find it. John cited a study in which people could watch a brain scan in real time and determine some seconds in advance which button a subject would push. This, John believed, was external proof of an unconscious mechanism that did the doing for the subject, and that doing, what the subject did or would do, is likely, I believe, how John would define the subject’s “mind” process: a mechanism, reducible to parts, beyond which there is no more. Standard materialism.

Put differently, mind and sentience is no more than its parts, and once you know and can predict what those part will do – even if you have to reverse reengineer the process - you have essentially defined mind.

This is largely how we handle non-sentient places, things and phenomenon in reality, but it was dead wrong per sentience. Here is why:

As mentioned, defining something by what it does, and working up accurate predictions based on that model, will lead one to consider the reality of sentience, mind and humanity itself in terms of functionality. Human is as human does. And since we are mechanistic and determined, the thinking goes, what we really are is the bio mechanism itself. Therefore, there is no need to look any further than objective functioning since this drives what we do in the first place. And beyond what we do - there is nothing.

In working up our predictions per what we will do, as it goes with most all experiments, you simply ditch all elements that are superfluous to determining the predictive process and proving same by way of second and third party peers replicating the experiment. So for the pushing-the-button project, what the subject felt, thought, sensed, heard, remembered, and observed had little to nothing to do with the predictive process, so all of those elements became superfluous to the experiment and were perforce non-factors. Since none of these subjective elements could be shown to effect the mechanistic/determined unconscious selection process, they’re simply subjective blow back off the brain. Subjective white noise, figuratively speaking.

This elimination process is how science typically deals with every other facet of reality in working up their predictions, so why not mind/sentience/subjective experience? With all other things or phenomenon, if you were to look beyond what a given object does to define what it is, you would be left with nothing more than biological, and further down, atomic level structures and stirrings. There would be nothing more left to consider. But with sentience and mind, this decidedly and empirically is not so. But how do we ever see as much?

Meditation is one of possibly many methods. Beginning meditators are always asking, “What do I do?” “How do I meditate?” One can see by these questions how deep the idea of doing goes. In fact, many meditations involve the uncoupling from the whole doing process.

That is, over time, you learn to detach from whatever mechanical inner directives bubble up in your Q Space or field of awareness, whether it’s to pay attention to this thought or feeling or to scratch this itch or whatever comes up. You move neither toward nor away from all of these directives and impulses – whether they’re on time delay or not - and make good on none of them while maintaining absolute silence and stillness.

While there are an astronomical number of unconscious and mechanical things going on to keep our organisms up and running, we can no longer tell from external objective observations what sentience is “doing” because the body is still and is pushing no buttons or anything else. In fact when viewed from the outside, our objective descriptions would not betray sentience whatsoever. There would appear by all observations that there is nothing more going on, no extra beyond the biology chugging along.

But from the inside we know sentience during meditation is remarkably enhanced and is standing out in bold relief. We are steeped with the vastness of it from the moment we shut up and get still and settle.
A materialist would be obliged to say that at this moment, sentience is what the brain is “doing,” but this can only be verified from the inside. Nothing from the outside gives us the faintest idea what sentience itself is up to, if it’s there or not, because this is no evidence that sentience is doing one damn thing.

The long and the short of this is that narrow focus objectifying and quantifying is the scientific perspective and process used for defining objective reality, specifically in terms of what material reality will likely do. However with sentience itself, only the inside track can disclose what sentience IS, and only then when our ties to doing have dissolved, to lesser or greater degrees. Somewhere in this process most people come to realize that at a deep level, that in terms of being human, this sentience is not what we do, rather it’s what we ARE. That realization is a game changer for many.

There are challenges when trying to investigate sentience via methods used exclusively for non-sentience things – basically the entire rest of reality. We invariably end up with a case of mistaken identity, not because sentience is “special,” nor yet that it is separate from and independent of reality, but rather because the experiential reality of it is qualitatively different than stuff. We can certainly find the biological footprint of sentience, and if the person is in motion, or talking or doing something, we can probably make limited predictions. But when we say sentience IS matter, and nothing more, we have committed the error of mistaken identity and will have missed the quintessential experiential aspect that make sentience uniquely human.

JL
MH2

climber
Apr 24, 2014 - 12:31pm PT
Human is as human does. And since we are mechanistic and determined, the thinking goes (JL)



Whose thinking goes like that?

A straw man?
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Apr 24, 2014 - 01:21pm PT
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain....
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Apr 24, 2014 - 01:31pm PT
So there is alllllllll the rest of reality, and then there is sentience?

That makes perfect sense. NOT!!!

DMT
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Apr 24, 2014 - 01:32pm PT
I don't necessarily agree with all you say, JL, but it is refreshing to veer away from the science vs. religion droning (even if that was the initial purpose of the thread).
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Apr 24, 2014 - 01:51pm PT
...it is refreshing...

So you think it would be too much to ask that you and Largo, along with psp, jan, mikel, mh2, tomC and blu might start a meditation thread? then you could personalize, customize, specialize (edit: a thousand times over) all you want.

In case you hadn't noticed, there are smorgasbords of other issues out there besides meditation ala largo stuff - real world practical issues at the intersection of science, religion, philos and belief that are pretty interesting and big right now if not problematic and calling for change, attitude or policy reconsideration and/or solution - that others enjoy kicking about.

Start that thread. Who knows, deepak and sylvia browne and gary zukov might drop in to post up. (Edit, scratch sylvia, she died.) Just a thought.

It beats me though, it's such an enigma...

Your buddy can't, or won't, answer even the most plain, straight-up science questions. As shown time and time again. So who in their right mind would want to give his twisted bs on sentience, vane as it is, more than two cents? or two seconds?

And if it is too much to ask, why?

Afterall, it seems to be just what you (and mh2 who seems to love him equally) want as you just expressed.

:/
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Apr 24, 2014 - 01:55pm PT
I'd be interested in hearing where people take issue with what I said per sentience, and why. It was not an opinion I was offering up there.

And dingus, there is only one reality. The point is sentience is qualitatively different than all the stuff out there. If you disagree, kindly show your work. And Mh2, mechanistic, determined beliefs are not the sole property of strawmen. Ask Fruity about determinism, and mechanistic perspectives. Also remember, so long as you are operating from a narrow focused, discursive pov, you will get that perspective and you will be right - from that perspective. I've tried to show that other perspectives offer other data.

JL
jstan

climber
Apr 24, 2014 - 01:59pm PT
Your writing is simply not readable as technical text, but I'll take a chance I know what you are saying.

This elimination process is how science typically deals with every other facet of reality in
working up their predictions
JL

You don't seem to understand science. The crux of science does not lie in making predictions.
That is one step but it is not the core. The core is testing. You have to find a situation in the real
world that supports the prediction. Failing that all else is just millivolt action potentials that
developed in someone's brain. Those potentials could possibly just be due to the cigarette you smoked earlier.

This is why you end up with nothing in your sentience business. You have not found a test. String
theory may be in a similar bind. Watch Ed Witten discussing string theory. He is going full bore
looking for a test. The guy makes as good an argument as can be made, absent a test, when he
details all of the twists and turns the theory has had FORCED on it- by the theory. The intimation
is that since there way no other way to go, the structure may have something innate in it. Perhaps
it is even reflected in the real world.. But the fact remains that until there is an objective confirmable test
on something like supersymmetry - it is all conjecture. Beautiful surely. But is it
of the real world?

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Apr 24, 2014 - 02:12pm PT
You don't seem to understand science.

I'll second that.

I've come to think perhaps it was his upbringing over many years in humanities and theology. Also, too much Plato.

In fact, Tyson hit this nail on the head (The Inexplicable Univ) when he mentioned how Plato and Aristotle believed they could just sit in a chair and reason everything out concerning how the world works. Not.

But again, the biggest mystery here, imo, is that mh2 and jgl love him. Figure that one, lol!

.....

the fact remains that until there is an objective confirmable test
on something like supersymmetry - it is all conjecture. Beautiful surely. But is it of the real world?

Re string theory, Neil Tyson, in his latest episode just said the very same thing.
Messages 22641 - 22660 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