Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 9561 - 9580 of total 15803 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 9, 2012 - 11:12pm PT
I do though keep missing the part where that becomes a fact versus opinion or belief.

That's what the practice is about - to shift the idea into a direct experience, form which the meaning of "fact" was first derived. I can have an idea about climbing El Cap, but once I have climbed it for a fact, the experience supplants my idea every time. My experience becomes a fact in the most concrete meaning of the word, as opposed to a symbolic representation like an idea, a figure, or a trope.

It is not important that you believe or disbelieve any of this in reference to JL, but to doubt that this can and does happen is to bet against yourself, and the important thing here is to be open to it happening to you. Where I am or am not is of no value to you as a human being.

----


To know something is "ungraspable" you have to know why it can't be grasped. That some essential element is not in your possession. ie. you can't solve the relevant differential equation.
--


I've tried to be clear about the why of this. When I say "our life" is ungraspable I am not saying this day or this boulder problem etc. These are discrete bits that we can wrap our discursive minds around. But the life we actually experience is a big gusher of spontaneously arising data and stuff that includes our minds. We cannot get "possession," we cannot grasp this life because first, it's a moving target, morphing soon as we grock onto it, and second, to grasp it as we grasp a differential equation, comprised of an unknown function and one of its unknown derivatives, if memory serves, we'd have to get outside of the equation, so to speak, to grasp it. We'd have to exist separate from in order to see it in sharp relief. This is what I called months ago, the myth of kissing our own lips. We simply cannot do this - we can easily see why. We can encounter the totality of our lives only from the inside, amazed by the geyser, and every time we catch hold and say, This is it, "it" has already shape-shifted into something else.

This underscores the question that is forever dodged here: What is the limitation of the objective mind to know reality?

JL
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Aug 9, 2012 - 11:19pm PT
Largo: ...this can and does happen...

I would ask, descriptively, if you to do better than "this".
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Aug 10, 2012 - 02:00am PT
Thanks to Norton I now know that my own views are shared with 12% of the general public and 18% of scientists. I can live with that.

Meanwhile I think that jstans's categories need further development

Understood
Not understood
ungraspable
1) because of the unknowable essence of the thing?
or
2) because the present brain of H. sapiens is not adequate to the task?

(and as Ed has pointed out, likely never will be in the lifetime of our species)

This brings us back to Largo's question:
"What is the limitation of the objective mind to know reality?"

to which I would add,
What is the limitation of the subjective mind to know reality?
and
what is the limitation of the whole mind fully developed (achieved by only a handful of humans probably in all of history) to know reality?

I've said before, I think how one stands on the issue of "God" or anything else depends in part on whether one prefers certainty or mystery.


cintune

climber
Midvale School for the Gifted
Aug 10, 2012 - 03:04am PT
Reality is overrated.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 10, 2012 - 08:25am PT
Unbelievable picture, Go-B. That face . . .

And Healyj asked:


Largo: ...this can and does happen...

I would ask, descriptively, if you to do better than "this".

Answer; What do you mean by better, given what I have already voiced my experiences about "ungraspable." In fact the "what" of it should be your businness - like climbing your own peak. But the "how" of it is a very fascinating study, IME.

I'm a big believer in the experiential angle. For instance, I might talk a big game about climbing, but till I take Jack or Jill out there they will never really get it, just working off an idea.

JL
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 10, 2012 - 08:35am PT
I had to cross post this

This is Why What you believe is important

The collision of the Right Wing Christians with Republicans with Corporations
Fascism at our Highest level in the GOP, all because their FAITH in THEIR GOD


An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/


PREAMBLE
As governments consider policies to fight alleged man-made global warming, evangelical leaders have a responsibility to be well informed, and then to speak out. A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Examination of the Theology, Science, and Economics of Global Warming demonstrates that many of these proposed policies would destroy jobs and impose trillions of dollars in costs to achieve no net benefits. They could be implemented only by enormous and dangerous expansion of government control over private life. Worst of all, by raising energy prices and hindering economic development, they would slow or stop the rise of the world’s poor out of poverty and so condemn millions to premature death.



WHAT WE BELIEVE
1.We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
2.We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.
3.We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
4.We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.


WHAT WE DENY
1.We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
2.We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.
3.We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.
4.We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.

If God doesn't exist, then these people would lose all their power that they use for evil purposes and money
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 10, 2012 - 08:58am PT
Jan said:

What is the limitation of the subjective mind to know reality?

Words will not let us unpack this notion of a subjective mind because semantics keep us locked into concepts. We can't seem to get beyond concepts when we are discussing. Art allows us to go beyond or get somewhere else that we can't get with words. Symbols allow the same. Other states of consciousness do, too (e.g., flow, undifferentiated states of self with Nature {mana, luminosum}, etc.). I assume that everyone here has a workable definition of what a concept is; what is beyond a concept, or what can a concept NOT communicate?

So, first there is mind. Mind is a non-object that has created itself through an evolution / differentiation of consciousness--but it's not real. Mind is ungraspable. Concepts can be made up about it (and are), but any of us who try to grasp mind are left with nothing to show to others. The most basic form of insight meditation directs people to observe where thoughts come from, where they reside when they are evident, and where they go when they are no longer around. Invariably, the answers are: don't know, don't know, and don't know. If you don't know or can't say anything substantive about thoughts, then you can't say anything substantive about mind.

Dr. F. wants proof of God. I'll take proof of mind, instead. (Let's start on the more immediate, smaller projects before attempting open-field tackling of "God!")

Unfortunately, mind is not reality. Subjectivity is reality. I know it's confusing because they seem the same, but they are not. Subjectivity cannot be avoided, yet it is ungraspable. Mind, too, is ungraspable, but mind comes and goes.

What is beyond words and concepts? Subjectivity. Subjectivity is ungraspable. It has no center, it has no boundaries, it is timeless, spaceless, it is infinite, and apparently by two threads on ST, it cannot be defined or described.

I'd say that any one of those adjectives would signal ungraspability.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
Aug 10, 2012 - 12:43pm PT
A mantra or proverb in my practice of living...
"Believe Responsibly."


Dr. F., your link describes the other side's model of thinking very well, I think. tfpu

It's amazing this crazy, syncretic meld between the religious right and the super rich into one narrative that Fox News and Views, for instance, presents so well. And the super rich benefit so well from in their jet-set lives. It's also amazing to have watched it evolve, and to come of age, year after year for the last 25 years or so.

You know, I've said it for 2,000 posts now... Beliefs Matter...

But around here and elsewhere, it falls on deaf ears.

.....

In the meantime, I'm so proud of these guys...
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/24606644

When the going gets tough, largely from dealing with the confusion and babble of dunces, these engineering science guys remind me the whole world isn't like this - and cooperation and accomplishment based on reason, edu and training do exist in the human condition, somewhere.
cintune

climber
Midvale School for the Gifted
Aug 10, 2012 - 01:16pm PT
These just in:

http://io9.com/5933605/scientists-discover-stem-cells-responsible-for-big-brains-and-higher-functions

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2012/08/how-to-measure-consciousness.html

Looks like we're getting a little closer, Zeno....
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 10, 2012 - 04:24pm PT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Explanations of how it happens (at least theoretically), but not what it is.
cintune

climber
Midvale School for the Gifted
Aug 10, 2012 - 05:47pm PT
"It's only knock and know all, but I like it."
MH2

climber
Aug 10, 2012 - 07:13pm PT
MikeL,

Are freckles only a concept?
Mimi

climber
Aug 10, 2012 - 08:39pm PT
Amelia Earhart didn't like her freckles.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Aug 10, 2012 - 08:52pm PT
Are freckles only a concept?

Probably not to Largo.

So if you look at Largo's daughter's face in real time, you'd see light and dark, variations of color, and from that patterns for possible recognition. This is the same thing (elements and process) that artificial intelligence and vision recognition programs use and apply. They "see" in pixels, and there are programs to recognize objects as configured and stored in some memory bank.

I believe you are one person among others here who has supported and honored neuroscience in our discussions. So, you tell me: are freckles only a concept?
jogill

climber
Colorado
Aug 10, 2012 - 08:54pm PT
On Ungraspability . . .

My little Corgi, Jake
Is smart as he can be
But if I try to teach him math
He simply looks at me

He feels it is ungraspable
He must therefore evolve
To set initial conditions of
An equation he can solve!


;>)
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 11, 2012 - 09:07am PT
You should teach that Corgi the one paw front leaver, JG. Pooch evolution. Grrrrrrrrr.

Hey, different subject - Say we take the track of the physicalists and say that "brain IS mind," that the subjective is so much blowback from neural processes and is nothing more, that experience is no greater than the material parts that "create" it. Mind is brain is a physical mechanistic function based on quantifiable material. That's our basic premise.

Now, it incontrovertibly follows that since the concept of "laws" governing material are well established and universally accepted, if laws apply to material - and of course they do - then other equally mechanistic laws must also apply to subjectivity, which we have just accepted IS brain, which IS physical.

What do you suppose those laws are?

The really obvious functions such as awareness, narrow and wide focus, generating and tracking thoughts, emotional and instinctual issues, and so forth would perforce be bound by a general schema of laws every bit as stringent and binding as (file in the blank).

JL

MH2

climber
Aug 11, 2012 - 09:26am PT
are freckles only a concept?


Well, you can see a freckle and touch a freckle, which I am not sure you can do with a concept.

So, no. Freckles have an independent objective existence outside of your brain.

However, if we try to consider the representation of freckles inside your brain, that is no simple matter. I feel safe in saying that you can have concepts related to freckles but the concepts derive from and need occasional refreshing through connection with the real thing.
cintune

climber
Midvale School for the Gifted
Aug 11, 2012 - 09:27am PT
Madeline, 5 years old: How does a brain think?

David Eagleman: We don't know. Part of modern neuroscience's quest is to answer that. One theory goes that, in the same way brains control muscle movement, your brain controls your arms and legs and mouth and so on. Thought might be, essentially, covert muscle movement. In other words, it's going through the same routine that says 'bend this, flex that, extend that' - except that it's not controling a muscle. Instead, it's controling something conceptual.

http://boingboing.net/2012/08/10/how-does-the-brain-think.html
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
Aug 11, 2012 - 11:42am PT
Cintune, holy awesomesauce!

"Ask a Neuroscientist is, precisely, reader questions answered by a neuroscientist."

You'll notice it wasn't:

 Ask a (Retired) Climber.
 Ask a Business School Teacher.
 Ask an Abrahamic Mullah. Rabbi or Theologian

.....

But I wonder if the 5-yr old new the meaning of "covert." ;)

cintune

climber
Midvale School for the Gifted
Aug 11, 2012 - 12:10pm PT
The source page has a bunch more intriguing stuff:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/08/10/daily-circuit-ask-neuroscientist/

Messages 9561 - 9580 of total 15803 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!

 
Gear Finder
Go
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews