Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2016 - 07:57pm PT
|
It's relevant to you and the way you interact with the outer world (ala PSP), but doesn't shed light on the nature of physical reality, which I assert exists outside the mind.
Oh oh, here comes Planck . . .
Planck's Mind
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2016 - 09:42pm PT
|
^^^^
Strawberry Fields Forever
The Beatles
Let me take you down
'Cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields
Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry Fields forever
Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see
It's getting hard to be someone
But it all works out
It doesn't matter much to me
Let me take you down
'Cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields
Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry Fields forever
No one I think is in my tree
I mean it must be high or low
That is you know you can't tune it
But it's all right
That is I think it's not too bad
Let me take you down
'Cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields
Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry Fields forever
Always know sometimes it's me
But you know I know when it's a dream
I think I know I mean a "Yes"
But it's all wrong
That is I think I disagree
Let me take you down
'Cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields
Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry Fields forever
Strawberry Fields forever
Strawberry Fields forever
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2016 - 07:05am PT
|
Jgill:
There isn’t a field of study that has come down to a final solution about what anything really is. In every field there is nothing but different views and arguments. Even long-standing theories or beliefs get challenged, amended, and changed—in every single field. All of our agreements about what things really are, are inaccurate, incomplete, and transitional.
There appear to be unending reasons for different perceptions. There are different psychologies, different sociologies, different biologies, different notions of what it means to live, to be, to see, to understand. Look here at what’s been offered on this thread (even just among the science types).
It would seem to some that the mind is a selective filter of what is perceived by an entity. What that entity is and how it selectively perceives would seem to be absolutely fundamental to any so-called external reality, mathematics notwithstanding. What one knows is dependent upon what one is and how one knows. (It constitutes the most basic tautology.)
To paraphrase the Cheshire Cat: “if you don’t know who and what you are—and if you don’t know in what ways you perceive—then any interpretation of any reality will do.” They will all be equal. Making any distinction between what’s inside and what’s outside won’t stand for long.
(You can perhaps see where reflection and being quiet and still might come into the conversation. In its own ways, every field of science is deeply involved in finding answers to these questions. One doesn't need to be a philosopher.)
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2016 - 07:44am PT
|
"While brushing your teeth, use those minutes to practice mindfulness." From this mornings NYTimes Your Monday Briefing .
Why do that? Mindfulness when brushing your teeth = Just brush your teeth!!
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2016 - 09:30am PT
|
"Who of God is made unto us wisdom."
1 Corinthians 1:30
Man's intellect seeks after rest, and by nature seeks it apart from the Lord Jesus Christ. Men of education are apt, even when converted, to look upon the simplicities of the cross of Christ with an eye too little reverent and loving. They are snared in the old net in which the Grecians were taken, and have a hankering to mix philosophy with revelation. The temptation with a man of refined thought and high education is to depart from the simple truth of Christ crucified, and to invent, as the term is, a more intellectual doctrine. This led the early Christian churches into Gnosticism, and bewitched them with all sorts of heresies. This is the root of Neology, and the other fine things which in days gone by were so fashionable in Germany, and are now so ensnaring to certain classes of divines. Whoever you are, good reader, and whatever your education may be, if you be the Lord's, be assured you will find no rest in philosophizing divinity. You may receive this dogma of one great thinker, or that dream of another profound reasoner, but what the chaff is to the wheat, that will these be to the pure word of God. All that reason, when best guided, can find out is but the A B C of truth, and even that lacks certainty, while in Christ Jesus there is treasured up all the fulness of wisdom and knowledge. All attempts on the part of Christians to be content with systems such as Unitarian and Broad-church thinkers would approve of, must fail; true heirs of heaven must come back to the grandly simple reality which makes the ploughboy's eye flash with joy, and gladens the pious pauper's heart--"Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners." Jesus satisfies the most elevated intellect when he is believingly received, but apart from him the mind of the regenerate discovers no rest. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." "A good understanding have all they that do his commandments."
-CHARLES SPURGEON
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2016 - 10:20am PT
|
welcome back GoB. What I was digging at with the mindfulness post is almost (but not) similar to GoB's post. Mindfulness meditation originated with Buddha and most probably before Buddha. Buddhist mindfulness style meditation digs deeper and asks what is this "I" brushing teeth and answers without concepts.
I doubt this is the type of mindfulness the NYT's is referring and that has become so popular. My suspicion is the NYT's mindfulness is about relaxing and reducing stress so we can perform better. It is about making "I" more in the moment, more on top of things. This kind of mindfulness will make you feel better but is very limited in shifting the endemic self oriented perspective. It is not much different that doing exercise or yoga etc.. Personally I think it is just the commodification of meditation; Trungpa called it spiritual Materialism.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2016 - 11:44am PT
|
What that entity is and how it selectively perceives would seem to be absolutely fundamental to any so-called external reality, mathematics notwithstanding
In my naivety how one interprets outer reality does not affect the separation between observer and external object. The moon remains there no matter how determined I am to avoid seeing it. Tree falling in the forest, etc. Observers may see different things, like that dress that looked gold to some and blue to to others, but the object of their perceptions, illusory as it may seem, exists outside consciousness.
Other than that comment I agree with what you had to say. The process of aligning ourselves with external reality is a never-ending quest.
As for consciousness affecting the quantum world, no one really knows what's going on down there:
Interpretations of quantum mechanics
Incidentally, the tiny center of Planck's Mind when magnified greatly shows a stinging cosmic insect. Ready to puncture all our notions of the cosmos.
My comments about the metaphysical insights of meditation are focused on what JL has termed "open awareness" and his attempts to integrate that experience with outer reality.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2016 - 04:43pm PT
|
Jgill: The moon remains there no matter how determined I am to avoid seeing it. Tree falling in the forest, etc. Observers may see different things, like that dress that looked gold to some and blue to to others, but the object of their perceptions, illusory as it may seem, exists outside consciousness.
Speaking loosely, I doubt there is not one person here who would disagree. It’s when one gets down to brass tacks that people might begin to separate themselves from others about what they believe, how they perceive, and what they think things are.
This is what we all do. We all talk and use concepts loosely, and we tend to believe that we are all talking about the same things specifically.
I’d say we disagree about what we mean when we say “moon” in the same conversation.
Do you mean that round shimmering, shining object that appears in the sky some nights?
Again, you seem to be arguing about or positing certain characteristics about what an appearance is. You go beyond saying that we all share an apparition. You seem to be saying what the appearance is. In the depths of that detail, it’s in THAT declaration that we may find significant / meaningful disagreement among ourselves. Just what are you talking about?
“Everyone knows that . . . “ is not something that everyone knows or even believes.
When and where are you a scientist, and when and where are you “a normal person just talking?”
What are you saying? In a loose sense, you are understandable. In a specific sense, your writing is ambiguous.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2016 - 05:52pm PT
|
MikeL, you are so misguided. I would challenge you to read a book that's currently out that is the New York Times Bestseller list -- Why Evolution is True. The important point that you can't help but appreciate is not only the sheer volume of data that support evolution but the fact that these data cross so many disciplines of science and everyday common knowledge. Here's a sampling.
1. Fossil evidence, including the relative age, actual age, and location
2. The current distribution of species around the planet
3. The tectonic history of the planet (the configuration of plates through time)
4. The fact that nearly every human can distinguish a member of the dog family from a member of the cat family.
5. The overwhelming genetic evidence -- among other things, the fact that all life on this plant is based on DNA
6. What we know about the age and the early history of the earth
7. Why bacteria and viruses will be our deadly enemies forever (because they evolve)
8. Let me think, evolution has been observed and measured in the laboratory as well as in the Galapagos and other actual locations on the planet.
9. There's ton's more.
So, now you want to tell us that there is simply no way of knowing whether something is true or not about the world? How do you explain this elaborate connection of observable phenomenon that fit with most people's common perception of the world?
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2016 - 06:19pm PT
|
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Col
Not as good as MikeL but it'll have to do.
Of course every place has its drawbacks.
I live where there's lots and lots of my fellar apes.
The "advice" I gave to MikeL is unlikely to be known by him ( or by very few folks) simply and merely by thinking for himself . Much like information he holds and has arrived at by sometimes hard won experience--and that I am unaware of and might be of benefit to me.
I usually don't give advice mainly because I think I know something others don't --or for haughty egotistical reasons. Actually I give it rarely-- when the spirit moves me.
Come to think of it most of the advice I give of this sort usually occurs on this thread, as a way of "keeping up with the Joneses" perhaps.
You're welcome MikeL.
Today's advice: get a pair of blue blocker glasses to wear after the sun goes down. Uvex brand on Amazon for $12 or $15.
Your Paraventricular and Suprachiasmatic Nuclei will thank you, not to mention dopamine and melatonin production in the eye .
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2016 - 08:26pm PT
|
Again, you seem to be arguing about or positing certain characteristics about what an appearance is. You go beyond saying that we all share an apparition. You seem to be saying what the appearance is. In the depths of that detail, it’s in THAT declaration that we may find significant & meaningful disagreement among ourselves. Just what are you talking about?
???? I just gave the example of the dress that different viewers see differently.
“Everyone knows that . . . “ is not something that everyone knows or even believes
Where did you get that? That sounds more like JL.
When and where are you a scientist, and when and where are you “a normal person just talking?”
I'm not a scientist.
What are you saying? In a loose sense, you are understandable. In a specific sense, your writing is ambiguous
Sorry, this is beyond me. Are we on the same planet?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2016 - 09:08pm PT
|
The "advice" I gave to MikeL is unlikely to be known by him ( or by very few folks) simply and merely by thinking for himself (Ward)
Just joking, Ward!
Trying to convince Mike to think for himself.
;>)
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2016 - 02:10am PT
|
I’d say we disagree about what we mean when we say “moon” in the same conversation........Just what are you talking about?
Dude, that right there is worthy of a Ph.D. in obfuscation.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2016 - 07:00am PT
|
Anyone, . . . What do you mean when you use the word, "moon," specifically, accurately, completely? What arises in your mind? Would a physicist say something any different at all from what a writer, a parent, a climber, a psychologist, etc. might say? Again, and this is hardly a special idea, what exactly are people talking about? You all seem to be saying that you are all talking about the same thing without one person being able (apparently) to say exactly what they are talking about.
"Oh, you're so silly, Mike. We know exactly what we're talking about."
Uh huh, . . . Say it. We'll compare what's written and see if people say the same things.
Look for yourselves. Think for yourselves. Run the experiments. We neither agree in the depths of the detail about anything, nor do we disagree about most anything in the most general sense. What does that describe to you?
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2016 - 08:21am PT
|
Sep 24, 2016 - 06:56pm PT
Base: Consciousness, as I've seen it defined, . . . .
I’d say this—definition by another—is a problem (even it is it the Great Wiki, “knower of all things” that's collating definition).
MikeL, I totally agree with you. Definitions needs to be very clear in this conversation, but some words have been a constant problem. They have hazy usage. Consciousness is one word, and it is key to this discussion. If you disagree with the Wiki entry, then please illuminate me.
You might not like definitions, but they are necessary. This discussion is limited to typed words, so the important words need to be defined clearly. Largo has never been able to do this. He has been saying the same thing for several years, and I'm still not sure that I understand what he is saying. I don't think that I am alone in that respect.
As for Wiki, I'm blown away by how good it is on scientific topics that I have a good knowledge of. I might feel that there are omissions, but I haven't found a mistake in years. It is a truly great resource. I grew up constantly reading the old World Book Encyclopedias. Wiki torches those. If you put all of Wiki into print form, it would be huge.
So I like it. It is, of course, limited in its depth, but it usually covers the bases, and points you in the right direction for further reading. It is a real triumph, in my opinion, and it is self correcting, and will only grow and improve with time.
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2016 - 09:48am PT
|
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2016 - 03:42pm PT
|
Anyone, . . . What do you mean when you use the word, "moon," specifically, accurately, completely?
No need to carry this to that extreme. We live in a fuzzy world with fuzzy sets, fuzzy math, fuzzy everything, but science forges ahead, making significant discoveries. You realize of course that the position you are taking here precludes any philosophical discussion, where definitions are frequently astoundingly poorly formulated. Garbage in => Garbage out.
But, MikeL, you do add an extraordinary dimension to this lengthy discussion! Thanks.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2016 - 04:14pm PT
|
One is my alter-ego. It too is poorly defined.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2016 - 08:50pm PT
|
We neither agree in the depths of the detail about anything, nor do we disagree about most anything in the most general sense. What does that describe to you?
A smart management consultant.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 08:03am PT
|
DMT: You're going to have to find another scab to pick at. This one is gone.
What a delightful image. It fits with your down-home writing style: practical, no-nonsense, terse, and very direct. Always the realist, naively: you rarely go very far into any issue. What appears, is what IS for you. There’s not much need for conversation. There’s no need to confuse you with the facts. (I’m as much to blame: I teach business to students, but at least I tell them it’s just a bunch of labels and concepts signifying only that they are a part of a culture.)
The issue is hardly as trivial as a scab, DMT. You have no leg to stand on. Indeed, you have no foundation for anything. You skip over that lack as though it didn’t matter a whit.
Most people here rail against any spiritual (or other non-materialistic) notion because those notions don’t conform to consensus reality, they cannot be validated and verified through scientific means, they simply sound silly and, well . . . made-up . . . the result of an over-active, imaginative, needy, and unrealistic mind. Folks here claim that some people believe in religion or myth because they are lonely or scared or anxious with out it.
Tu quoque. When no one can say what anything is, finally, accurately, completely, just how concrete, sure, and reliable is that position? How anxious or scared or lonely would *you* be if you saw theories, concepts, narratives as empty?
No one notices that nothing can be pinned down. No one admits it, or they come up with excuses about “well, philosophy this,” “the paucity of language that,” “in fact, mathematically this other thing,” . . . ad nauseum. Blah blah blah. There are all these excuses (or avoidances) of why no one can say what anything is. It doesn’t make a dent in anyone’s mind.
Not only is the emperor not wearing any clothes, there’s no emperor. It’s all a sham. It’s all a lie. There’s no “there” there. (Got a “there” to pin down for us?)
People have a consistency problem from what I see. We claim we know almost everything when in fact we truly *know* almost nothing. We have beliefs. (Thank God for that, eh?)
We lie to ourselves in so many ways each and every day. We tell ourselves we know what’s going on, that we have a good marriage, that our jobs are useful and meaningful (“I’m making a contribution!”), that we are good and moral (“I’m helping other people be better people”), that we know who we are, and even what we ultimately want. All lies. But living our lies seems to be easier and far far less stressful than admitting how very little we know about the world and ourselves.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!