What is "Mind?"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 22101 - 22120 of total 22780 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Gnome Ofthe Diabase

climber
Out Of Bed
Sep 12, 2018 - 08:41pm PT
ah?
I'm tubby, weak & blatantly un-repentant,
but Light?
I do spread Light
is that what you are saying
yes
I am god-like in my concept that is Light
so I'll build on that
and point out that I am more & so far above the questions
that go on here, I use this thread to put the lights out,
Good day Jim Clipper, there is a name, I'm sure you'll use it



I am aware that is not every ones cup-o-
but try to listen to a bit of one or the other,
there is redemption in the act of trying to listen,
is there Consciousness?
(given, I live in the past, when y'all was Da' greatest )

The Grateful Dead Playing "The US Blues" A particularly Crisp version,
7/13/85

https://youtu.be/waOfuTDaYl8

& Lady With A Fan/Terrapin Station from 7/26/87

https://youtu.be/k77EE3a7DUg
Jim Clipper

climber
Sep 12, 2018 - 08:49pm PT
Gnome apologies! Gnome guilt! You are light!


jstan

climber
Sep 12, 2018 - 09:52pm PT
Maybe it is time to drop the avatars?
MikeL

Social climber
Southern Arizona
Sep 13, 2018 - 07:31am PT
Duck: You are that conscious machine itself. Study yourself and not everything outside of yourself ……..

Yes, yes, yes.

It (“the conscious machine”) appears to be completely *inconceivable* conceptually, doesn’t it (especially if one reads this thread). I look every morning at it, and I’d say mostly that every time what I see appears to be different. Consciousness never appears to be the same. Mise en abyme: the self-reflection of a projection.

Almost every generalization seems foolish.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 13, 2018 - 09:19am PT
What you have written above sounds more like philosophical "results", which lack any real substance.
--

Again, John, by "real substance," are you not rooting around for a number, some quantification, some mechanistic "explanation" by which your experience can be reverse engineered to some observable, external object or phenomenon that in some way "produces" consciousness, which is really just biochemical artifact/output that we "think" is (fill in the blank)? This is what was earlier referred to as "mechanitus."

If I have this wrong, define to me, in simple terms, what would qualify to you as substance?

If you look closely at the study of mind and consciousness, most of the divergence of thought pertains to manner in which people choose to investigate the phenomenon, typically based on how they react to one simple fact in everyone's actual life: We all have experience, but that experience is directly know - is experientially real - only to the subject who has it. We take it for granted, in fact society is based on the fact that others have experience themselves, but we cannot observe another's phenomenological experience (their experience itself) as 3rd person sense data off which we can directly pull a measurement. That is, we cannot "see" of measure what you are experientially feeling, thinking, sensing, planning, imagining, etc.

This leads people to normally take one of two stances: They can accept that both the 1st and purported 3rd person (the view from nowhere) are seamless parts of reality, or that only the 3rd person perspective (and external objects/forces) are "real" (physical), so "knowing" what experience IS is a matter of wrangling down physical phenomenon.



Don Paul

Social climber
Washington DC
Sep 13, 2018 - 10:22am PT
JL apparently teaching this course in Ouray Sept 29. Is the video less real than a live instructor? Discuss.

Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 13, 2018 - 10:54am PT
Almost every generalization seems foolish.

And yet generalizations are how humans collect experience. We are technological animals because we generalize. We notice similarities and concentrate their essences, despite ourselves.

When this essential fact is dismissed then it becomes easy to confine the act of conceptual generalization to that of a mere problematic artifact-- an error in thought and behavior; an impediment to a fuller experience, or even experience itself.

In the spirit of this specific generalization let me suggest that the quasi- spiritual mystagogue shares one thing with the religiously doctrinaire: the sobering conviction there is some kind of original sin going on out there. LOL
jogill

climber
Colorado
Sep 13, 2018 - 11:38am PT
That's a great video. A young, handsome, virile and talented John Long.


However, John, your reply seems to lack evidence of "great progress" by any interpretation (other, perhaps, than accepting as real the wily coyote's romp down the path of Zen). If philosophy has produced such results please spell them out briefly without simply referring to one or another philosopher. That might set in place a productive path of investigation.

I'm sure you have discussed them at various times, but a brief compilation of "great results" would be helpful.

And, no, I'm not looking for numbers and/or data. In fact, I try to avoid them in the math I do.
MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Sep 13, 2018 - 11:58am PT
Well said, Werner. I agree but I like to study things outside my self, too.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 13, 2018 - 11:04pm PT

all sorts of machines seem "inconceivable," yet...

A tailless aerial robotic flapper reveals that flies use torque coupling in rapid banked turns

Matěj Karásek, Florian T. Muijres, Christophe De Wagter, Bart D. W. Remes, Guido C. H. E. de Croon

Science
14 Sep 2018:
Vol. 361, Issue 6407, pp. 1089-1094
DOI: 10.1126/science.aat0350
MikeL

Social climber
Southern Arizona
Sep 14, 2018 - 08:00am PT
Ward,

Generalizations are indeed what people employ, but that doesn’t mean that generalizations aren’t weak. Instrumentality is not proof of truth. Mythical religions were also generalizations, and they too worked to knit together different elements of societies. Today people argue that religions were incomplete, inaccurate, and not final understandings of how things really are. That's a myopic view, imo.

About a month ago, I finally assimilated a survey (book) of historical and current empirical and theoretical views of ritual. Even though we live in modern times of grand and pervasive rationality, the studies compel to accept that ritual somehow seems to be unavoidable and even necessary social instruments to the construction of societies and reality—from table manners to sporting events to food feasts to graduations to Swazi or British enthronements. Why do we shake hands, and why with the right hand only? Why do we pay attention to calendrical rites? Why do we follow social scripts and roles when we go to restaurants? Why aren’t ritualistic practices the same in different cultures? Why are there so many theories attempting to explain the use and development of rituals, and why can’t academics finally explain the development and use of rituals and myths? Are you aware that their are studies showing how rituals were “invented” in relatively modern times (*not* actually long-past traditions)—e.g, British enthronement rites. Is everyone completely stupid for continuing to follow and partake in rituals in everyday life? (The most general academic definition of ritual is a practice that serves no immediate, utilitarian, rational purpose.)

What’s often presented here in this thread as irrational, silly, and useless about various social practices here (e.g,, myths, religions) would seem to serve purposes beyond conscious human hegemonies of domination—if one takes reads academic studies. It would suggest that it is no “error in thought and behavior; an impediment to a fuller experience, or even experience itself,” to use your language.

There is no need to play the “quasi- spiritual mystagogue”’ or the “religious doctrinaire” card when faced with the research on the subject. If anything, imo, it shows a bias toward only rationalistic and material conceptualizations about what’s real and what’s not.

When someone refuses to take your hand in greeting, do you get an immediate real sense of meaning or not, or has your mind simply “made stupid sh*t up?”
Don Paul

Social climber
Washington DC
Sep 14, 2018 - 08:36am PT
Is everyone completely stupid for continuing to follow and partake in rituals in everyday life?

Yes. I refuse to bless people who sneeze or hold open a door for someone who's overdressed.
MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Sep 14, 2018 - 12:04pm PT
we live in modern times of grand and pervasive rationality,


What do you mean "we," North American?
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Sep 14, 2018 - 12:28pm PT
I've been reading up on augmented reality (AR) lately. Not quite the same thing as virtual reality (VR). So I thought this was pretty cool...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRkXPuGAHkE

...

Imagine... how will wearing AR glasses while climbing impact the climbing community in 20 years? 100 years? In regards to performance, adventure, having fun, etc..
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 14, 2018 - 12:38pm PT
The most general academic definition of ritual is a practice that serves no immediate, utilitarian, rational purpose.

this would include, I presume, faculty meetings....

"The word universitas originally applied only to the scholastic guilds—that is, the corporation of students and masters—within the studium, and it was always modified, as universitas magistrorum, universitas scholarium, or universitas magistrorum et scholarium. Eventually, however, probably in the late 14th century, the term began to appear by itself to exclusively mean a self-regulating community of teachers and scholars recognized and sanctioned by civil or ecclesiastical authority."
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university
jogill

climber
Colorado
Sep 14, 2018 - 03:07pm PT
"The most general academic definition of ritual is a practice that serves no immediate, utilitarian, rational purpose."


When I get out of bed in the morning I indulge in a ritual of making a pot of Peets Italian Roast coffee. Then I drink several cups with cream. Then I read the newspaper. My ritual is immediate, utilitarian and rational.



(That's amazing HFCS!)
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Sep 14, 2018 - 03:24pm PT
Great video, HFCS !

(don't forget your mask and flippers)
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 14, 2018 - 06:41pm PT
Hey MikeL, how you doing?

Almost every generalization seems foolish.

Clearly a somewhat different attitude displayed here:

Generalizations are indeed what people employ, but that doesn’t mean that generalizations aren’t weak.

MikeL, it was almost predictable that you would move the goal posts closer when it was your turn to kick again. But when it comes to people in general I am never surprised when unmistakeable hints of the passive-aggressive often emerge. I frequently find myself guilty as charged.

Instrumentality is not proof of truth

I don't know what that means?

Today people argue that religions were incomplete, inaccurate, and not final understandings of how things really are. That's a myopic view, imo.

I agree that it is short-sighted. I would also add in answer to your first sentence that in past millennia many people argued the identical thing about religion. Greek mythology being the penultimate example ; the interesting difference is the fact that the Greeks often found aesthetic means of first projecting then folding such arguments and queries back upon the mythological narrative itself, thus fully incorporating the inevitable tension of newer elements. This should provide fresh insight as to how an organic symbiosis between believer and non-believer can reliably proceed.

By the time of The Holy Roman Empire and succeeding centuries the technique had luridly shifted to simply burning or imprisoning those who questioned "...the final understanding of how things really are. Nevertheless the plea for rationality has always been disproportionate and asymmetrical. Has it not?

What’s often presented here in this thread as irrational, silly, and useless about various social practices here (e.g,, myths, religions) would seem to serve purposes beyond conscious human hegemonies of domination—if one takes reads academic studies. It would suggest that it is no “error in thought and behavior; an impediment to a fuller experience, or even experience itself,” to use your language.

I did not say that as regards my own thoughts about ritual , or religion, or non-rational behavior --I was stating that about your own attitude in opposition to rationality or science or the thinking they foster. I later compared your attitude to be hauntingly similar to the conception of original sin.

There is no need to play the “quasi- spiritual mystagogue”’ or the “religious doctrinaire” card when faced with the research on the subject. If anything, imo, it shows a bias toward only rationalistic and material conceptualizations about what’s real and what’s not.

The mystagogue comment was a sort of tongue-and-cheek thing I identified with a "LOL".

At any rate, I am not biased in favor of rationalism, empiricism, or merely "material considerations" when it comes to ultimate questions about the nature of the universe.I do however have a tremendous respect for nature and the seemingly endless mystery that enfolds us hereabouts on our tiny planet, and appears to stretch out in all directions. How can I not?

This respect for nature has led me to a mixture of boundless admiration and complete subservience to the natural world. In other words when she says "jump" I immediately reply "HOW HIGH?"

BTW in the earlier discussion about ritual I was struck by how little distinction was afforded between highly formalized, nearly reptilian ritual of a full-dress Catholic Mass for instance , and the so-called ritual practice of simply having morning Joe and reading the newspaper.?



eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Sep 14, 2018 - 07:06pm PT
Sometimes I think that I am the only one on this thread truly trying to solve the answer to the question posed by the OP. I think that most everybody else has given up. I have my eye on the prize. It is clearly a model that includes science and algorithm. I think that somebody (probably smarter than me) with a good understanding of both will eventually solve the problem.

Algorithm is the term I would use to describe the "computer science" angle to how biology works. It is a discipline that derives from the more general discipline of logic. The hierarchy would be: Philosophy => Logic => Algorithm => Biological algorithm (Philosophy not needed)
WBraun

climber
Sep 14, 2018 - 07:41pm PT
So sorry, but .... You really are insane with that post you just made .....
Messages 22101 - 22120 of total 22780 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

Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta