Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear, does the tree make a sound?
It is an interesting contemplation. i guess the evolutionist would say, since the tree was here first, that rocks grew ears inorder to know when to yell, TIMBERRRRRRRRRR!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
and there is no one there to hear
There's always the "one" that hears there.
There's never ever no "one" there.
Otherwise there never ever would be sound.
In the entire cosmic manifestation sound vibration is first.
The gross material scientist have yet to fully understand the science of sound vibration.
One is One .......
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
^^^it does pertain to every cell in my body. Even the eye and nose, and even to plants!
All is One....
|
|
goatboy smellz
climber
लघिमा
|
|
But one of what?
Each other, that tree, every star?
Sounds like a good acid trip.
heh, been reading to much Abbey and Tzu.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
Our brains "make" the subjective experience of a "sound" from the objective sound waves "out there." (JL)
I like castles-in-the-air, too.
The planning, building, watering, feeding, heating and repairing of actual castles is a different deal. Not better, not worse. Different.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
You've got me wrong, Fort . . . but doesn't really matter, I don't think.
So, how would YOU characterize "science" then?
I'd say science is a thing, a process, an institution, and these days a set of values about what is good and what is bad. It wasn't supposed to be a value or a set of values, in pure form. But many folks believe that "science" has become a final arbiter of all things interesting and important to humans.
So, what's "science" to you?
(Maybe we should take this to the god, politics, and science thread.)
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 4, 2014 - 11:08am PT
|
Fort writes: In writing up your book, did you start by trying to explain a particular unexplained phenomenon?
We've written about five books on anchors etc. Actually, Fort, most ALL of the phenomenon of fall vectors and forces were little known or entirely unknown when we started doing this work in the late 1980s. There were math models from engineering that were useful to a point, but a nylon climbing rope and all of the binding factores (biners, etc.) and the dynamics of a falling climber on a rock all made the models of questionable value. We simply had to start drop testing to see what an actual leader fall was all about in terms of forces generated.
Pull tests were ruled out becuase leaders don't fall slowly. We came to analyse and later to explain falls and fall factos and forces by way of A) Listing our theories and beliefs and from that, postulating what needed to be tested, B) doing the testing and generating the figures, and C) drawing some practical conclusions, then D) testing the whole thing again, as well as having others test the same thing.
Fort said: Did you have a theory for it?
We had a bunch of theories, many based, as mentioned, on math models worked up in engineering. But they were not specific enough for the gear and so forth found in climbing, so we started drop testing and tweaking the theroy as the results came in.
One of the theories was that there was no such thing as "shock loading" so long as there were dynamic components (nylon, mainly) in the system. This and other theories were thoroughly tested and confirmed or proven wrong.
Did you prove your theory with data and tests?
We found that this worked two ways. We entered the testing believing in certain theories. And tested for those. For instance, Goldstone believed that the cordellette did NOT remotely equalize a load spread over three placements. Turns out the shortest arm of the cordellett (because it stretches least) absorbs MOST of the impact force. We had a stack of other theories about binding, how to best tie off two side by side bolts, etc. I believed that reduncancy was more important than equalization, and testing proved it. Another theory from aviation was that doubling (redundancy) greatly decreased probability of failure, but tripling made alomost NO difference in terms of safety - and we proved that true. I could go on and on. By tghe way, many of our theories were entirely wrong.
Frt wrote: Were you careful to eliminate biases in your tests and observations?
Very. When you are only after what works, biasis count for little. I didn't have a piece of gear I was favoring, or a material, so with no vested interest, we were pretty objective. And got a lot of peers involved as well to cross check. This was all about practical results.
Fort wrote: Did you offer up your results for others to replicate?
Yes, we published the results and many have since run the same tests. Petzl has a new facility in SLC with a huge drop tower and I'm going there in a few weeks to look into doing more non-science.
Fort wrote: Did you contribute something to the collective understanding of our world?
Ask the climbing world if they have found those anchor books of any value. We've sold over a million copies since 1988.
So yeah, Fort. We been doing science all along.
JL
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
I think Largo's work is awesome, regardless of how you label it. It's a very important and, unfortunately, poorly understood area by a lot of climbers.
I use a 25 KN rabbolet statically equalized with a figure 8, triple clipped to provide redundancy at the power point loop. I always tie in with the rope when belaying.
The Mountaineer's up here love their cordelets - but they aren't even close to full strength, so shock loading on one leg could be a big issue there. Many of them have adopted the terrible habit of tying in with their fully static PAS (I don't own one).
Bad anchor habits abound. There's lots of room for improvement there.
Rapping is no different. Lots of bad habits there, too.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 4, 2014 - 11:57am PT
|
Studying mind via the subjective adventures is also science. It's just that the methods of aquisition per the data are not the standard means of objectifying we normally use in, say, investigating fall forces. It's all empirical. Ultimately it's like comics - people will use whatever material works. If you're getting a new perspective on mind from your current methods - great. If not, try other methods. The rub here is, people won't try other methods, mainly from unconscious fear they interpret as something else.
I should also mention that per our theories about anchors and anchor systems - many of mine were wrong. I only found out as much through testing. The value of the math models is that they give you geeneric results per related functions and this can help steer you towards more effiencit testing.
JL
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
I think it not improper to label what Largo did to discover and verify anchors science. It wasn't basic science, such as searching for new fundamental particles, but it appears he did apply scientific reasoning.
As for the "science" of meditation, that seems a little bit of a stretch, but whatever rings your bell . . . as Mike might say, it's all words on a screen.
;>)
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
Wow!
Now that's science of the mind.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
The brain-to-brain communication result is only a small step. The authors point out that in the 60s it was shown that voluntary control of alpha wave EEG could be used to transmit information, to someone looking at the EEG. The new study just uses a similar recording of one person's EEG to activate a transcutaneous magnetic stimulator attached to another person.
The authors may know something we don't, though. They also say:
these initial results suggest new research directions, including the non-invasive direct transmission of emotions and feelings
It would be interesting to know what they mean by that.
They claim mind-to-mind communication, not merely brain-to-brain, because voluntary mental effort is needed. However, they also say:
by ‘‘mind’’ we mean a set of processes carried out by the brain
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
a set of processes carried out by the brain
is it a physical way the mind provokes free-will?
Emotions and Feelings?? i thought they were the samething?
Or, if a guy in India sent the guy in Brazil a warm welcoming 'Hello', the guy in Brazil would 'think' the Hello and also 'feel' the love. If that'e right, both would be sharing the 'Feeling'. And the 'Emotion' would be that of love?
They couldn't been do'n anything like that though by flash'in lights in the retina?
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
They couldn't been do'n anything like that though by flash'in lights in the retina? (BLUEBLOCR)
How are you reading these words, brother?
(I wrote in a warm welcoming way.)
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Using EEG, the research team first translated the greetings "hola" and "ciao" into binary code and then emailed the results from India to France. There a computer-brain interface transmitted the message to the receiver's brain through noninvasive brain stimulation. The subjects experienced this as phosphenes, flashes of light in their peripheral vision. The light appeared in numerical sequences that enabled the receiver to decode the information in the message, and while the subjects did not report feeling anything, they did correctly receive the greetings.
kindof a morse code?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Just plain cave man stupid.
In the old days they could telepathically communicate.
No stupid machine required like modern cave man.
Now modern man has devolved into cave man soulless robotic machine .......
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
It would be interesting to know how many people on this thread who claim to be scientists actually live up to the definition of science put forth by Fort Mental.It is my observation that a lot of scientists are merely following formulas and not doing original work as in forming theories and testing them. Just as the average meditator never realizes emptiness, I doubt the average person working in a science field ever achieves true science by FM's definition.
I think we have to be careful that we aren't defining our own interests in terms of the perfect ideal while denigrating others of a different philosophy by holding them up as less than the perfected ideal. This is a well known strategy in debating by the way.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Jgill: As for the "science" of meditation, that seems a little bit of a stretch, but whatever rings your bell . . . as Mike might say, it's all words on a screen.
Early on, reason was qualitative; when practice evolved so that method was expressed solely into measurements, reason became rationality, and biased. "No bias" can only be the sum of all views, no single perspective, what Buddhists call equanimity. Almost no one has that.
When it comes to empirical research, objects in the world are bracketed and force-fit into discreet categories so that they can be compared. But why, for example, a 95% confidence level, the central limit theorem, or someone's objectivization should determine what is important in observations? It's fiat by consensual arbitration. No one knows which indicator should be relied upon to show "fundamental reality" (the real reality of reality).
Why should anyone need an indicator to point to reality?. What any indicator indicates is itself, and it (the indicator) is reality. No one should require a surrogate, a theory, an abstraction, or a set of variables to describe reality. Reality is always right here right now. Indicators taken as "indicators of reality" are signs of confusion; indicators seen as non-indicators are the displays of consciousness. Observations of any sort is simply consciousness. Measuring observations piles filters on filters. It's appears to be a wonder that we ever see anything at all.
People come up with theories (there is no limit), they gather observations (there is no limit) of a certain sort defined by a theory (there is no limit), and then they attempt to say which observations are significant (e.g., at a 95% confidence level) and which are not. The steps follows standard practice, and it seems perfectly logical, natural, and useful. But if you look at any of it carefully, you might see arbitrariness, consensus and institutionalization of belief systems, creative imaginations, and ultimately confusion. This holds for any and all belief systems.
Yup, all words on a screen. They appear to be indescribable and uninterpretable. They appear to be words, not words, and neither. The rubric is "appear."
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!