What is "Mind?"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 4061 - 4080 of total 4735 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Sep 3, 2014 - 10:20am PT
Every tool, story, interpretation, drawing, concept is a filter.

Quit filtering. See what is there.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Sep 3, 2014 - 10:39am PT
To date there is no scientific evidence that the universe does not exist outside any individual's mind.
MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Sep 3, 2014 - 10:56am PT
I should have simply said that the mind is a filter.

Dilemmas. Paradoxes. For as far as the eye can see.

Tvash

climber
Seattle
Sep 3, 2014 - 11:05am PT
One less tree, for starters.
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Sep 3, 2014 - 01:11pm PT
Dilemmas. Paradoxes. For as far as the eye can see. (MikeL)


Ain't it wonderful? It makes life exciting, an adventure.


Or is it better to sit like a stone in an ashram somewhere?

Nothing is better or worse . . . right, Mike?


;>)
MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Sep 3, 2014 - 01:14pm PT
Right you are.
MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Sep 3, 2014 - 01:19pm PT
Tvash: To date there is no scientific evidence that the universe does not exist outside any individual's mind.

Although impossibility appears to be an impossibility these days, I don't think Tvash's claim above is any that science could properly make and prove--at least not using a "falsificationist" approach (using a hypothesis and null hypothesis test).

No one can say what is not existent. Scientifically, there is no method that I'm aware of to do so. (As for the statistics . . . pfffftttttt!)
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Sep 3, 2014 - 01:33pm PT
That was a joke.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 3, 2014 - 04:36pm PT
"Science" does not exist separate from mind.

Fer fux sake Largo, that's precisely the point of "science": to understand the world (and ourselves) in spite of ourselves.


You mean in spite of sentience.

What we do when we objectify anything, is we frame it as an object and get to quantifying. That IS science. the "point" of science is to generate the measurements and work up our findings into thories, laws, etc. The "point" is not to do so "in spite of sentience," becuase that is totally impossible. Science does not DO the measuring. We do.

Or maybe you can explain how to do science sans subject.

The belief that we can do science with no human awareness, that somehow we suddenly become objects doing science, is not a well reasoned proposition.

What exactly would be the advantage of understanding the world by excluding our own experience, and again, how would this be achieved? Who would be "understanding the world?"

And if you are saynig that numbers exist totally outside of mind, then were are they - not the objects that are being measured, but the numbrs themselves.

And that tree in the forest question is not one most people actually understand. The question is not whether or not a falling object creates a disturbance (sound waves) in the atomic make up of reality, rather, what does "sound" mean in the context of the falling tree. Does it mean the 1st person experience of hearing, or are we refering to the sound waves that are heard. Can "sound" exist sans a mind to hear? Without ear and hearing, what are sound waves?

The age old tre in the forest question is to tease apart the habitual conflating that brains automatically do in order for mind to present us a seamless experience.

JL
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Sep 3, 2014 - 05:46pm PT
Sam Harris once again! on Joe Rogan. Most excellent.

Free will and determinism: 1:57:25

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Q6CWv7IXo
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Sep 3, 2014 - 07:14pm PT
And if you are saynig that numbers exist totally outside of mind, then were are they - not the objects that are being measured, but the numbrs themselves (JL)


This is mind-numbing.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 3, 2014 - 07:16pm PT
And if you are saynig that numbers exist totally outside of mind, then where are they - not the objects that are being measured, but the numbrs themselves (JL)


This is mind-numbing.

-


And yet it is exactly what is being said when someone says sentience is NOT part of science. It not only mind numbing, but just plain crazy talk. So at least we agree on that point.

JL
MH2

climber
Sep 3, 2014 - 07:26pm PT
What we do when we objectify anything, is we frame it as an object (JL)


We agree on that, too.


But can you describe the process by which light on the retina, sound in the ears, touch, taste, smell, and proprioception produce what you call 'an object?'
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Sep 3, 2014 - 08:53pm PT
Bravo again Largo! That was a gud'n.

Science does not DO the measuring. We do.

i'd like to interject here though, my scientific mind wants to say;
Haven't plants and animals been doing science longer then us? Plants for instance, they make decisions based on sunlight and rainfall. Animals can do that and go the next step, making decisions based on other animals actions.

Is that not science?

Humans just take the next step and title everything..
goatboy smellz

climber
लघिमा
Sep 3, 2014 - 09:24pm PT

"This world may be only illusion -- but it's the only illusion we've got." -- Edward Abbey
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Sep 3, 2014 - 09:28pm PT
18th century philosophical musings . . .?
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Sep 3, 2014 - 09:28pm PT
And that tree in the forest question is not one most people actually understand. The question is not whether or not a falling object creates a disturbance (sound waves) in the atomic make up of reality, rather, what does "sound" mean in the context of the falling tree.

Nope. That is not what the sentence says.

DMT
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Sep 3, 2014 - 09:33pm PT
There is no sound in outer-space, thus no trees?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 3, 2014 - 09:40pm PT


I think it's pretty clear that you have zero idea how "science" is done....and even less as to why it is done. It's no wonder that you and MikeL have nothing but contempt for the process and it's practitioners.

--


This is total rubbish, Fort. The process by which I have written all those anchor and safety books is strictly scientific. From the annectodal evidence we go to drop tests, then to a statisitial prof (Crimp Girl) to work up the numbers, then to Dr. Richard Goldstone to get the math model figured out and thene we start looking at standarzing the methods, and then more testing and finally, I can start drumming up some rules of thumb. And I've got to be right or people die.

I have no contemp for the process I just described. It all works off the numbers, mostly from drop tests. It's just that I don't expect for any science to get done sans sentience. Again - how might that work?

JL

Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 3, 2014 - 09:46pm PT
And that tree in the forest question is not one most people actually understand. The question is not whether or not a falling object creates a disturbance (sound waves) in the atomic make up of reality, rather, what does "sound" mean in the context of the falling tree.

Nope. That is not what the sentence says.


The sentence says: If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear, does the tree make a sound?

The answer: No. A falling tree creates distubrances in the atmosphere (we humans call them sound waves). Our brains "make" the subjective experience of a "sound" from the objective sound waves "out there."

JL
Messages 4061 - 4080 of total 4735 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 Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews