Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 03:10pm PT
|
Paul, btw, if you think Cardinal George (or the Church at large) telling one group Adam and Eve are literally their ancestors while telling another group (seated in the adjoining room?) they are metaphor for life and earth is sophisticated or brilliant or wise - or somehow compassionate or sympathetic - then I am sorry, I have to disagree and call it what it is... VERY WEAK SAUCE.
Perhaps good enough for yesterday's "low-information" votary but thank Atheist God today's secular progressive sees through the bs.
Also related weak sauce otherwise bs... back-peddling and telling a group, or groups, something is metaphor when for centuries it was passed on (or palmed off) as truth, literal truth, historically or operationally.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 03:14pm PT
|
Moose, I saw that Indian guy in person quite by coincidence the last time I was in India. Quite impressive. It just goes to prove that even with our big brains, we still can learn a lot from a monkey! Probably every other mammal as well. For sure, any trip to India is full of surprises.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 03:36pm PT
|
Paul, btw, if you think Cardinal George (or the Church at large) telling one group Adam and Eve are literally their ancestors while telling another group (seated in the adjoining room?) they are metaphor for life and earth is sophisticated or brilliant or wise - or compassionate or sympathetic - then I am sorry, I have to disagree and call it what it is... VERY WEAK SAUCE.
Ha! I don't know cardinal George from Adam... he's not the point if he's a huckster so be it.
The issue is that what poisons everything isn't religion it's human nature. Religion actually serves, helps people.
I certainly wouldn't declare science a poison because Dr. Oz sells snake oil.
HFCS and Paul, your last posts belong to the Science vs Religion thread. Which turned into a God vs no God debate.
Sorry for the lecture, but I really like your on topic posts.
Focus!
;-)
Moose
The thread police... and me with this authority issue, hmm.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 03:42pm PT
|
"Religion actually serves, helps people."
lol!
Yeah, and Big Tobacco used to serve, help people too. :)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 04:08pm PT
|
"Religion actually serves, helps people."
lol!
Yeah, and Big Tobacco used to serve, help people too. :)
I had a friend, a psychiatrist, MD, real science type. She worked with parents and their dying children. She did it for some time and had to give it up because their was no alleviating the pain of that experience, she felt there was not even the slightest she could offer by way of consolation and their grief was simply unbearable. She was an atheist but saw religion as the one thing that brought those parents some small sense of relief to a pain of nearly infinite proportions. Yeah, religion does good, and (to keep it on topic) it's a valuable product of the mind.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 04:41pm PT
|
George Pell COMPLETELY out of his depth talking about descent of modern man from neanderthals,
Well there's not much discussion to be had past the last 4k yrs, is there? I thought Pell did pretty good for this time period. He also went to Oxford, jus like Dawkins who incidentally majored in Behavior.
When we do look back at mankinds societies that had enough sense to keep a record. We can understand in societies like the Romans before their introduction to religion. They were hardly a step above their animalistic behavior, men and women killing each other for sport. Men and women having sex for sport and that's not even the tip of the iceberg. After Paul wrote a letter to the Romans describing the road to dignity, and when this letter entered the consciousness of the Romans they separated into societies of unequal levels of intellectual intelligence. And Rome crumbled. Since then the bible has held the moral bar high throughout the worlds environment and has reached just about every society. For countries today like the USA, the bible in the environment has caused a manipulation within the gene pool. Like it or not, everyone born today has the 10 commandments written in their hearts, just like the bible says.,
Dawkins says atheist can have morals. Sure, but all or most all the morals we pick and choose today are rooted in the bible. And he's surely read the bible so he has somewhat of an understanding to man's ill's and God's remedies.
But AGAIN, these guys that make their money by shooting holes in the bible really need to stop pulling verses out of text to prove their point! It's I sign of ignorance, or maybe it's willful-ignorance?
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 04:53pm PT
|
No, Blu, it's looking at the whole picture. True what you say that we've all been raised in the culture that at least pays lip service to the ten commandments, but again, in the big picture they were nothing new, they were predated by the Code of Hammurabi and Hittite suzerainty treaties. So we might as well call ourselves a nation based on traditional Hittite values, only filtered through Judaic copyists. And there's nothing out of context about the more embarrassing examples of Jehova's petty bloodlust. It's all there in black and white. Kill the infidels, no questions asked. And don't mix your cottons and polyesters, or there'll be hell to pay.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 05:55pm PT
|
And Christianity represents only 20% of the world's people. The Chinese, Indians, and Japanese most certainly don't have the Bible written on their hearts and together they represent over 50% of humanity.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 06:06pm PT
|
Paul, it is as if... the girl asking Dawkins her question at 57:10 in the Dawkins Pell discussion was speaking on your behalf...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1QHO_AVZA
(You can scroll to the 57:10 location, I mention this only because some don't know this I think.)
That is what it boils down to, ain't it? What people choose to accentuate? What folks, based on interests and needs, want emphasized.
Obviously an apropos parallelism here is the climbing world, where the adage 'Different strokes for different folks' is demonstrated time and again. Some gravitate to big walls, others to alpine, others to the gym.
To the point:
a) Dawkins and I and others want truth emphasized, also we love science so we like science as means to truth prioritized. Meanwhile...
b) Others, many others, (perhaps not so "into" or passionate about science) want comfort (e.g., through narrative, storytelling, ritual and communion) emphasized esp in the face of pain and suffering; they want compassion; they want whatever they can get to get motivated, to get up and going another day.
Personally I think, as I've mentioned many times before, it speaks to a yet to emerge, new institution still in the ether, so to speak, capable of competently covering both aforementioned needs / interests along with many others too.
Perhaps another point of contention between us regarding any new and/or reformulated (currently hypothetical) institution that addresses not only what is but what matters and what works: I suspect you would be content to consider it "religion" while I would NOT be so content; my inclination and desire would be to think of it as something more than religion (certainly MUCH more than any Abrahamic religion with its emphasis on God Jehovah and supernaturalism) and thus deserving of a different name to mark its new / renewed and enhanced functionality (gain of functions).
Time will tell.
Have a good evening.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 08:02pm PT
|
Men and women having sex for sport and that's not even the tip of the iceberg
This begs for a wisecrack, but I am speechless.
Again, please go back to the mind subject
We'll have none of that young man! Now, go prepare your homework for Vacation Bible School.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 15, 2015 - 08:11pm PT
|
Again, please go back to the mind subject.
Is anybody paying attention?
No. That's why zen centers are always near-empty.
Per what fruity was talking about, if you are a staunch lieralist, you will see every use of symbolic language not as creative attempts at getting at truths, but as mytholigized ways of viewing reality more accurately expressed though quantifications. This is every bit as nuanced as routing out preposterous aspects of ancane Hebrew culture and mistaking this for the core message of the bible. Yes, there are those who believe evolution never happened and that a mnan named Jonas spent a fornight in a whale's tripe, and that this is the "word of God." Others write view this and virgin births and waling on water as embellishments haveing nothnig to do with the deeper human truths found in the beatitudes and Song of Songs, to mention a few. The fact that we humans have tortured a doctrine of love (in the case of the New Testiment) into such abominations as the crusades and moral majority has little to do with the bible and everything to do with what Paul said - it's us. It's human nature. Most of all it's aggresion.
JL
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 08:23pm PT
|
Focus!
And awareness!
Moose is my kind of...
poster.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 08:28pm PT
|
Theory about what? When I say, consciousness at bottom has no content, what do you think that means.
I am trying to understand what you mean, and what the thread is about. The OP actually starts out stating what "scientism" is, you might imagine Largo with that raised eyebrow expression of "silly rabbit, everyone knows you can't explain everything."
You have made many assertions based on your experience. However, isn't it a bit of a pickle to do that, to use your subjective, first-person experience to explain/understand/describe what consciousness is?
This apparently doesn't cause you any problem. Or perhaps it is the problem you are recognizing makes it difficult, or perhaps you'd prefer to say "impossible" to make headway in this understanding. As MikeL would point out, our thinking about our thinking is "theory laden," probably much more so than any other set of observations we make and try to come to some understanding of.
To the extent that I have no idea what goes on in you to give you the appearance of consciousness, and vis-versa, we somehow can come to an agreement that we both do exhibit the property of having consciousness.
How do we come to that agreement?
It's a simple question, perhaps you can offer an answer and clear up some of my confusion.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 08:39pm PT
|
Is anybody paying attention?
Oh oh. See what you hath wrought?
The Magic Word.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 08:54pm PT
|
we do exhibit the property of having consciousness
Yes this is what it's all about.
Every living entity exhibits consciousness.
Consciousness is the symptom of life itself.
The crux is the source of consciousness.
The modern theory that the brain is the source of consciousness is very poor fund of knowledge due to body consciousness.
We are NOT the body .....
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 09:41pm PT
|
Awhile ago I suggested consciousness is something we have to have for survival. We have consciousness when we know where the interface lies between us and not us. Knowing where that interface lies tells us what we have to defend against danger. As I said before, if true, this would mean any creature no matter how small that takes action to avoid danger would have consciousness.
We have a problem here in that "consciousness" does not mean the same thing to everyone. To get around that let us refer to a new property called "C".
If we have C we know what things must be defended against threats.
The presence of that knowledge can be tested.
Now might there be a way to test this hypothesis? Possibly. The barrier between us and not us is possibly not known at birth or prior to birth. It is probably not present at conception. So we have a period of time during which the beginnings of C are learned. Once it has formed the creature will take defensive actions not observed prior to learning. The learning process will be complex and different for each threat. At the start C would focus on preservation of the body. Later on we might even include inside the defended structure things like our bank accounts. People have been known to defend these quite aggressively.
An example I have experienced might be as follows. Immediately after birth my daughter took her first look at me and promptly stuck out her lower lip. (A behavior frequently displayed by her mother.) I was quite a bit larger than herself. Another example. Again, right after birth and extending for a few months, while looking directly at her right hand she would make a fist over and over again. She was C her hand was something she could control. It was part of her. She also took every opportunity to hold ice in her hands so she could get other sensations from the hand. This could be seen as a broad brush investigation of the signals coming from that part of herself and a process telling her the hand was indeed part of herself.
What might a test for the formation of C look like?
1. Take something like newly formed amoebae(?) with no prior experience.
a. Take one and pose a direct threat to it. Poke it with a needle? How long does this go on before enough C is developed to cause defensive action?
b. Take a second amoeba and place it in a dilute solution preventing the same sensory inputs indicating a threat. Does defensive action develop?
c. Put amoebe a in the same solution and see if shows the same defensive responses it displayed previously. If it does, we know it is C of the threat even though the sensory inputs have been altered and are new. It knows where its interface is.
This is not to say this is the best or only way to learn when a creature develops C of what survival requires it to defend. Our task is only to show that tests can be performed in a period of time that indicate when a creature develops C.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 07:14am PT
|
It seems to me every one who is serious about mind needs to be familiar with the hyperloop...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop
Just imagine it: only 35 minutes travel time from a Zen Center in LA to a Zen Center in SF. How cool is that?!
Elon Musk: It is conceived, so let it be done.
re: AI and existential threat, Elon Musk at MIT and "Summoning the demon"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rfHNvHu8OE
"Summoning the Demon"
"I think we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. If I were to guess at what our biggest existential threat is, it’s probably that. So we need to be very careful with artificial intelligence. I’m increasingly inclined to think that there should be some regulatory oversight, maybe at the national and international level, just to make sure that we don’t do something very foolish. With artificial intelligence we’re summoning the demon. You know those stories where there’s the guy with the pentagram, and the holy water, and he’s like — Yeah, he’s sure he can control the demon? Doesn’t work out." -Elon Musk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfJjx12wkVQ
hyperloop: at 56:40
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 08:40am PT
|
We have consciousness when we know where the interface lies between us and not us. Knowing where that interface lies tells us what we have to defend against danger. As I said before, if true, this would mean any creature no matter how small that takes action to avoid danger would have consciousness.
An interesting perspective. How will we view the action of the soldier who sacrifices him-or-herself to save their buddies?
How do we view social animals like bees and ants?
And it took over 2 billion years for life on earth to go from single-cell to multi-cell. That was a big step for C.
How does one go from recognizing one's own interface and looking out for one's number one to cooperation with others? When do the benefits of cooperation outweigh the risks? Do you need to forget or lose part of yourself in order to work in a group? Or does one redefine their sense of self?
In the same or a different vein: summoning the demon? Humans have a tendency to see themselves in control of their fate. As if we could summon a demon. It seems more likely to me that we will be bumbling along, turn a corner, and there the demon will be.
Or if we get lucky, an angel.
http://www.sfsite.com/08b/mth87.htm
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 09:45am PT
|
We have consciousness when we know where the interface lies between us and not us. Knowing where that interface lies tells us what we have to defend against danger. As I said before, if true, this would mean any creature no matter how small that takes action to avoid danger would have consciousness.
This may or may not have anything to do with the source of consciousness. There are any number of properties of consciousness that seem to have nothing to do with survival or even the perception of reality. Our perceptions as constructions of mind stand separately/apart from the actual reality of the perceived object.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 09:52am PT
|
"This may or may not have anything to do with (the source of) consciousness." -Paul
Based on my studies and experience, I'd bet this ability / competence to draw a distinction between self/environs or us/them has much to do with the evolved fundamentals of consciousness.
The problem is Paul, imo, is that it seems you see very little if anything re the mind or thought or feeling from the perspective of evolution.
Minds evolved. Feelings evolved. Paul, I don't think you accept this. (So in this regard you see the world little different from the fundamentalist Abrahamican (Christian or Muslim) who thinks there's a ghost behind the body machine that drives it.) You can correct me if I'm wrong.
Minds evolved. Feelings evolved. It's only THE BASIS of today's evolutionary psychology.
In my Dead Atheists Society group, there are a couple of self-identifying "evolutionists" who think like the Pope and his Church...
"Yes yes limbs evolved, DNA evolved, even eyes evolved but not mind or feelings." -the faux evolutionist
These guys don't get it, the larger picture, that is, sorry to say.
.....
Understanding that toes and appendices evolved is one thing (an easy peasy c 5.3d? in this day and age?); while understanding that neural machinery responsible for thought and feeling, also moral sentiments starting with attraction and repulsion, eg, is another apparently (< 5.11 ?) at least for a great many.
.....
I should add I also think Jan is a "beta evolutionist" aka "quasi-evolutionist" (aka "faux evolutionist" according to some).
Sadly it seems only a fraction of those self-identifying as "evolutionists" are actually full-throated, full-on evolutionists.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!