Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 01:59pm PT
|
Approximations are no different than myths, than feelings, than stories, than instincts (MikeL)
Gosh, I thought I was [or] am [a scientist] in that I do [or] did empirical research and published it that relied upon the scientific method (MikeL)
OK, so you published one or two papers in which you employed the scientific method. I have explained my take on "approximation", although I am not a scientist. So, here is my comment: You are "approximately" a scientist, using your definition of "approximations."
Just jabbering here of course.
And to repeat, it was me who proposed significant problems with minds looking at themselves, or awareness of "empty awareness" - the possibilty of self-referential paradoxes. JL has argued against this idea.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 02:02pm PT
|
HFCS said " One of the points (criticisms, reminders) is that there's a lot more to exploring and discovering the mental life - and proactively partaking in it - than (just) Zen... than being present... than letting go of self-interests.... than the map is not the territory... "
I would think (from my experience) you are either present or not present. and that will greatly determine how you react to everything coming your way which determines what your relationship is to the moment. what else is there that is outside of this?
What is being present or not present? In Buddhism almost everything revolves around dualism and that is the main reason why the Buddhist's and the scientist's are having such a hard time communicating.
It is very difficult to get what the non-dual (no separation between I and everything else)view experience is even for most Buddhists. The dual experience of I am here and everything else is there is extremely dominant it is hard to see or believe any other POV exists. Zen Buddhists put almost no value in believing the non-dual POV exists we are really only interested in experiencing it. It is like the "show me" state. And if everything you are talking about is premised from a non-dual POV most people just won't get what you are talking about. This is what "the map is not the territory" points to. It is easy to get the guide book is not the climb. It is less easy to get "the discursive is a construct" and "I" is a construct not the territory; unless you are Ed H because he is very smart(really I mean it) but can he get past smart, to experience "mind before thinking" while still being alive?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 02:03pm PT
|
But wait a minute... if your reality is a simulation created by some entity then it is open to the arbitrary concerns and interests of that entity.
Not an unverified assumption, but a function of any simulation in which the concerns of the maker are likely to manifest themselves.
God may be shitty or nice or somewhere in between, but in the theory of a simulated universe he's inclined to exist. And I think that's of interest as it affects the theory in a problematic way if you happen to be an aetheist.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 02:12pm PT
|
Says who?
I do. Says who is no argument make an argument against what I said and i'll respond.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 02:20pm PT
|
. . . unless you are Ed H because he is very smart (really I mean it) but can he get past smart, to experience "mind before thinking" while still being alive?
He could if he put his mind to it.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 03:08pm PT
|
You still have to play the hand you're dealt.
In Heinlein's Starman Jones Max tries to fashion a fit epitaph for Sam. He considers, "He played the hand he was dealt." Then he realizes that Sam would have had cards up his sleeve and settles for, "He ate what was set before him."
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 03:21pm PT
|
Actually it is. Another guy telling me what's what from beyond the veil darkly. To put it bluntly, the simulation cannot know the conditions of the simulator. You can't use simulated logic to argue your way out of the simulation, sorry.
I don't know what's beyond the "veil darkly" and I never claimed to. I do know if some entity creates a simulation the possibility certainly exists they did it they way they wanted and, as a result, we can think of the universe as a much more arbitrary place than otherwise.
What still stands is the laughable irony that science is willing to contemplate the possibility of a creator only as long as he's operating a super computer somewhere in another dimension. My logic here is spot on. Science has, through simulation theory and panconsciousness theory, edged its way ever so closer to validating woo. And in that is an even greater irony.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 03:26pm PT
|
MH2, are you saying we are not hopeless against the odds?
Never hopeless.
Sam died sacrificing his own life to save others.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 03:32pm PT
|
If you truly believe this [your map and your territory are the same], then consciousness IS reality.
No. As a student of neuroscience I tell you that much of your map you are not conscious of.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 04:24pm PT
|
Maybe a link to these articles would be better than these very long posts. I no longer read them. If you did a short summary and then linked the article, perhaps.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 04:53pm PT
|
panconsciousness theory
Man, that sounds like the real deal! Consciousness as a third quality of matter, besides the wave vs particle duality. Real science there, Paul.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 04:57pm PT
|
Man, that sounds like the real deal! Consciousness as a third quality of matter, besides the wave vs particle duality. Real science there, Paul.
Believe me, it's not my theory.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 05:02pm PT
|
Well, either way, the point is, the world we leave in, whether created naturally or by "God", seems to obey certain rules. No unicorns, tooth fairies, os Santa Claus in this world.
Honestly I don't think you get it: If there's a simulated universe then why can't the simulation be anything its creator wants it to be? Rules? What rules, the rules are up to whomever's running the machine.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 05:10pm PT
|
Hey Moose, we could call ourselves... rulists.
I like it. Why don't we?
(1) Because the "rulist" recognizes - no doubt, in large measure, thanks to his science education - that the world works according to underlying rules.
(2) Let's remember, we heard it here first. :)
(3) 'Let me introduce myself: I am an evolutionary rulist.' Meaning? Meaning I accept (a) evolution, (b) the claim that the world works at bottom according to rules (a rule structure) which is typically reflected in matter- energy relations, for eg, and causation.
Yeah, I like.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 05:20pm PT
|
"If there's a simulated universe then why can't the simulation be anything its creator wants it to be?" -Paul
It could be. That's the wild, even nightmarish, possibility.
Still, there are rules. You guys are simply talking past each other on a couple of basic points.
You should know though, Paul, the last name I'd give/assign to our Simulator would be "God". As problematic as "God" is, it would be silly to do that. I am interested in clear communication.
So these would be more or less equivalent terms in my book: "evolutionary mechanist" and "evolutionary rulist."
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 05:33pm PT
|
Paul, I don't know why the world is the way it is. Ask your Creator.
If ghosts and Santa Clause exist, they are outside our reality. Why would I bother with somebody's fantasies, like religion?
You assume so much. Is that how science works through exaggeration and assumption? If you buy in to simulation theory then you have to consider the likelihood of a creator... but that's science. Me I don't know anything about creators. If you think I'm religious or believe in Santa you might want to practice your reading skills.
Hey Moose, we could call ourselves... rulists.
You do that. I'm more inclined to be a realist.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 05:44pm PT
|
"You do that. I'm more inclined to be a realist."
But "realist" doesn't emphasize the point that, at bottom, the world works according to (mechanistic) rules. While "rulist" does. That particular emphasis is the consideration and/or desire here.
I like the term "realistic rulist." I think I might use it once in awhile too. When I want to emphasize attention, appreciation or whatever to both reality and these rules. Thanks for the inspiration.
...
Go Hillary! New York!!
|
|
Majid_S
Mountain climber
Karkoekstan
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 07:18pm PT
|
lately I been looking in to how mind actuality accomplishes things ahead of its path. For example:you start a pissy day and from the moment you leave home, you hit every light red then back to back traffic on the highway and everything you do on that day goes south so was it just a bad day or bad mind?
Now one theory says that if you think positive then everything else should go as planned. in short sense, the mind power established a control over things to come. I remember I tried this method between age 20 and 30 and I got everything I wanted at that time but then I didn't follow the order so now I am looking to practicing it again.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 07:36pm PT
|
Me I don't know anything about creators.
So you must have been dropping the name of Jackson Pollock the postman?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 08:03pm PT
|
Bravo for the words,and the environment here seems Nice!
Gasolinelover, thank you for that response. Makes sense! After reading it through, felt like my mom talking to me.lol. That's why i went back to reconfigure your point. The seriousness of the article although conjoining, wasn't so enlightening,for me anyway(i have a MPHD on depression), jus kidd'in.
The next realization, which could yield enlightenment for me; "Does a woman's brain function differently than a mans brain?
Could there/or is there, a different sequence of steps between the two?
The bodies have different functions, presumably the brain would have different wiring!?
My brain doesn't deal with monthly "bleedings", SOon as i bleed i stitch it up, or atleast ductape it up!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!