Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2015 - 08:15pm PT
|
BB:
You can get a discussion of this on Wiki by googling "cosmology inflation".
While it can legitimately be termed a "Theory" very substantial data supports it. Research the matter and make up your own mind.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2015 - 08:20pm PT
|
with the equipment that amateur astronomers have to use, reproducing Hubble's research would not be a stretch... then you could know the universe is expanding...
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2015 - 10:37am PT
|
Excellent presentation on the mechanisms and actions of a certain class of antibiotics and the resultant resistance consequently developed by the target bacteria:
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2015 - 10:45am PT
|
Blue has his bible.
EdH has his.
Either of them could be right, right?
given the overwhelming evidence for natural selection and evolution, Dingus....
do you really propose the False Equivalence that the bible's mythology has equal credibility
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2015 - 11:10am PT
|
DMT for the win.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2015 - 11:11am PT
|
MH2 said: "...If you claim that experience is somehow not a physical and biological phenomenon you need to be clear on what the difference is."
I have repeatedly suggested that before people go off on tangents about the above, they need to get clear on the fact - not the "claim" - that the subjective is NOT reductive to the objective. All intelligent conversation about mind has to have this as its starting point, and everyone needs to thoroughly understand what is at play here lest all sorts of tedious and circular arguments keep draggng on for the lack of the most basic tennet of the whole "mind" discussion. Sam Harris, Chalmers and many others from the very core of modern neuroscience have clarified this by way of countless videos and so forth. I even listed the web addresses or same, as did Fruity. the non-reductiveness of mind to objective functioning is the Basic Tennet of the whole conversation - plain and simple.
While I'm not a huge Haris fan, he is especialy lucid with the baby steps toward understanding how the mind conversation hinges on the non-reductive aspect of subjective experience. MH2 and most of Ward's rants issue from a bumbling of the Basic Tennet, and in effect, largely ignore the qualitative in favor of the quantitative.
Of course none of us actualy live our lives like this - the quality of the route, the realtionship, the food, the car, the music etc. is often the whole business. The qualitative truly "makes all the difference."
I'll try to jot a little later out a few lines to make clar what Chalmers, Harris and all the rest have done long ago. Once you get hold of that, a lot of needless circling can be avoided.
JL
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2015 - 12:06pm PT
|
Oh yeah he did.
You just like to muddy the waters from time to time.
With all due respect.
.....
Or else...
Use separators or something next time.
Clarity is next to godliness. (That's a metaphor.)
DMT for the win. -MikeL
How do you think MikeL took it? Huh?
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2015 - 12:30pm PT
|
I'll try to jot a little later out a few lines to make clar what Chalmers, Harris and all the rest have done long ago. Once you get hold of that, a lot of needless circling can be avoided.
It would be nice to avoid countless videos and so forth, too.
The language of physics and biology is one way to describe aspects of the world. The language of subjective qualities is another. No description of the world is an exact replica of the aspect it deals with.
Language can also be used to describe imaginary events and objects and abstract concepts. However, without physics and biology there would be no language, no imagination, and no subjectivity.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2015 - 12:48pm PT
|
i'll be clearer. Jump on a pony and getty-up!
MikeL has long since overwhelmingly laid it out. We're all just trying to saddle our imaginations
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2015 - 01:02pm PT
|
Oh bullsh#t.
No need to be vulgar.
What in the heck happened? You used to be so mild-mannered.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2015 - 01:02pm PT
|
I'm not...
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2015 - 01:04pm PT
|
I did say either could be correct. And they could...
Remember what our mothers told us: When you're in a hole, stop diggin.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2015 - 01:14pm PT
|
on this "experiential" bent of Largo's...
I have experience meditative states which I have concluded are quite close to what Largo describes.
I have also experienced science at a level that Largo hasn't come close to (by his description)...
having both experiences, I'd say that Largo really misses, by a very large margin, what science is about...
now Largo could buckle down and do the hard work of engaging in science (I don't think his academic experience actually is sufficient, certainly my experiences prior to a lifetime's career in science barely scratched the surface).
But for Largo to have any relevant opinion on science, by his own criteria, he should be able to do it at the level of his self-described meditative practice.
In my experience, he isn't close to it.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2015 - 01:46pm PT
|
I have repeatedly suggested that before people go off on tangents about the above, they need to get clear on the fact - not the "claim" - that the subjective is NOT reductive to the objective (JL)
I agree up to a point. I would clarify by stating The subjective may not be reducible to the objective, but the subjective is highly dependent upon the objective. Try having a subjective experience without using the physical brain.
A friend wrote, telling me about a scientist who had a stroke that affected the left part of the brain. Her sense of the passage of time vanished, as did her sense of being apart from her environment: she was "one with all things", one of the meditation outcomes. I wonder if the experience of "raw awareness" or "no-thingness" might also be triggered by electrodes?
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2015 - 01:49pm PT
|
Having been raised on "Cleanliness is next to Godliness" (about as religious as my mother ever got), and having been cured of that by living with Sherpas in Nepal, I hereby adopt fructose's alternative, "Clarity is next to Godliness". It should be something both scientists and humanists could agree on.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2015 - 02:30pm PT
|
Oh look at Dingus, trying to get a rise out of me.
All right, I give. :)
......
Okay, so Dingus to Ed to Paul R confused me a few days back concerning complexity, the very VERY basic nature of complexity and the varieties of complexity (to the extent they even exists).
So consider the perfect polyhedrons: There are (4, 6, 8, 12, 20) five of them to our universe. Not four. Not six.
How come? Why not four or six or seven?
So would you say this points more to (a) an underlying complexity or (b) an underlying simplicity?
.....
Were there either (1) a simple rule set or (2) some underlying complexity or (3) some combo of both behind the universe - OUR universe - could we not personify it? a step further, could we not "look at it this way" - as something of a Higher Power (over our lives and underlying our lives) and then deify it, this personification? And were we to do this for whatever reason (our love of mythology, our love of deification, our love of story telling and naming things, etc.) would not this deity (product of deification) be a great deal different from Zeus (ancient Greek) or Amon-Re (ancient Egypt) or Jehovah, God of Moses (ancient Mesopotamia)?
I am agnostic about many things. Including this possible interplay between simple and complex. (But as to the reported existences of Zeus/Apollo and Jehovah/Jesus and Amon-Re/Cleopatra as for-real-life gods, I am not.)
It seems nowadays whether one is agnostic or not (God bless you Huxley!) is also context-dependent. (Not unlike atheistic.)
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2015 - 02:54pm PT
|
Were there either (1) a simple rule set or (2) some underlying complexity or (3) some combo of both behind the universe - OUR universe - could we not personify it? (FR)
Even as a former mathematician, should I subscribe to the Mathematical Universe conjecture I would find it exceedingly difficult to personify all those equations.
;>)
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2015 - 03:15pm PT
|
So consider the perfect polyhedrons: There are (4, 6, 8, 12, 20) five of them to our universe. Not four. Not six.
Can you show me one in our universe, or in our nature??
I've never seen a plane in nature. Are they really small?
Seems like another one of mans constructs.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!