Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2018 - 08:25am PT
|
Every discipline, every area of study, constitutes a bounded and isolated systems unto itself. Few areas of study (none?) connect to others very well. When systems are completely internally consistent, they express artificialities. (See Godel, Escher, and Bach.) If there were a grand science of the sciences (or wisdom of all wisdoms), it would describe everything everywhere at all times. There would be no incommensurabilities among any discipline.
People have argued that is what religion did for all disciplines: it provided bases for broad consistency and explanation. Ethics, Truth, and Aesthetics all had a common base. Alas, the final triumph of reason out of The Enlightenment ushered in the fragmentation of disciplines: they didn’t need to be connected any longer. And so, we, too, became fragmented in almost every way possible.
What’s left that unites everything in reality? (It must be something.)
It might be the belief in beliefs.
(It might be something else, too.)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2018 - 09:08am PT
|
MikeL is good man
Antichrist is nutcase .....
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2018 - 09:30am PT
|
Just like you can be a guru and still not say anything useful, ever.
----
What is your criteria for "useful?"
Consider the following quote:
"There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."
Do you find that useful?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2018 - 09:35am PT
|
I'm a guru?
lol, this proves you're a nutcase.
On top of it, you're an anonymous coward and will not stand up for your words ....
Even the greatest atheist ever was not an anonymous coward.
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2018 - 09:45am PT
|
Yogi...guru.
Schchlemiel...schlamazl.
Lacking a basis of comparison in respect to a quality normally subject to comparison, I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions, faith-based or otherwise.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2018 - 10:09am PT
|
I consider Largo's quote useful, MikeL's previous response a load of sh#t, and WBriwn a silly old man who should find better things to do with his limited time left.
Here's some wisdom for you: Everyone's time is limited, in the end it's" the twinkling of an eye", heed your own advice.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2018 - 10:12am PT
|
Here's a real gem... Somehow even I - as a science type, avid podcast enthusiast and last but not least anonymous coward - had missed it...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDhHK8nk_V0
After the first 25 minutes or so (esoteric physics talk on guage symmetry) it really opens up and these two guys discuss what seems like 100 relevant and substantive points on science and religion and belief and where it all might be going.
It's a favorite. So much, I downloaded the episode and got Lawrence's book in both formats.
Antichrist, thanks. You remind me a bit of Weschrist. Keep the charge!
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2018 - 03:05pm PT
|
It's a favorite. So much, I downloaded the episode and got Lawrence's book in both formats.
It's interesting: the acceptance of the notion that science may be able to provide a mechanical intelligence that will be able to do physics far better than humans, that a quantum computer may produce a better explanation of quantum mechanics than a human can.
This notion of humanity's ability to create a higher intelligence than it's own implies two things: the implication of a limitless intelligence and the possibility such an intelligence already exists. What goes around comes around I suppose but, again, it sounds like you're arguing for the existence of the divine. Ironic don't you think?
Renunciation is the negative image of desire.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2018 - 07:09pm PT
|
Antichrist, what specifically, did you find all wrong about what Mike said. He was specific, so if you want to refute him, you'd need to address his drift with counter arguments, lest we don't understand your thinking on the issue.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2018 - 08:08pm PT
|
Possible, sure. But that is just wild speculation.
It's not speculation it's implication. The idea that an intelligence so great it can solve our problems ( as in quantum mechanics) exists, is nothing more than a vestige of the kinds of belief systems you despise and yet you promote, you are oblivious. Nothing but hypocrisy of the worst kind because it's unrealized.
Pathetic.
Renunciation is the negative image of desire.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2018 - 08:26pm PT
|
Why do I get the feeling you religious folk completely stopped thinking around the time christianity lost its status as the best explanation of the universe in Europe. So 17th century.
It's not about explaining the universe, it's about finding wisdom. I think that's what you just don't get. The wisdom that allows one to be a virtuous human being isn't about scientific inquiry.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2018 - 08:36pm PT
|
I consider Largo's quote useful, MikeL's previous response a load of sh#t, and WBriwn a silly old man who should find better things to do with his limited time left.
No problem embracing science, but the quote above is one reason its most doctrinaire adherents can't be left unchecked. In short, they lack humanity.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2018 - 08:48pm PT
|
He finds that you are just plain sterile......
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2018 - 09:13pm PT
|
You can't have "a virtuous human beings." I bet you get that alot.
For some, sure, christianity (what you often presumptuously refer to as "religion") may be about becoming "a virtuous human beings." But it is also about alot of money, alot of trust violated by pedophiles and covered up by high ranking church officials, and most importantly "us against them."
Alot still isn't a word. You don't dismiss science because of the maniacs like Dr. Mengele who thought they were scientists. Bad individuals are just that. You're just another fallen Christian pissed at his past and so you become the antichrist. Problem is your whole persona is dependent on your enemy.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2018 - 09:36pm PT
|
You can't have "a virtuous human beings."
Sure you can. And they don't even need to be Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist or deist or Zoroaster or believers of any kind. What Dawkins adherents like you fail to understand is that morality and love transcend religion.
Are you married?
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 08:25am PT
|
The reason I ask if you're married is that I assume you are, at least, willing to admit humans can love. That you love the mother of your child. And, if that is so, then is virtue such a stretch?
In any event, you asked far too many questions in return--but I'll answer a couple. I am married, 34 years, love my wife to this day. We have two grown children--who I also love. I believe in God and attend a Lutheran church albeit not regularly. I have two bachelors and three masters degrees—MA, MFA, MAIS.
As for the Catholic Church, well, you won't find a defender in me. BTW, those pedophile priests have another common denominator, aside from their church, right?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 09:12am PT
|
I don't see how love has anything to do with virtue.
And that's why you need to read the Bible. The idea that someone is protecting pedophiles here is really silly. Get a grip. Read the posts. You might also look at all the good the Church has done in this world. But that would take an open, thinking mind.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 09:24am PT
|
Like scientists of yor who conjured up the luminous aether to explain how they THINK light behaves, you conjure up a unifier to explain how you think you can become undivided. Unlike those scientists, you persist in your folly and cling to your religious views.
Antichrist, I might suggest that you consider another viewpoint or vantage that is not based on "thinking," but rather perceiving. What happens here is that our fixation with external objects and forces breaks down and paradoxically our discernment increases. The sum gain is insight into what cannot be known (epistemically speaking) from examining physical properties alone. See Nagel to get clear on this point.
What you seem to be fixated on is what you can conjure through disciplined examination of sense data, then worked over by way of equations. Invaluable stuff. We owe our technology and quality of life to this skill. However you are IME wildly mistaken if you believe or think that the aim of all spiritual paths (I am not religious so I can't speak for that route) was to provide a physical model of the universe, that they were trying to do science without instruments of math modeling, so to speak. Yes, early religion was attempting to posit a physical cosmology that has since been replaced by science. But that was never the meat and potatoes of the adventure.
Another point worth pondering is that spiritual practices were meant to probe the terrain (so to speak) where measuring leaves off, and that that probe was not meant to provide literal or physical data otherwise beyond the reach of measuring.
Note that when we ask, What else would there be, is a question asked from a physicalists perspective, and assumes that whatever there might be could only be the stuff of science, all else being woo. Or the real howler in this line of reasoning: You only THINK there is more.
Good stuff to ponder. Even more exciting to pursue. And don't think for a second all those in pursuit are "not understanding the numbers." A common misconception.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 09:41am PT
|
I would agree with Paul about your apparent anger, AC. Well, anger is at least something that one can use and work with. Anger seems to show up as motivation when things aren’t going one’s way.
Incommensurability is not my idea. It’s Wittgenstein’s.
I have a Ph.D. in Strategy, an area that borrows from many different fields of study--not only the technical ones of economics, accounting, finance, marketing, and what not, but also sociology, psychology, cognitive science, and so forth. Strategy specifically tries to integrate organizational style, structure, systems, staff, shared values, and skills into a harmonious, focused, and winning approach to markets (and competitors). If those 7-S areas are not harmonized (commensurate), then organizations don’t work very well (great products notwithstanding). 35 years of teaching suggests to me that implementations of strategies are art forms.
When it comes to terms, language, theories, and contexts—at a fine level of observation—almost no field speaks to each other very well. Most academic conversations are narrow in content and knowledgeable participants—especially at the highest of levels. If you look carefully, each discipline has its own vision (what’s important, what things are, delineated domains of study), metrics, and theories. One can add value to this or that discipline by importing theories and findings from other disciplines, but that usually doesn’t go very far. Math is shared by most fields of study, but academic mathematics tends to be unapplied theoretically; math could be considered the purest of sciences.
If reality is one thing (how would you define the term, reality?), then there should be (one might argue) one explanation or model of it, rather than almost an innumerable set of models that conflict with each other. How is it that there are MANY different models of this or that in use in every field of study? Are they talking about the same single THING ("reality"), or are they talking about differently perceived realities? Which reality is the REAL one? And, how would you / one know?
The notion that we are a fragmented species individually, socially, and within any field of endeavor is not my idea, either. Many analysts from most any fields have made the same claim. (Just ask any senior citizen what they see—ha-ha.).
Be well.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 10:41am PT
|
Antichrist, I think we largely agree on the main points. But it's worth noting that when someone says, "See things my way or you are wrong," we have every right to ask, What "way" are you speaking about.
They "ways" (in your language = "models") that I was presented early on - from a physicalist vantage from my dad, an MD, and those foisted on me from various religions - they all seemed partial, incomplete, and in fundamental ways, besides the point.
Which brings me to your statement: you seem to be hung up on a concept of some unifying aspect of the universe, which to me is a silly biproduct of your chosen mythology.
How about a unifying shizzle that is not drawn from a mythology, that has nothing to do with beliefs, worship, God's with cool robes and white beards, is not drawn from ancient texts, and requires you to take nobody's word for anything (I never did or could) and does not designate what path, group, or outfit you should dog down?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!