Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 11:17am PT
|
That schizzle is fo rizzle and directly accessibizzle to any and all.
------
Tell us about it, AC. You're on a roll.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 11:27am PT
|
It is not a biproduct of an artificial fragmentation imposed by an outdated mythology and cancer of the soul. That artificial biproduct is what seekers seek and insist is mysteriously encoded in somewhat arbitrary musings of ancient people. "Read the bible" is a shrouded cry of lost souls begging others to join them in the never ending cycle of samsara.
Biproduct? Is that two products as in duplicitous thinking?
The real shrouded cry here is, no doubt, calling yourself antichrist. You don't have to be religious to seek wisdom and there's plenty to be found in the bible as well as other sacred texts. They are an exposition of what it is to be human, the good and the bad. When you visit a gothic cathedral like Chartres, for instance, you don't say what a bunch of BS. You marvel at its beauty. Try that approach with the bible and you might find it helpful.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 11:28am PT
|
The one thing pedophile priests and their protectors have in common is the interest in their multi-billion dollar, volunteer fueled, tax-free corporation.
All true—but there is another commonality. If your religion allows you to utter it.
As for the rest, well, all three constructs—religion, philosophy, and science have both light and dark sides. They’ve all brought joy and wrought destruction. Surely you can see this.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 11:56am PT
|
Norwegian leader research has shown that most people at the top of the hierarchy in Norway are willing to share their wealth. The exception, those most unwilling, are high level business leaders, high level military leaders and the richest persons in high level positions.
Are we in Norway about to destroy our culture of sharing and dugnad in a country where more and more people are educated by business schools and politicians are thinking like marketing people studying their Cialdini et co?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 12:56pm PT
|
Same question over here...
And yet again, why would a fundamental consciousness require or even bother with a material universe at all? Loneliness? Boredom? A hobby?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 02:22pm PT
|
Heh, bet that was a desperate search.
When I visited Chartres and learned the history I thought... "hmmm; the church also served as the business center, how a propos."
Apropos (I think you mean) as in the church brought wealth and freedom and finally escape from systems of governance that were feudal in nature, as folks fled the country to the freedom of the cities where they could find a living wage as, among other things, craftsman building those gothic churches.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 03:38pm PT
|
Fundamental consciousness? Such a silly concept.
ANTICHRIST, describe to us what your understanding is - or the "concept" you have in your mind - per "fundamental consciousness."
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 03:51pm PT
|
Antichrist has zero clue what conscioness actually is and it's actual source ....
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 04:17pm PT
|
I envision a bunch of Acanthostega flopping about looking for fundamental leggedness in the universe. Consciousness is a product of evolution, a traut that proved benefitial, like eyesight or legs.
=
Maybe contrast this with other fundamental forces, just for fun.
Take the weak force (electromagnetic force) CARRIED by the photon, and predcicted by Nobel laureates Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Salam and Abdus Glashow in the 1960s.
When Weinberg was fishing around for the weak force, was he "flopping about?" Is the weak force a "product" of anything, including evolution? Does the brain "carry" consciousness, and if so, does that mean it also "sources" or "creates" it. Does a photon source the weak force?
Not trying to "prove" anything, but if peopoe are going to toss around terms like "fundametal," it's worth looking at other examples of same and seeing the how and why and the thinking involved.
It's worth noting that consciousness as fundamental was not only put forth (in the western world) by a bunch of religious zealots and yahoos.
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Max Planck
As you can imagine, man have clammord to try and discount this quote owing to "new data."
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 04:57pm PT
|
You think wrong. I meant the French "a propos"... as in, when I visited Chartres... in France... where they speak French... where it means "to the purpose"... as in the purpose of consolidating wealth and power in the church. But clearly you know what I mean better than I do. If you read more math, rather than wasting your time with fairytales, you would also understand the biproduct joke... fuking hilarious.
Too funny. You tap dance and it is hilarious. I often cover up my errors by stating "I meant the French." Works every time. Of course the b-eye-product is not many continue to listen to what I have to say. Try turning on the spell check "alot."
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 05:56pm PT
|
Antichrist, that's a question for the Mind thread. I'm not ducking you but I don't want to jerk this thread in another direction. What's more, any definition needs to be backed up with examples so you can understand the reasoning involved.
But as an interesting exercise, isolate anything that is in your immediate eyeshot. And simply look at it without trying to evaluae it in any way. You should be able to notice two salient phenomenon. One, the object of your attention, be it a tin can or your boy/girlfriend. Second, your experiential/epistemic sense of knowing you are conscious of same. You with me so far?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 07:10pm PT
|
Yep ... Zero clue ^^^^^
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 07:18pm PT
|
Consciousness is a product of evolution, a trait that proved beneficial, like eyesight or legs. Looking for some "fundamental" version of it that exists beyond what it has become just seems silly and backwards.
AC, I think you have serious misunderstandings with regard to how evolution works. It isn't linear--nor is it necessarily order from disorder. It certainly isn't what you suppose it to be with regard to consciousness.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2018 - 09:02pm PT
|
But I'm guessing such a reductionist approach is not very appealing to those looking for "fundamental consciousness," especially when they are almost always actually looking for a "higher consciousness"... which Paul thinks necessarily follows from our current advances in AI.
Not a higher consciousness but a higher intelligence. If some scientist claims a higher intelligence for a machine, that scientist opens the door to the idea that a higher intelligence can exist.
I can't think that's too hard to understand.
However, consciousness and intelligence should be considered as fundamental simply because they exist and they exist in a variety of forms. Consciousness is written into the structure of the universe, if it weren't it wouldn't exist and, like life, it seems likely to exist in other places besides planet earth. Additionally, the variety of intelligences, from human to slug indicates a continuum, the extent of which, we cannot know. At what point does a higher intelligence become so much greater than our own it becomes divine? Ironically, It seems science is in a search for divinity predicated on its need to solve the mysteries of the universe through AI. Really pretty funny.
Paul, you enjoy trotting out "sacred texts" as something above human discourse every time someone wants to express skepticism or criticism about these texts.
They are sacred texts because the folks that wrote them and those that use them think of them that way and I think those people deserve respect regarding their beliefs.
It's not a matter of insecurity, it's a matter of respect.
The criticism coming from the science side is regarding the scientific accuracy of those texts which, unfortunately, ignores the wisdom of same. The wisdom is in the metaphors which seem incomprehensible to so many on the science side. Too bad.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 01:48am PT
|
And yet the question remains unanswered:
And yet again, why would a fundamental consciousness require or even bother with a material universe at all? Loneliness? Boredom? A hobby?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 07:54am PT
|
Why would fundamentall counscioness even bother with material world.
The same reason your father bothers to keep you in line ....
As for antichrist nutcase you should take a vacation to reassemble what little is left of your intelligence if there even ever was any there to begin with..
You're useless and dangerous to your own self.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 09:32am PT
|
Because Mt Everest exists means a higher peak can exist, but it doesn't... but by all means, you should spend your life searching for it because, why not?
Are you really that naive? You’re limiting the context. The universe is perhaps infinite and science is currently spending a huge amount of money as you say “searching” for life, life forms, intelligence on other planets. Or maybe you haven’t noticed. If you know with certainty the limits of any possible intelligence go pick up your Nobel Prize.
What a load of sh#t. Ford and Dodge should be considered fundamental simply because they exist in a variety of forms. Perhaps you should ponder what fundamental means?
Again with the insightful analysis and scatological reference. The comparison of a car type to the manifestation of conscious mind is ludicrous. One is a function of natural selection allowed by a process of fundamental physical laws the other is an arbitrary human conception. Can you figure out which is which?
Now you are just making sh#t up. Fitting for an athiest looking for truth in scripture.
Oh yes, more excrement and I think you mean “atheist.“ I mean, really, that's a telling typo.
You are right here though , there is truth in scripture if you don’t read it like you read the manual to your Ford or Dodge. A belief in god is not necessary to garner that wisdom but it does help to have a brain.
No doubt you give the same respect to scientologists. Afterall, the wisdom of Hubbard comes directly from higher intelligent life forms from elsewhere in the universe, which is exactly what you insist AI implies.
Well, Carl Jung certainly thought so. Insights into the human condition can exist in the most unlikely places. The implication you speak of is not AI’s it belongs to science and in that is a thing called irony.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 09:55am PT
|
heallyje: . . . why would a fundamental consciousness require or even bother with a material universe at all? Loneliness? Boredom? A hobby?
It seems to me that you’re looking for a particular kind of answer here, aren’t you? I am guessing here, but I’m thinking that an answer must “make sense” to you. What makes sense is often a function or an association with one’s experience, wouldn’t you say? Given what I’ve read over the years of your writing, I’m going to also guess that a good answer for you would have to express some kind of beneficial “usefulness” to someone or something. If so, I’d suggest to you that there are many things that most of us get involved in that seemingly has no usefulness or intentionality to it. It could simply be an errant ephemeral expression.
It’s been argued that the colorful attributes of bird feathering, or fish scales, or the fur of primates are (i) simply a unique expression of life and (ii) a way to recognize each other within a species. (Even human beings like dressing and parading in their own inimitable ways strictly for their own personal enjoyment: “here’s me.”)
Above I said that it was Wittgenstein who talked about incommensurability, and I was wrong. (I was thinking instead about Wittgenstein’s ideas about games and language.) Incommensurability is perhaps more properly related to Kuhn, Feyerabend, Einstein, Fleck, Duhem, Bohr, and others. I took to Stanford’s philosophy page (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incommensurability/); and renewed my understanding. I now see that Kuhn and others have provided equal explanations not only with regards to the structure of scientific revolutions but also why there is such a disconnect between those of a religious perspective and those of an empirical scientific ilk: e.g., different terms, different usage, different theories, different epistemic methods, different contexts, different historicities, different newly discovered“facts,” world changes (dynamic impermanence), different objectives, different values, and of course different communities. Stanford’s page listed above may be worth reading for some who have some doubts about the truthfulness and sure inevitability in scientific efforts.
Whether one is an anthropologist, a physicist, a rock climber, a parent, a manager, or whatever, one lives in a fluid community where certainty and clarity are difficult or impossible to establish. We tend to gravitate to that which we feel most comfortable. The entire thread here could present unending examples of incommensurabilities.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 10:05am PT
|
DMT: . . . I think the existence of Ford and Dodge do help identify one of those fundamental properties of the universe . . . .
This seems to be a misplaced generalization. If one is talking about what is fundamental, one should probably stick with taxonomic classifications. What would be the proper classification level for analysis here? Cars? Things that people have made? Material / measurable things?
If one were claiming that two automobile brands constitute a fundamental element in the universe, then I think more needs to be said. (One could review how Darwin and others started to establish genus and specie. It was always a choice among biologists in the community—not a “fact” of biology, per se. Facts are arguably theory-laden: without a theory, one can not establish a fact.)
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 10:14am PT
|
To start, yes the weak force is a product of something (the interaction of particles) and the product of evolution (physical, not biological).
--
So, just for the record, are you saying that in your understanding, for example, falling rocks "create" gravity, or that fundamental forces are the "product" of a linear/causal physical mechanism which preceded the appearance of same?
Just giving you some rope here, Antichrist.
And this: It seems pretty easy to go a few steps further and reduce consciousness to a series of biochemical reactions aware of the surrounding chemical environment, which can be reduced to chemistry, and on and on.
This is a common myth in mind studies that when you shake it out, shows a misunderstanding between a map and the territory. Conflation. It's the bed bug in most of the confusion, and leads people to believe in their heart of hearts that it should be "pretty easy" to dick the Hard Problem. Fine by me. Show your work...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!