Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 05:29pm PT
|
another metaphysicist heard from...
one wonders why someone would advance an idea which is solely the result of their thought process with no regard for their experience dealing with the world outside of them, and the experiences of others.
were that you could just think the whole thing up on your own and get it right.
curious that idealists and rationalists feel they are apart from their tangible surroundings, and could ignore all that because of a pretty idea they just had...
...and interesting that most of the modern philosophical references distinguishing syntactic and semantic swirl around this issue of a consciousness, it's as if the definitions were intended to make a distinction that an objective approach to understanding consciousness was not possible.
seems convenient.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 06:49pm PT
|
Consciousness is the root of life itself of which without,
all your physics becomes useless and non-existant ......
Life comes from life and never from matter.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 07:24pm PT
|
Just chant and be happy....https://krishna.org/life-comes-from-life/
Kinda hard to discuss/argue with this logic. "Srila Prabhupada. This material world is a composition of three qualities — sattva, rajas and tamas (goodness, passion and ignorance) — which are working everywhere. These three qualities are present in various proportions in all species of life. For example, some trees produce nice fruit, while others are simply meant for fuel. This is due to the association of particular qualities of nature. Among animals also, these three qualities are present. The cow is in the quality of goodness, the lion in passion, and the monkey in ignorance. According to Darwin, Darwin’s father is a monkey. [Laughter.] He has theorized foolishly.
Dr. Singh. Darwin has said that some species become extinct in the struggle for survival. Those which are capable of surviving will survive, but those which are not will become extinct. So he says survival and extinction go side by side.
Srila Prabhupada. Nothing is extinct. The monkey is not extinct. Darwin’s immediate forefather, the monkey, is still existing.
Karandhara. Darwin said there must be a natural selection. But selection means choice. So who is choosing?
Srila Prabhupada. That must be a person. Who is allowing someone to survive and someone to be killed? There must be some authority with discretion to give such an order. That is our first proposition. Who that authority is, is explained in Bhagavad-gita. Krsna says, mayadhyaksena prakrtih: “Nature is working under My supervision.” (Bg. 9.10)
Dr. Singh. Darwin also says that the different species were not created simultaneously, but evolved gradually.
Srila Prabhupada. Then what is his explanation for how the process of evolution began?
Karandhara. Modern proponents of Darwinism say that the first living organism was created chemically.
Srila Prabhupada. And I say to them, “If life originated from chemicals, and if your science is so advanced, then why can’t you create life biochemically in your laboratories?”
Or read and learn...https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 07:35pm PT
|
There are some things that are self-verifying .... if that's important to you.
MikeL - thanks. Nolo contendre. Is it important to me? Kind of debatable, though I always enjoy hearing your perspective.
But yes, I can see for myself that some things are self-verifying. Like the belief that human achievements are rare and singularly magnificent in the universe is self-verified by our ignorance and inability to determine what, if any, other such achievements exist in the universe. But IMHO, just because we've self-verified our beliefs doesn't mean that they're true.
My point was more about our human speech and belief processes, and how they relate to the question of whether religion is still good for us.
One human said one thing ("And you have no way of testing that religious belief."). Why did they say it? Did they believe it was true (FYI - I'm agnostic about it - I wasn't saying it because I believed it was true)? And if they did believe it was true, why did they believe it was true - how did they arrive at their belief in its truth?
Then a second human said another thing ("Only a complete ignorant total fool says that."). Why did that human say that? Because they believed it was true, or because of some other reason? Did that human honestly believe that another human could only say it because they were a fool? But that foolish belief - that a human can't say (or believe) something unless they believe that it's true - that doesn't make the second speaker a fool?
Why I said what I said was because I was trying to show that the truth value of either statement was not necessarily the reason why we said (or believed) those things - that humans can say and believe things (actually believe things, not just believe them metaphorically) for reasons that are not subsumed by their truth value.
Which seems to me to be the central issue with respect to whether or not religion is still good for us. Do those beliefs help us form more advantageous beliefs and behaviors, or do they not? I don't understand how we can answer that question without understanding how and why we believe things in the first place.
(And sure, humans understand that religion is just metaphor, so the Incas understood that they were only metaphorically sacrificing virgins, and Muslims understand that they're only metaphorically rewarded with 72 virgins in heaven, and our Christian friend understood that the reason his car was no longer out of gas was because Jesus had metaphorically filled his gas tank ...)
But for me, it seems like a big biasing reason we believe things is self-confirmation - to strengthen our belief in our own ... what? ... intelligence, perceptiveness, righteousness, rightness?
And how much do we still need to do that? How much do we need to keep stroking our egos by saying we humans are the singular greatest thing in the universe because humans have not yet been able to detect even one other intelligent species in the universe, and aren't we truly and obectively simply magnificent as a result of how rare our achievements seem to us because of our ignorance of other such achievements? That we (still) need to form beliefs as artifacts of our ego and ignorance rather than artifacts of our information and intelligence.
For me, as Paul said, it's exhausting - the constant relentless self-congratulatory self-confirming self-righteous logically laughable nature of our belief processes.
Ugh - really, we haven't spent enough time pleasuring our brains by admiring our own magnificence, convincing ourselves that we humans are truly a remarkably singular awesome achievement, because of our marvelous inability to detect even a single other intelligent species in the universe, when we could have been spending our belief processes on figuring out how this whole thing (including ourselves) works? And even the best and the brightest among us still need to believe in this human way - these self-confirming logically laughable belief processes?
Ok, if that's how it is then that's how it is. When humans tell you who they are, believe them. This is who we are.
Well maybe not the best and the brightest - IMHO, you and Ed and some others seem to think pretty straight, most of the time. :-)
Thanks for your thoughts.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 08:23pm PT
|
"It's true that IN EUROPE, during the Middle Ages, philosophy was "theistic," but if you think that its only analysis was "theistic" in nature, you are misinformed. And that was a subset of all the philosophy that was being done around the world." -mb1
I knew we could find some common agreement.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 09:49pm PT
|
So it's curious that people would reference physics - a field built on observer (experiential, semantic) independent analysis - in a conversation about consciousness, God, or any other phenomenon that objective analysis is designed to exclude
Indeed. That's never been done on What is Mind?.
Or am I mistaken?
Welcome back, Preacher. May the spirit move you!
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2017 - 10:51am PT
|
and Preacher will be on again tonight !!
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2017 - 11:27am PT
|
^^^ How quickly we forget what we've written. Embarrassing.
;>)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2017 - 09:17am PT
|
one wonders why someone would advance an idea which is solely the result of their thought process with no regard for their experience dealing with the world outside of them, and the experiences of others.
Aren't all physical observations mediated by reason?
Australian police charge Vatican cardinal with sex offences
Well then, all religion must be evil.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2017 - 09:39am PT
|
When religions repress people and natural urges
deviance is the natural outcome
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2017 - 11:28am PT
|
Madbolter1 had another meltdown, seems to be a common thing on these threads.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2017 - 06:13pm PT
|
Well said, DMT.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
This one's worth a looksie at least once a year...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWfHkLbMm6w
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Richard, you are amazing. Thanks for keeping the charge.
Lest we forget.
"I care about the truth." Richard Dawkins
I can see perfectly well how a journalist, political scientist, businessman, lawyer, politician etc - one just as articulate and "educated" as Medhi Hasan here - even in the 21st century - could have a worldview that includes winged horse transport to heaven, angels and demons and demonic possession, etc - insofar as he was raised somehow, one way or another, alas, without science edu and training.
...
Above piece was referenced by Sarah Haider in the podcast...
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/leaving-islam
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Hogg's Boson on an individual's relationship to religion?
This little piggy went to Planck's scale?
|
|
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
Has religion ever done any good???
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
HFCS: "There is in the universe an order to which all material, energy and force must be obedient."
If this were true (and it would be impossible to prove for an entire universe), I wonder why it would be true. Axiomatic? Ideology? What assumptions are being made?
rbord: I can see for myself that some things are self-verifying. Like the belief that human achievements are rare and singularly magnificent in the universe is self-verified by our ignorance and inability to determine what, if any, other such achievements exist in the universe. But IMHO, just because we've self-verified our beliefs doesn't mean that they're true.
You go far far beyond what I would call self-verifying or self-authenticating. What you’ve offered seems to me to be assessments, interpretations, evaluations—all oriented to self-interests, to aggrandizement, to achievements, to extrinsic objectives. Those seem to require concepts, frameworks, measurements, and definitions. One cannot seem to go after objectives without them.
Consciousness is self-verifying and self-authenticating (even though we cannot come to an agreement about what consciousness is here). The same could be said for any emotion. When you have one, you know it, even though you cannot say or define what that emotion is specifically. I suggest that light appears to be self-verifying for most people. I would also say that grace, spirit, etc. (all somewhat religious or spiritual notions) are also self-verifying when folks experience them. It doesn’t matter if they are delusions.
The problem that I see here oftentimes occurs when it folks feel compelled to say what a religious or spiritual notion *really is* or *is not.* Among some folks, it appears to be necessary that one must say what things are or must necessarily be in terms of objectivity, measurability, conceptualization, describability, finitely, etc. If a person cannot say what a thing or notion is in those terms, they must either not know what they are talking about or are unjustified to claim so.
On the other hand, it appears to be common that people talk about all sorts of things that they cannot pin down accurately, completely, or finally.
On my side, I’m fine with all that conventionally. However, in an ultimate sense, I’m not. In the first sense, I’ve gotten clear advice (ahem) from my wife that I need to be nice and friendly with regular people, and not to alienate her. So I make sure I can listen to other people’s stories and tell an occasional interesting story to others that they can relate to. I express friendliness, compassion, and interest in them personally. I try to show family members that we are still all the same people with the same personalities as we were when we were growing up together 60 years ago. I try to talk to my mother-in-law and professional and sports friends in ways that assure them that I am a card-carrying member in their community.
I find this especially easy to do with strangers. But it’s another thing with people the more I am expected to know them. Then, it’s all bullsh*t as far as I’m concerned. It’s just not real.
(i) Solipsism is an undeniable fact as far as I can make out. It’s indisputable. (ii) Nihilism is the same. I see no reason to argue that any particular value is intrinsically more significant than another other value because those items are all pretty much contextualized by community and other cultural elements. I don’t see anything ultimately good or bad, right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate, high or low, left or right. I just don’t. It all seems to depend upon self-interested preferences. That’s fiat as far as I’m concerned, and it’s bullsh*t. (iii) There is no interpretation or narrative that is true from what I can make out, and I’ve been really trying to find one that stands all for circumstances for decades now. That includes spirituality, religion, science, the humanities, and whatever else people laud. Where does this leave me?
What “I” see is a display (phenomena) that I cannot fully describe or explain. (But it can be known and experienced.) The display is infinitely detailed: it’s turtles all the way up and down, my lord. (Do you know this parable?) The Bhagavad Gita perhaps best resonates with my personalized experience: I’m a kind of actor in an unbelievably intelligent play or dance. It appears to be my job to fulfill my role as expressively as I can, without subordinating either what I seem to be intrinsically or the role. Neither is paramount.
In that light, religion or spiritual notions are neither good nor bad. The question or declaration seems naive and mis-informed. Things just are.
Myths (such as religion or Greek mythology, for example) inform me of what appears to be what human life is. One just cannot say. Science (and philosophy) *tries* to say what things are and how those entities relate to one another (in somewhat structural ways). However, science or philosophy don’t tell me all that much about how to live, what’s worthy or important, or what I appear to be. From what I can make out, life as I experience it appears to be some kind of cosmic joke—and an absurd one at that. LOL. I appreciate the humor, but I probably take it far too seriously or concretely to become very enlightened by it just yet.
My view today seems to have gotten to . . . : the first part of life is learning what one needs to know to get through life in the external world, objectively. The second part of life appears to be disassembling that knowledge that I gained in the first part. (But I’m told not to worry: if I’m lacking motivation to deconstruct all that Learned in the first part, age and death will do it for me in the second part.)
Hence, I (and some other folks) would suggest a distinction between representation and expression when it comes to the different views of science and religion and their antagonisms. Science intends to find better means of representation. “Here’s what things are (in terms of abstractions.)” Religion, myth, the humanities, and spirituality appears to be more oriented to expressiveness than representation: “Here’s what things feel like (e.g., in terms of stories or narratives or images).”
Which is more truthful to one?
Well, . . . that sort of depends what you’re looking for.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
Thanks MikeL. It may be that understanding is beyond my pay grade, or mental abilities.
IMHO, we self-verify beliefs that we don't understand, or can't prove. And again, maybe that's the best we can do - that's just part of our human condition and ability to form beliefs (and more importantly, believe them!) in an environment of incomplete information.
IMHO, as we gain more information, we're able to verify things on a wider level, and we don't need to self-verify beliefs that we need to believe, but that may not be true. Sacrificing virgins? The unparalleled awesomeness of our consciousness? The unbearable lightness of blue? That a 5 year old black girl is less innocent and less in need of protection than a 5 year old white girl? Sure, ok. Belief? Sure. Truth? I'm not so sure.
Absent our self-verifying belief processes, I expect that we'd find ourselves in the corner sucking our thumbs, which may not have worked out so well for us in an evolutionary sense. And who knows - maybe dolphins wouldn't be as good as we humans (with our self-verifying consciousness) are at ruling the world; they probably don't even know what blue looks like!
But how would we know? What information or evidence do we have that the remarkable singularity of our consciousness is not matched by the self-verified belief that a rock has about itself?
IMHO, we just believe our beliefs for the reasons that we believe them, not necessarily because our beliefs are true. I wonder what those reasons are, and whether we'd be able to believe them if we did learn what they are?m
For me, that our belief in our consciousness is self-verified and can only be self-verified is evidence that we humans have the ability to believe something just by telling ourslves to believe it. Pretty handy ability, if you're a human, or if your daughter is white.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
HFCS: "There is in the universe an order to which all material, energy, and force must be obedient."
Yes, 100% correct ......
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!