Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
If you can't go fly a kite, you can always take a hike. There's something here for everybody.
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
What about the old wive's tale warning about hair growing hair on your palms from wanking.
Ifg tJhat were tr7ue ou4r haands wouyd be so covr3d in hayr it woild be difcult to type.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
The only valid reason for hating Christianity - or anyone else's religion for that matter - is bigotry. Plain and simple bigotry.
Actually, I'd call that an invalid reason.
So what you are saying is that the Jews had no valid reason to hate Christianity, the "official" religion of Nazi Germany, that was perverted into having as it's goal the eradication of all Jews, everywhere?
You are saying that it is not valid to hate a group that organizes for the purpose of attacking and persecuting you, because you don't belong to that group?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Potemkin Village
|
|
but by scientific I would mean
(1) But you would acknowledge "scientific" as used by OTHERs might mean something different to them - that being science-based or science-informed?
you have to delay trying to objectify reality
(2) But you would acknowledge that OTHERS could find it useful to objectify, describe, or model pieces of the whole? - indeed just as science as a field has more or less done over the last couple centuries in particular.
Once you have spent your time with the whole, undivided, THEN we can start trying to objectify what it all comes down to.
(3) But you would acknowledge that there are other valid approaches to objectifying, modeling or describing how the world works? and that OTHERS might find piecemeal approaches useful or suitable to their purposes? - much as maps or topos can be drawn up in piecemeal local fashion and in this piecemeal form can be useful.
.....
What I object to is an approach that insists that though objectifying parts we can grasp what is real for the whole.
(4) But science and scientists (amateur or professional) don't "insist" on this. You disagree? As you know, what is real (let alone the fullness of it) is perceived through human perception. Thus at best it is a representation of the real, for better or worse though we hope for the better.
Objectifying parts and integrating them into wholes is a useful thing to do in a great many cases, so the fact remains, I'm still unclear as to the conflict, or conflicts, if any.
Boy the internet is a hopping hot mess today!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Potemkin Village
|
|
What is the purpose of a "practice of living" anyhow?
a) a religious practice of living?
b) a scientific practice of living?
|
|
squishy
Mountain climber
|
|
2 KINGS 6:29 says: "So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son."
Yup, that's cannibalsim. Or, worse-than-cannibalism if you're considering the fact that he ate his own kid.
Leviticus 25:44 says: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."
Yes, you read that right. It's A-OK to own slaves -- as long as they're foreigners. That may be the worst immigration policy we've ever heard.
In biblical times, your travel plans could involve mass murder. According to Deuteronomy 13:12-15, if you find that the people in the city you're visiting worship another god, you have to kill them all.
And by "all", the bible means everyone in the city. It seems a little severe but it'll certainly make your travel blog more interesting.
Ripped jeans have been in style for a while. Unfortunately for fashionistas, this particular trend comes with a first class ticket to hell. Leviticus 10:6 says: “Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people.” Question: is it the act of ripping your pants that sends you to hell? Because we bought these jeans pre-distressed. So we're good, right?
Leviticus 19:19 says: "You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle". You know all of that delicious crossbreeding that led to the Kobe steak we all love to eat? According to the Bible, it's a sin. If you're a bible purist, it's tough, stringy wild cattle or nothing at all.
Leviticus 21 has a lot to say about who is and who isn't allowed to be a priest. We all know that anyone who's had sex can't be a Catholic priest. But did you also know that the bible bans anyone with a deformity? You know who else is shut out? Anyone who has a flat nose.
Leviticus 20:10 says: "If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die."
So, just to be clear, if one spouse cheats, both spouses have to die. That's certainly adding insult to injury. We bet that people in biblical times were really great at hiding their extramarital affairs.
Leviticus 20:9 says: "Anyone who dishonors father or mother must be put to death. Such a person is guilty of a capital offense."
Talk about a zero-tolerance policy for bad behavior. On the bright side, your kids will be much better behaved. On the not-so-bright side, a grocery store temper tantrum could result in a death sentence.
Leviticus 24:16 says: "Whoever utters the name of the Lord must be put to death. The whole community must stone him, whether alien or native. If he utters the name, he must be put to death."
We knew that saying the Lord's name in vain was a no-no. We didn't know that you're not supposed to say it at all.
Ezekiel 16:17 says: "You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them."
Don't bother reading it twice. It says exactly what you think it says. He gave her some jewelry and she made a golden...implement with it. And then she used it in her job as a prostitute. Gross.
Deuteronomy 28:53 says: "Then because of the dire straits to which you will be reduced when your enemy besieges you, you will eat your own children, the flesh of your sons and daughters whom the Lord has given you."
When you're under seige, you can't exactly go out for pizza. So what do you do about food? According to the Bible, you eat your children. Why does the bible have so many stories that involve eating kids?!
Genesis 19:8: “Look, I have two daughters, virgins both of them. Let me bring them out to you and you could do what you like with them. But do nothing to these men because they have come under the shelter of my roof.”
The rules are pretty simple. If someone comes to your house and insists on assaulting someone, you should give him your virgin daughters. Because handing over your guests for sexual assault is just bad manners.
Leviticus 19:19 says: "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." We'd like to give you a moment or two to check your labels.
90% cotton/10% rayon? Congratulations, you're a sinner. We knew that bad fashion was a crime -- just not against God.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 states: "But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel, then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die."
If your husband isn't your first, you're in for trouble. Hard, stony trouble to be exact. That's a high price to pay for a little premarital fun.
Leviticus 10-11 states: "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you."
What did shellfish ever do to anyone? It's innocent. And delicious -- especially when covered with butter...This is going to be a dealbreaker for a lot of people.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 states: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."
If you're a woman and you find yourself in a church, it's time to be quiet. Have questions about the sermon? Too bad. But the Bible does say that you're allowed to ask your husband when you get home. That is, after you've made dinner and put the kids to bed.
Exodus 31:14-15 states: "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people."
That means no working on Sunday -- ever. Break this rule and you can be put to death. E-mail this to your boss the next time they try to lure you into weekend work. We think this applies to chores around the house too.
Mark 10:11-12 states: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."
According to the Bible, there are no do-overs in marriage. If you get married again, you're committing adultery. That's certainly a broader definition than we're used to. We know a few celebrities who are in a lot of trouble...
"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets/Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." -Deuteronomy 25:11-12.
Well that's...bizarre. According to this, wives aren't allowed to help their husbands in a fight by squeezing the other guys' "secrets". If she does, he's got to cut your hand off. That seems a little bit extreme. But squeezing a man's "secrets" is bad form so...
Leviticus 19:16 states: "Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD."
This just put a lot of us -- and all of our favorite magazines -- on the Bible's "naughty" list. We're not sure what "standing against the blood of thy neighbor means". But we're pretty sure we're guilty of that too.
Leviticus 19:31 reads: "Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God."
Thinking about having your palm read? The Bible doesn't think that you should. Looks like wizards made the list too. That's a lot of Hogwarts acceptance letters that are going to have to go right back.
Deuteronomy 23:1 states: "No man whose testicles have been crushed or whose organ has been cut off may become a member of the Assembly of God."
That seems oddly specific. We had no idea that the Bible was quite so concerned about our junk. But this is pretty clear. If you've been the unfortunate victim of a groin accident, there's more bad news. You're not going to get into heaven. Talk about adding insult to injury.
Leviticus 19:27 states: "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."
Who knew that the Bible was so into long hair and beards? Hippies, hipsters and beard enthusiasts are going to get a front row in heaven! That's not how we pictured it at all...
Leviticus 19:28 states: "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD."
It says his name at the end, so you know he's serious. Do religious tattoos get a pass? Or are they extra blasphemous because the Bible already said not to do it?
Leviticus 11:7-8 reads: "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you."
"Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you."
If we're going strictly by the Bible, all of the internet is in serious trouble. But if you've gotta go anyway, getting smited while eating a pound of bacon isn't a bad way...
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
My summer reading this year has been Herodotus Historia, The first work of history by modern definition, but also the first travelogue.
Interestingly, for every tribe, ethnic group and nation he describes, he gets into the dietary habits. Pork is almost always mentioned.
It seems like in the 5th century about two thirds of groups he discuses had some restrictions around pork,and a third to half had a full on prohibition.
For example, Egyptians were forbidden to eat it except at one big barbecue (sacrifice) every year.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
(2) But you would acknowledge that OTHERS could find it useful to objectify, describe, or model pieces of the whole? - indeed just as science as a field has more or less done over the last couple centuries in particular.
It is not only useful but invaluable for working with material things. But this approach is totally bankrupt for deeper experiential realities. For instance, even the most astute examination of the brain, by the smartest machine imaginable, would never suspect sentience in said meat brain. And so it goes in the spiritual realm. Where people get bogged down is that they don't know the actual process of how perception works, and so they have no idea how discursive objectifying is limited. At the point to where the limitations are manifest is where the other modes of inquiry begin.
Another problem with studying parts and cobbling them into a provisionary whole is that you will invariably be left with a belief that the whole is no greater than the parts.
But fundamentally, we have no conflict, though for the lack of direct experience, I don't expect you to believe that experiential modes of inquiry can involve higher knowing that is totally impossible by way of quantifying. You simply can't imagine this till you see it actually played out in your life.
JL
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
even the most astute examination of the brain, by the smartest machine imaginable, would never suspect sentience in said meat brain.
True, if the machine were Uncle Fred's old beat up Cadillac.
If ,on the other hand , the machine was the IBM model that beat the two humans on Jeopardy then you are outta luck.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
True, if the machine were Uncle Fred's old beat up Cadillac.
If ,on the other hand , the machine was the IBM model that beat the two humans on Jeopardy then you are outta luck.
Think about what you're saying there, Ward old buddy.
A machine is by nature a mechanical thing. It has no reference or access to and therefore no capacity to "imagine" or postulate what subjective experience would be like and would entail. And there is nothing else inside or outside of it's mainframe that remotely resembles subjective experience. Even the smartest machine could only detect objective functioning. And unless you are what we call a "collapser," objective functioning is not sentience.
Think about how the IBM model would even begin to describe sensations or feelings or states and modes of being. It would never get past the micro level of chemical reactions.
One of the problems with a staunch materialism is that you invariable end up defining man as a machine qualitatively no different than Uncle Fred's old car. Just more better. But it's still a bucket of bolts. Not a sentient human being.
JL
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
Jim Standridge is the very avatar of an unconscious man, so surfeited with his own imagined importance he's ready to explode. He is the old, straight, right wing peckerwood still believing someone cares, when in fact the parade has marched past and ain't bothered to look back at old Jimbo. He and his type are done. They had a decent run and here we are.
Imagine telling Jim he needs an attitude adjustment and that black woman over there is gonna give it to him, like it or not.
JL
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Potemkin Village
|
|
re: parts and wholes
re: arithmetic sum versus synergistic sum (synergy)
We've been over this ground before but heck...
As soon as one assembles parts into a functional whole, he's created something greater than the arithmetic sum of its parts. We do it all the time. On purpose. Including the works on the 'Show Me What You're Building' thread.
Culture, another example. Culture, a subject I'm reading about now in evolutionary terms, is a system that's greater than the sum of its parts. Indeed, it exists - it's got so-called "existence power" - because it confers benefits on its parts (e.g., individuals, institutions, etc.) that ends up maintaining it.
We're no doubt confusing a wide range of subjects here. If we didn't confuse them, everything from mindfulness meditation to consciousness to physics to chemical WMD, then I'm sure we'd be in full agreement. :)
.....
Aside, an interesting - and timely - subject to ponder these days is how cultures (greater than the sum of their parts) compete across history in terms of evolution and strategies and winners and losers.
The big difference today is that we have the phenomenon of electronic social media recording it all - the good, bad and ugly - each and every day - and giving everyone the play by play action each and every day. Whew.
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
You simply can't imagine this till you see it actually played out in your life.
You've actually been asked on many occasions to expand on just this, just as you've asked for the rest of us to open up about our own selves. There's nothing like a good ol' personal testimonial to sway the unbelievers. "I was lost but now I'm found." So, do tell?
The preacher man was pretty funny. Reminded me of this guy.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
Cintune, if you are honestly asking a question in which you have no idea per the "answer," and are 100% interested in the data that might come from an investigation, and can jump into it with no biases, Abrahamic or otherwise, I will go into it because you asked. But if you're just after another wank along, I'll respectfully pass.
And Fruity, is it possible for you to imagine a phenomenon that was not "created" by parts?
JL
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
A machine is by nature a mechanical thing. It has no reference or access to and therefore no capacity to "imagine" or postulate what subjective experience would be like and would entail.
You did not specify, in the post to which I responded ,that the machine doing the examination of the human meat brain had to itself possess subjective human traits , like falling in love with Uncle Fred's girlfriend, or wrestling with an imagination.
The scenario you presented simply had the machine objectively examining the brain.
Now.
Any super computer worth his silicon grains would:
A) conclude it was a human brain
B) infers , since it is a human brain, as a matter of course, this brain inherently wrestles with so - called subjective states ---such as love and imagination.
Could our computer be correct about its conclusions drawn from its observations and backed-up by its programmin' ?
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
But if you're just after another wank along, I'll respectfully pass.
Uh, no, dude, I'm asking about how these practices have changed your life, all respectful like. At one point you were a regular discursive guy like the rest of us, but then, over time, something happened and it changed everything, to the point that you want to share it. Now, it's safe to say your presentation skills have run up against some difficulties in that so far, but I do think a straightforward account of how these experiences have made a difference to you could only help shed some light.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
Any super computer worth his silicon grains would:
A) conclude it was a human brain
B) infers , since it is a human brain, as a matter of course, this brain inherently wrestles with so - called subjective states ---such as love and imagination.
And how would the super computer "know" or detect said "so-called" subjective states having never had contact with a sentient being? That would by definition have to be the criteria if you claim that sentience could be detected strictly by mechanical means. You would, perforce, have to eliminate a subjective entity cuing the dummy (machine) what to look for, lest the subjective entity would be doing the machines heavy lifting.
The machine has to detect and explain sentience all by itself, from the very workings of it's own bucket of bolts. And that, my friend, ain't happening no how because sentience can only be "know" by a subject, once sentient instant at a time.
He said: "John Searle and others have pointed out, the Turing Test does not measure awareness, it just measures information processing—particularly the ability to follow rules or at imitate a particular style of communication. In particular it measures the ability of a computer program to imitate human like dialogue, which is different than measuring awareness itself. Thus even if we succeed in creating good AI, we won’t necessarily succeed in creating AA(“Artificial Awareness”).
That much said, how would the computer understand love and imagination as anything other than chemical processes.
What's more, per your use of "so-called" subjective states. How would this differ from "so-called" objective states, and by what process would you gauge the verity of either? How do you define the difference between the subjective life you actually lead as a human being, and an objectified representation of same?
JL
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The stupid dog says -- "unlike religion, which is merely a state of mind"
Then why are you stating your mind.
Instead of scientifically giving your mind.
Man, .... are you ever stupid ......
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
At one point you were a regular discursive guy like the rest of us, but then, over time, something happened and it changed everything, to the point that you want to share it. Now, it's safe to say your presentation skills have run up against some difficulties in that so far, but I do think a straightforward account of how these experiences have made a difference to you could only help shed some light.
For starters, I never stopped being a "regular discursive guy" like the rest of us. How would that change since discursive is the way we operate in the world. My "presentation skills" are not the problem, or the challenge. The challenge is that the experiential and objective worlds, while constituting one reality - like one coin - nevertheless are like both sides of a coin, which are not the same sides. The difficulties are that you want to know all about "heads," so to speak, but you want me to stick to the language and construct of Tails, and when I say this is impossible, you fail to understand this is not fault specifically of mine, or even of language.
Nevertheless, asking for "a straightforward account of how these experiences have made a difference to you could only help shed some light," is a totally reasonable question. But maybe you could be a tad more specific and dial in your question a little more, keeping it close as possible to what you are most curious about, as opposed to what you think or imagine is most suspect.
But give me a bit. I'm just getting off work and have to go to the Sangha for a few hours.
JL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!