why does everyone hate christianity so much?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1601 - 1620 of total 2381 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
WBraun

climber
Sep 5, 2013 - 04:50pm PT
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
Sep 5, 2013 - 05:03pm PT
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
dirtbag

climber
Sep 5, 2013 - 05:07pm PT
Credit: dirtbag

Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 5, 2013 - 05:14pm PT
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.

Again, now you are expanding the scenario from your original post in which you merely had the machine objectively examining the brain.
Now apparently our machine has had no prior contact with a sentient being?? wTF?
Even Uncle Fred's Cadillac had her tuning tuned up by a sentient human.

There is nothing mysteriously unknowable about so-called human subjective states per se.
The Artificial Intelligence has no problem understanding that they exist, what and where they arise, what part of the brain they light up, and the effects of these states upon the external world.

Can the computer actually partake in these rarefied states?
No.
Because a computer is inorganic.

Subjective states do not have to be mandatorily experienced first hand to be known and recognized by an intelligent cutting edge machine, in a purely objective manner.
So -called subjective states are like a hand or an eyelid. They are organic constituents of human life. Nothing arcanely exalted going on there beyond the ordinary and yet miraculous thing we call Life.

Credit: Ward Trotter



Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Sep 5, 2013 - 05:14pm PT
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Sep 5, 2013 - 05:45pm PT
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.

I wouldn't want to limit it to what I'm curious about, don't want to make it about me. So, just anything and everything that has noticeably changed in consequence of working to develop this attentiveness, perspective, broader range of experience, the "other side of the coin." Things that language should be able to convey, since it's clearly not the appropriate medium for exploring the Real Deal. For example (but not limited to) interpersonal relationships, day-to-day ups and downs, climbing at high levels, whatever might offer an insight into the worldly outcomes of time spent at sangha versus not.
Byran

climber
Yosemite
Sep 5, 2013 - 05:59pm PT
Can the computer actually partake in these rarefied states?
No.
Because a computer is inorganic.

Why do you assume that when a carbon/nitrogen/oxygen based brain sends electrical signals across itself that it creates "consciousness", but when a silicon/copper/silver based computer chip does more or less the same thing, it doesn't result in consciousness?

"Life" in the biological sense, is only necessary for consciousness insofar as the neurons in our brains have to be alive to work properly. A computer doesn't require cellular metabolism to function, so the fact that it's inorganic shouldn't exempt it from experiencing consciousness.

Carl Sagan wrote a lot about looking for alien life in the universe and how we go about it in a very anthropocentric way - always looking for "earthlike" planets which would support carbon life similar to our own, when in fact alien intelligence could very well be silicon based or something even stranger.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:11pm PT

"Life" in the biological sense,

I like Ed's definition from way back; to be alive it needs to reproduce.

As far as my computer, until it humps my iPhone and gives me a watch. It ain't alive!

As far as consciousness, what happens to it when you turn the on switch off?
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:11pm PT
Why do you assume that when a carbon/nitrogen/oxygen based brain sends electrical signals across itself that it creates "consciousness", but when a silicon/copper/silver based computer chip does more or less the same thing, it doesn't result in consciousness?

I didn't say that. I said , and implied , that a computer cannot experience those particular subjective states in question, like love, for instance , because such states are organically based.
A computer has no need to experience "lust " for instance, unless you've discovered a recent Apple product or app that I am not aware of.

Could humping computers be the next thing on youporn?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:20pm PT
The problem, Ward, is that you confuse subjective and objective, and when I said the objective cannot detect the subjective, you have simply gone into the standard default mode of saying detection of physical markers of consciousness is the same thing as subjective experience itself. My sense of it is you are such a staunch physicalist that you would go so far as to consider the subjective life you actually live and experience to be less of a real phenomenon that the material you believe "creates" you, and all you will be know. But let's look at what you have said.

-

Again, now you are expanding the scenario from your original post in which you merely had the machine objectively examining the brain.
-

The intention of the original post was to show the simple fact that a machine, in and of itself, cannot detect subjective experience, having no capacity and no reference to know or recognize what human experience actually is. The best a machine can hope to ever recognize is objective functioning.


Now apparently our machine has had no prior contact with a sentient being?? wTF?



If a machine can detect subjectivity mechanically, why would it need input from a sentient being to do it's mechanical work?


Even Uncle Fred's Cadillac had her tuning tuned up by a sentient human.



Sentience is handy like that.

There is nothing mysteriously unknowable about so-called human subjective states per se.


What I believe you mean by this statement is that you believe subjectivity is entirely mechanistic and brain based, and every facet of conscious is quantifiable. If so, quantify raw awareness. What is it? And by means of what experience and what empirical data have you arrieved at your beliefs?


The Artificial Intelligence has no problem understanding that they exist, what and where they arise, what part of the brain they light up, and the effects of these states upon the external world.


Explain to the world how a machine would, in and of itself, "understand" how subjective sentient experience would exist. Note I am not asking for the machine to point out objective functioning. This false argument, assuming the two are selfsame, has been decided decades ago. And where does consciousness arise? And how?


Can the computer actually partake in these rarefied states?
No. Because a computer is inorganic.

---

Subjective states do not have to be mandatorily experienced first hand to be known and recognized by an intelligent cutting edge machine, in a purely objective manner.
-


This statement is a contradiction and a total confusion of terms. First, we need to acknowledge a coin has two sides and they are not selfsame. Anyone can see this as a simple fact. Likewise, we humans, while living in a subjective space from birth to death, we also have a physical body, but few of us confuse objective stuff with our person experience. You keep insisting that a machine can "know and recognize" subjectivty, but these are human attributes specific to sentience. A machine can only detect and resigster/record so-called objective functions it has been programmed to detect, which are associated with subjectivity. No machine can detect sentience itself. Only objective functioning. Only by conflating the objective and subjective can we say "heads are also tails," but every schoolboy knows better.


So -called subjective states are like a hand or an eyelid. They are organic constituents of human life. Nothing arcanely exalted going on there beyond the ordinary and yet miraculous thing we call Life.
MisterE

climber
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:31pm PT
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 ......

States of being are much more expressive in this regard.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:47pm PT
Largoid :
Right now I'm headed to my local sang-gaga ( Starbucks) to sit in the downtown environment , check out the passing babe-a-thon, and talk to my old Spanish friend (if he shows up) whose family knew and worked for Salvador Dali.

Dali at work in his office:

Credit: Ward Trotter

Okay. Lets hear it for 5.4 climbs


Mannnnnnnn--tel . Lol

Just look at the " exposure"
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Vancouver Canada
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:52pm PT
All avenues of subjectivity and objectivity funnel down to the same quandary.

Salvation...

Anyone here had or seen any true salvation lately ?
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:54pm PT
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Sep 5, 2013 - 07:59pm PT
squish
Are your posts, your posts? Or jus cut and pastes? Do you have legit questions?
Either way you certainly don't have any understanding of the bible.
I would be just as naive as you if I posted Hitlers recipes on how to BBQ Jews.
What point are you trying to produce?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Sep 5, 2013 - 08:26pm PT
Largo the vid you linked is one of the best I've watched from this forum.

A machine can only detect and resigster/record so-called objective functions it has been programmed to detect, which are associated with subjectivity. No machine can detect sentience itself.

Resoundingly it was the 16th century when man proposed nature is no more than a machine.
How any climber could agree with this I can not fathom. But it does bring me awareness to why people here can't connect with their souls..
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Sep 5, 2013 - 08:28pm PT
I like Ed's definition from way back; to be alive it needs to reproduce.

Then explain the difference between a virus and a computer (or any other common item really). A virus lacks a formal reproductive system; if you have it in a test tube all by itself it will just sit there. Add a host (factory) and you will soon end up with millions of copies.

Similarly, computers don't (yet) reproduce on their own, but given a factory with sufficient resources and capabilities it will be reproduced and eventually evolve into a more efficient form
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Sep 5, 2013 - 08:38pm PT
The Mountainous God Lie – Lingering social evils from initial misunderstandings and then subsequent deliberate falsification of the records, plus manipulation of ignorant people by stupid or poorly educated or power mongering priests and politicians:

• That gods exist,
• That people have immortal souls imbued by the gods,
• That birth of children is controlled the gods,
• That the dead are ruled by the gods,
• That people have souls, which are judged by the gods,
• That stars and their constellations are signs from the gods,
• That movements of stars tell stories of gods,
• That dreams contain messages from the gods,
• That magic displays the mystery of the gods,
• That mysteries conceal the secrets of the gods,
• That sacrifices are needed to placate the gods,
• That rituals reveal knowledge of the gods,
• That mistakes are ‘sins’ against the gods,
• That sins offend and are punished by the gods,
• That clerics can forgive sins on behalf of the gods,
• That clerics are in contact with the gods,
• That clerics exercise authority on behalf of the gods,
• That clerics are spokesmen for the gods,
• That clerics preach the wills of the gods,
• That clerical “knowledge” is direct from the gods,
• That clerical hierarchies are established by the gods,
• That rather than serving themselves, the clerics serve the gods,
• That paying the clerics placates the gods,
• That prayers have power to persuade the gods,
• That tithes are collected on behalf of the gods,
• That “oracles” and “prophets” speak for the gods,
• That “truth” is told about prophets and gods,
• That a “race” of people was chosen by the gods,
• That oaths are binding when sworn to the gods,
• That covenants can be established with the gods,
• That morality is defined by the gods,
• That customs are created by the gods
• That laws are dictated by the gods,
• That leaders are chosen by the gods,
• That rulers know right by the grace of the gods,
• That justice is the jurisdiction of the gods,
• That order is ordained by the gods,
• That punishment is performed by the gods,
• That judges are judged by gods,
• That leaders rule by the grace of the gods,
• That kingdoms are established by the gods,
• That the fate of societies is controlled by the gods,
• That human rights are endowed by the gods,
• That people should put their trust in the gods,
• That believers gain grace as a gift of the gods,
• That wars are waged on behalf of the gods…

It’s all a monstrous, mountain of lies, which needs to be repudiated, for the sake of the world’s children.

The Zen Of Zero
http://zenofzero.blogspot.ca/2008_07_01_archive.html
http://zenofzero.net/index.html
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Vancouver Canada
Sep 5, 2013 - 08:38pm PT
A friend of mine once confided in his mother that he had a virus. She consoled him with the fact that life goes on and a virus is just something you should be up front about.

He looked at her and said it's on his computer...
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 5, 2013 - 08:43pm PT
Hey, it's not that I can't see Ward's point. But in all of these arguments you will find that physicalists fall back to insisting that your uncle is your aunt and "so-called" subjectivity IS in fact, objectivity. If you believe that anything is no greater than the parts imagined to create it, you believe this with all your heart.

But as with all things like this, we can ask, if the machine can detect subjectivity, can look into our brains and say I detect a person sensing a stunning girl with fine form, what the machine will perforce point to is not the experience itself of said feline, rather a bunch of neural activity. And if you can't tell the difference between this and experience, no one is going to talk you out of it.

JL
Messages 1601 - 1620 of total 2381 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews