Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
May 12, 2017 - 01:41pm PT
|
Nobility is highly overrated; mostly sonsofbitches, in practice
Out of the Badlands
Nasty Barons and their Clippers.
Serious thread drift.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
May 12, 2017 - 06:46pm PT
|
If one thinks that nobility equates to that which is virtuous, good, worthy, moral, righteous, upright, and such, then perhaps the primitive savage exemplifies it. Modern / contemporary / civilized Man as we see him / her today has more than a few hang-ups that brings all these issues into ambiguous relief.
MikeL , you should be directing those comments to Paul. Go back and read our prior exchange very carefully.
We were not speaking primarily of the numerous contrasts between the "nobility" of modern man versus primitive man-- this was not the ground zero of our discussion. Paul had, and I thought inappropriately, invoked Rousseau's "noble savage" in some sort of attempt to associate my argument with Roussean Romanticism. Which was absurd on the face of it.
It had very little to do with your angle on primitive man's ethical behavior versus contemporary societies.
If you'd like to open a separate argument along those lines I'd be willing to do so. However be cautioned that I think such moral comparisons are an exercise in wild goose chasing
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
May 12, 2017 - 08:35pm PT
|
As an anthropologist I too would be interested in such a discussion.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 12, 2017 - 10:30pm PT
|
Serious thread drift.
Not really, in that the remarkable nature of mind is not something to be dismissed as simply a fluke of evolutionary processes, an accident of chemical combinations coupled with equivalent accidental electric or energy impulses of some kind. The universe by its nature is a construct out of which consciousness must be inevitable, the proof of which is its present existence and the inevitable and nearly infinite repetition of suitable contexts for same throughout the universe.
Nobility? What makes humanity noble is the simple notion of the ineluctable awareness of mortality common to all human beings against which a human structure of reconciliation allows for the acceptance of what is finally unacceptable. Additionally, within that structure is the recognition of the value of defining and accepting the adherence to virtue, and that is, as well, noble and fine.
The dismissal of civilized man as inevitably corrupt and necessarily in denial of his primal animal nature (read dung thrower) is an idea redolent of romantic "sensibility." What I find interesting is this need (in science?) to define mind as superfluous accident and inconsequential by virtue of its insignificant scale in relation to the vast nature of the universe.
When rarity, at least in our solar system, screams out its (mind's) importance.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 13, 2017 - 08:45am PT
|
Ward,
I disagreed with you about Rousseau, and you told me to go back and get clear on the conversation. I had gotten you wrong.
You came in to the conversation upthread with a response to Paul about evolutionary processes. Although you said evolution is not all there is, but evolution is a huge force, and you reminded us of our genetic pedigree (dung throwers). Paul demurred with that characterization, and pointed instead to Man’s achievements (which included science, even though science-oriented people here seem dismissive). You seemed to respond that Paul’s loftiness needed balancing because humans seem less than glorious to you. You seem to want to be perceived as pragmatic, noting obvious evil behaviors of men. To me you said that you are not fully in the evolutionists’ camp. Paul came back and invoked Rousseau to say that Man was more than Rousseau made of him (via greater achievements than simply being a noble savage, I should suppose). You took the opportunity to chime in that Rousseau was a phony philosophically, although engaging and controversial. You then asked the question what humanity was at its most fundamental state: did Paul reject the notion that Man was primarily an ape, and did Paul see any more than Rousseau saw? At this point, I came back in, disagreed about your view of Rousseau, and opened the question as to what constituted what is “noble” about Man. I added that I see Man as nothing but noble in that he is mirrors the universe that he perceives (a kind of mutual causality). Paul’s last post reorients the conversation to whether Man’s nature is virtuous (shown by many great achievements, to include consciousness) versus corrupt (dung thrower, merely an effect of evolution, especially seen as insignificant in the context of an infinite universe).
It’s been a wandering conversation about evolution, Man’s virtues / nobility (whether he really has any or not) and mind / consciousness, and the universe, Ward. (I’m sure I’ve made many mistakes in my reading.)
What I like about Rousseau is that he reminds us not only of what Man has been, but he reminds us of what we still are. Sure, it will be difficult to argue that Man is still the glorious noble savage historically (I tried to articulate what is noble about savages). However, just because we’ve moved into an age of civilization, technology, and global relationships does not mean that we no longer are noble savages.
Each stage of development enables the next, but that next stage must include the previous stage. One learns calculus only after learning algebra—*and* algebra is retained although it’s been transcended because it forms a necessary basis. (I know you may not disagree; I’m saying this because I would like it recognized.)
We are different than what we were, yet we are the same. I see nothing wrong with savagery; I see nothing wrong anywhere. It’s a process this thing called life. If anything, I see what the buddhists would refer to as “skillful means,” a euphemism for karmic efficiency.
I’m in somewhat agreement with Paul in that I read in this and some other threads that evolution appears to be the generic answer to almost every question or issue to what we are, where we’re going, and how we should look at life. I see an unending list of *and’s* (and mysteries). The wont to define who and what we are (Werner’s question to me) is an error, a glitch in the matrix, a limitation, a single perspective on that which cannot be described or said. We are, apparently, a complete mystery. Not only am I fine with that, I find it liberating and virtuous.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
May 13, 2017 - 12:59pm PT
|
The universe by its nature is a construct out of which consciousness must be inevitable, the proof of which is its present existence and the inevitable and nearly infinite repetition of suitable contexts for same throughout the universe
Something happens and you say it's inevitable? Toss a die and it comes up four. Was that inevitable, the universe having set the stage so that a three could not have come up? I appreciate your commentaries about art and literature. But when you speak of "proofs" or the divine nature of numbers I think you wander away from your expertise a bit too far. Just MHO.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
May 13, 2017 - 02:39pm PT
|
Toss a die and it comes up four. Was that inevitable, the universe having set the stage so that a three could not have come up?
That one's been around the block a few times before:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/
In fact, back in the day, this was sometimes called "the scientific view" although I haven't been around much philosophy of science for about 40 years.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 13, 2017 - 02:57pm PT
|
Toss a die and it comes up four. Was that inevitable, the universe having set the stage so that a three could not have come up?
No. But it is inevitable that something will come up and it is inevitable that three will come up eventually considering the limitations imposed on chance by the structure of the die.
What I meant by the divinity of number is the transcendent nature of numerical relationships that exist with or without human intervention or knowledge, many of which, I assume, are waiting to be discovered. I don't imagine numbers are god or that there even is a god or woo, but it is curious that something like A squared plus B squared equals C squared as a relationship exists eternally or at least as long as this universe continues. And that relationship requires no human awareness to exist.
If we agree that the structure of the universe is such that it has limitations, that is things, events, states that cannot happen by virtue of the laws of physics then how are the things that do happen not a product of that same structure? Why are so many scientists convinced that given the right conditions life will appear if they didn't believe the structure of the universe is inevitably directed toward life?
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
May 13, 2017 - 03:15pm PT
|
it is inevitable that three will come up eventually considering the limitations imposed on chance by the structure of the die.
Which limitations imposed on chance are those?
If it is a six-sided die and we suppose that the chance of a particular side coming up is the same as any other, the odds of 3 not coming up on one toss are 5 in 6. Then we can multiply 5/6 times itself for as many tosses as we wish to determine the chance of 3 not coming up during that sample of tosses.
You aren't going to get to a zero chance that way, but I would still grant you that the event of 3 coming up is near enough to inevitable to not get worried about the theoretical possibility that it won't.
And maybe even as a question of math, the chance of 3 not coming up may get close enough to zero to call it zero, if you are not too fussy.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 13, 2017 - 03:20pm PT
|
Which limitations imposed on chance are those?
Really? Of an infinite amount of numbers how many are on a die and how many on a single die can come up at a time? If a number larger than six comes up you've got problems.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
May 13, 2017 - 03:40pm PT
|
But if you put the die in a closed box and shook it, then set it down unopened, is the die in an indeterminate state until one opens the box and looks at it? Deeper than you thought.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
May 13, 2017 - 03:53pm PT
|
How do you know what's going on in the box? Could be a miasma of quantum flux. The die may have spontaneously disintegrated into dust. According to Paul that could happen if the universe has so ordained. Since we can imagine it happening, there must be a non-zero probability that it has (I'm channeling Paul and MikeL here). What say you?
;>)
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
May 13, 2017 - 04:09pm PT
|
The die being in an indeterminate state due to concealment, doesn't change its physical orientation.
A number of mathematicians, including von Neumann, John Stewart Bell, and more recently John Conway and Simon B. Kochen believe to have proven that the "hidden variables argument" (this is the argument that you are giving) is inconsistent (in the logical sense) with the Theory of Quantum Mechanics. I don't know what to make of this.
Bell's theorem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
May 13, 2017 - 07:46pm PT
|
Of an infinite amount of numbers how many are on a die and how many on a single die can come up at a time? If a number larger than six comes up you've got problems.
I don't think you necessarily have problems. You may only have non-traditional dice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
May 13, 2017 - 07:51pm PT
|
I deleted an earnest post about indeterminate states
I like the phrase, "determine the chance."
And I apologize for concealing part of your post.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
May 13, 2017 - 08:12pm PT
|
Is everything an accident or a coincidence ?
No. Some things are determined.
I believe that 12 sides are the most you can get on a regular polyhedron.
But it depends on how many dimensions you have to work with.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/platonic.html
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 13, 2017 - 08:44pm PT
|
I don't think you necessarily have problems. You may only have non-traditional dice.
Now you're tap dancing... point still stands. The numbers any die might show when tossed are a function of the numbers on the die... or the chances offered by said die are, as i said, constrained. Mind arrives in a universe that might produce some things but is constrained from producing others. Mind is one of the things nature allows and could be considered inevitable as a function of conditions.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 13, 2017 - 09:03pm PT
|
Are there any other explanations [stories] of how something arose from nothing?
there is no nothing (I won't post any links)...
what is anti-energy Dingus?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 13, 2017 - 09:21pm PT
|
Not really, in that the remarkable nature of mind is not something to be dismissed as simply a fluke of evolutionary processes, an accident of chemical combinations coupled with equivalent accidental electric or energy impulses of some kind.
I think you have seriously misunderstood the "evolutionary process."
I won't provide any links, you might consult a modern treatise on evolution, however, before you state things which you do not understand at all (by evidence of your posts).
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
May 13, 2017 - 10:14pm PT
|
The numbers any die might show when tossed are a function of the numbers on the die...
The identity function?
Mind is one of the things nature allows and could be considered inevitable as a function of conditions
I'm not convinced. So mind is a function of conditions. If something is "allowable" by nature, is it then inevitable? Is it inevitable that the Golden Gate Bridge will be taken apart piece by piece and reassembled in Paducah, Kentucky?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!