Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 10:05am PT
|
Dipshit flunkie.
You have ZERO content on these threads.
If there's any reason not to post anymore, you're the #1 reason. (It's truly a shame because I do like /would like to back n forth with several here in these exciting global, internet, social media, international community times.)
Dipshit flunkie.
(Yep, I don't mind saying it.)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 10:10am PT
|
Yep academic bubble boy is so puffed up he can't even ignore me .....
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 10:10am PT
|
I believe it's the 'information' part he's saying is tired and dated. I would more suggest that as the cost of computation and storage has dwindled the kinds of information we now process and store has expanded to the point where 'information' has lost all specificity and, as a result, it's utility. Even the global sense of the word has largely be supplanted by 'data' now that we are inundated by it. But the word still has currency in the quantum world so it might yet come back into vogue someday.
And yes, all things 'social' do have a lot of [social] currency at the moment. I consider this phase of computer and network utilization similar to the several decades after the widespread adoption of the telephone - suddenly we were more connected with a new dimension and modality of social interaction. It will pass soon enough as anything thought of as special or unique and become just another aspect of being in another couple generations. What comes out of that utility in the form of group or hive 'intelligence' is a far more interesting question / paradigm.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 10:23am PT
|
A MikeL post autopsy:
"Theoretically, "the information age" is a bit dated. Models that emphasize the social parts (social networking, crowd sourcing, ethics, etc.) now seem to be in the lead." -MikeL
This makes ZERO sense to me.
"Go and learn something you don't know anything about." -MikeL
This is 100% nonapplicable. (As endless learning is already an everyday part of my life. By design. On purpose. )
"About the time that anyone truly becomes an expert in anything, their discipline begins to give way to another emergent view (in art, science, social studies, doesn't matter)." -MikeL
This is so loose and uncertain - unless it's a lead-in, say, to a fuller discussion of something - it's more or less meaningless. For every eg you could point to to illustrate your claim, I could give you two or more where it's not true.
"Although it's certainly possible to develop expertise and stay near the top in one's field, (you think? lol) It's almost impossible to stay current in-the-now which is protestant of field." -MikeL
Yeah, so? Is this supposed to be instructional? A pearl of wisdom?
"Impermanence is everywhere in everything." -MikeL
No duh. But how is this relevant to anything?
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 10:53am PT
|
Ignore that troll jerk, HFCS. Dude's a moron. Let him kick sand in the face of someone else.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 10:58am PT
|
Good points, healyje. Especially about “data” and “intelligence.”
HFCS:
“Insulting” indicates you are angry. Don’t be. We’re just talking here.
There isn’t enough room here for me to parade the people I’ve read, the teachers that I’ve followed, their research, my peers, and the things I have done with regards to research. Moreover, they are somewhat irrelevant. If bona fides were intelligence, then we’d have far fewer problems in the world.
Information processing, as it has been operationalized in many studies, is a question of resource allocation and as healyje points out, acquiring the right data. Get the right data, run it through the appropriate pattern recognition system, and viola—out pops the right answer / decision. That is one of the biggest limitations to the information processing model.
1. Data stores overwhelm our capabilities, even with the cloud-like resources.
2. Which data are the right data is theory-dependent. Change theories and you’ll be looking for different data.
3. Processing is reliant upon frameworks and theories. As you can immediately see, there is an regressive loop between points #1 and #2. Only in the most highly defined domains is this not terribly problematical. The Law would provide a fair example of that.
4. What seems to be especially valuable these days is not resource allocation (also an economic point of view) but rather resourcefulness. To that point, imagination, entrepreneurship, creativity, and innovation seem more interesting and “productive” in the world. (I admit that theory-building can qualify in this point, but it appears to be an augmentation rather than driving.) Things that we can’t seem to talk about very well (only anecdotally), like the unconscious, intuition, improvisation, etc. seem to fit here, and we are only guessing about them because they are difficult to come up with metrics.
5. Socially, information and processing do not seem to describe empathy, inclusiveness, pluralism, and those appear to be far more important as starting points than information or processing in the world today. Hell, in many instances, we can’t even talk or hear one another.
6. Possibility and potential appear to be, at best, only suggested by information and processing if one strains to see it. For most people, information and processing is viewed by many people as a closed-loop system.
7. Get the right data, process it properly, and then execute the decision. Viola. More often than not, that just won’t work. Why? Because the devil is in the details. Implementation is far more difficult and even artistic when compared to processing information. At best, information processing is suggestive.
8. Notions like transparency, openness, possibility, inclusiveness, being present, multiple points of view simultaneously, fluency, wisdom, freedom from our egos, reverence, service, letting go, playful tolerance, name or label transcendence, participation, responsiveness, etc. appear to be more important than information and processing. Together, these things don’t readily fit into any particular traditional category in science.
I don’t mean to rain on anyone’s parade when it comes to science, myth, or even magic. I think I am appreciating engineering, science, art, religion, ethics. I just don’t see that any one view tells us what’s happening or what can happen. I like the conversations about cognition, information, processing and the like. But as models of what we are, they seem too rigid and defined. Of course you may disagree. It seems to me that we are more than what we think. We are more than thinking.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 10:58am PT
|
Roger that, Crankster.
I think over the last year or so, I've shown exemplary patience.
Regarding this "dipshit" flunkie.
However, we all have our limits.
(Just as we should. No Neville Chamberlain here.)
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 11:03am PT
|
"Of course you may disagree."
I disagree.
"It seems to me that we are more than what we think. We are more than thinking." -MikeL
Of course we are more than what we think. Of course we are more than thinking.
What's more,
None of your items above address "biological information processing" in the relevant context of the tvash post. :(
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 11:09am PT
|
It seems to me that we are more than what we think. We are more than thinking.
Clearly. I think most folks and all but a few researchers grossly underestimate what's really going on. But I think where we disagree (in various camps) is whether that 'more' is contained in, and constrained by, the brain pan.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 11:14am PT
|
What comes out of that utility in the form of group or hive 'intelligence' is a far more interesting question / paradigm.
"We Will become Borg!" The IPhone will reduce to "I" and be ingested into the body. Everyone will have instant access to all info. Everyone will be friends on facebook and have instant live viewing access to anyone, anytime. Billions could be looking through a live fed camera mounted on/in Honnold's forehead when he freesolos dawnwall. Maybe even with these devices we could hear/feel everyone elses input on our personal moment? Just think i could be out soloing, solo, and hear/feel everyone ruiting me on!
"We Must Assimilate!"
fruity i must assimilate
fruity i must assimilate
fruity i must assimilate
who's ur daddy now
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 11:20am PT
|
"and last but not least, INSULTING again and again to anyone who values science, the science community and science education..." -hfcs
MikeL, you're right on this point. I shouldn't have personalized it. So I'll revise...
and last but not least, INSULTING again and again to science, the science community and science education...
Though the personalizing should be understandable, you try to protect what you love, what you are passionate about. (See Humanities for more on this point.)
.....
"fruity i must assimilate... who's ur daddy now" -Blu
Ah, the other flunkie posted up.
Boy that's content-worthy. Thanks.
You call me Preacher, I call you Flunkie, too.
Karma's a bitch, eh? ;)
(A two or three-man confederation of flunkies is what we have. Enjoy your fellowship, lol.)
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 11:51am PT
|
Fruity, i thought you if anyone could understand we are all just products of the environment and brought to you through cause-effect.
so why the need to try and make us feel guilty
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 01:02pm PT
|
HFCS said "Asserted from someone who's had HOW MANY COURSES (incl hands-on lab experience) in information theory from the electronics engineering computer science department? lol
Asserted from someone who's had HOW MANY COURSES (incl hands-on lab experience) in signal transduction and control theory from a neurobiology department? lol
You are one weird dude. At least as a poster.
Your forewarned though. Brace yourself. It's the information age. Your "tired metaphor" is only going to grow ever stronger, ever more popular, at least with the educated, in the coming decades. Sorry, man. "
What HFCS misses in putting book read intelligence on the pedestal is relationship. Life is a relationship; and you seem to be ignoring that component.
I know a guy that got his PHD in Physics (had to leave Princeton because he accidentally proved his advisor's work was flawed) and worked at GE designing cooling systems for cruise missiles and other such wonderful things of science.
So he had an arranged marriage to a beautiful women who decided to divorce him. He told my dad the following story. His wife made him sit down to have a serious discussion on how she wanted a divorce but shortly into the conversation he started thinking about a pure carbon experiment he was doing and didn't hear a word she said.
I think everyone thinks science can be a wonderful tool but without correct relationship it becomes destructive (like everything.)
So what is correct relationship? and how important is science to have a correct relationship? IMO it can be very helpful; , but IMO it is only another tool in the box. HFCS what are the other tools in the box? And what are the tools for?
|
|
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 01:11pm PT
|
"It all looks good on paper"
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 01:58pm PT
|
Got a good dose of California Climber Religion last night, at the temple in the basement.
Dingus, my sense after all these months is that anything that does not fit into your discursive framework of black and white things is perforce "religious," and that instead of exchanging empirical information, folks speaking outside your box are "true believers" who are "preaching."
I'va also noticed that while it has repeatedly been pointed out that experiential adventures involve no beliefs, faith, Gods, worship or doctrine, "ol' time religion" reamins a kind of catch phrase that you insist still applies, a kind of ham-fisted, one-size-fits-all moniker for stuff you can't chart on an X/Y graph or get hold of with calipers and get to quantifying (remember, if you're not measuring, you're "wasting time").
Can we you see the prallells of this POV with people obsessively glaring at their cell phones and living in a cyber world, growing restive if the cyber trance is interrupted, insisting that lest they remain focused on something, anything "out there" (or "in there," in the case of their phones), they are "wastintg time?"
The same psychological racket is at play, and the same disolcate from self.
JL
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 02:01pm PT
|
I believe the focus of discussion was Human Functioning 101, esp regards will (free or not), consciousness, our mechanistic nature, etc.; and I believe the point being made was that if you're not willing to look "under the hood" and do the hard work of systematic inquiry/study beginning with the science basics like chemistry, biochem, genetics, evolutionary theory, etc. (usu over many years to acquire a basic competence or expertise) you're just pissing in the wind.
Analogies were made to auto mechanics and computer mechanics. Expertise matters.
That this point or proposition - even common sense, really - might be off-putting to some, e.g., those lacking interest, is understandable. Completely understandable. But there's nothing the rest of us can do about that.
As the old saying goes: Different strokes for different folks.
Maybe time to speciate. Where is that wormhole? where are those 12 hospitable planets of Interstellar, looks increasingly like we could use a few.
btw, Interstellar. 8.5, imo. See it. Very entertaining.
.....
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/astrobiology-made-case-god
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/book-review-the-moral-arc-science-as-a-force-for-good-by-michael-shermer/2015/01/22/d5fd05f8-8a2c-11e4-9e8d-0c687bc18da4_story.html
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 03:33pm PT
|
As I’ve attempted (perhaps poorly) to point out to Jgill (and as Ed may have done with reference to Godel's work), all languages or math are problematical inasmuch as they are inconsistent or contradictory
Oh my, if only my instructors fifty years ago had pointed that out as you have done, Mike, my mathematical life would have so much easier! All those theorems I conjectured but could not prove over my career were a waste of time, since they fell into the black hole of incompleteness.
;>(
Incompleteness, open-endedness, etc. affects only a tiny, tiny part of math research, and, like free-will, one may assume that the problems, theory, etc. one works on are free of this pathology. And even were they to be contaminated, results that were assumed to be theorems might in some instances be simply added to the greater scheme of things as axioms. Viz, the Continuum Hypothesis which was found by Cohen in 1962 to have a kind in independence that allowed either it or its negation to be assumed axiomatically without endangering the integrity of the existing Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory.
Stick to Derrida, my friend . . .
;>)
The same psychological racket is at play, and the same disolcate from self
But, John, I thought parting from one's self was admirable in Zen???
I know a guy that got his PHD in Physics (had to leave Princeton because he accidentally proved his advisor's work was flawed). . .
I'm not saying this story is not true, but this sort of thing is mostly urban legend in the academic community.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 05:48pm PT
|
Per the "self," John, you have to abide with the being part - as in human being - to ever know what that means, and that involves cutting our fixation with obsessing on people, places and things "out there" (called "otherating") and simply being with our own experience WITHOUT evaluating it - at least at the outset. The "racket" or better yet, the trance, is perfectly expressed by Fruity's statement:
"If you're not willing to look "under the hood" and do the hard work of systematic inquiry/study beginning with the science basics like chemistry, biochem, genetics, evolutionary theory, etc. (usu over many years to acquire a basic competence or expertise) you're just pissing in the wind."
This harks back to the trance's axiom: "If you're not measuring, you're wasting your time." That is, the only way to "know" something is to measure. However when you go to know yourself, or the nature of consciousness, you have to "look under the hood" WITHOUT measuring or quantifying, and this is a concept lost on the discursive mind, hence the trance.
There are many seeming paradoxes at work here. One is the crazy fact that the moment you try and quantify consciousness, your mind has narrow focused on an aspect or a moving part and you suddenly are not looking at consciousness at all, rather objective functioning and brain activity. And this has quite naturally led to people conflating the two, or to saying wonky things like, "consciousness is what the brain does."
This is all fine and well till you run into the problems my friends did when approaching the idea of trying to program self-awareness into a computer. "Consciousness is what the brain does" goes nowhere in terms of writing code. " Fact is, reality entails more than just things, a concept lost on discursive thinking.
That much said, no one has ever said to ditch the discursive. It is not all-or-nothing, rather it is using the right tool for the job. Put differently, there is more than one way to "look under the hood." If you are looking at discrete bits and parts and functions, get out ye ol' slide rule and have at it.
But wait, there's more ...
JL
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2015 - 07:48pm PT
|
it has repeatedly been pointed out that experiential adventures involve no beliefs, faith, Gods, worship or doctrine
It isn't "experiential adventures" that remind one of religion; it is the way you talk about them as a path to be followed in order to grok that form is emptiness and emptiness is form. The importance of meditating in a group also sounds like church, and your long record of promoting the meditative path and castigating those you feel are not heeding the message can legitimately be likened to preaching. That doesn't mean we think you believe in any particular doctrine, let alone fire and brimstone.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!