Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Norton
climber
The Wastelands
|
|
You have to be very thick skinned and maturely understanding to continue to not consider that level of bullying personal amusement
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
You're right mb1, I'm just having fun!
Right on!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
You have to be very thick skinned and maturely understanding to continue to not consider that level of bullying personal amusement
LOL
Said from one of the primary politard bullies on the Taco Stand.
Pftsstttt
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Amazing. What a contrast.
Truly that mystery wrapped in enigma.
...
No MBI, it wasn't Heisenberg...
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1593650&msg=3099423#msg3099423
it was Haldane who said it...
"My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we *can* suppose." -JBS Haldane
Haldane? (EDIT: Ernst Mayr) also penned a book, One Long Argument. I'd encourage you to read it. It's accessible. It's written plainly. PLAINLY!
PS
Did I say it was written plainly. I should know. I read it in 1995 on my cross-country museum-science center-national park adventure spanning six months. Written plainly! I thoroughly enjoyed it. How come?
How come? Because it wasn't unscientific or anti-scientific and because it was written plainly!!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
People in the greater scientific community who are really on the ball - when discussing basic concepts, general concepts - like we find here - just do not talk like this.
ROFL
Wowwwwww
I can't even begin to respond.
The arrogance is epic: "We're the only ones talkin' righteously up in the joint; all others are circle jerks."
Alrighty then.
I'll end with this: The "building up" from particulars to general concepts is a FAILED project. If you haven't read broadly enough to know that, then you are even more clueless than you come across here.
Scientism is as much a diseased religion as any "Abrahamic" religion you bash on relentlessly.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
No woo in that group, adding Hitchens, Harris, Stephen Fry
Dawkins? Seriously?
They're ALL woo. They're just a flavor of woo you happen to like.
The faith is strong in that one....
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
IT'S WRITTEN PLAINLY!!!
lol
...
"circle jerks" (plural)
No there's just one circle-jerk here. Just as I wrote. The equivalent of one data point. So it's hard to really assess it, what to make of it, in total. But never mind.
My main point was to encourage any out there, FWiW, to not fall for any of this "deeply unscientific" "rant".
...
They're ALL woo. They're just a flavor of woo you happen to like. -MB1
I rest my case.
Stick with the science.
Choose your battles carefully.
Consider the source.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I rest my case.
But of course.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
IT'S WRITTEN PLAINLY!!!
lol
...
"circle jerks" (plural)
A play on words that was apparently a bit too nuanced for you.
Sorry.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Stick with the science.
Please do. We'll get more cool stuff.
Choose your battles carefully.
An axiom you apparently don't believe.
Consider the source.
Another axiom you apparently don't believe.
Dawkins? Seriously???
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 6, 2018 - 07:56pm PT
|
Easy Brennen. No harm intended to MH2. But as a writer I can sense into the sentiment behind the words. For starters, most of HH2's questions are not "seeking information I do not know," but rather subtle baits seeking comments he can assail in a passive-aggressive style. It takes the honesty out of the equation. If MH2 needs my apology, he has it. I never take this thread too seriously and enjoy the back and forth and good-natured (or so it seems) assailing that goes on here. Better then drinking the bong water or yelling in traffic.
I pick on Fruity because he's such a flamboyant windbag but I don't question his honesty in presenting ideas that are dear to him, no matter how outlandish and intemperate. Fruity might be my favorite on this thread. He also provides imteresting threads, though the Harris rants are hard to bear because of his psychological unconsciousness - IMO.
I especially appreciate both Madbolter and Mike because they have traveled the road few venture down with conviction and intelligence and know the material which others often lambaste sans understanding.
What we see at play here is, IMO, not so much a wrangling with ideas but exposition issuing from a particular psychological style favoring a kind of physical literalism. People want results, but the criteria for said "results" is more often than not an "explanation," if not a downright equation or algorithm, and if another view is presented, they demand an equation or algoritm as "evidence" of that claim. The wonky thing, as Madbolter has pointed out, when you really and truly push people like Dennett to the wall, what you have is a handful of woo. In a sense, materialism is woo, determined causation is certainly woo (because it is reductionistic and there aren't any first causes), explaining is woo. This shatters any classical widget to cling to, and stuff that is fundamental, anyway of knowinig anything for sure. And that POV will never never be popular in an age addicted to data points and mental content.
While Harris rants on and on about empirical evidence blowing away the superstitions of religion, and with scientism spreading across the terrain like so much crab grass, one only needs to look at the alarming increase of suicide rates to know the information age is not delivering the utopia many promised, but rather is driving people into a cyber void where many go into freefall. It's a fact worth mulling over.
And Dingus, you misinterpreted my comment that "God did it." Madbolter said that in jest, and so did I. Relegating a first cause to God is still being tied into the causal chain. You've just swapped out first causes. Your skit about the mail DESCRIBES the process. It does not explain why any of that and only that happened, which is the requirement of an explanation. You can follow a line of "becauses" backwards, but eventually you will find there is no first because.
Imagine stepping out of the causal chain, as a thought experiment. You can't, of course, but the exercise is instructive.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
one only needs to look at the alarming increase of suicide rates to know the information age is not delivering...
That's a whole nother issue... on its own... that needs to be dealt with. In the aftermath of losing a 2,000 year old "super narrative" that no longer stands the test of validity.
But we will get to it. Sapiens has faced life and death cruxes many times over and prevailed. It will face this one too. And it will prevail.
It is unfortunate that you do not understand this and therefore you refuse to align yourself in this direction.
...
At Rainier there is a point called Disappointment Cleaver on the way to summiting. Sapiens faces something similar now in its continuing evolution, mostly cultural. I call it Disappointment Valley. Loyal Rue calls it Amythia (from the Greek, meaning without story narrative). Either way, it is a condition. I have faith - as I've expressed it here many times, I see it as an evidence-based faith and certainly NOT blind faith - that Sapiens, drawing on its adaptation, drawing on its can-do power - will see itself through this Amythia, this Disappointment Valley, eventually, to an even higher peak in human performance, in human wisdom, than we now occupy. But it's probably a generational thing, meaning we individuals won't see it but our descendants, fate willing, will.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 6, 2018 - 08:07pm PT
|
In the aftermath of losing a 2,000 year old "super narrative" that no longer stands the test of validity.
Where I would disagree with you is that what you and Harris have cherry picked from "religion" are those points where the ancients sought to describe physical reality, and heaped on the mythology in the process - stuff that has since been updated by all kinds of fields of inquiry.
It's the other issues, having nothing to do with creating the universe in 7 days or walking on water, the deeper waters encountered in the Big Silence, when a person shuts up and listens - that realm has no counter with new information and data.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Fruitcake himself doesn't pass any test of validity ever ........
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
most of HH2's questions are not "seeking information I do not know," but rather subtle baits seeking comments he can assail in a passive-aggressive style.
"Most" means anything over 50%, so you imply that many of my questions are not of the sort you describe.
Many of my questions are intended to get someone to re-think what they wrote. This type of question does not require an answer, but whatever a person does say in response gives a sense of what is going on in their head, and one doesn't have to be a writer to see it.
On the subject of wine:
Be Drunk
You have to be always drunk. That’s all there is to it—it’s the only way. So as not to feel the horrible burden of time that breaks your back and bends you to the earth, you have to be continually drunk.
But on what? Wine, poetry or virtue, as you wish. But be drunk.
And if sometimes, on the steps of a palace or the green grass of a ditch, in the mournful solitude of your room, you wake again, drunkenness already diminishing or gone, ask the wind, the wave, the star, the bird, the clock, everything that is flying, everything that is groaning, everything that is rolling, everything that is singing, everything that is speaking. . .ask what time it is and wind, wave, star, bird, clock will answer you: “It is time to be drunk! So as not to be the martyred slaves of time, be drunk, be continually drunk! On wine, on poetry or on virtue as you wish."
Charles Baudelaire, 1821 - 1867
https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/be-drunk
But no, not wine for me, for the most part.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
Sapiens faces something similar now in its continuing evolution, mostly cultural. I call it Disappointment Valley. Loyal Rue calls it Amythia (from the Greek, meaning without story narrative). Either way, it is a condition. I have faith - as I've expressed it here many times, I see it as an evidence-based faith and certainly NOT blind faith - that Sapiens, drawing on its adaptation, drawing on its can-do power - will see itself through this Amythia, this Disappointment Valley, eventually, to an even higher peak in human performance, in human wisdom, than we now occupy.
Where I would disagree with you is that what you and Harris have cherry picked from "religion" are those points where the ancients sought to describe physical reality, and heaped on the mythology in the process ......
It's the other issues, having nothing to do with creating the universe in 7 days or walking on water, the deeper waters encountered in the Big Silence, when a person shuts up and listens - that realm has no counter with new information and data.
Both valid points of view. Therefore, if Fructose really wants an alternative to myth based literal religion, he needs or someone needs, to provide an alternative. Where is the nature and ecology based belief system that addresses human suffering in a comforting way? Where is the support community that religions provides? Where are the ethics for a better individual and society and what will be the motivation to live up to them? Those are the meaningful issues of the day. Many cling to the old ways not because they are believers, but because there are no supporting institutions provided by those who critique them. The proportion of people motivated by logical arguments is and will always be rather small, especially since the information age is making symbols more important than literary quality every day.
|
|
Norton
climber
The Wastelands
|
|
Jan, the alternative to the literal religiosity you speak of Fructose (and others) speaking against I am sure you have heard of is secular humanism.
Modern day proponents, understandably few given what they are up against, include such voices as Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens (RIP), Pinker, Fry, etc
Their contention is that the personal beliefs of secular humanism can and do, for a growing number, replace literal fundamentalist religion with a very good and viable life philosophy. Where do you personally stand on this Jan?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
MB1: What am I?
Oh, Lordy. I laughed and laughed.
(And thanks. I have to say I’ve entered into an age with retirement that has me observing new behaviors in me that I saw in my folks. Weird. But fascinating.)
HFCS,
Slow down a bit and really try to explain yourself carefully, with specifics, analytically (take things apart and show how they go back together).
I’m sure I present fragmented and wandering writing at times, and I try to work on that here.
Norton: . . . the personal beliefs of secular humanism can and do, for a growing number, replace literal fundamentalist religion with a very good and viable life philosophy.
What you’ve written here is fine. I’m good with living with you and your beliefs. You should do what you think is best for you. I take it, however, that you (and others here) think that one belief system *Needs To Replace* the other system. Is that right? I almost see in your writing that you think the replacement needs to be mandated.
If you’re a modern rationalist, then you might need to say why the replacement should be made (employ a rudimentary cost / benefit analysis?).
I mean, here we are on a forum in a thread attempting to talk about “mind.” There are a few of us who say that looking at our own minds or the issue intellectually (not only scientifically), we can’t quite make it out what Mind is. The more we look, the less we can seem to say.
Welllllllllllll, . . . that’s kinda interesting, isn’t it? I mean that apparent indescribability might well have implications for perception, cognition, memory, as well as what things appear to be through the use of mind.
Some investigations by others who’ve been looking at this same question (in one form or another) for hundreds or thousands of years have come up with articulations. Some of those articulations look religious to you (structurally organized with hierarchies and pedigrees) while perhaps more "spiritual" to others. Those others from the past talk funny—employing different ideas, understandings, and approaches. That “funny talk” IS funny . . . and somehow horribly egregious to many. It's not that the past investigators were bad or evil people. What's apparently egregious to you are the ideas, the very notions, themselves.
On another thread, I responded to a quip made by donini about religion, myths, gods and deities. I've asked him whether he has direct experience to make his comment, or whether the comment is theoretical or a principle.
Are you offended by an idea or what you’ve heard? Or are you arguing from direct experience? You seem here to be passionately critical.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
Indeed Norton, I have heard of secular humanism. In fact I almost got thrown off my high school student council for carrying a copy of Bertrand Russell's, Why I am not a Christian around school. The school authorities were quite doubtful that it was possible to read about atheism and be a good student council member. Fortunately, I was able to argue my first amendment rights but was regarded with suspicion ever after.
That was back in the days when I still believed that the majority of the human race was rational and able to be convinced by logic. It was also before I had seen the Third World and its suffering, and the dignity of the humans suffering in that situation thanks to their spirituality. It was before I had taken psychedelics and realized that there might be more to the human mind than logical thinking, before I read Carol Jung and delved into my own unconscious through psychoanalysis, dreams and meditation. It was also before I lived in a vibrant Tibetan Buddhist community that was non dogmatic and incredibly supportive of all its members. It was before I had lived 30 years in Japan surrounded by modernity and also by a reverence for the past and a lot of irrational beliefs in the supernatural, but also a greater respect for individuals as fellow human beings, than anything experienced in individualistic America. Japanese are incredibly law abiding and orderly and considerate not for fear of hell, or lawyers and police, but to honor their families and communities.
Personally I think that America is already secular enough if you look at the upper classes and the society they have created - legalistic, bureaucratic, commercialized, short sighted and hedonistic, with great inequality and violence. The answer is not to destroy religion and make atheists and secular humanists out of everyone, but to come up with a more humanly oriented society that fulfills the functions of religion so that people naturally evolve toward something else or reform their religions to their own liking, not yours.
Fructose is right about us being in the valley of despair from the shattering of our illusions at every level whether of dogmatic and hypocritical religion or politics, as the solution to human happiness. The problem I see is that nobody is coming up with solutions, only criticisms of the past and elite theoretical arguments for the highly educated who are definitely not in the majority in this country.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!