Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MH2
climber
|
|
What we do when we objectify anything, is we frame it as an object (JL)
We agree on that, too.
But can you describe the process by which light on the retina, sound in the ears, touch, taste, smell, and proprioception produce what you call 'an object?'
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Bravo again Largo! That was a gud'n.
Science does not DO the measuring. We do.
i'd like to interject here though, my scientific mind wants to say;
Haven't plants and animals been doing science longer then us? Plants for instance, they make decisions based on sunlight and rainfall. Animals can do that and go the next step, making decisions based on other animals actions.
Is that not science?
Humans just take the next step and title everything..
|
|
goatboy smellz
climber
लघिमा
|
|
"This world may be only illusion -- but it's the only illusion we've got." -- Edward Abbey
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
18th century philosophical musings . . .?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
There is no sound in outer-space, thus no trees?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 3, 2014 - 09:40pm PT
|
I think it's pretty clear that you have zero idea how "science" is done....and even less as to why it is done. It's no wonder that you and MikeL have nothing but contempt for the process and it's practitioners.
--
This is total rubbish, Fort. The process by which I have written all those anchor and safety books is strictly scientific. From the annectodal evidence we go to drop tests, then to a statisitial prof (Crimp Girl) to work up the numbers, then to Dr. Richard Goldstone to get the math model figured out and thene we start looking at standarzing the methods, and then more testing and finally, I can start drumming up some rules of thumb. And I've got to be right or people die.
I have no contemp for the process I just described. It all works off the numbers, mostly from drop tests. It's just that I don't expect for any science to get done sans sentience. Again - how might that work?
JL
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 3, 2014 - 09:46pm PT
|
And that tree in the forest question is not one most people actually understand. The question is not whether or not a falling object creates a disturbance (sound waves) in the atomic make up of reality, rather, what does "sound" mean in the context of the falling tree.
Nope. That is not what the sentence says.
The sentence says: If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear, does the tree make a sound?
The answer: No. A falling tree creates distubrances in the atmosphere (we humans call them sound waves). Our brains "make" the subjective experience of a "sound" from the objective sound waves "out there."
JL
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear, does the tree make a sound?
It is an interesting contemplation. i guess the evolutionist would say, since the tree was here first, that rocks grew ears inorder to know when to yell, TIMBERRRRRRRRRR!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
and there is no one there to hear
There's always the "one" that hears there.
There's never ever no "one" there.
Otherwise there never ever would be sound.
In the entire cosmic manifestation sound vibration is first.
The gross material scientist have yet to fully understand the science of sound vibration.
One is One .......
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
^^^it does pertain to every cell in my body. Even the eye and nose, and even to plants!
All is One....
|
|
goatboy smellz
climber
लघिमा
|
|
But one of what?
Each other, that tree, every star?
Sounds like a good acid trip.
heh, been reading to much Abbey and Tzu.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
Our brains "make" the subjective experience of a "sound" from the objective sound waves "out there." (JL)
I like castles-in-the-air, too.
The planning, building, watering, feeding, heating and repairing of actual castles is a different deal. Not better, not worse. Different.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
You've got me wrong, Fort . . . but doesn't really matter, I don't think.
So, how would YOU characterize "science" then?
I'd say science is a thing, a process, an institution, and these days a set of values about what is good and what is bad. It wasn't supposed to be a value or a set of values, in pure form. But many folks believe that "science" has become a final arbiter of all things interesting and important to humans.
So, what's "science" to you?
(Maybe we should take this to the god, politics, and science thread.)
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 4, 2014 - 11:08am PT
|
Fort writes: In writing up your book, did you start by trying to explain a particular unexplained phenomenon?
We've written about five books on anchors etc. Actually, Fort, most ALL of the phenomenon of fall vectors and forces were little known or entirely unknown when we started doing this work in the late 1980s. There were math models from engineering that were useful to a point, but a nylon climbing rope and all of the binding factores (biners, etc.) and the dynamics of a falling climber on a rock all made the models of questionable value. We simply had to start drop testing to see what an actual leader fall was all about in terms of forces generated.
Pull tests were ruled out becuase leaders don't fall slowly. We came to analyse and later to explain falls and fall factos and forces by way of A) Listing our theories and beliefs and from that, postulating what needed to be tested, B) doing the testing and generating the figures, and C) drawing some practical conclusions, then D) testing the whole thing again, as well as having others test the same thing.
Fort said: Did you have a theory for it?
We had a bunch of theories, many based, as mentioned, on math models worked up in engineering. But they were not specific enough for the gear and so forth found in climbing, so we started drop testing and tweaking the theroy as the results came in.
One of the theories was that there was no such thing as "shock loading" so long as there were dynamic components (nylon, mainly) in the system. This and other theories were thoroughly tested and confirmed or proven wrong.
Did you prove your theory with data and tests?
We found that this worked two ways. We entered the testing believing in certain theories. And tested for those. For instance, Goldstone believed that the cordellette did NOT remotely equalize a load spread over three placements. Turns out the shortest arm of the cordellett (because it stretches least) absorbs MOST of the impact force. We had a stack of other theories about binding, how to best tie off two side by side bolts, etc. I believed that reduncancy was more important than equalization, and testing proved it. Another theory from aviation was that doubling (redundancy) greatly decreased probability of failure, but tripling made alomost NO difference in terms of safety - and we proved that true. I could go on and on. By tghe way, many of our theories were entirely wrong.
Frt wrote: Were you careful to eliminate biases in your tests and observations?
Very. When you are only after what works, biasis count for little. I didn't have a piece of gear I was favoring, or a material, so with no vested interest, we were pretty objective. And got a lot of peers involved as well to cross check. This was all about practical results.
Fort wrote: Did you offer up your results for others to replicate?
Yes, we published the results and many have since run the same tests. Petzl has a new facility in SLC with a huge drop tower and I'm going there in a few weeks to look into doing more non-science.
Fort wrote: Did you contribute something to the collective understanding of our world?
Ask the climbing world if they have found those anchor books of any value. We've sold over a million copies since 1988.
So yeah, Fort. We been doing science all along.
JL
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
I think Largo's work is awesome, regardless of how you label it. It's a very important and, unfortunately, poorly understood area by a lot of climbers.
I use a 25 KN rabbolet statically equalized with a figure 8, triple clipped to provide redundancy at the power point loop. I always tie in with the rope when belaying.
The Mountaineer's up here love their cordelets - but they aren't even close to full strength, so shock loading on one leg could be a big issue there. Many of them have adopted the terrible habit of tying in with their fully static PAS (I don't own one).
Bad anchor habits abound. There's lots of room for improvement there.
Rapping is no different. Lots of bad habits there, too.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 4, 2014 - 11:57am PT
|
Studying mind via the subjective adventures is also science. It's just that the methods of aquisition per the data are not the standard means of objectifying we normally use in, say, investigating fall forces. It's all empirical. Ultimately it's like comics - people will use whatever material works. If you're getting a new perspective on mind from your current methods - great. If not, try other methods. The rub here is, people won't try other methods, mainly from unconscious fear they interpret as something else.
I should also mention that per our theories about anchors and anchor systems - many of mine were wrong. I only found out as much through testing. The value of the math models is that they give you geeneric results per related functions and this can help steer you towards more effiencit testing.
JL
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
I think it not improper to label what Largo did to discover and verify anchors science. It wasn't basic science, such as searching for new fundamental particles, but it appears he did apply scientific reasoning.
As for the "science" of meditation, that seems a little bit of a stretch, but whatever rings your bell . . . as Mike might say, it's all words on a screen.
;>)
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
Wow!
Now that's science of the mind.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
The brain-to-brain communication result is only a small step. The authors point out that in the 60s it was shown that voluntary control of alpha wave EEG could be used to transmit information, to someone looking at the EEG. The new study just uses a similar recording of one person's EEG to activate a transcutaneous magnetic stimulator attached to another person.
The authors may know something we don't, though. They also say:
these initial results suggest new research directions, including the non-invasive direct transmission of emotions and feelings
It would be interesting to know what they mean by that.
They claim mind-to-mind communication, not merely brain-to-brain, because voluntary mental effort is needed. However, they also say:
by ‘‘mind’’ we mean a set of processes carried out by the brain
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!