Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
^^^Wow, now i'm speechless!
can you be sure the universe wasn't invented as a playground for emotions?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
Apparently you read something that fit your Zen ideas, that most matter is almost all empty space. You did not find that out by meditating. You found it out on a website or through your carpool. I do assert that.
----
On the basis of what empirical evidence? Have you been camping inside of my head all these years BASE LOL.
I have never been around a group so adamant in looking around the hard questions and attacking the messenger - always implying what you are merely projecting in your head.
Strange thing is, anyone who has done sustained attention training knows that mind is mostly empty space, and that content (thoughts, feelings, memories, sensations) are like so many minute particles once the brain settles. We did not discover that by reading science.
There is only one reality. And there is only one way to look at it - through the agency of your own raw awareness. Adding instrumentation does not and cannot foist awareness out of the investigation.
Ed insisted that there is no truth at the bottom of it all. At the same time he said that at the bottom of it all, when stuff was boiled right down to the last basic stuff, it had "no physical extent."
Reductionism has and will always believe that the "truth" issues from basic stuff. The further down we go, the more basic the truth till we get right down to elemental "causes" or factors. If that is not the "bottom of it all," then what is? And at bottom, what do we find?
JL
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
can you be sure the universe wasn't invented as a playground for emotions?
That's an intense question.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
"There is only one reality. And there is only one way to look at it - through the agency of your own raw awareness."
While I'd remove the subjective term "raw" from this sentence (it is self contradictory otherwise), I would also add that there are over 7 billion makes and models of said awareness - and probably a lot more than that if other species, both on earth and off, are included.
So much for the one way highway.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
..and this is exactly the point. There is a place where science simply isn't up to the task and in this place the wisdom of myth, religion and philosophy may reconcile us to those "existential revelations."
For sure science can get to the "bottom of things" in a solar-system not containing "Life". Where elements and energies are apply seen and measurable and predicted.
But will science ever be able to predict how many branches a certain acorn will produce? Or why the Chinese Black-neck Crane will fly away from the flock and starve itself to death after its spouse for life dies?
Science can only label a deterministic effect, and from there predict what may happen next. But when there's a choice in the matter, or a prevailing wind, well then it's all given up to chance or luck.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
JG said "worthlessness that underlie existential dilemmas"
Worthlessness is a construct of "I". No attachment to "I" then no attachment to worthlessness.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
There is only one reality. And there is only one way to look at it - through the agency of your own raw awareness. Adding instrumentation does not and cannot foist awareness out of the investigation.
OK. I will remember that you said this. In my field we call this "Stepping on your dick."
You heard it everyone. The subatomic, microscopic, telescopic, show is over. Don't forget to pay the lady at the front desk on the way out.
Instrumentation does not and cannot foist awareness out of the investigation.
So forget about the "fundamental nature of matter." The LHC is doing the devil's work.
It was a momentary lapse, I guess.
Does anyone want to look at cool pictures? The Chandra X-Ray observatory has been working hard for quite a while. It has to be in orbit because of our damn atmosphere. Here is a look at detail within a couple of supernova remnants:
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Really? Science doesn't presume such a possibility as they struggle to reveal the "god" particle with the "biggest measuring device" on earth?
Boy, the ego in that white-coat that coined the godparticle term, Eh Ed? Was he really proposing to see far enough down, he would be eye to eye with the Creator, or the understanding to Creation?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
YEAAAAA!! Looky we had almost everyone back on that last page!
Jus like ol'times
Group hug{} i LOve You'all!
And it has NOthing to do with matter?
now get back to being pissed
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
Instrumentation does not and cannot foist awareness out of the investigation.
So forget about the "fundamental nature of matter." The LHC is doing the devil's work.
--
The LHC is not aware. It is not sentient. Till a sentient being inspects the data collected, what is it?
BASE, you have fallen once more into the illusion of an objective, stand alone world that runs like a movie in a movie house, regardless of whether or not there is a paying customer there to witness same. And so in the vast and foggy reaches of your brainpan, you see a machine doing the meaningful work. That's called "forgetting that you have a dick."
And Tvash, you might bring your own self up to speed on awareness, and what it is, and what "raw" actually means, by looking into the archetypes that some posers on this thread insist do not exist (owing to archetypes not having a place at the periodic table).
Awareness is an archetypal or universal function. What you are confusing with your 10,000 versions of same is the brain or nervous system that processes what awareness intakes, be it a honey badger or a rock climber. Having no empirical experience with what awareness is (I suspect), and instead conflating same with content (WHAT and how different species fashion what awareness brings them), you quite naturally are left with your own version of same, a kind of Jede Clampett take on a basic function.
Fact is, with just a little basic work you could get clear on it instead of busting out more fatuous quips, but verily, you might learn something new that way.
Ain't it grand.
JL
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Fact is, with just a little basic work you could get clear on it instead of busting out more fatuous quips, but verily, you might learn something new that way.
HaHaHaHa, Happy Days Happy Days!
What ever happened to TVish' meditation classes?
i hope JL didn't kill the DrF thread just to destroy the proof of his willingness to pay for it?! HeHeHe
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Really? Science doesn't presume such a possibility as they struggle to reveal the "god" particle with the "biggest measuring device" on earth?
the Higgs particle, referred to as "The God Particle" after the title of a book by Leon Lederman and Dick Teresi... it's a good read and even better if you knew the people (and lived through the events recalled in it).
This boson is so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive, that I have given it a nickname: the God Particle. Why God Particle? Two reasons. One, the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing. And two, there is a connection, of sorts, to another book, a much older one...
"Today" was the time it was written, 1993, and I think that since then we already know that the "standard model of high energy physics," for which the discovery of the Higgs was the last piece of the puzzle, is not enough to explain the universe.
The greatest result out of the LHC may be a non-observation, the failure to detect evidence for "Super Symmetry" which was thought to be the next step Beyond The Standard Model..
The bottom is definable if somewhat inaccessible in our current physics models. It's the Planck scale...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_scale
...we currently lack a theory of gravity where the gravitational strength is large enough to be felt at the atomic level... a quantum theory of gravity. It is possible that we'll understand the Planck scale and move the bottom even lower...
as for there being "nothing" how could the quantum behavior of particles be of any interest to Largo, or to MikeL, or anyone else? As far as we all are concerned, matter is solid, has mass, reacts in the myriad of ways engineers have determined over the course of human existence.
I can't imagine a less practical concern than the possibility that matter is the result of the symmetries of the universe. If the argument that physics and science can't inform the "common person" on their life, how could the philosophy of matter be any different?
If you want to discuss the philosophy of matter, then I can't imagine that the scientific outlook is less nuanced and sophisticated than any of the past or current philosophical concepts, the scientific view of matter is much more informative than that of philosophy.
You can't have it both ways...
...explain to me why it matters?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The missing link is the soul to all complete understanding of matter.
It's been said for millions of years contrary to what modern man has become.
Material matter is only the inferior energy.
Studying matter will never give the solution because it is permanently incomplete ......
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
PsP; Worthlessness is a construct of "I". No attachment to "I" then no attachment to worthlessness.
you say Worthlessness as if a bad thing, what if "I" is a construct of Worthlessness?
Being an "I" myself, i find no celebration when dis-entached. Doesn't Celebration come when we show this worthlessness to the worthfull?
Your "No attachment to "I"" sounds alot like JGill's "pop a pill" to forget what happened and go on, approach/conclusion?
No attachment = No conclusion
Jesus is the only one i've heard preach, "Love those that hate you"
This goes as much against science as it does philosophy.
meditate on that
then tell me what is worth
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
by looking into the archetypes that some posers on this thread
Who are you talking about?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
as for there being "nothing" how could the quantum behavior of particles be of any interest to Largo, or to MikeL, or anyone else?
My suspicion is that JL, while not accepting the universality of scientific knowledge, would still prefer that science in some way verify or simply acknowledge the validity of his Zen experience of empty awareness or no-thingness. Hence his predilection for descending through the galaxy of subatomic particles and reaching the "bottom" and finding it has no physical extent. Ptyl and his demoncast are a pathetic reference(did he throw that in the mix to get our dander up?)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Modern science studies dead matter to understand life instead of studying life.
Life comes from life and life is what animates matter ......
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
the scientific view of matter is much more informative than that of philosophy.
You can't have it both ways...
...explain to me why it matters?
Come'on, there isn't no science without philosophy. The Spaceshuttle and iPhone wouldn't be around without philosophy! There may be more zeros and ones of scientific data. But for us, every thing is more tangible by whats expressed(emotionally) and experienced. [Still talking about matter here].
So who's to say what's more informative?
i'll bet you a cheeseburger no scientist or robot could hit Bumgarner's pitches!
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Does anyone actually hate you, Blue?
a robot just hit a rapidly rotating chunk of space choss going over 40 km/s half a billion kms away, so there's that.
Is ebola alive?
What does it mean to be alive?
Definitions, definitions. What's a prion to do?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
If a duck quacks in a room and no one is there, does it make a noise?
If it does, does the quack have existential significance?
Or is it just a quack?
A conundrum that can make your head ache.
;>\
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!