Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Jgill asks about distinctions between knowledge and understanding.
Knowledge would appear to be a clear indication of conceptualization, as it can be codified and communicated in a variety of ways. Some folks have said that conception and perception form one whole--but that knowing is merely believing.
While not necessarily conceptual, understanding appears to be phenomenal and personal, and the result of a process which uses mind objectively.
What of the "nonobjective?" What of the noumenal? Noumenal is neither real nor unreal, and cannot be conceived as a "thing" or as possessing any attribute which is necessarily objective. The noumenal seems to be unbounded and unconditioned. For example, look at yourself. You have conceptual existence, but non-objectively, you are the apparent universe.
The point of talking about emptiness, unreality, non-existence, what is inter-temporal rather than caught in time and space, subjectivity, non-volition, voidness, the results of imagination--is to see everything as an appearance, as a psychic experience, as that which is being lived, as becoming, as verbs rather than nouns, as interdependent, as a mirror which reflects what is looking,to quit seeing yourself as an object, etc.
We are functioning, where noumenality and phenomenality are identical. Perceiving is everything.
"'Seeing, seeing, seeing!' cried Rumi. He was not referring to phenomenality-based observation of objects by subjects, but to noumenally-based in-seeing that is devoid of both."
(Wei Wu Wei)
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
I am impressed with how sophisticated this discussion has become.
When I was a student, I recall my advisor complaining that Rudin's proofs were sometimes "too slick for their own good" meaning that although these proofs were short, clever and vaild, they failed to give insight into why the result was true (Yanqui)
Thanks for chiming in, Tim. Good to hear from a practicing mathematician. The stuff I did years ago (and which I still putter with) is largely "constructivist" math in the simplistic sense that I tried to avoid indirect proofs, although the entities I "verified" were sometimes a bit vague - like fixed points in certain arguments - and at best approachable by approximations. But "constructivism" in math has many and varied definitions. Occasionally an indirect proof provided a much quicker solution than a longer, more tedious constructive approach - which may have been too complicated to provide any more insight than the quicky.
................
Thanks for your insight, Mike.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I suspect that yanqui and jgill express a dimension to "understanding" that is not usually identified with either mathematics or with science generally, to those who don't practice those disciplines.
My rather short offering about physics is also more nuanced, and the constraint that physicists have is that the logic has to conform with observations of nature. "Understanding" isn't a rote "turning the crank" on an equation. The brutal pedagogy of physics instruction insures that mere memorization of the equations will fail, and only understanding the physical basis of the calculations will succeed.
Looking at an equation, one eventually has practiced this so extensively that the physical implications are extracted. This can take time, Dirac "understood" the Dirac equation many different ways, and other physicists looked at it and found even more divergent "understanding."
However, in the end, the test is to calculate the outcome based on that understanding. And when one cannot do that, it is attributed to not "understanding."
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
Blue-
Clever way to work your theology into this discussion by quoting me from the Cosgrove thread. However, your ideas belong on the religion thread, not here. Not to mention, Christianity is not the only religion to recognize the role of grace. Try reading about Buddhist Boddisattvas.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
However, your ideas belong on the religion thread, not here (Jan)
Amen
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Sorry Jan,
But my synapse wasn't referring to religion VS science. Moreso mind VS mind. Afterall religion is a construct of the mind, Right? So they say..
Subject matter; understanding; knowledge.
Similarly, we understand the number 0.33333... by thinking of it as one-third.
For me, this is where mathematics gets stupid. Understandingly, if you offer me a third of your pizza it's fairly cut-n-serve. The pizza being "one thing" is easily separated into equal amounts. 1/3 of a pie, plus 2/3 of a pie equals one whole pie. Doesn't this surmount to a Truth?
So does 0.33333....etc + 0.666....etc EVER = 1? Truthfully?
If a mathematician separated the pizza, i'd prolly starve to death waiting.
If understanding is ongoing, it wouln't be fair to consider any of it True until we acknowledge it as knowledge? But then is any ONE'S knowledge, everyone's Truth?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
For me, this is where mathematics gets stupid
Jake is not amused.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
^^^HaHaHaHaHa^^^HaHaHaHaHaHa^^^^
Thanks i needed That!
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Afterall religion is a construct of the mind, Right? So they say..
He's got you there.
Lol
This amounts to a sort of loophole that currently allows BB to conflate mind with religion.
Lol
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
Thanks for hitting the reset button, Jake. A fine contribution to the thread.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Here it is, straight from ep (evolutionary psychology)...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_ytuWSnc9I
With evolution finally becoming more accepted (in vogue), further questions arise. For instance, for those evolutionists who recognize that there are different varieties of evolutionist (just as there are different varieties of climber) many are challenged to ask, otherwise to reflect upon or define, just what kind of evolutionist they and their cohorts are.
Many are surprised to learn just how many (i.e., what relatively large fraction) who self-identify with "evolutionist" actually do NOT accept the evolutionary science claim (from evolutionary psychology, for instance) that feelings arise and evolve (yes, from a material substrate) no less than eyes and wings.
In other words, these "many" "evolutionists" (whatever their number) STOP SHORT of accepting the science-supported claim that mind is what brain does (i.e., the mental life - including sentience, emotions and feelings; including proclivity to introspect and meditate - is what brain does).
Of course I am an emotions and feelings-evolutionist (aka sentience-evolutionist aka subjective experience-evolutionist) while many who post on this thread are not.
.....
How would you like to have a name like Gad Saad? I think it would be fun, I could do so many riffs off a name like that! :)
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
re: the enigma of self
What is it that makes a person the very person that she is, herself alone and not another, an integrity of identity that persists over time, undergoing changes and yet still continuing to be — until she does not continue any longer, at least not unproblematically?
I stare at the picture of a small child at a summer’s picnic, clutching her big sister’s hand with one tiny hand while in the other she has a precarious hold on a big slice of watermelon that she appears to be struggling to have intersect with the small o of her mouth. That child is me. But why is she me? I have no memory at all of that summer’s day, no privileged knowledge of whether that child succeeded in getting the watermelon into her mouth. It’s true that a smooth series of contiguous physical events can be traced from her body to mine, so that we would want to say that her body is mine; and perhaps bodily identity is all that our personal identity consists in. But bodily persistence over time, too, presents philosophical dilemmas. The series of contiguous physical events has rendered the child’s body so different from the one I glance down on at this moment; the very atoms that composed her body no longer compose mine. And if our bodies are dissimilar, our points of view are even more so. Mine would be as inaccessible to her—just let her try to figure out [Spinoza’s] Ethics — as hers is now to me. Her thought processes, prelinguistic, would largely elude me.
Yet she is me, that tiny determined thing in the frilly white pinafore. She has continued to exist, survived her childhood illnesses, the near-drowning in a rip current on Rockaway Beach at the age of twelve, other dramas. There are presumably adventures that she — that is that I — can’t undergo and still continue to be herself. Would I then be someone else or would I just no longer be? Were I to lose all sense of myself—were schizophrenia or demonic possession, a coma or progressive dementia to remove me from myself — would it be I who would be undergoing those trials, or would I have quit the premises? Would there then be someone else, or would there be no one.
Is death one of those adventures from which I can’t emerge as myself? The sister whose hand I am clutching in the picture is dead. I wonder every day whether she still exists. A person whom one has loved seems altogether too significant a thing to simply vanish altogether from the world. A person whom one loves is a world, just as one knows oneself to be a world. How can worlds like these simply cease altogether? But if my sister does exist, then what is she, and what makes that thing that she now is identical with the beautiful girl laughing at her little sister on that forgotten day?
Betraying Spinoza, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
Largest study on resuscitated patients hints at consciousness after death
Bec Crew
Wednesday, 08 October 2014
The largest medical study ever performed on near-death experiences has led researchers to suggest that consciousness can last up to three minutes after a person’s heart and brain have shut down.
near-death
The idea that consciousness can continue on after your heart stops beating and your brain stops functioning is a pretty wild one, and naturally courts a lot of scepticism. But the more scientists study the supposed phenomenon, the more certain trends are reinforced, giving us a glimpse into what actually might occur when we die.
A team of scientists at the University of Southampton in the UK has just finished a four-year study of 2,060 people who experienced cardiac arrests at 15 hospitals across the UK, the US, and Austria. Having conducted interviews with each of the 330 people who survived about their memories of the event, the researchers found that 40 percent of them felt ‘aware’ for the period of time that they were declared clinically dead. The medical staff at the hospitals successfully restarted their hearts so they could live to tell the tale.
According to The National Post, one man participating in the study described the feeling that he was watching his treatment from the corner of the room, while a female participant was able to recount exactly the actions of the nursing staff that resurrected her over a three-minute period. She could even very accurately describe the sound of the machines that surrounded her ‘dead’ body.
“We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating, but in this case conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20 to 30 seconds after the heart has stopped,” Sam Parnia, the study leader and a former assistant professor of medicine at Southampton University, told The National Post. He’s now based at the State University of New York in the US.
“The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three-minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for. He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened,” said Parnia.
While not all of the people who survived the ordeal recalled some sort of experience in clinical death, perhaps because the medication they were given was messing with their brain function, The National Post reports that certain trends emerged from the 40 percent that did. One in five reported feeling peaceful, and a third said they felt time either speed up or slow down. Some described bright lights, others described feeling detached from their bodies. Some felt scared that they were drowning.
“Estimates have suggested that millions of people have had vivid experiences in relation to death, but the scientific evidence has been ambiguous at best,” Parnia told The National Post. “Many people have assumed that these were hallucinations or illusions, but they do seem to correspond to actual events. These experiences warrant further investigation.”
Of course, any research into what actually goes on after death will always be controversial, due to the enormous difficulties in gathering enough evidence to support much of anything that’s scientifically sound, but studies like this are at least an intriguing starting point.
The study was published in the journal Resuscitation.
http://sciencealert.com.au/news/20140810-26301.html
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating
I would be curious if there was no detectable electrical activity in the brain during that time period, even with the brain not "functioning" in the normal sense. Maybe you guys in neuroscience can answer this.
It does seem like a stretch.
|
|
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
so MANY words...
There are degrees of madness,
as of folly,
the disorderly jumbling (of) ideas together,
in some more,
(In) some less.
Locke.John
That satisfaction we receive
from the opinion of some preeminence
(and) in ourselves,
when we see the absurdities of another,
or when we reflect
on any past absurdities of our own.
Addison.Spectator, № 249.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The brain, it turns out, has a GPS-like function that enables people to produce mental maps and navigate the world
Then why are so many fools lost .....
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
It is well known that the brain can survive 3 to 5 minutes without oxygen and that consciousness can persist, or at least that perception and memory formation are possible, during that time. The statement that the brain shuts down 20 to 30 seconds after the heart stops beating is curious. I don't want to look into that, though.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Most peoples brains don't even work at all.
Just look at fruitcake.
His brain no working.
His brain filled with YouTube brainwashing and then copy paste here.
No brain .....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|