Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 10:07am PT
|
MH2: Do you have an answer?
“Answers,” sure. Thousands of them. Millions of them. An answer for every being.
But final answers? There are no final answers that have been shown or found for anything that I’m aware of.
“If there is nothing. . . “ is not what some of us are saying, but you can’t quite seem to grok the notion. Your thinking seems binary: it must either be this or that, existent or non-existent, a thing or nothing. I’m saying you don’t need to take a position on anything. I’m saying relax and rest. As Tony Soprano said in every episode: “Hey, hey, hey! . . . take it easy.”
I don’t want to get too far into this (boring, sort of), but the mind makes the assumption that there are objects and that those objects are permanent, and once assumed, makes it real cognitively with projection and unending social reinforcements. This happens to kids by about the age of 2 (said Piaget). Most everyone never recovers.
When I said that you are conscious of “things” cognitively, I’m referring there to the analytical (take a “thing” apart, use techniques to measure and observe the parts, and then put the parts back together back into a “thing”) discursive (conceptually-oriented) mind. That’s the mind you are most directly aware of, the one you hear and see most often, the one that won’t shut up, the one you have a concept for. But is that what the mind is? Is the mind a processor, a simulator, a memory bank, a display apparatus? Is that what you are conscious of? (One of many “answers.”)
I’d say there are a great many things I am not conscious of through the analytical discursive conceptual mind, MH2. Experience seems to give me knowledge of much without the concepts to be aware of them. (Retrospectively, after-the-fact, I may name them.) That is: I experience much without concepts arising in consciousness by which to grok them: e.g., any of my five senses, digestion, emotions, fight-or-flight responses—many of the experiences pointed at that “hot cognition” is concerned with these days. Indeed, I’d say that most all of what I experience daily is NOT mental rational conceptualization. Most experiences just show up, in real time, without thought. Thoughts are often after-the-fact, interpretations that I have.
Things are what we say they are. Almost all work in cognitive science has informed us that seeing is not believing. Believing is seeing.
(Of course, the irony of it is that cognitive science is also a mental rational set of conceptualizations. )
So what is really what? (We don’t need any concepts to find or know reality.)
So, what about me, my preferences or views . . . ? Representations, model, and theories are part of my job. Sure. It’s my role to teach and train people in the use of those things. I find myself expressing who and what I am in that role as an improvisational dance with students emotionally, physically, spiritually, and (yes) cognitively. It’s an experience of flow for me; I feel possessed; it’s a feeling; I am relaxed and enjoy myself; I am unsure where or how I am what I am; I feel open, authentic, psychologically present, engaged.
What about the concepts? I tell my students in the middle in the course that none of those things are real, but they CAN facilitate interaction within communities. I think you can be a part of the dance more fully if you don’t take these concepts so seriously or concretely, and I tell them that.
I feel drawn to the dance, MH2, to the community, to the bodhichitta that seems to arise when I see that things are not quite as concrete or serious as I used to think.
(Ha-ha . . . especially this little bit of writing.)
Ed: Ever have an infection? damn those sneaky bastards, why don't the stand up and fight like a man!
Excellent.
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 10:12am PT
|
'Vacation from the Self'
When I sought some simple solace from the world and all its ills,
The Doctor tried prescribing me a little box of pills,
They made my feet swell up and then my toe stuck in the fire,
Which blistered so severely I decided to retire,
For calm and restitution meditation was advised,
I began to light some incense which I heretofore despised,
And calmly I was chanting and was breathing in repose,
When the smell of something burning started wafting up my nose,
Now I meditate in nature since my house burned to the ground,
But no remedy for something needed ever has been found,
Of selfishness and self reproach I wish that I was free,
As much as I could use a break I'm never missing me.
-bushman
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 10:36am PT
|
Humanity has an epistemological superiority over all species on this planet: a superior ability to know coupled with a superior ability to understand. It is through human thought and human reason the universe comes to know itself. Dismissing human achievement as inferior to other inhabitants of this planet based on biomass is a notion straight out of Rousseau and is pure romanticism.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 11:50am PT
|
^^^^^ Nice, Paul.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 01:03pm PT
|
Everybody's a winner when you design your own trophy.
It's safe to say that humans are the most intelligent species on our little planet. That's certainly one measure of 'success' of a species, in that it has undoubtedly aided in increasing our numbers and life span - so far.
But the rules of the evolution game can change quickly - and what was once a help can quickly become a hindrance when that happens. Every survival strategy - and intelligence is only one of many, comes with both costs and benefits that are determined by a dynamic environment. Several mass extinctions punctuate this principle.
Our intelligence could likely lead to the creation of superior artificial beings that could begin their own accelerated evolution - without us. Our history shows that the technologically superior tend to displace the inferior. Our iPhones and killbots may be the seeds to our own destruction.
Then there's resource depletion, climate degradation, the nuclear threat, and an increasing risk of pandemic due to higher density and mobility - all the result of the very same intelligence that has served our survival so well up until now.
We may care if we know the universe, or at least a wee little bit of it, but the universe at large cannot and does not care one way or the other. If, in fact, we disappear, all traces of us will disappear within 15 or million years or so, save a few fossils, perhaps - and 'the universe' will go about its business, whatever that is.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 01:08pm PT
|
the universe at large cannot and does not care one way or the other.
You have no knowledge if that is true or not.
You're just making sh!t up and writing it down as usual with no actual proof at all.
One little Tvash on planet earth knows what the Universe is doing and thinking all while little Tvash doesn't even fully know his own self .......
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 30, 2015 - 01:49pm PT
|
Looking at something is different than trying to find out how it works.
---
The rub is there are some aspects of reality that you cannot "look" at and measure in the normal way. For instance, you could look at neural functioning at the molecular level all you want and never find the subconscious mind, or our primary self system (our various "I's"), or instinctual energies, etc. We all understand clearly that many on this thread hope and pray that maerialism will "explain" all of reality, while at the same time denying such fundamental realities such as qualia and one's own subjective experience. It would seem that such people simply cannot or will not acknowledge the difference between objective functioning and mind. Poor old MR2 mentioned that meditators looked at the mind for centuries but never saw objective functioning at the molecular level, while at the same time being totally blind to the simple and incontrovertible fact that meta level reality - where our subjective and identifiable lives actually take place - is not disclosed solely from a molecular level view.
Another interesting thing here is that Ed and others keep discounting the specialness of human mind, but have never provided any correlate that is not just more objective functioning. Real time self-observation (presence) not fused to content is unlike any other phenomenon in the known universe. The only viable refutation to this is to simply say such a "thing" does not really exist.
And where is the peer-reviewed article proving that gravity is "created" by matter?
So far there is a lot of wu coming from the yard-stickers.
JL
|
|
kaholatingtong
Trad climber
therealmccoy from Nevada City
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 01:50pm PT
|
It is through human thought and human reason the universe comes to know itself. Wow. That's quite a statement. And if you believe the other thought train to be "romantic" what would you label such a statement? Narcissistic?
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 01:50pm PT
|
Intelligence isn't homo sapiens only salient survival feature, of course.
Many think of humans as 'weak' animals, but the opposite is true. Thanks to our bipedal phenotype, we rank at the top of the animal kingdom for long distance endurance and the ability to operate in the midday heat - both critical advantages for hunting, avoiding predators, foraging, and migrating. We're also serviceable swimmers and climbers.
Our senses, on the whole, are decent, and our thumbs are pretty useful, too.
The scrotum's a definite weak point, though. WTF?
No free lunch, I reckon.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 02:05pm PT
|
"The rub is there are some aspects of reality that you cannot "look" at and measure in the normal way. For instance, you could look at neural functioning at the molecular level all you want and never find the subconscious mind, or our primary self system (our various "I's"), or instinctual energies, etc. We all understand clearly that many on this thread hope and pray that maerialism will "explain" all of reality"
No cigar again.
The first claim is specious on its face - you can't know that science will never connect the hierarchical dots between neural level function and meta function. You're not even trained enough in any of the neurosciences to speculate about that with any credibility whatsoever.
"Another interesting thing here is that Ed and others keep discounting the specialness of human mind"
No stuffed pink bunny, either.
No one has discounted the 'specialness' of the human mind, whatever that means. It's uniqueness and capability, at least on this planet, is obvious and hardly needs an intro. What some have stated is that the process of evolution doesn't do 'special' - it does 'survival', and our mind may not continue to be an evolutionary advantage in that regard should the environment change radically enough. Regarding the success of homo sapiens - we've just gotten started and are hardly a proven design. Ants? Well, that's a different story. Successful by any (evolutionary) measure. They can't paint worth a damn, though.
Furthermore, no one has 'hoped and prayed' for anything, here. We've simply challenged your claims - invariably made with absolute certainty, with a simple requirement for repeatable evidence rather than "I really, really believe that my no-thing is not simply another mental state but represents some fundamental aspect of the universe that will never be accessible to science". Don't feel bad - no one on earth could credibly support this claim without resorting personal experience - the most fallible 'evidence' there is.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 02:15pm PT
|
Mostly, the 'science sausages' have made no claims at all, really. They just don't seem to buy your poorly supported claims, LG, and yes, therein lies the rub.
Now, you could leave things at 'this is what I experience and its cool' and no one would say boo. Why would they?
But you take it one step further and fall of the edge of what you can possibly know - and into the realm of what will never be possible (because it looks daunting now in practically prehistoric 2015 and you're knowledge of the science just isn't there).
We observe your legs freewheeling in space and conclude that you simply don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 02:17pm PT
|
Interesting if obtuse discussion which I have no time to reply to in depth, except to say that the great Schrodinger was wrong with his mountain analogy. Gauri Shankar (23,406 ft.) and Everest (29,029) are definitely two distinctly different mountains. At one time the British had them confused, thinking Gauri Shankar was the highest. The locals however, always knew the difference. It would seem to be a case of trusting second hand experience at a distance (what mountains look like to British surveyors from the plains of India) rather than the actual experience of seeing them up close. Yet another case of a biased preference for "fact" from a trusted scientist rather than listening to those with the closer, more subjective experience?
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 02:25pm PT
|
A healthy dose of Western science, engineering, and organization got both locals and foreigners alike up that mountain for the first time, though.
Clueless is clueless in any culture.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 02:29pm PT
|
With respect, NASA's gravity thing is not accurate per general relatively. Massless photons effect the curvature of space time due to their high energy of momentum. In fact, general relativity contains no reason why pure photons in sufficient densities could not form a black hole.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 02:31pm PT
|
Wow. That's quite a statement. And if you believe the other thought train to be "romantic" what would you label such a statement? Narcissistic?
I'd label it a reality. Humanity is the only earthly species capable of such knowledge and understanding, and humanity is nothing if not a product, part of, piece of the universe itself.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 02:36pm PT
|
I suppose it's helpful to consider such a statement in the broader context of the conservatively estimated 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe (not the entire universe)- roughly 7 x 10^22 stars.
We're 'special' because we deem it so. We're currently confined to our little planet and our human experience. I think we're special because I'm one of the 'we'.
We can't make the statement that our evolution was somehow preordained, but we can claim, after the fact, that the probability of our evolution at some point is greater than zero. The two are not logically equivalent, however. The first is meaningless, the second is obvious.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 03:00pm PT
|
We can't make the statement that our evolution was somehow preordained, but we can claim, after the fact, that the probability of our evolution at some point is greater than zero.
Given infinite opportunity and infinite material and recognizing that it (mind) does, in fact, exist how is it not, as you say, "preordained?" I would say inevitable. The inevitability of mind is a sublime consideration as it says something slightly disquieting with regard to the certainty of the atheist.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 03:00pm PT
|
Well, the conversation is certainly more diverse now.
We have those who project their needs and desires onto the void sure it's returning the favor. Those who think humans are oh-so special. And those who think we are somehow near to transcending ourselves with evolved mechanical Turks.
And then there's this gem:
It is through human thought and human reason the universe comes to know itself.
It's a breathtaking pageantry of anthropocentric arrogance.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 03:10pm PT
|
The inevitability of something that has already happened is a self eating watermelon. It is logically meaningless, given that inevitability is, by definition, a predictive, not observational, quality.
It's a simple misuse of the language, and nothing more.
Now one can misuse English or make up one's own language, but one cannot do that and expect to be understood by anyone else.
We don't really know what gravity is, actually. We don't know how it behaves at short distances, nor do we even know if it effects objects at various energies (the various colors of the rainbow, for example) the same or differently. We don't know if it 'leaks' between parallel universes or into 'hidden' dimensions. We don't even know where most of it comes from (dark matter).
The latter is one of the things the LHC mini black hole experiment is trying to explore.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!