Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
STEEVEE
Social climber
HUMBOLDT, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 05:24pm PT
|
Stop masturbating!!! NEVER!
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 05:30pm PT
|
Where is your honest effort, JL? Can you go beyond your knower persona?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 06:17pm PT
|
"Consciousness seems to have evolved for these types of actions rather than to understand itself."
A leap of "scientific" faith at best. One could just as easily say consciousness "seems" to have evolved wholly outside the necessities of evolutionary need.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 06:26pm PT
|
One could just as easily say...-Paul R
Hardly. Not with the overwhelming circumstantial evidence on offer,
gathered over decades if not centuries and seen from the vantage point of the 21st century.
I've been tracking this subject for 35 plus years.
With all due respect, maybe you don't have a feel for it?
Some don't, you know.
.....
Why do some head to nature investigation (animal or eco studies, eg), science and engineering (and problem solving in said fields) from 5th grade on, with a passion and never look back; while others do not (a while back, science as "snooze fest" or something like it someone seemingly proudly described), some ending up in law enforcement or insurance or real estate? Of course the two paths lead to very different views of life ultimately, esp as the years roll on. Isn't that what we experience here on this thread?
I suppose a business man or an insurance salesman or rock star or fireman "could just as easily" ascribe consciousness to blue cheese or el cap, emanating from such... but that's not what literally decades of science exposure, experience and knowledge (very strongly) suggest.
Paul R, you say you're science-sympathetic or science-friendly people. Sorry but it seldom if ever comes across that way to me.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 07:32pm PT
|
Lord, does the man make any effort to understand anything save for people supporting his own world view? And can we ever make it clear to him the difference between perception and WHAT is being perceived . . . (JL)
OK, stop praying and settle down. So you admit that there is in fact "something out there" to be perceived, even if our perception may be flawed? That's progress. None of the form is emptiness and emptiness is form stuff for a change.
And what in the world do you mean, "to conflate this with external reality?" Are we talking on the macro level, or down further, where "matter" vanishes into no physical extent
Oh boy, there we go again with supreme confidence that things reduce to no physical extent. You've been brainwashed by the Prodigies.
Any truth starts first and foremost with our observations - of instruments, or numbers, of our own internal process. Sans observation, we have no means of "knowing" anything. Obervation and awareness are the gateway to the whole shebang - no one can argue otherwise. Start there and see what you come up with
Good. I did.
I lay in bed in the dark and think about "nothing" (or what it would be like if there was nothing). Then I realized I couldn't think about anything because there's nothing (St)
And from the mouths of babes comes timely wisdom. You and JL should collaborate on no-thing. It should only take you, say five years of sitting, since, with this amazing insight, you are already on your way to illumination.
|
|
STEEVEE
Social climber
HUMBOLDT, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 09:04pm PT
|
And from the mouths of babes comes timely wisdom. You and JL should collaborate on no-thing. It should only take you, say five years of sitting, since, with this amazing insight, you are already on your way to illumination.
Do I detect a snotty tone? I was addressing JL's question of 'when you stop, doing what is left?' What I shared is my only experience that I have of "stop doing". I am not on the "road of illumination", nor do I claim to be. Maybe I'll be illuminated by accident...who knows. I am willing to let go of what I think "I am".
Have you ever closed your eyes and tried to imagine infinity or nothingness at anytime in your life?...or be nothing? I understand science. Can you understand nothing?...or as JL writes "no-thing".
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 09:25pm PT
|
Have you ever closed your eyes and tried to imagine infinity or nothingness at anytime in your life?
Good point, and yes I tend to be a bit snarky on this bizarre thread. The probability of a resolution of any issue discussed here is not high (i.e., infinitesimal) . . . Caveat lector.
However, you have addressed your question to an aging mathematician whose specialty area is complex analysis, a subject that revolves about the infinite and the infinitesimal. So . . . all the time.
But I don't meditate on no-thingness.
;>)
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 10:21pm PT
|
The probability of a resolution of any issue discussed here is not high (i.e., infinitesimal)
Prof. Gill did not say zero. To say zero he would have to have had data adequate to show it was truly zero. To unlimited precision. Good technical persons have to use language in a very disciplined manner.
These threads make sloppy use of variously defined words and not everyone is even sincere. And data is rarely presented. The prevailing tactic is to use a lot of words. When people are not sincere, discussions quickly become a waste of everyone's time.
This is not to say participants gain no new ideas. Humans are always looking for new ideas, so they will find them. But there is little hope of a conclusion shared by a group of people.
No resolutions. It's resolutions we need. Read a newspaper.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2015 - 10:40pm PT
|
You seem to have strong concerns about the following in your posts: validity, verifiability, justification, rules, knowledge, argument, vocabulary, definitions, proofs, explanations, and descriptions. Those concerns would appear to constitute a vision of, or a take on, reality, I believe. Would you say that there could be others? If there could be, would you use the one above to assess them?
If people only see reality in terms of one theory versus another (no matter how different), would that not be a part of the same vision? “Thinking differently” is still just thinking.
Actually, the OP of this thread offered the view that "Mind" could not be explained by an "objective" method. The OP went on to make a number of assertions which followed a traditional line of arguments well known to the philosophical issue, including all those things you referred to above ("validity, verifiability, justification, rules, knowledge, argument, vocabulary, definitions, proofs, explanations, and descriptions").
There are other points of view and I acknowledge them. The points of view recently highlighted, like the Spira YouTube seem to be a repackaging of millennia of human thought. While we can view this thought as wise, it existed long before we understood much about the "material universe." Not only that, but no one posting to this thread is ignorant of the content of those ideas. In the traditions that Largo has engaged in practicing, the sum total of progress is to punt, "its no-thing/nothing," end of discussion.
Are there truly new "points of view" in this discussion of the limits of science?
If you are going to argue, as Largo does, that "mind" has something to do with "experience" then you ought to have more than an assertion, or if you don't, you should clearly state that it is an assertion.
If you are going to argue, as Largo does, that "qualia" are not explained and therefore they cannot be explained, then you should seriously think about taking that Logic 101 class over for a refresher.
If, along with any objective methodology with which you might bring to study "mind," you are also willing to discard logic, and replace it all with whatever it is you are "experiencing' at this moment to guide you to insight on "mind," I would have to ask, why engage in the discussion at all?
I understand Largo's point of view. I personally don't find it persuasive, either as potential path of "knowing" mind, or as an argument against a scientific approach to that "knowing." Isn't the point of discussion to discuss?
Or would I have been better off just ignoring it all together?
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 01:35am PT
|
'My Assertions'
I don't believe that a person can quantify spiritual or religious experiences.
For the purpose of argument the term 'no-thing' is purely synonymous with 'nothing' and is a simple play on words intended to inject added meaning to the concept of nothingness.
I have been no-thing from the Big Bang up until the day of my conception and might well have been no-thing long before that. I plan on being no-thing from the time of my death until beyond the end of time. In my view, because I have no recollection of being no-thing, it means that assessing the value being no-thing is meaningless.
I clearly have no intention of purposefully aspiring to being no-thing while I am living and breathing. While I may be no-thing to most persons outside of my small group of family and friends, I am definitely some-thing to myself.
Regardless of neurological and scientific studies that seek to measure and define consciousness and the power of the mind while it is in a meditative state, I assert that humans have no claim to clairvoyance over any other species and though the capability and potential might be there, we certainly have no right to it. Managing our existence throughout the next hundred years appears to be a full time job.
Meditation practices for health benefits and peace of mind, yes, I see the merits of it. Meditation for the purpose of Astral projection, trying to transcend death, or discovering how the inner workings of my neuroses function, no, I don't believe that it's useful.
Here is some-thing. While I don't have a degree in mathematics, engineering, or philosophy, being well read and experienced, I believe I am entitled to an opinion. I have taken anatomy, physiology, art history, life drawing, and still life drawing in junior college but went no further with a formal education. I am a sawyer and contractor by trade but have read books on poetry, physics, history, and various books on new age philosophies.
I read the King James Version of the bible five times through, the new world dictionary, and the entire encyclopedia Brittanica before the age of ten. I have read the Bhagavad Gita.
I do not scoff at religious persons or spiritual minded persons but I feel I have been there and found such philosophy wanting.
Atheism to me appears the only sure thing, no tricks or games to it, no illusions. It prepares me for life and prepares me for death. I have no fear of an afterlife where I will be judged because I don't believe in it.
I am asserting that people of higher education or religious discipline should not be required to edify the general populace or even persons of lesser education on this site in an overly dismissive or superior manner. I believe that lording over, insulting, and browbeating people with lesser knowledge and experience is tantamount to bullying them and might serve to alienate such persons from their pursuit of knowledge.
I am quite positive that an overriding sense of humor and wit are required to survive any length of time on this planet. Levity over brevity I say, lest you dry up like a prune, surround yourself with overly serious and austere people, and blow away in the wind.
If you don't like what some people write, then don't read their words. But don't expect people to stop speaking because you don't believe they have something useful to say.
-that doggone bushmanji
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 06:13am PT
|
No harm, no foul, Lord Duke of Droolingmoose.
As were none offenses taken by me from them other'n of various staunchly stalwart philosofying academiatic or heaven bound religious sort.
I love the raucous argument and debate as good as the next folk.
I am mourning the possible loss of my cat, Harri Dun, missing four days now.
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 06:31am PT
|
Depends on your shift or geography as to the hour of your rising.
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail, yes I would...
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 07:45am PT
|
Well said, Bushman.
I looked through the pre-print by Morsella et al on the function of consciousness. I don't like the style of it: too wordy and too many citations. That doesn't mean they don't have something to say, but from what I see it has been said before and better. They seem to be concerned with a low level of consciousness which hooks together different senses, like vision, hearing, pain!, etc. so that an organism can make decisions about how to move when a simple reflex based on one sense modality would not be the best choice. If they have any significant new insights, they could be of interest to the folks working on self-driving cars and such, but the machine builders may be far ahead of the psychologists on the nitty gritty details of how to integrate various sources of information.
I don't feel much interest in how human-style consciousness is implemented or what it is for. I can happily implement it without knowing how.
What I would really like to see is how memories are stored. Consider an image which is preserved in many minds, such as the Mona Lisa. Could we compare brains at a level of detail which would allow us to locate that image?
Remember the Jennifer Aniston/ Halle Berry nerve cells?
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050620/full/news050620-7.html
How about the Grandmother cell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmother_cell
And for those with loooong memory, and relevant to this thread, the William James (the psychologist and philosopher) pontifical cell.
James W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover
How memories are stored and how they are accessed are two different questions.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 08:30am PT
|
solipsism
[säl′ip siz′əm]
noun
Solipsism is the theory that only the self is real and that the self cannot be aware of anything else except itself.
An example of solipsism is the idea that nothing matters except yourself.
solipsism
noun
1. the theory that the self can be aware of nothing but its own experiences and states
2. the theory that nothing exists or is real but the self
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 08:59am PT
|
'Ode to a Doodlebug'
Doodlebug Doodlebug,
Draw me a doodle,
Whether a stick man,
Or squiggly the noodle,
Draw me contraptions,
Like I love to do,
A Three Stooges nightmare,
Or mice in a shoe,
Doodlebug Doodlebug,
Scribble a craft,
Two cats in canoes,
Or a dog in a raft,
Doodlebug Doodlebug,
I love you!
Doodlebug Doodlebug,
What'll ya do,
When you run out of ink,
Or come down with the flue?
You'll doodle a rocket,
And I'll doodle two,
Doodlebug Doodlebug,
Where are you?
Doodlebug Doodlebug,
I love you.
-bushman
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 09:41am PT
|
Moose: Darwin, Copernicus, Einstein, they discovered the laws of nature by studying evidence. Outside the box thinking, but not crazy ideas made out of thin air. They were first of all very good scientists.
“Crazy ideas” are what form the bases of all knowing and conceptualizing. Like any object you label or conceptualize or make, where do they come from? How do they show up? How is it possible to bootstrap to anything never seen or done? How can one reach beyond their grasp?
Whether it be art, science, or liberation, there is no clear explanation for any of it. It just happens. Crick and Watson’s discovery, Descartes’ ideas around “cognito ergo sum,” some of the purported idea initiations that Lovesgasoline talked about above, artists’ new notions (Beethoven’s, Miles Davis’, Picasso’s), or your own abilities to conceptualize and articulate new ideas all show up indescribably, somewhat magically, mysteriously—as though they are direct communications from an intelligence you don’t know or understand. Creativity, innovation, even entrepreneurship all seem to come from something from somewhere that is unconscious, unknowable, yet playful. All new ideas were initially “crazy ideas,” and all appear to come out of thin air.
As you may remember, I’ve recently been reading and studying improvisation, and my studies have taken me recently to learning about trance. At the moment, all I want to say here is that there is a lot of weird sh*t in both areas of study. As long as I only read or attempt to conceptualize either topic, none of it makes any sense to me. But when I attempt to connect to or practice either (usually following a set of procedures), then “they” start to happen for / in me. However (and perhaps sadly for some readers or inquiring minds), the “happenings” do not lead to any conceptualizations (for me). I appear to be generating an intuition that I cannot conceptualize or articulate.
What am I pointing to?
Nice post, Largo. Cogent.
Ed: If, along with any objective methodology with which you might bring to study "mind," you are also willing to discard logic, and replace it all with whatever it is you are "experiencing' at this moment to guide you to insight on "mind," I would have to ask, why engage in the discussion at all?
William Blake: "Truth cannot be told, so as to be understood, and not be believ'd."
Terrance McKenna: "Culture is a mass hallucination. We live in an abyss of the unknowable."
Firesign Theatre: “Everything you know is wrong.”
Nisargadatta Maharaj: “The discovery of truth is in the discernment of the false. You can know what is not. What is -- you can only be."
Wittgenstein: "All I know is what I have words for."
Bill Hicks (repeated by Chevy Chase in SNL): “Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration—that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. And now, here's Tom with the weather."
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 25, 2015 - 10:22am PT
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoZsAsgOSes
Everyone on this list should at least look at the beginning of this vid and hear Chalmers trot out all the various positions and hold up the light the challenges of them all. Chalmers is especially cogent on the shorcomings of reductionism and the whole business of objective functioning as opposed to "mind," somethng not widely understood or even believed on this thread. I agree with John S. that lest one work up cogent terms that refer to empirical data drawn from the subjectvie realm, there will be little new learning here.
And this quote:
Science, like every effort of thought, consists in interpreting experience. It is a mistake to think that experiment is of any use for this purpose, because all human thought, including beliefs which appear completely absurd, is experimental and claims to be based on and confirmed by experience… All thought is an effort of interpretation of experience, and experience provides neither model nor rule nor criterion for the interpretation; it provides the data of problems but not a way of solving or even of formulating them. This effort requires, like all other efforts, to be oriented towards something; all human effort is oriented and when man is not going in any direction he remains motionless. He cannot do without values. For all theoretical study the name of value is truth. It is impossible, no doubt, for men of flesh and blood in this world to have any representation of truth which is not defective; but they must have one — an imperfect image of the non-representable truth which we once saw, as Plato says, beyond the sky.
This quote is not only an example of vastly inflated and cluttered English but is riddled with half-truths and shallow reasoning. Of course thought does not provide a means of solving itself. But what happens when you step beyond thought for a second and do what the writer is most afraid of – and remain motionless?
She is basically guessing that we must never shut up and stop calculating lest we have no values. She is, perforce, what we call a staunch literalist. Wonder what kind of music she listens to?
JL
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2015 - 11:23am PT
|
Thanks for that cat vid, Blue.
It was apropos...just what I needed.
I shall resume the search this afternoon upon return.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!