Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
what “faith” means in science is “confidence based on experience,” while the same term in religion means “belief without enough evidence to convince most rational people.”
we had THIS arguement over 5 yrs ago on the deleted thread. thought i already proved to you a christians faith IS born on experience, walks in experience, and the confidence therein that possessed faith, is proven by works.
Now you want to argue the ratio of evidence, and the ratio of reason?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Jgill: I proposed that a thought was a kind of (mental) reality, and a physical object another kind of (physical) reality. And the former certainly connects with - gives rise to - the latter much of the time.
Huh? Did you just say there that thoughts give rise to physical reality?
. . . you seem to surf another existential plane, weaving and darting and strafing us with a fusillade of notions that defy our normal perceptions. Never a dull moment.
Ha-ha, you’re supposedly on a ball of solidified gas going about 67,000 miles an hour, while spinning at about 1000 miles an hour, floating (as far as well can tell) in nothingness in the middle of nowhere.
You don’t need dull moments. What kind of place is this?
(All I’m talking about is consciousness.)
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Did you just say there that thoughts give rise to physical reality? (MikeL)
Man thinks about and designs an automobile engine, then it is built.
Mental reality -> physical reality.
Not the kind of mumbo jumbo metaphysics you and the Wizard enjoy.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Man never made the engine.
Material nature did.
Next .....
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Next . . . Absurd comment.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I'm thinking of putting an ad in the paper for a car pool whose members are all deeply practicing meditators so I can talk to them about Largo's posts...
unfortunately I only have a 15 minute commute to work, maybe I can circulate an agenda the night before...
but it would offer me the authority on the meditation front that would relieve me from having to practice it for the "years and years" of study I'd otherwise have to engage in before I could discuss it with Largo.
|
|
cintune
climber
Ollin Arageed Space
|
|
"Hold infinity in the palm of your hand and eternity in an hour."
Or fifteen minutes. Might be plenty.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Damn. This is long. Read it if you like. It is mainly about fossils and rocks.
Largo mentioned bones, and he described them as if they are dreams or something that can't be interpreted. In reality, fossils have provided us with a rich insight into the history of post-Cambrian (and some pre-Cambrian) life on the planet. I think that Largo was referring to fossils, and that is a fascinating topic. A lot of you live in areas of igneous rocks, so you might not be that familiar with them. I grew up about a mile from a 1920's era brick plant. Obviously, it was built on a quarry of clay rich shale, that was just right for making bricks. I used to sneak into that quarry all of the time to look for fossils, and you didn't have to look very hard.
If you step into that quarry, you won't be able to take a single step without crossing dozens of Crinoids and Brachiopods. I used to fill my pockets with them. It is literally full of fossils. Fossils are super common in most areas of outcropping sedimentary rocks. Fossil collecting and species identification, basically amateur quality paleontology, was quite a fad in the 1700's and 1800's. During that period, most outcrops were scoured by fossil hunters. So most fossil species were discovered quite a while ago, but you can still visit the outcrops and pick them up yourself and do hard science on them. Dating was very crude until radiometric and chemical methods arose to put them all in order, and to flesh out the fossil record as if it were a chapter on the history of life on this planet.
That quarry? First it was shale, meaning not much coarse sediment transport. The fossils were all marine. I realized that at a young age: This place used to be beneath the sea.
No doubt early man noticed fossils. What would you think if you were on a hill, hundreds of miles from any sea, and found a fossil sea shell? How did they explain this? A few thousand years ago, some religious people thought that the presence of marine fossils in such high areas was evidence of the biblical Great Flood. However, stratigraphy and dating methods showed that to be entirely false quite early in the science. Fossils provide insights into certain times and places. You can find fern fossils in Antarctica. What does that mean? It means that either that continent had at one point in time been in a subtropical latitude, or the climate was much warmer. Now that we can follow, with relative ease, the wandering history of continental plates, we know it was the former. How? Most rocks contain some magnetic minerals. It can be measured rather easily these days. You can look at the paleo magnetic signature and see the latitude that this rock was deposited in, as if compass needles were frozen at depostion. This has now been performed on most sedimentary outcrops around the world, and we can make a movie showing how continents split, merged, wandered, etc. with a very low error factor. Paleomag was a tremendous tool when it was put into wide use.
Dating methods are also now very good. 50 years ago, there were only a few different methods of radiometric dating, and they had large error factors including contamination of the sample. Now there are many. If you look at all methods, and they conflict, you have a problem. If they all agree, then a high degree of certainty can be assumed. When you run the movie of wandering continents, it all makes sense. Old mountain ranges, sedimentary basins, faults, ocean geometry, is all fairly well worked out, and you can see the history of Earth over time. It required a lot of work, but right now, there are few enigmatic features left (although there are some).
In a way, geology is easier than many other sciences. The planet is right here. It changes so slowly that we can return again and again to the same rocks, checking them and dating them again and again. It is much cheaper than the LHC.
Geology is a fairly mature science in most aspects. Most publications have to do with small things that flesh out the picture, but it is first and foremost a study of the history of the planet, and the sub discipline of paleontology studies the history of life on the planet. It is also fairly mature. What is not mature are things such as mantle plumes and hotspots. What is going on at great depth. We can image these layers using earthquakes passing through the earth as data, but right now, the resolution is on the large side. I would look to that as the Next Big Thing. A modification of plate tectonics. What causes continents to move? There are a lot of theories such as mantle convection, but it is so deep that we can't sample it. We can only observe indirectly and come up with theory. Theory that is on shaky ground.
I visited the Smithsonian a couple of years ago. They had a big chunk of 3 billion year old stromatolite fossils from Australia. You can still find stromatolites today, so a lot is known about them. You can go to this area in Australia and take your hammer and get your own piece of 3 billion year old life. Old Precambrian fossils are tougher to come by. Prior to the Cambrian Explosion, life was mainly unicellular, with some colonial organisms like Stromatolites as the big exception. There aren't a lot of pre-Cambrian fossils. Life didn't have hard parts, so they are tougher to preserve. Post Cambrian Earth is swamped with fossils, and the story they tell is fascinating.
The Permo-Triassic "Great Dying" when most species went extinct. The Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary where the dinosaurs went extinct (which was yesterday in geologic time), was dwarfed by the Permian extinction. We have ideas, but no firm evidence as to why most life on Earth went extinct so suddenly.
You can go live your life doubting all of this. You can go believe that there is a global conspiracy to engineer the climate through "Chem Trails." You can BELIEVE whatever you like. Just be prepared for a schooling if you bring it up with an expert. Paleontology has experts just as Physics does, and some of the science is just as important.
I get a kick out of the Creationist and Intelligent Design folks. They cling so hard to their religious beliefs that the idea that they might be wrong is heresy to God himself. They are so whacky. In most cases, they make wild and incorrect interpretations of the rock and fossil record.
It isn't just fossils that tell a story. The common rocks on a dirt road each tell an incredible story. Some of the most important rocks look just like rocks. Only an expert can tell you the story that they tell.
So let's say that Largo took a walk with me and I showed him an outcrop of a thin limestone bed that was literally filled with old oyster shells. How would he interpret this? I assume that there are no paleontologists in his car pool, so he just poked his toe into my domain. Geology. I can gut him from ass to eyeball if he discounts fossils.
His position? Nothing is real. We might as well be unwitting inhabitants of a zoo for the pleasure of an advanced race from outer space. Perhaps we are in a mental institution for advanced Schizophrenia, and all of this is a hallucination. Maybe we are in a Matrix and don't know it. That path leads us away from the simple evidence (although the Matrix thing should not be completely discounted) and towards a quasi-religious cabal whose objective is to tear down the sum total of human knowledge as without meaning. I find this annoying, but am confident that the Largo types will never contribute a word to the science. He isn't an expert. He actually knows very little about science, despite his occasional faux posts drafted by his carpool.
Carpool? WTF? I don't care who they are. Largo believes them, but not Ed. Why?
How does Largo define "Knowing?" We pretty much know that MikeL doesn't believe in much, and I use belief not as a pop psych word, but a reflection on physical evidence. How strong is the science? That is the most important question? Belief means provisional acceptance. It doesn't mean prostrating yourself in front of a holy rock. Largo needs to do some science reading. Everything he gets from his car pool is second hand, and who can forget his bringing up "Hilbert Space?" He is behaving foolishly when he does that. Let's see if his carpool has a paleontologist.
So Largo, close your eyes and live out your days happily. Just watch it when you talk about bones, because I can go on about this for months.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Intelligent Design has nothing to with religion.
If it did then everything designed in America would be unintelligent .....
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
Base said "So let's say that Largo took a walk with me and I showed him an outcrop of a thin limestone bed that was literally filled with old oyster shells. How would he interpret this? I assume that there are no paleontologists in his car pool, so he just poked his toe into my domain. Geology. I can gut him from ass to eyeball if he discounts fossils."
LMAO ! are you channeling blue ring? Zen has no issue at all with science.
It's emphasis is on dualism. Largo is always pointing to the dualistic nature of things. Dualism is difficult to get a handle on if you have never experienced a non dual view. Once you have it makes sense because you experienced it.
|
|
cintune
climber
Ollin Arageed Space
|
|
Pretty sure it's his persistent implication that the absolute existence of reality is somehow beholden to consciousness that keeps making Largo sound like a goofball snake oil salesman.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
Ed, you are the king of pejorative ribs about little I know, so you can hardly balk at me returning the favor. And my thought experiment is not what you say it is:
But fundamentally, you are asking for a description of something, but with the requirement that no language be used to make the description... an interesting assignment for sure.
You can use whatever descriptive words you want to. The only caveat is that you have to leave off any words that refer to aspects that are not "out" there and that are not mental interpretations or words describing what they see, as opposed to the inherently physical aspects of the reality to which to so fondly mention, and which many on this thread swear up and down exists separate from mind - including shapes, age, color, temperature, and all the rest of the data that you get from measuring an object. Put differently, WHAT is it that your are measuring, as opposed to the measurements themselves. Note that I am in no way denying the verity of your measurements, nor yet that your measurements are not based in real phenomenon. I simply am asking WHAT that phenomenon IS. The "it" to which you refer to, as some claim exists separate from mind.
The cheat and swindle that Cintune is putting forth here is that I am playing a word game - this is an age-old argument and the suppositions are nonexistent. What Cintune is suggesting is that there is no question that some thing(s) exist out there, but we simply don't have the words to describe WHAT "it" is. In other "words," the problem is not in the subject matter - for there really and truly are objects that exist outside of mind (some insist). We just don't have the words to describe WHAT they are.
The point is that nobody will even try the "route" for fear of failure or because they immediately dead end and their vaunted "stuff" that we measure is apparently of a totally different order from the language and numerical representations that we use to represent what our sense organs tell us is "out there," separate from "mind."
But why stop there. That's like rapping off at the first bolt. The next step is to look at the dead obvious differences between our maps and the territory. Clearly the word "fire" is not the same as a physical combustion in which substances combine chemically with oxygen and typically give out bright light, heat, and smoke. Otherwise the word "fire" could burn our fingers. And it can't.
The next step is to acknowledge that our perception tells us in no uncertain terms that an actual combustion is "real," but that there is a world of difference between our symbolic representations of fire and the fire itself that seemingly exists "out there" beyond and separate from perception.
The next question is: What is this "stuff" that is burning? In what sense is this burning stuff an "object" that exists "out there" beyond mind?
And you keep boring into the question any way you want but you will inevitably end up in the place where you realize that asking what "is" is a trick question - but not for the reasons you "think" or perceive, and not because language is not suited to frame what is "out there,' but rather because the "things" that are out there are mental composites, and what we are are measuring is not stuff existing "outside and separate from mind" that has energetic properties, but rather there are no things in the sense that our minds tell us, and that what IS are properties relating to (fill in the blank). I'm reminded of the words I have heard from my buddies that insist there is no such "thing" as a photon that HAS luminosity and radiation and so forth. There is only the radiation, which is NOT an object. Put differently, even our very own Edward cannot state what it IS that he is measuring, sans perceptual overlays, not because we don't have the numbers or words to yet describe it, but rather because "it," as a stand alone object, is simply not there.
So while Mike goes on about nobody being able to nail down "what' is is that we are always talking about, his idea is worthy of closer scrutiny for those who are not bored and have the discipline to stop measuring (for just a few minutes a day) and probe the question of what the hell is "out there."
JL
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
. . . there are no things in the sense that our minds tell us, and that what IS are properties relating to (fill in the blank)
Kant on metaphysical steroids.
. . . his idea is worthy of closer scrutiny for those who are not bored and have the discipline to stop measuring (for just a few minutes a day) and probe the question of what the hell is "out there."
And what are your speculations about what is out there? Or do you propose that a universal mind encompasses all and that there is nothing outside of mind? How does this relate to empty awareness or no-thing or "no physical extent?" - or does it? Do you still consider some sort of field to underlie all? How does a mathematical universe fit into your perspectives? Are these questions too difficult a "route" for you to attempt?
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
The next question is: What is this "stuff" that is burning? In what sense is this burning stuff an "object" that exists "out there" beyond mind?
Why would this question seem important to you? You don't need to know what stuff is in order to make use of it. It may be better to move on to questions about how fire interacts with other stuff.
It was recently reported that raptors in Australia pick up burning sticks from brush fires and drop them where starting a new fire flushes out game for them to catch.
You may be getting bogged down in details.
Or, your attempts to tell us how the practice of meditation has changed your view of stuff may not be successful. Maybe metaphors don't work.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I Kant get no, satisfaction
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Jgill: Mental reality -> physical reality. . . . Man thinks about and designs an automobile engine, then it is built.
You’re obtuse (and I think you know it). That little “->” performs a great many functions and creates a wealth of definitions. (Is this how you do math?) “. . . and here, a miracle occurs!” Terrific.
I thought the conversation was about (i) what is thought and (ii) what is material—and which is real?
Just to be clear, I’m saying that reality is (in all likelihood) selectively filtered and mediated by perceptions, which are construed to thoughts and feelings.
Believing is seeing. Your world is a result of your karma (prejudices, obscurations, institutionalizations, education, culture, time, place, etc.).
(Largo gave an excellent explanation, IMO.)
The typical argument that’s been made so many times here is the same argument that Johnson gave to Berkeley’s idealism. Johnson kicked a rock, and said that is how he refuted Berkeley’s ideas. Unfortunately, that happens to be irrelevant and no proof at all. There’s even a term for it now.
http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
what constitutes a "proof" MIkeL?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
haha this could be a funny page
It was recently reported that raptors in Australia pick up burning sticks from brush fires and drop them where starting a new fire flushes out game for them to catch.
i saw that one too. pretty neat eh/Aa. Did you see the prediction that bird brain's may have evolved separate from mammals brains? HMmmm?
Many Birds use tools and build homes. How much do Monkey's?
Did Birds use tools before Monkeys??
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Proof
Light is proof of the presence of the sun.
Fire is proof of the presence of the sun.
The sun always rises in the east.
Without the sun there would be no proof ever .....
:-)
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Without the sun there would be no proof ever .....
Quack quack quack quack quack quack quack quack...
:0
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!