Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
There's a good documentary on Jesus right now on PBS/SoCal. You guys should be streaming⚡️
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
Thanks, guys. We are blessed by being fathers. We get to see their deepest natures unfold - each in their way and each in their color.
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
The Old Testament is filled with all sorts of crazy stories, such as the Great Flood, and now that we have filled in the Geologic Record in such detail, around the world, we haven't seen evidence of a global flood. We do run into flood deposits now and then, but they are local.
Job's Flood Facts
“Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden? Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood: which said unto God, Depart from us: and what can the Almighty do for them?” (Job 22:15-17)
The many references to the Flood in the book of Job are couched in the language of those who had personal knowledge of the event. Modern creationist and Flood geologists can only surmise what may have happened during the year of the Flood. Job and his friends were living during the lifetime of Noah and his sons and had heard the account of the Flood.
The families of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had spoken to the original occupants of the Ark, and they knew! If these men had not heard directly from the mouths of Noah or one of his sons, then they had heard from their fathers or their fathers’ fathers, who had heard directly. Noah lived 350 years after the Flood. Shem lived 502 years beyond the day they disembarked from the Ark. Shem outlived Abraham!
The horrible consequences of the great Flood were still fresh in their minds (Job 12:14-15). Once the evil of the world became intense and widespread, the gracious and omnipotent Creator offered 120 years of opportunity to repent (1 Peter 3:20). But when that opportunity ran its course and Noah, the “preacher of righteousness,” gave his last invitation, God shut the door to the Ark, and the judgment waters came and overwhelmed the earth (2 Peter 2:5; 3:6).
Our generation openly mocks the authority and power of God. “But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life” (Jude 1:20-21). HMM III
...Base-less?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Mark: MikeL, Do you actually believe that there is no external reality?
I don’t know, Mark.
There would be many reasons to suppose that I can’t see clearly. (I’m talking academically here.) So there’s all of that literature.
Furthermore, I’ve found that the extent that I take things less concretely or seriously, the more that I do see clearly. That behavior has tended to show me the intransigence of any interpretation. So, . . . what else do you think I should do?
As for dictionaries, I suppose that if folks don’t know much at all about a topic, then perhaps a dictionary is a place to start. I would think that an encyclopedia would be better, but that would expose the interpretative nature of knowledge claims after a while. “So-and-so said this; X is responsible for this entry on this topic,” and so forth.
At least in an encyclopedia one can see the interpretive nature of knowledge claims. In a dictionary, ontologies are presented as facts; but anyone who has studied language might claim that language is organic and deeply problematical when it comes to definitive meaning.
This is part of the fun when one gets involved in writing. (See Derrida.)
Be well.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
Mark: MikeL, Do you actually believe that there is no external reality?
I don't know Mark
MikeL
It would be funny to hear what you did if the money suddenly disappeared from your bank account and your house had disappeared when you returned from somewhere. My best guess is that you would feel a little bit upset and insist on the former external reality of your money and house, possibly even, with this belief in mind, contact the police.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
Mike, yes, encyclopedias are a far more interesting adventure than dictionaries.
My wife talked me into getting rid of my full set Britannica a few years ago. I still miss it.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Marlow: . . . It would be funny to hear what you did if the money suddenly disappeared from your bank account and your house had disappeared when you returned from somewhere.
“Funny?” “Funny?” What are you saying? You’ve lost me.
Christ,. . . I’ve had cancer, almost died in combat, and turned out to be the man that I don’t know. I have no clue. Today a Eucalyptus tree fell on our house (windy down here), and i thought . . . “oh, sh*t, now what?” Hell, I expect that another terminal disease will show up before I can finish my next art project.
Get a grip on life. It’s all a display that never repeats itself.
You make that I am part of the human race. I ain’t. I have no f*ck’in clue.
And, oh yeah, we are making due in retirement. That’s nice. I don’t care.
Bring it.
EDIT: (There's nothing I can do about anything anyway. I mean, what can I do?)
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
"EDIT: (There's nothing I can do about anything anyway. I mean, what can I do?)" -MikeL
What you can do: (1) Stay off these threads, you know the two I'm talking about... (2) you can start your own post-modernist thread any time, in the spirit of Derrida of course, where in every post to your heart's content, you can show your disdain for any mention of objective reality, your disdain for universal truths, your disdain for value systems and the notion that one is better than any other; last but not least, your disdain for attempts to try to bring improvement to things.
Yes, I know, you're playing many others here (whether you know it or not, i'm not sure) like a fiddle. And "it's fun". Proud.
The school of thought... or else personality... of you and Derrida are part of the many reasons this country is so confused and directionless right now.
And take the smoking duck with you.
The two or three of you abuse Free Speech. You are abusers. :(
...
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
The climbing community, and the threads here, are big and robust and free enough to accommodate all commers, including Fruity. So it feels a little screwy for anyone to declare who does and does not belong here. Reminds me of the old segregationists. And from where I'm sitting, it's not Mike who is wearing the white robe.
I suspect that Fruity's main beef with anyone like Derrida (I'm not a fan of this double talker), or Husserl, or any of the phenomenologists, is that they "chose a method of philosophical inquiry that favored reflective attentiveness that discloses the individual's "lived experience." For a proto-structuralist, now called a physicalist, experience can only be an effect of structures which are not themselves experiential.
Problem is, as Ed just said, when you reduce it all down (and physcialism is reductionistic), the stuff that compose the structures "might not even exist" in quite the rock solid way our sense organs tell us.
This casts substantial doubt on there being some objective, observer independent world out there in the sense that most people imagine.
|
|
Byran
climber
Half Dome Village
|
|
Problem is, as Ed just said, when you reduce it all down (and physcialism is reductionistic), the stuff that compose the structures "might not even exist" in quite the rock solid way our sense organs tell us.
This casts substantial doubt on there being some objective, observer independent world out there in the sense that most people imagine.
A Hadron Collider is just an extension of our sense organs, no different than a microscope or a pair of reading glasses. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the atomic structure of a baseball and the nature of things like color and weight are radically different than what one might suppose by holding a baseball in their hand and observing it with the naked eye. This is NOT evidence of the unreliability of our senses. I don't know what you're referring to by "might not even exist", but I suspect this is a misrepresentation of quantum field theory or something.
No amount of empirical evidence can make an argument for or against philosophical skepticism.
I can't hold up a baseball and say, "look I have a baseball that we can both see and touch; there must be an objective reality". It could be that the baseball (and myself) are just figments of your imagination.
Likewise you can't point to discoveries in quantum mechanics and say "that's weird and unexpected; that must cast doubt on objective reality". It might just be that reality is weird and unexpected.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
That's an interesting twist on the "unreliability of our senses" argument, which was not the point. So-called philosophical skepticism is so broad a term it lacks much specificity, but skeptics generally hold that it is not possible to have adequate justification - numerical, logically, or otherwise - to make any hard and fast statement about anything.
What you are arguing for is the existence of external objects (baseballs, etc) in the world, and there certainly seems to be. I used to play baseball. But we can't really nail down what a baseball IS, in the ontological sense, because it is made up of what also can't be nailed down by our subjective faculties which also fashion what is out there into comprehensible forms.
Misrepresenting any field in this regards is something worth discussing, but implying that matter, for example, has an agreed upon definition, is simply incorrect.
Put simply, the seeming reality of what we experience out there and what IS out there are likely two different non-things. There is every reason to want a fixed reality that is out there and which we see the very essence of.
But no cigar on that one. It's all ephemera, IME.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
If you jump in front of a fast moving truck reality will strike you. Skepticophilosophical fundamentalism is for game-playing, not for real life.
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
Put simply, the seeming reality of what we experience out there and what IS out there are likely two different non-things.
That's why couples try to change each other? : )
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
What Marlow points out, correctly, IMO, is what I call threshold issues. From something to nothing (big bang), from matter to DNA, and from DNA to consciousness. Another is, apparently, from the quantum level to the classical level of forms. Seems like we need different descriptors for each level on both sides of the threshold. But when you get down to the lowest level and it is essentially formless, or so some argue, then we're on a slippery slope claiming that the form is question is, itself, objective reality.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Really, you'd think I was telling him to jump off a bridge, drop cyanide, cut his wrists or something. When instead - if you'd think clearly about it - I'm suggesting if he wants to spout neo-marxism post modernism hihilism pseudoscience pablum another thread besides the science ones could work better.
Really I think something like a "Post-modernism Nihilism Neo-Marxism Rules" thread authored by MikeL would look most excellent on the front forum page. Imagine it.
...
Fruity's main beef with anyone like Derrida (I'm not a fan of this double talker)
There you go.
You really think a post-modernist type like MikeL has any interest in, let alone gives any due diligence to, a conversation like the one you suggested between Harris and Chalmers. If so, I think you're kidding yourself.
I also posted up about this Waking Up podcast episode as well, sometime last year. It is nice to see you apparently thought it was worthy to listen to. I thought it was chock-full of great content.
For a proto-structuralist, now called a physicalist...
lol
Take a break: Go watch Black Mirror S03E04 "San Junipero" - it's Grade A+ and is all about mind, consciousness, AI, VR, life and death, meaning and purpose, and last but not least... having fun.
|
|
Byran
climber
Half Dome Village
|
|
What Marlow points out, correctly, IMO, is what I call threshold issues. From something to nothing (big bang), from matter to DNA, and from DNA to consciousness. Another is, apparently, from the quantum level to the classical level of forms. Seems like we need different descriptors for each level on both sides of the threshold. But when you get down to the lowest level and it is essentially formless, or so some argue, then we're on a slippery slope claiming that the form is question is, itself, objective reality.
The tissue damage caused by being run over by a truck can be explained entirely in terms of particle physics. It's just that such an explanation would be extremely complex and downright tedious. If the doctors in the operating room use the language of biology and anatomy rather than that of quantum mechanics, it is merely out of convenience. This does not point to some "threshold issue" between our everyday world of visible objects and the atomic world.
And again your argument seems to be hinged on a term that I don't understand. What does it mean that the lowest level is "essentially formless"? What should it be instead? Are the smallest building blocks supposed to be solid little blobs of impenetrable "stuff"? Why should we expect such a thing?
I recognize that the study of physics has a problem of infinite regression ahead of it. But just because we'll never reach the bottom of the rabbit hole doesn't mean we must doubt the terrain that's been charted along the way. Especially when our knowledge of physics, though far from complete, has allowed us to do such extraordinary things.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
our knowledge of physics, though far from complete, has allowed us to do such extraordinary things.
Nothing extraordinary has been done at all except more accelerated death.
Nothing has been solved.
Birth, death, disease and old age are still the gross materialists king .......
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
But when you get down to the lowest level and it is essentially formless, or so some argue, then we're on a slippery slope claiming that the form is question is, itself, objective reality
It would seem some of you have been down there, witnessing the formlessness. If you ever decide to give tours I would like to sign up. Exciting.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
hate to be pulled back into this thread...
what Largo referred to in terms of the conversation on the "other thread" was my statement that the Hilbert Space in which quantum mechanics takes place is not accessible to us directly.
While we have prescriptions on how to formulate the physical situations we're interested in calculating, the "amplitudes," we do not observe them directly, only their magnitude. We don't worry about this because it works so well, but there is no reason to believe that such a space actually exists.
As I understand the latest test of the Bell Inequality, quantum mechanics is the "answer" and with that we have to reconcile the issues that Einstein Podolsky and Rosen raised in their 1935 paper. The most usual response is to throw "counterfactual definiteness" out the window (there are other responses)... what are we throwing out?
Look at the Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness
In quantum mechanics, counterfactual definiteness (CFD) is the ability to speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured).
this is also known as "realism."
It is quite possible that we have to dispense with this, and so make life as a physicist even stranger... that is the sense in which I said these things may not even exist. More specifically, I could have said, things only exist that are measured... at least in the quantum domain.
I would also take issue with the statement that particle physics, in principle explains what happens to a living body when it steps in front of a fast moving truck. If you restrict yourself to quantum-electro-dynamics, and the existence of atoms, you've got all the phenomena you need.
But even then, you do not have a prescription that takes you to the death of the patient. I'm not saying there isn't a physical connection, I'm saying that it is sloppy to state with certainty that something can be described when there is no description yet.
If you have a calculation, show it...
Such statements are not uncommon, I don't have the precise reference, but Pauli wrote to Heisenberg a furious letter in response to a comment he heard from a colleague that Pauli and Heisenberg were about to crack the nuclear force, the comment was along the lines of Heisenberg saying that, "it was all done except for filling in the details."
In this response, Pauli had drawn an empty picture frame with the caption "this demonstrates that I can paint like Picasso, all that is left is to fill in the details!"
Whatever they were working on, they failed to produce a theory of the nuclear force...
details matter.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Ed: . . . you've got all the phenomenon you need.
I think you mean “phenomena,”—many. There’s not just one thing that’s going on, on any level. Everything is matrixed, correlated, associated. It’s one moving image, so to say.
Thanks for the commentary, Ed
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!