Thoughts

[crowTrobot 2]

I think the point was that we must balance our ability to describe and quantify with an appreciation for and contact with the great mystery of the universe.

that's more of a nonsensically vague religious-like appeal to emotionalism than a point.

[vbnautilus 48]

that's more of a nonsensically vague religious-like appeal to emotionalism than a point.

No, it's really important. Attachment to fixed ideas is the bad part of religion, and fixed ideas are also what removes the mystery -- knowing that you don't know should be part of any rational point of view. There is value in understanding that our conceptualization of the world is provisional -- it serves a purpose, but we shouldn't be attached to it. Mental descriptions of reality are not reality itself. It's easy to get attached to a point of view, especially in science where you almost need to do so in order to make a career for yourself, so actively keeping in touch with the unknown, the Beginner's Mind, is a strategic necessity.

[crowTrobot 2]

well this is getting a little more specific, thx lol. not sure why attempts at rational philosophical points have to be stated in vague poetic terms. great mystery of the universe? is someone trying to sell a book?

No, it's really important. Attachment to fixed ideas is the bad part of religion, and fixed ideas are also what removes the mystery -- knowing that you don't know should be part of any rational point of view.

thinking of knowledge in terms of level of certainty based on external evidence should be part of any rational point of view. saying that we don't really know anything just plays into the hands of religious apologists by placing external evidence on the same level as internal revelation. likely to be a counterproductive tactic IMO.

There is value in understanding that our conceptualization of the world is provisional -- it serves a purpose, but we shouldn't be attached to it. Mental descriptions of reality are not reality itself. It's easy to get attached to a point of view, especially in science where you almost need to do so in order to make a career for yourself, so actively keeping in touch with the unknown, the Beginner's Mind, is a strategic necessity.

again i'd dispute the especially in science part. obviously individual scientists aren't immune to religious-like attachment to subjective knowledge in their specific fields, but thanks to its self-policing nature it's much less rampant in science than it is for the general public. your average scientist is going to be much more objective about what we don't know overall.

[vbnautilus 48]

well this is getting a little more specific, thx lol. not sure why attempts at rational philosophical points have to be stated in vague poetic terms. great mystery of the universe? is someone trying to sell a book?

Well they don't have to be stated that way. But I don't see why it should be off limits to do so either. This particular rational philosophical point is one that specifically points outside of linguistic thought itself. Poetry may actually be one of the better ways of doing that.

thinking of knowledge in terms of level of certainty based on external evidence should be part of any rational point of view. saying that we don't really know anything just plays into the hands of religious apologists by placing external evidence on the same level as internal revelation. likely to be a counterproductive tactic IMO.

What I am referring to is not the same as the certainty/uncertainty axis. Even the most certain idea is still an idea. Basically, I am saying that the map is not the territory. No matter how detailed and correct our map is (let's say for example Newtonian Physics), it is still a map. A roadmap may be useful in some circumstances, but in other circumstances we may need to throw that away and use a topographic map. Attachment to the maps leads to all kinds of cognitive distortions and illusions. And the fact is that our natural reaction to reality itself -- without a map -- is some kind of wonder (this is how we tend to be as children) -- it's absence therefore becomes a measure of map-attachment. Yeah, its good to grow up and be able to use the maps, but its also really important to be able to put the map down and appreciate the thing itself. It's especially key for being able to make new different maps that work even better than the old ones (i.e. paradigm shifting). I always have difficulty getting this point across, so I know its a tough one to communicate. If I'm still not making it clear, feel free to press me until I do. Regarding playing into the hands of religious apologists, if we let that fear get in the way of actually describing the way things are we aren't doing anyone any good.

again i'd dispute the especially in science part. obviously individual scientists aren't immune to religious-like attachment to subjective knowledge in their specific fields, but thanks to its self-policing nature it's much less rampant in science than it is for the general public. your average scientist is going to be much more objective about what we don't know overall.

Maybe we can come back to this if the above part makes sense.

[Mills 0]

Well they don't have to be stated that way. But I don't see why it should be off limits to do so either. This particular rational philosophical point is one that specifically points outside of linguistic thought itself. Poetry may actually be one of the better ways of doing that. What I am referring to is not the same as the certainty/uncertainty axis. Even the most certain idea is still an idea. Basically, I am saying that the map is not the territory. No matter how detailed and correct our map is (let's say for example Newtonian Physics), it is still a map. A roadmap may be useful in some circumstances, but in other circumstances we may need to throw that away and use a topographic map. Attachment to the maps leads to all kinds of cognitive distortions and illusions. And the fact is that our natural reaction to reality itself -- without a map -- is some kind of wonder (this is how we tend to be as children) -- it's absence therefore becomes a measure of map-attachment. Yeah, its good to grow up and be able to use the maps, but its also really important to be able to put the map down and appreciate the thing itself. It's especially key for being able to make new different maps that work even better than the old ones (i.e. paradigm shifting).

But the scientific community as a whole already widely rejects "map attatchment," as it were. That's the whole point, don't get married to something, no matter how correct it may seem, because there is always room for revision. If that involes throwing away the map entirely, then so be it. There's a particular quote by Richard Feynman that I like a lot:"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and there many things I don't know anything about."Yea, we don't know everything about everything. But we already know that. But Feynman was okay with not knowing rather than going with an answer that might be wrong, I think I am too.Just because you don't know something, dosen't mean you can just throw up your hands and say "GOD." Because, well, what kind of an explanation is that? You keep looking, and acknowledge the fact that you don't know, that is nothing to be ashamed of.

[vbnautilus 48]

But the scientific community as a whole already widely rejects "map attatchment," as it were. That's the whole point, don't get married to something, no matter how correct it may seem, because there is always room for revision. If that involes throwing away the map entirely, then so be it. There's a particular quote by Richard Feynman that I like a lot:"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and there many things I don't know anything about."Yea, we don't know everything about everything. But we already know that. But Feynman was okay with not knowing rather than going with an answer that might be wrong, I think I am too.

Sure, we already know this, but in practice people ignore it to varying degrees. And again, there is a difference between recognizing that you don't know certain things, and realizing that all of your knowledge is provisional.

Just because you don't know something, dosen't mean you can just throw up your hands and say "GOD." Because, well, what kind of an explanation is that? You keep looking, and acknowledge the fact that you don't know, that is nothing to be ashamed of.

You're preaching to the choir here (heh), I don't support supernatural explanations for things, and while I think the word "god" originally referred to the unknown-aconceptual-reality-as-it-is, the word has so many false connotations and so much baggage that it is almost never worthy of use.

[Mills 0]

Sure, we already know this, but in practice people ignore it to varying degrees. And again, there is a difference between recognizing that you don't know certain things, and realizing that all of your knowledge is provisional. You're preaching to the choir here (heh), I don't support supernatural explanations for things, and while I think the word "god" originally referred to the unknown-aconceptual-reality-as-it-is, the word has so many false connotations and so much baggage that it is almost never worthy of use.

An individual may ignore it to varying degrees but I would think a worldwide community would be less likely to do so.Also, i'm not sure if it's exactly fair to call all knowledge provisional, although I know what you are trying to say. What I would say is that knowledge is a living thing. It may grow and change... and that is fine. But i'm not sure we should be wary of something that has been consistantly proven top be true just because there is a possibility that it might someday be altered.

[vbnautilus 48]

Also, i'm not sure if it's exactly fair to call all knowledge provisional, although I know what you are trying to say. What I would say is that knowledge is a living thing. It may grow and change... and that is fine.

Then you are saying something very different than I am saying.

But i'm not sure we should be wary of something that has been consistantly proven top be true just because there is a possibility that it might someday be altered.

Again, that is not what I am saying at all. I don't think we should be wary of knowledge because it might someday be altered. Well, ok, maybe we should be in some way, but that's not the point here. Let's go back to the map analogy. I am not saying to be suspicious of the map because it might be redrawn. Use the map if it is a good one and it gets the job done. Just -- know that it is only map. Seems simple, but the illusion that the concepts are the thing itself is a very subtle and pervasive one. For instance, many people believe that there is actually a discreet thing which is "the sun".

[crowTrobot 2]

Well they don't have to be stated that way. But I don't see why it should be off limits to do so either.

wasn't suggesting it should be off limits, just didn't see the point. you had me all over the map as far as what you were getting at - how does "true objectivity inevitably brings us to the god of life" tie the statements in the OP together or help clarify anything you say below?

This particular rational philosophical point is one that specifically points outside of linguistic thought itself.

maybe if you're speaking specifically to someone used to thinking with their emotions. otherwise from a logical standpoint what you say below seems pretty straightforward.

Basically, I am saying that the map is not the territory. No matter how detailed and correct our map is (let's say for example Newtonian Physics), it is still a map. A roadmap may be useful in some circumstances, but in other circumstances we may need to throw that away and use a topographic map. Attachment to the maps leads to all kinds of cognitive distortions and illusions. And the fact is that our natural reaction to reality itself -- without a map -- is some kind of wonder (this is how we tend to be as children) -- it's absence therefore becomes a measure of map-attachment. Yeah, its good to grow up and be able to use the maps, but its also really important to be able to put the map down and appreciate the thing itself. It's especially key for being able to make new different maps that work even better than the old ones (i.e. paradigm shifting).

i've never heard or read any scientists that don't seem to understand the value of having a sense of wonder about the unkown, of being objective about what we don't know, and of being ready to shift paradigms if necessary. aren't you just describing what science is all about - its driving force? how major scientific progress has always occurred historically? are working scientists becoming stuffy and jaded in your experience or something? : )

[crowTrobot 2]

For instance, many people believe that there is actually a discreet thing which is "the sun".

beg pardon? you mean they think the sun is not just another star?

[Spademan 94]

No, it's really important. Attachment to fixed ideas is the bad part of religion, and fixed ideas are also what removes the mystery -- knowing that you don't know should be part of any rational point of view. There is value in understanding that our conceptualization of the world is provisional -- it serves a purpose, but we shouldn't be attached to it. Mental descriptions of reality are not reality itself. It's easy to get attached to a point of view, especially in science where you almost need to do so in order to make a career for yourself, so actively keeping in touch with the unknown, the Beginner's Mind, is a strategic necessity.

I tend to fall on crows end of the discussion here. The OP, and much of your analysis of it sounds like philosophically oriented, pseudo-buddhist claptrap. Riding that line between true non-attachment (read: functionally actualized no-self, clarity and awareness) and ideologically driven attachment to one's own intelligence and "poetic understanding" of this "wonderful world". It isn't as annoying or ignorant as religious stupidity, but it isn't all that enlightening either. Or, to put it another way, you guys are "playing with a mud ball and calling it gold" or "adding frost to snow" and implicitly lauding your accomplishment.

[vbnautilus 48]

wasn't suggesting it should be off limits, just didn't see the point. you had me all over the map as far as what you were getting at - how does "true objectivity inevitably brings us to the god of life" tie the statements in the OP together or help clarify anything you say below?

I mean, I've just been trying to explain what the guy meant, I'm not giving him a literary award or anything. This was just a casual email.

i've never heard or read any scientists that don't seem to understand the value of having a sense of wonder about the unkown,

it's strange that you normalize this now, because when I said it, you accused me of "emotionalism"

of being objective about what we don't know, and of being ready to shift paradigms if necessary. aren't you just describing what science is all about - its driving force? how major scientific progress has always occurred historically? are working scientists becoming stuffy and jaded in your experience or something? : )

Paradigm-shifters have always been a small minority.

beg pardon? you mean they think the sun is not just another star?

No, I mean they think it is actually a discreet object with non-arbitrary boundaries.

I tend to fall on crows end of the discussion here. The OP, and much of your analysis of it sounds like philosophically oriented, pseudo-buddhist claptrap. Riding that line between true non-attachment (read: functionally actualized no-self, clarity and awareness) and ideologically driven attachment to one's own intelligence and "poetic understanding" of this "wonderful world".

There is no ideology here whatsoever; I'm kind of curious as to what kind of ideology you would be thinking drives this discussion. I understand what you're reacting to, but I think you've pigeon-holed without reading carefully enough.

[crowTrobot 2]

it's strange that you normalize this now, because when I said it, you accused me of "emotionalism"

i thought phrasing everything crtypically/poetically just comes accross as more of an emotional appeal for the reader to fill in the blank with whatever they feel like, rather than a rational point. i agree with the point when you state it specifically. there is potential danger in becoming locked into a specific point of view and emotionally jaded about what we don't really know. i just don't see it as much of a problem for science overall.

Paradigm-shifters have always been a small minority.

successful paradigm-shifters have always been a small minority. i don't think there's ever been a shortage of aspiring shifters. i think it's more a matter of actual opportunity for useful shifts and the genius it takes to get there both being rare than there being a shortage of rebels in a sea of conformity.

No, I mean they think it is actually a discreet object with non-arbitrary boundaries.

i think most people define the sun as the sphere contained by the visible surface, which is a real boundary. limiting the sun to just that is more about either insufficient education or semantics than necessarily an example of where a paradigm shift would make much difference.

[Randy Reed 0]

I think what he meant was that we can't simply discard it without replacing it with some other way to temper ourselves, not that we should keep the fairy tales themselves. He specifically advocated objectivity and rationality, so I think you missed the point of this last paragraph. I think the point was that we must balance our ability to describe and quantify with an appreciation for and contact with the great mystery of the universe.

Well, I am old so I probably did as usual.

No, it's really important. Attachment to fixed ideas is the bad part of religion, and fixed ideas are also what removes the mystery -- knowing that you don't know should be part of any rational point of view. There is value in understanding that our conceptualization of the world is provisional -- it serves a purpose, but we shouldn't be attached to it. Mental descriptions of reality are not reality itself. It's easy to get attached to a point of view, especially in science where you almost need to do so in order to make a career for yourself, so actively keeping in touch with the unknown, the Beginner's Mind, is a strategic necessity.

What the hell are you all talking about!

[vbnautilus 48]

i think most people define the sun as the sphere contained by the visible surface, which is a real boundary.

That's not a real boundary (although it is a useful one and probably what most people use the word to mean). In other words, just because you can semi-reliably draw a line there does not mean there actually is one. First, "visible" makes the definition depend upon our visual system, which didn't even exist for most of the sun's life. Further, the criterion "visible" is not a discreet line, its a fuzzy one. The visible light that the sun gives off creates a much larger sphere than just the brightest spot at the center; in fact it lights our entire planet which means that we are within the sphere of visible light that the sun gives off. Also the choice of visible light as the boundary is entirely arbitrary, as you could just as well define the thing by e.g. the borders of the heat it creates (although you're not really going to find lines there either).

limiting the sun to just that is more about either insufficient education or semantics than necessarily an example of where a paradigm shift would make much difference.

It's not supposed to be an example of where a paradigm shift would help. It's an example of a mental concept that most people mistake for reality.

[crowTrobot 2]

That's not a real boundary (although it is a useful one and probably what most people use the word to mean). In other words, just because you can semi-reliably draw a line there does not mean there actually is one. First, "visible" makes the definition depend upon our visual system, which didn't even exist for most of the sun's life. Further, the criterion "visible" is not a discreet line, its a fuzzy one. The visible light that the sun gives off creates a much larger sphere than just the brightest spot at the center; in fact it lights our entire planet which means that we are within the sphere of visible light that the sun gives off. Also the choice of visible light as the boundary is entirely arbitrary, as you could just as well define the thing by e.g. the borders of the heat it creates (although you're not really going to find lines there either).

the surface of the photosphere is absolutely a real boundary. you're arguing semantics.

It's an example of a mental concept that most people mistake for reality.

anyone with a basic science education is aware there are other layers to the sun extending beyond the photosphere. at best your example is one of simple public ignorance on a subject most never think about and/or a semantic distinction most who are educated on the subject don't care about. must be more relevant examples out there.

[vbnautilus 48]

the surface of the photosphere is absolutely a real boundary. you're arguing semantics.

The "semantics" line does not automatically end any discussion of meaning. That's exactly the topic of discussion, so it is precisely what I am arguing. (although probably meta-semantics would be more accurate)And I reiterate that it is not a real boundary, it is an arbitrary one which requires certain specifics of our perceptual system to even be describable.

anyone with a basic science education is aware there are other layers to the sun extending beyond the photosphere. at best your example is one of simple public ignorance on a subject most never think about, or a semantic distinction most don't care about. must be more relevant examples out there.

No, since even you seem to think the "photosphere" has a real boundary.

[crowTrobot 2]

And I reiterate that it is not a real boundary, it is an arbitrary one which requires certain specifics of our perceptual system to even be describable. No, since even you seem to think the "photosphere" has a real boundary.

as i understand it the layer (photosphere) where conditions change to allow photons to escape is quite narrow and well-defined by temperature change and other factors - a real boundary that is not arbitrary or dependant on our specific visual system to describe. if there is new evidence indicating that is incorrect then the problem is with deficiency of education, not with being fixed on assumptions based on mental perception.

[vbnautilus 48]

as i understand it the layer (photosphere) where conditions change to allow photons to escape is quite narrow and well-defined by temperature change and other factors - a real boundary that is not arbitrary or dependant on our specific visual system to describe.

Notice that you have changed the definition¹. At first it was the border of visible light. Now, it is a different (yet still arbitrary) line which has to do with some temperature qualification. What temperature exactly qualifies some portion of the sun as photosphere? Is there no gradient of temperature? Below 4000 Kelvin is inside it but regions at 3999.99 are not part of it? When those photons do escape at what point do they become not-sun?Adding a label to something does not create a real boundary, except in one's mind.¹I also might add that you have changed what we are defining. The original example was "the sun" which slipped into "the photosphere" because supposedly that's what people mean when they define the boundaries of the sun.

[Spademan 94]

There is no ideology here whatsoever; I'm kind of curious as to what kind of ideology you would be thinking drives this discussion. I understand what you're reacting to, but I think you've pigeon-holed without reading carefully enough.

I'm way too sweet as hell to pigeon-hole and my reading comprehension is world class so there has to be some other explanation.The definition of ideology I was using, as I can see how a different context might be confusing, was "theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature". The OP is guilty, and you more-so in your analysis of the OP, of straying off into conclusions that are not founded by the premises. It is not enough to say that it "goes beyond language" or any other such nonsense unless the conclusion itself is beyond language. For example: it is absolutely true that form is emptiness and emptiness is form. It is also absolutely true that form is not emptiness, nor emptiness, form. This is beyond language. Language fails when attempting to describe this, it defeats itself. You may have an inkling of what I mean by the form/emptiness bullshit, but most people will just think "wtf"? Even your understanding of it, however, is deluded by thought and discerning. When I write it down or conceive it I am also clouded by discursive thought. There is no way to grasp it with language, and to examine it is to ensure its obfuscation. This is non-attachment. The above paragraph is an example of "pointing at that which goes beyond words." Which is another way of saying that which doesn't exist. Or that which is all that exists. Or that which is not that. Or that which is just this. You'll notice it is almost nonsensical. I say "almost" because there is a way to reason it out and realize it is necessarily the case, then upon examining the process of reason realizing that the conclusion is entirely unreasonable. This is a wholly different animal that the froth of "discovering some other process to provide a solution through non-attached true-objectivity inevitably leading us to the great unknowable wondrous mysterious God of life". My point is, based on the way these "points outside of thought" have been described or discussed show conceptual masturbation about "emptiness", "enlightenment", "the great death", "satori", "clarity", "True-objectiveness", "Just this" or "what-the-fuck? haha, oh shit, that's IT?, awesome, haha, awesome, that sucks, rofl, life is brilliant! I'm going to get a sandwich" and no real immediate grasping of that flash of lighting from a clear blue sky. So basically, I don't have a point. Carry on.Oh, and good luck to anyone trying to wade through this post.

[vbnautilus 48]

Excellent post.

I'm way too sweet as hell to pigeon-hole and my reading comprehension is world class so there has to be some other explanation.The definition of ideology I was using, as I can see how a different context might be confusing, was "theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature". The OP is guilty, and you more-so in your analysis of the OP, of straying off into conclusions that are not founded by the premises. It is not enough to say that it "goes beyond language" or any other such nonsense unless the conclusion itself is beyond language. For example: it is absolutely true that form is emptiness and emptiness is form. It is also absolutely true that form is not emptiness, nor emptiness, form. This is beyond language. Language fails when attempting to describe this, it defeats itself. You may have an inkling of what I mean by the form/emptiness bullshit, but most people will just think "wtf"? Even your understanding of it, however, is deluded by thought and discerning. When I write it down or conceive it I am also clouded by discursive thought. There is no way to grasp it with language, and to examine it is to ensure its obfuscation.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make by defending the poetic tactic. There's really no successful way to point outside of language from inside of it. (maybe if you count pairs of opposing chinese pictograms to be language you can get close? )

This is non-attachment. The above paragraph is an example of "pointing at that which goes beyond words." Which is another way of saying that which doesn't exist. Or that which is all that exists. Or that which is not that. Or that which is just this. You'll notice it is almost nonsensical. I say "almost" because there is a way to reason it out and realize it is necessarily the case, then upon examining the process of reason realizing that the conclusion is entirely unreasonable. This is a wholly different animal that the froth of "discovering some other process to provide a solution through non-attached true-objectivity inevitably leading us to the great unknowable wondrous mysterious God of life".

I definitely understand your beef with the quoted part, but its hard for me to read that sentence outside the context of knowing the speaker and how he functions with his words. I am pretty sure you guys are pointing to the same thing with different fingers. Also, fuck you, you're getting soft. This is like the 3rd non-confrontational post I've read from you this week.

[Mills 0]

Adding a label to something does not create a real boundary, except in one's mind.

I'm curious, what do you define as a "real" boundry. Because it seems to me you can play this philisophical game with almost anything on the planet...And if you reduce back far enough, then nothing is real. At some point, we have to start with an assumption.

[vbnautilus 48]

I'm curious, what do you define as a "real" boundry.

Existing prior to description.

Because it seems to me you can play this philisophical game with almost anything on the planet...

Now we're getting somewhere. But why stop at the planet.

And if you reduce back far enough, then no "thing" is real.

subtle FYP

At some point, we have to start with an assumption.

... or else what?

[Mills 0]

Existing prior to description. Now we're getting somewhere. But why stop at the planet.subtle FYP... or else what?

Or else we will just keep playing our reductionist game forever and ever instead of progressing.you're right I shouldn't of stopped at the planet, we can do it with anything.

[crowTrobot 2]

Notice that you have changed the definition.

no, i was always talking about the visible disc in the sky - the layer (photosphere) at which the plasma over what is in relation to the diameter of the sun at that level an extremely narrow distance changes from transparent to completely opaque.

What temperature exactly qualifies some portion of the sun as photosphere? Is there no gradient of temperature? Below 4000 Kelvin is inside it but regions at 3999.99 are not part of it? When those photons do escape at what point do they become not-sun?Adding a label to something does not create a real boundary, except in one's mind.

when someone talks about boundaries in relation to the sun they typically aren't going to be deluding themselves or implying that there are any perfectly clean delineations between layers. it is used in the general sense. using the term doesn't imply misconception of reality.seems like you're just playing philosphical word games without consideration for what is or isn't useful.