Impossible for the HN crowd: Do nothing for 2 minutes • Hacker News Board

Re: Impossible for the HN crowd: Do nothing for 2 minutes

#191

Post by slowernet » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 4:04 PM UTC

kirse wrote: post #124

nostromo wrote: post #102

Did anyone else catch Sam Harris' response to Edge's 2011 question, "What scientific concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit?"? I found it quite interesting. http://www.edge.org/q2011/q11_12.html#harriss "I invite you to pay attention to anything — the sight of this text, the sensation of breathing, the feeling of your body resting against your chair — for a mere sixty seconds without getting distracted b…

I haven't logged in to comment for 37 days and this little essay is such utter garbage. The fact that it takes him just 7 paragraphs to completely dismiss all potential religious truth as "clearly false" should set off anyone's dogma-alert flag. Being focused in the present is awesome, but the fact that we have the ability to pay attention on things other than reality is not a problem, but in fact essential to the he…

Try reading it as opinionated writing, rather than a mathematical proof of something that is offensive to you personally.

IMHO one should be able write without the pretense of neutrality and be judged holistically rather than dismissed out of hand.

Re: Impossible for the HN crowd: Do nothing for 2 minutes

#192

Post by roel_v » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 4:17 PM UTC

loewenskind wrote: post #188

roel_v wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making several assumptions and leaps in your reasoning here, though. If one were to accept that aesthetics is objective (which you seems to be implying?) then it may just be that we haven't found the epistemological framework to quantify it. Now then, I don't see how this (meaning, your example of aesthetics) is similar to religion. Religion is just assumed to be relative by most people I think; at least the r…

No, what I'm saying is that the question "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Science cannot answer every question for us. Philosophy is a better fit for religious questions.

OK, but the second part of your sentence said that in that respect it is like aesthetics, which I don't agree with.

Re: Impossible for the HN crowd: Do nothing for 2 minutes

#193

Post by eftpotrm » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 4:41 PM UTC

uxp wrote: post #170

staktrace wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is making your bed on that list? Is there an advantage to doing that that I'm unaware of?

I had a basket ball coach as a kid who would always ask us if we left our beds unmade after a day of doing horribly, or not better than we should be. Nearly every time, without fail, when I was asked that question, the truth was that I had left it unmade. I also never liked the game, and still don't view the sport favorably, but every day since then I make sure to take the time to make my bed in the morning. The fact…

There's a false equivalency here though. Clearing away in my kitchen or keeping papers on my desk tidy both have clear benefits to them; by ensuring the items are in known locations they are quicker to find, by ensuring they aren't spread over other things they provide space to work and reduce the risk of accidental damage or loss.

None of this is true with my bedding. I won't lose my duvet because it's not sitting straight on my bed. I suppose I could conceivably damage nightwear in putting it on but that risk is unconnected with its storage location. Yet, because tidiness has practical benefits in other contexts, it has become a generalised virtue. Which is nonsense.

Re: Impossible for the HN crowd: Do nothing for 2 minutes

#194

Post by loup-vaillant » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 4:43 PM UTC

loewenskind wrote: post #188

roel_v wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making several assumptions and leaps in your reasoning here, though. If one were to accept that aesthetics is objective (which you seems to be implying?) then it may just be that we haven't found the epistemological framework to quantify it. Now then, I don't see how this (meaning, your example of aesthetics) is similar to religion. Religion is just assumed to be relative by most people I think; at least the r…

No, what I'm saying is that the question "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Science cannot answer every question for us. Philosophy is a better fit for religious questions.

First, it depends on what god you speak of. If you speak of the typical monotheist God (Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omni-benevolent, Has created our universe, Sentient, Listens to prayers, and sometimes Answers), then the question "Is there a God" is both falsifiable and false. (By "false", I mean of negligible probability given current evidence.)

Religious claims are typically falsifiable, and repeatedly disproved (creationism is a good example). Every time that happens, religions eventually back off, keeping only their claims that are not yet disproved.

Second, while some topics (like choosing a morality) are definitely outside the scope of science, the accurate description of our world is definitely inside. If something we could reasonably call "God" exist in our world, it's got to have consequences. I expect science to find out, or at least try. "Science can't have an answer for everything" suspiciously sounds like it shouldn't even try.

Re: Impossible for the HN crowd: Do nothing for 2 minutes

#195

Post by loewenskind » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 4:53 PM UTC

roel_v wrote: post #192

loewenskind wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what I'm saying is that the question "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Science cannot answer every question for us. Philosophy is a better fit for religious questions.

OK, but the second part of your sentence said that in that respect it is like aesthetics, which I don't agree with.

Guilty as charged. I was trying to throw in a sound byte to illustrate how some things can't be illuminated by science (e.g. "I have good taste", "No, you have bad taste, I have good taste", "Well that's obviously in poor taste", "Taste doesn't exist, it's something that has evolved from...", etc.) but I wasn't really happy with it either.

Re: Impossible for the HN crowd: Do nothing for 2 minutes

#196

Post by loewenskind » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 4:56 PM UTC

loup-vaillant wrote: post #194

loewenskind wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what I'm saying is that the question "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Science cannot answer every question for us. Philosophy is a better fit for religious questions.

First, it depends on what god you speak of. If you speak of the typical monotheist God (Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omni-benevolent, Has created our universe, Sentient, Listens to prayers, and sometimes Answers), then the question "Is there a God" is both falsifiable and false. (By "false", I mean of negligible probability given current evidence.) Religious claims are typically falsifiable, and repeatedly disproved (cre…

I think this is exactly the kind of nonsensical flame war type post everyone wanted to avoid. Since you seem intent to go down that route I'll just leave you to it.

EDIT In response to your edit:

>"Science can't have an answer for everything" suspiciously sounds like it shouldn't even try.

This is your projection, not mine.

Re: Impossible for the HN crowd: Do nothing for 2 minutes

#197

Post by roel_v » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 5:05 PM UTC

loup-vaillant wrote: post #194

loewenskind wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what I'm saying is that the question "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Science cannot answer every question for us. Philosophy is a better fit for religious questions.

First, it depends on what god you speak of. If you speak of the typical monotheist God (Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omni-benevolent, Has created our universe, Sentient, Listens to prayers, and sometimes Answers), then the question "Is there a God" is both falsifiable and false. (By "false", I mean of negligible probability given current evidence.) Religious claims are typically falsifiable, and repeatedly disproved (cre…

Here again I disagree (with, I admit, a minute part of your point and one that was probably thrown in as an afterthought), in the same way I disagreed with loewenskind when he made an analogy with aesthetics. Morality and religion are dissimilar - maybe we will one day fully understand morality, but religion is (by religious people) in my understanding defined in terms that make it explicitly exempt from reasoning. Morality, we 'just don't understand' (maybe, depends on your position on the nature of morality, really); whereas religion is by its very nature we are said to be incapable of understanding.

I agree with your real point, though; what I'm saying is that religion in a class of its own, because the religious make it (or should I say 'make it up') to be that way.

(Related to this point, I do think that one day religion will be explained: when we fully understand the brain, how thoughts develop etc.; at that point, religion will be shown to be just a figment of our (rather, 'their') imagination. Maybe it served an evolutionary role once, who knows. Of course it won't give us insight in the nature of 'god', it will merely show that 'god' is a fabrication of our unconsciousness).

Re: Impossible for the HN crowd: Do nothing for 2 minutes

#198

Post by ohyes » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 5:51 PM UTC

kirse wrote: post #124

nostromo wrote: post #102

Did anyone else catch Sam Harris' response to Edge's 2011 question, "What scientific concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit?"? I found it quite interesting. http://www.edge.org/q2011/q11_12.html#harriss "I invite you to pay attention to anything — the sight of this text, the sensation of breathing, the feeling of your body resting against your chair — for a mere sixty seconds without getting distracted b…

I haven't logged in to comment for 37 days and this little essay is such utter garbage. The fact that it takes him just 7 paragraphs to completely dismiss all potential religious truth as "clearly false" should set off anyone's dogma-alert flag. Being focused in the present is awesome, but the fact that we have the ability to pay attention on things other than reality is not a problem, but in fact essential to the he…

I believe you misread the essay.

His major point is this: "There is no discrete self".

He isn't making an argument to discredit any potential religious 'truth' (in fact, he is using the existence of certain religious 'truths' as evidence for his argument). His comment about 'clearly false' religion was not his main point (although for some of us, extreme lack of evidence and verifiability is enough).

The annihilation of the self is an idea/concept/experience that occurs in many religious traditions, and also when exposed to certain drugs (hallucinogenics, I think). It is also a common theme in literature dating back to antiquity. The Bacchus is an example. Enlightenment in Buddhism is about annihilation of the self. Not that I am an expert on either.

By annihilation of the self, I mean the elimination of the concept of the self, not suicide. The thought being that the concept of the self is actually an absurdity. "Can a man step in the same river twice." This is what he is referring to when he talks about the flow of thoughts.

The concept of self leads to a lot of problems, selfishness, fear of death, things like that.

Re: Impossible for the HN crowd: Do nothing for 2 minutes

#199

Post by lukeschlather » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 6:03 PM UTC

nickpinkston wrote: post #189

mfukar wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you arguing, or are you angry-agreeing with me? The end result is the same: the OP's claim is bogus until proven otherwise.

No anger at all - I'm merely stating what I'm sure you follow every day: If we're going to be pragmatic about exploring the truth (i.e. not wasting our limited time) we should explore claims with more proof than "I believe this to be true". When someone says, "clearly false", it should be (and in this case is) referencing the absence of any proof at all for the extraordinary claims. In this case, people who defend re…

> Do you think we should seriously explore them as well?

Why not? I find it quite astonishing how often starting with verifiably false assumptions leads to worthwhile results. Your tower of reason is a decent construction. I find it a nice place to visit, but sometimes I prefer the woods. A mind too well-ordered misses the faults in its own assumptions.

Re: Impossible for the HN crowd: Do nothing for 2 minutes

#200

Post by rsanheim » Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 6:21 PM UTC

BrandonM wrote: post #155

nostromo wrote: post #102

Did anyone else catch Sam Harris' response to Edge's 2011 question, "What scientific concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit?"? I found it quite interesting. http://www.edge.org/q2011/q11_12.html#harriss "I invite you to pay attention to anything — the sight of this text, the sensation of breathing, the feeling of your body resting against your chair — for a mere sixty seconds without getting distracted b…

> I invite you to pay attention to anything -- the sight of this text, the sensation of breathing, the feeling of your body resting against your chair -- for a mere sixty seconds without getting distracted by discursive thought. That's actually quite simple. Mushrooms, LSD, or any number of other psychedelics should do the job. For the more industrious, meditation will do it too.

Meditation may be 'simple', but its also incredibly hard.