RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective

RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 3:13:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Finally, indulge me in a thought experiment, if you will... Envision the OT and the NT as two points in the "space" of paradigms. Subtract the former from the latter, so you have a vector. Make a line that retains the origin and the gradient along each axis. Then you've done basically what a certain someone was suggesting a couple of thousand years ago, with the limited precision of the languages available to him at the time. Perhaps you will reach the same conclusion as me and Nietzsche: that this line is the center of the volume of the evolution of humanist thought and indeed prevailing morals in the West. In my own religion- which I do hope will eventually snatch some followers from others (just as secular humanists do, and as you suggested doing with a different target)- I'm mostly applying a few minor deltas to the points used in the example (e.g. cutting Saul) and following the line as far as people can. Well said, Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 3:14:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord People can argue, "That's not what slave means!", but they're ignoring the fact that a word is a reference to a concept, but not necessarily the same concept every time. Ahem... empirics are not exclusively a vice of physicists. Of course, if you're expressing yourself, rather than communicating, that'd be a bit more like what religion does, and I've no problem with that. You do, however, if I read you correctly. Thus, I would encourage you to examine whether the position you are arguing in this post is in line with what you are forwarding elsewhere. I doubt you would argue that miscommunication isn't harmful, after all. quote: If we discover ghosts exist in a manner which partially interacts with our own reality, they'll be made of a material. Light (an energy) is a material (albiet currently modelled as "energy" more often than "matter"). If we discover we're all just AI's in a computer program, the computer itself and the universe surrounding it will be made of "material", albiet a different kind than we might be used to. Quite agree, though I would probably use the word "substance" (Princeton: "the stuff of which an object consists"). quote: I just don't get why people seem to think "material" is limited to the mundane materials we're used to. You're not the only one. Human minds rarely reach for the ideas when they can reach for the forms. Which I suspect wouldn't be such a major hassle for us, if human languages could better express the two seperately. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 3:17:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Language does not come equipped with the refinement available in mathematics. Working on it. Doubt anyone will adopt it, though. quote: Language can only deal with approximations. No. Given adequate expressiveness, language can be as precise as thought. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 3:21:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wkdshadow I cannot believe what I have no evidence to suggest. Then either you mean to say that you cannot believe what you don't believe, or you do not believe that you exist, or you have an incomplete understanding of philosophy and epistemology. Most likely, you believe a bunch of stuff that's been handed down to you from your parents and your society. A lot of that is probably also pretty vague. Which is not to say you should believe anything I say. [:D] Health, al-Aswad.

Rule -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 3:22:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I guess I just don't see mass as being intrinsic, so I've adapted "material" to meet my own uses. Thus you invalidate yourself from participating in pertinent discussions, as you might as well speak in a foreign language that the other people do not understand. Also you have failed to decribe the particles that you consider to be material.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 3:29:33 PM)
Kirata did not seem to be suggesting that you were making a conscious effort in that direction, CuriousLord. You will admit, though, I hope, that it's fairly typical of people who come from a background of dashed trust to have trouble trusting? Health, al-Aswad. P.S.: Just going by what you've said on the public side of the board, and suggesting that 1 minute 14 seconds may be inadequate to fully consider what K said.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 3:37:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord That's assuming it's accurate, though, and that it'll go away if it ceases being accurate. Regardless, outlawing the idea doesn't resolve the basic problem; cf. US post-9/11 "security" measures. quote: I'm afraid that's true by definition. At least, by mine; what might you mean by such words? Ah, but the definition is circular. At least, all definitions I've encountered so far. Care to provide non-circular evidence that you exist? (Only half-joking here.) quote: Quite possibly. It's been a comforting assumption for me, but ah wells. I hope I'm a good enough parent. =/ In my experience, anyone who worries about it will make a good enough parent. Now, if you didn't worry, I would... [:D] quote: There are reasons to pursue it, though perhaps not the common ones. Certainly. Just commenting that if you can manage to resolve the aging issue in your lifetime, you'll have enough money to withdraw to minimize other lifespan-lowering factors, then learn the requisite science to do what you originally intended to do and more. Plus, you would stand a pretty good chance of creating some rather radical shifts in our world. quote: I'll try to respond to more in a bit, but I'm afraid my time here's up, so I have to go onto the next place. I hate splitting up a single reply into two parts, but ah wells. :P No worries. I am virtually stateless. [:D] quote: Edit: I actually typo'd a quote tag as "[/quite]". I did that all the time. Then I switched back to Dvorak. Now I write [/qoute] instead. Grr... Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 3:39:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Well said, Aswad. Thank you. Health, al-Aswad.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 3:39:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed As I recall, Einstein postulated several dimensions to our universe, and we have only scratched the surface of this mudball called earth. Not sure what you mean when you use the word "dimension", but I use it to mean a parameter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

Kirata -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 3:39:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed The problem is when we insist our [uniquely subjective] standards must apply to others. That's what gives rise to conflict. The really interesting thing to me though, is how much we are all simply human; especially when it comes to our values. We tend to focus on the differences, because of course conflict makes news, but mothers love their children much the same way everywhere, men strive for much the same things everywhere. These values inhere in our nature. We are free to disregard them, or interpret them to suit ourselves or our group, but not without consequences. Disparate standards foster conflict, and human nature is discomforted by conflict. Not surprisingly, during our existence on this planet we have always moved from smaller groups to larger groups; from family groups to villages, to cities, to nations. This results in fewer conflicts, but any that do occur between increasingly large groups have the potential to be all the more devastating if allowed to get out of hand. The only way forward, the only alternative to isolation on the one hand and destruction on the other, has been to discover or define more generally acceptable standards. Since the standards that are likely to be found most generally acceptable in the long run are those which are most fundamentally in accord with our nature, I think there is hope that we may speak of subjective standards without implicitly suggesting endless conflict. K.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 4:00:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The only way forward, the only alternative to isolation on the one hand and destruction on the other, has been to discover or define more generally acceptable standards. Which leads us back to conformity, monoculture and the dinner problem. Bland grey, rather than the interplay of yin and yang. I fail to see a problem with some degree of isolationism, which seems more likely to fly than liberal individualism. Health, al-Aswad.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 4:08:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Language can only deal with approximations. No. Given adequate expressiveness, language can be as precise as thought. I don't know about you but my thought processes use language to communicate. And unless I use mathematical precision (such as providing the Angstrom wavelength) the word "blue" is going to be imprecise regardless of how many adjectives I attach.

Rule -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 4:15:46 PM)
Wikipedia quote: "Blue is a colour, the perception of which is evoked by light having a spectrum dominated by energy with a wavelength of roughly 440–490 nm".

Kirata -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 4:17:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Which leads us back to conformity, monoculture and the dinner problem. Bland grey, rather than the interplay of yin and yang. By what freaking leap over the three moons do you get to slinging "conformity" and "monoculture" and that gratuitous unflattering artistic metaphor at the idea of societies naturally evolving standards that are in fundamental accord with our nature? K.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 4:19:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Since the standards that are likely to be found most generally acceptable in the long run are those which are most fundamentally in accord with our nature, I think there is hope that we may speak of subjective standards without implicitly suggesting endless conflict. Unfortunately, K, culture thrives on diversity. We require conflict to motivate us. I would prefer the conflict be internalized (me today competing with me yesterday, always striving ot be better) but I accept not everyone is up to that challenge. Of course the goal in conflict is to win, and when society encourages its members to compete with one another, it is encouraging this kind of conflict where there are winners and losers. For there to be winners, there must be rules, and thus enters those subjective standards. I don't see us ever escaping the conflict, for there never will be enough people who can internalize it to change the nature of competition.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 4:32:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed I don't know about you but my thought processes use language to communicate. I use language to represent thoughts. Some of my thoughts don't have a representation in language. quote: And unless I use mathematical precision (such as providing the Angstrom wavelength) the word "blue" is going to be imprecise regardless of how many adjectives I attach. Quite so. It will, however, convey the general idea to anyone speaking a language that has progressed to a level that distinguishes blue from green. Health, al-Aswad.

Kirata -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 4:36:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Unfortunately, K, culture thrives on diversity. We require conflict to motivate us. Nevertheless, similar basic values can enlighten very diverse cultures. And knowing human beings, I have every confidence that there would still be quite enough conflict to keep everyone awake. Kirata the Optimist

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 4:47:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata By what freaking leap over the three moons do you get to slinging "conformity" and "monoculture" and that gratuitous unflattering artistic metaphor at the idea of a society naturally evolving standards which are in fundamental accord with our nature? Lovely wording again. Your views are, as usual, appreciated. That said, reality's natural inclination is toward maximum entropy; it just tends to snag on things along the way, leading to local maxima. At a microscopic level, this is resolved via tunneling. Not sure whether that occurs at a macroscopic level. Human interactions tend to go the same way (an intrinsic property of neural networks appears to be the tendency to "settle" for local minima and maxima; the term "good enough" is pretty much the gold standard macroscopic example). When such a balance is sought, there is a tendency to create such snags, and a tendency to eliminate that which does not conform (which, in turn, tends to lead to monoculture). In effect, what you are proposing, eliminates some of the conflict and tension that is arguably a part of how every other species in nature work. If what you are proposing is that whatever happens is natural, and therefore right, there's really not much to argue about. Not saying it has to be wrong, but it does not appeal to my aesthetics, which favor diversity. A world without diversity or conflict is a world that is perfect; i.e. finished. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 4:48:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Unfortunately, K, culture thrives on diversity. We require conflict to motivate us. More generally, a potential difference is necessary to extract work. Which is what I was getting at with the bland grey bits. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/22/2008 4:50:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata And knowing human beings, I have every confidence that there would still be quite enough conflict to keep everyone awake. Depends on how far the process goes, and in what direction. But, yeah, I'd like to share that optimism. Health, al-Aswad.

Page: << < prev 22 23 [24] 25 26 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875