Also just to be clear, I don't think the god concept should be disregarded, just tucked away into the back of the mind and only invoked along the lines of "Well shit, maybe its just beyond human comprehension and there really is some ultimate maker that planned it that way." It's also a useful concept in that if you're about to do something "bad" (probably defined by your culture) and know you can't get caught you'll think "but what if there is a god and judgment and all that," which leads overall to more socially adaptive behavior which 9 times out of 10 is probably in your best long-term interest. Thats about the extent of the god concepts usefulness though.
The universe doesn't cleanly divide into your objects and subjects. It's not as misdirecting as the concept that God, in order to be perfect, must be entirely passive (a concept not limited to ancient Greek philosophy), but from my point of view, it looks like a false partition.
Well yea language isn't perfect but you seem to agreeing that the subjects/objects approach is a more accurate way to describe the situation that simply saying every living thing is god in some domain or the other. The problem I saw with that was its really easy to end up saying "there must be a god for everything" and if what-that-is isn't immediately obvious you have to look to the supernatural rather than taking a more agnostic approach of "I guess we just don't know why that happened/happens yet, or won't ever know."
Just want to give a few fellow geeks an opportunity to consider that you wouldn't really have to argue against God to reject false concepts about the collection of principles (entity, being, influence, whatever) by which the universe was made, and be which it is still governed.
Well, here I would have to say that the only way for humans to discover anything approach truth regarding the universe is to rely on what we see,feel,etc. IE the same strategy that works so well for us in everyday life. Even something like mathematics is an extension of this because its all consistent with concepts like if a=b then b=a that are obviously useful and reflections of reality. Allowing something nebulous like "God" (whatever that means to anyone its always going to be something less concrete than most of the concepts invoked in living day to day)into your schema opens a few doors that lead very easily to, as you say, "false concepts." So thats why I think it's a flawed philosophy in this day and age of using more practical approaches to figure shit out. I mean look around you to see evidence of that consistently accumulating knowledge. (If I'd have lived a thousand years ago I would probably think differently, but only because less had been explained via other means)
why use a loaded word like god, you could just as well divide the universe into subjects (who can manipulate objects and other subjects, along with being manipulated themselves) and objects (that can only be manipulated)
It isn't so much gaining or losing genetic information as a change in genetic information. Basically someone has a sperm/egg cell with mutated DNA (different from what they originally received from their parents)then have a child with the opposite sex via that cell and the offspring now has an altered genome due to that. Or during creation of that "sex cell" genetic information gets exchanged between the (reproducing) person's mother and father DNA to create a new combination of alleles (different versions of genes. Either way the new offspring has a novel set of genetic information that neither of its parents had. This is the most basic step of evolution.
Natural Selection refers to the fact that once this new child is born it may (or may not, depending on what kind of genetic change occurred) have some trait that neither parent had, and this may help it survive and reproduce better/more often than its peers or worse/less often. In this way more "adaptive" DNA alterations are passed on than nonadaptive. Also keep in mind that what is adaptive for one generation or location may not be for another (skin color is an example of this)
I think thats a better way to make the distinction.
Rock on... One thing I always thought about growing up (raised Catholic) was the one bible quote about "if you truly believed you could you could move a mountain" or something to that effect. I mean taking it sort of metaphorically I always came up with thought experiments like kidnapping someone as they slept and recreating their house on the moon or at the bottom of the sea with only the first room pressurized and when they opened the door they would truly believe they could breath but there would be no air and physical reality would take over regardless of belief. Now of course I see it's more of a metaphor for you can breath in space if you try hard enough (build a space suit)
If I personally witness Jesus his bad ol' self coming down right in front of me, walking on water, and then hanging out with me all day to explain why Born-Again Christianity is the TRUTH, I'd very much be forced to consider the possibility that such might be the case.
One day it may be possible to set an experience like that up for people (have you read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"?). I mean drugging someone as the sleep then having them wake up into some sort of hyper-realistic virtual reality could be a great way of convincing them of something like that. Then after the experience is over just put you back where you were and you wake up a few days later. That would be quite the scam compared to just playing on people's emotions.
Really think about how little that 3rd point comes into play during your everyday life. You don't find yourself walking into walls or treating a shower knob as if its attached to a door do you? Ultimately yes everything we perceive is subjective and subject to faulty processing but for the most part our experience of the "real world" seems to be surprisingly accurate. This is the basic evidence that people investigating the world around them (read:scientists,researchers,whatever) base their reasoning on. Of course its important to acknowledge our shortcomings as biological beings each subject to limitations, but then when many people agree on experiencing/observing the same thing it seems even more true (even that tendency is ingrained, look at fashion. Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, I mean individual experiences and comparing others to our own is all we have. We may as well use it.
Change the last point to read "perfectly represent physical reality" and maybe you'd be talking sense. Still I don't see the point in acting like you disregard your experience of reality as useless when if you've lived long enough to be able to type into slashdot it has obviously worked out pretty well for you.
Yea, eventually you get to the point at which the internet is no longer helpful, but usually it only comes to that if you're trying to find something really specific out.
I think theres a nugget of truth in what he's saying he just didn't think about what he was typing before he did it and came off as just seeming pissed off, if you know what I mean. I mean I'm in a University studying science and I really do believe its the only type of career that could end up being a reason for living. Everything else is either making money for yourself or someone else. A career in science/medicine has that aspect too but its also an opportunity to contribute to the collective human knowledge rather than just put your own ideas out there, (ie be a writer,etc) or even worse some kind of manager or stock trader. I just always assumed those people got enough fulfillment out of something else like love or being successful in something. And funnily enough I think the opposite of the parent poster in that science is what you need help via schooling for, anything else could be picked up as a hobby along the way then perfected later. My two cents I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
so is there a list somewhere of all "RIAA-protected" bands so I can know what its safe to download
Also just to be clear, I don't think the god concept should be disregarded, just tucked away into the back of the mind and only invoked along the lines of "Well shit, maybe its just beyond human comprehension and there really is some ultimate maker that planned it that way." It's also a useful concept in that if you're about to do something "bad" (probably defined by your culture) and know you can't get caught you'll think "but what if there is a god and judgment and all that," which leads overall to more socially adaptive behavior which 9 times out of 10 is probably in your best long-term interest. Thats about the extent of the god concepts usefulness though.
why use a loaded word like god, you could just as well divide the universe into subjects (who can manipulate objects and other subjects, along with being manipulated themselves) and objects (that can only be manipulated)
It isn't so much gaining or losing genetic information as a change in genetic information. Basically someone has a sperm/egg cell with mutated DNA (different from what they originally received from their parents)then have a child with the opposite sex via that cell and the offspring now has an altered genome due to that. Or during creation of that "sex cell" genetic information gets exchanged between the (reproducing) person's mother and father DNA to create a new combination of alleles (different versions of genes. Either way the new offspring has a novel set of genetic information that neither of its parents had. This is the most basic step of evolution.
Natural Selection refers to the fact that once this new child is born it may (or may not, depending on what kind of genetic change occurred) have some trait that neither parent had, and this may help it survive and reproduce better/more often than its peers or worse/less often. In this way more "adaptive" DNA alterations are passed on than nonadaptive. Also keep in mind that what is adaptive for one generation or location may not be for another (skin color is an example of this)
I think thats a better way to make the distinction.
Rock on... One thing I always thought about growing up (raised Catholic) was the one bible quote about "if you truly believed you could you could move a mountain" or something to that effect. I mean taking it sort of metaphorically I always came up with thought experiments like kidnapping someone as they slept and recreating their house on the moon or at the bottom of the sea with only the first room pressurized and when they opened the door they would truly believe they could breath but there would be no air and physical reality would take over regardless of belief. Now of course I see it's more of a metaphor for you can breath in space if you try hard enough (build a space suit)
Actually I'm interested.. which facts?
Really think about how little that 3rd point comes into play during your everyday life. You don't find yourself walking into walls or treating a shower knob as if its attached to a door do you? Ultimately yes everything we perceive is subjective and subject to faulty processing but for the most part our experience of the "real world" seems to be surprisingly accurate. This is the basic evidence that people investigating the world around them (read:scientists,researchers,whatever) base their reasoning on. Of course its important to acknowledge our shortcomings as biological beings each subject to limitations, but then when many people agree on experiencing/observing the same thing it seems even more true (even that tendency is ingrained, look at fashion. Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, I mean individual experiences and comparing others to our own is all we have. We may as well use it.
Change the last point to read "perfectly represent physical reality" and maybe you'd be talking sense. Still I don't see the point in acting like you disregard your experience of reality as useless when if you've lived long enough to be able to type into slashdot it has obviously worked out pretty well for you.
Yea, eventually you get to the point at which the internet is no longer helpful, but usually it only comes to that if you're trying to find something really specific out.
I'm sorry
I think theres a nugget of truth in what he's saying he just didn't think about what he was typing before he did it and came off as just seeming pissed off, if you know what I mean. I mean I'm in a University studying science and I really do believe its the only type of career that could end up being a reason for living. Everything else is either making money for yourself or someone else. A career in science/medicine has that aspect too but its also an opportunity to contribute to the collective human knowledge rather than just put your own ideas out there, (ie be a writer,etc) or even worse some kind of manager or stock trader. I just always assumed those people got enough fulfillment out of something else like love or being successful in something. And funnily enough I think the opposite of the parent poster in that science is what you need help via schooling for, anything else could be picked up as a hobby along the way then perfected later. My two cents I guess.