Interesting. So your position is that these intuitions are perfectly natural and part of the physical and material function of our brains. There is indeed no supernatural force at work anywhere. Everything we can experience is merely part of the perfectly natural universe.
You are aware this is a materialist philosophy, are you not?
Well in-so-far as there being no supernatural force in the universe is a part of materialism, I'd agree. But I also think materialism states that all phenomenon can be reduced to material. Since this would simply amount to another model with which to explain the universe, I would argue that it would always fall somewhat short.
Please keep in mind that the limitations I'm stating wouldn't just be unique to being human. It would be a limitation implicit in any consciousness trying to understand the world around them, regardless of their intellect. Like Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, it doesn't matter how smart of a mathematician you are, you will never come up with a consistent set of axioms to prove or disprove all statements regarding arithmetic.
By saying intuition is more than another tool to arrive at verifiable scientific theories, one runs the risk of allowing equal time to quackery and mysticism.
I'd definitely say it would be more than other tools to arrive at the correct scientific theories. It is the root of all of these tools, and all that they work on.
It sort of explains why such ground-breaking inspiration only happens to people who already work hard in the area. I mean, Joe Sixpack doesn't suddenly come up with the Uncertainty Principle out of nowhere. If Joe Sixpack spent much of his time thinking about maths and physics and stuff, then he might. We'd probably call him a genius.
This I agree with. The way I'd say it would be, "Intuitions favor the ready mind." If you're not prepared to comprehend how an insight will help you, how can it occur to you in the first place?
Furthermore, few scientists worth the name will take the inspiration they've just had and *without inspection* catapult it into daylight. Rather they take these flashes and build on them with their rational tools at hand. I'm pretty sure that the apple didn't hit Newton on the head and he said "Of course! The Laws of Dynamics! How could I have missed them."
This I also agree with. Inspirations regarding science must be verified with the scientific method. I found a neat quote from Einstein regarding this...
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant.We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
As far as your underlying questions go, what I'd like to say is this. I doubt there is a precise set of steps to take to gain a specific intuition you require. You can prepare for them with study, but in the end they just happen; that's what makes them intuitions. Therefor, there will always be uncertainties as we try to understand the world around us. The word "supernatural" would be nonsense to a panetheist. All it nature, there is no beyond nature.
But I feel that, because the conscious mind is incapable of comprehending nature completely, it will always require a bit of "mysticism" (as in using imprecise descriptions, not making up ghosts and goblins) to make your way around it. It's not because there would be supernatural elements to nature, but because we would always be incapable of pinning it all down to one consistent, all-encompassing model.
You still haven't explained this magical "intuition" power.
Well think of it this way. In the world there are an infinite variety of facts. From these facts, scientists have to decide which are relevant and which are not. When choosing the right facts, they have to build a logical framework out of axioms to make sense out of them. I don't believe it is possible to do this without some intuitive sense about how to go about it. Of course, which intuitions work and which don't need to be verified via the scientific method before they can yield good results. Also, someone can take forever trying to find meaning out of the wrong facts or the wrong axioms. Without occassionally stepping back from the problem and letting it sink in as to what will work, a lot of time can be wasted.
Seeing as how the physical laws of the universe create us, give us life and define who we are, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think we have innate insights into what they may be. I don't know if I'd call it "spooky magic." Just something we'd be unable to precisely defined, that's all.
Again, have you ever taken a physics class? Even the most basic things challenge your preconceived notions, it's why you should not rely on them.
Unfortunately, I only took one physics course as an undergrad (which I did well in) and I'm regretting the fact. However, I do keep track on what's going on in physics with Scientific American and whatever books I can get a hold of. I read Einstein's book on relativity. I'm interested in particle physics and quantum mechanics. (My math skills just ain't what they should be, goddammit.)
But I've also taken a lot of mathematics and (of course) foundations of Comp. Sci. courses. I love how they all challenge my preconceive notions. But I'm also interested in how physicists and mathematicians can find exciting new lines of thought. People like Godel, Einstein and Ramanujan. All of them tell great tales of how intuition helped them make their discoveries. (Hell, Godel proved that mathematics would always need to depend on undefinable intuitions.) Are there any physics sources you have in mind that I should be checking out?
"Any idiot can learn any amount of mathematics. It only requires patience. To create some is another matter." -Alonzo Church
It's not about fatigue. Focusing too much on the wrong axioms is a problem even when you're well rested. It's about allowing yourself to think of a problem along different lines than you were before.
I've taken enough of your abuse for one night. You're a real fucking asshole, you know that? You're not as smart as you think you are. Not by damn sight.
Please. As for "too much rationality", you're an idiot. That's like being "too healthy"...
Haven't you ever worked on a particularly difficult problem for a prolonged period of time - thought and thought and thought about it and nothing? Then you take a break, go outside to relax and *boom* the solution hits you. When you focus on facts and reasoning all of the time, sometimes you prevent seeing what your intuition could be telling you. Nothing magic about it. Sometimes tuition is wrong, but so what? That's life.
I've never seen any statement of Einstein's about Buddhism, but I can't believe you would suggest that just because he had things to say about it doesn't mean it influenced his opinion on physics!
"If there is any religion that would cope with
modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism." -Einstein
I'm not claiming Buddhism influenced Einstein's physics work. More like his approach to physics helped him to appreciate Buddhism. Einstein also was fond of Pantheism (Spinoza's brand of Pantheism, to be specific). The beliefs you call me a fool for believing.
But Einstein was not the supergreat scientist he is made out to be. Einstein himself did make the mistake of relying on his intuition-- he rejected quantum mechanics based on his gut feelings, and it looks more and more like he was wrong. A true scientist does not reject something with supporting evidence based on "gut feeling".
Einstein didn't reject all of quantum mechanics. Hell, he helped create it. But, you're right, he did make mistakes trusting in his tuition. But that's just the price you play. For him it did much more good than bad. The only physicist I can think of greater than him would be Newton. One mathematician, Ramanujan (sp?), also did fantastic work by following his instincts. He also made mistakes. The key is to balance rationality with tuition. Too much reliance on tuition and you reject proofs to the contrary. Too much reliance on rationality and you can miss solutions staring you right in the face.
Yeah, anything that disagrees with the GREAT FORCE OF KNOWLEDGE that is Taoism is "pop philosophy".
One thing's got nothing to do with the other. There are many arguments against Taoism that I can respect. But you seem too willfully ignorant of what Taoism is about to make them.
You do know realize that science is a branch of philosophy, right?
You have yet to explain how materialism is contradictory when science itself is materialistic
Right. Science is materialistic. If materialsm is incapable of explaining all natural phenomenon without contradiction, does that mean that all science is bunk? I know I don't think so.
Snipped a bit of ranting
Metaphysics is just the question, "What is reality?" At least it was the last time I took that Metaphysics philosophy course. That and metaphysical claims are claims that cannot be verified or disproven with the senses. Not trying to look smart - they're very simple concepts.
Sorry kid, I don't mean to troll you or anything but your ideas are the ones that are lacking. Just because you want "more to life" doesn't mean that there -is- more to life. Empirical observation beat speculation any day.
You still refuse to try and understand my point of view, don't you? There are many many philosophers, scientists, and thinkers out there with opinions contrary to your own. Read them. You don't have to agree with them, but you can at least try to argue against what they say instead of what you want them to. And you might be able to respect them, too. I'm sorry that you cannot repect mine.
Certainly spoken like someone who never took a physics class. If there is no way to verify this so-called "intuition", what good is it?
Einstein had a lot of good things to say about Buddhism. It probabaly appealed quite well to his great instincts/intuition on physics. I'm sure he took physics classes. Created some too.
By what you and many others say, religion is knowing what "can't be known". That's great, so how does one come to a conclusion, religion-wise? Gut-feeling or by making it up. How nice. How reliable.
It's more like having an intuitive sense of the world around you without needing to rely on rational thought all of the time. Anyone who is great at fact-gathering and reason alone would make a passable scientist at best. The greats are able to combine these abilities with intuition and insight to arrive at the big theorems that nobody else could foresee. You shouldn't take gut-feelings so lightly, friend.
We have a surprising amount of agreement on morals between many different cultures. It's probably more than just "subjective interpretation and fellings", but that's another discussion.
You seem to think that any thoughts that cannot be verified in a lab are worthless. Not the most productive world-view.
You just want and need an excuse for having weird beliefs.
I've probably been an atheist longer than you have, and I was perfectly happy with that world-view. I just found another one that seems to work better.
Furthermore, most religions which have anything to say about the physical world (as opposed to the spiritual) often contradict modern human knowledge. For example, it is accepted by most scientists that the age of the earth is a number much larger than 10000 years. A literal interpretation of the Bible contradicts this figure (asserting the earth less than 10000 years old). How is that reconcilable with science? Or are you being select in those religious beliefs? Only some religions have valid beliefs then. How do you determine which ones?
In your example, the literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong. I believe that religious beliefs must stick with metaphysical claims, or informal perspectives on the world around us. Otherwise, they are treading on territory best-suited for science and are likely to be proven incorrect over time. However, many people feel that metaphysical claims are worthless and "informal perspectives" should be made formal or thrown out. But if my point about a complete materialistic explanation always falling short is true, then MP claims and informal statements will always have a place. Then religion becomes defined as a way for people to arrive to some kind of overhead view of our undefinable world. Taoist philosophy does this very well, in my opinion.
Are such religious beliefs as valid as information gathered through scientific inquiry? What if future scientific theories contradict some of these beliefs ? Which ones do we throw out if they're equally valid ? Or are these religious beliefs only ok until they contradict science and then they automatically get thrown out in favour of science ?
They're valid for the aims they are best-suited for. Science is king when it comes to making precise predictions about the world and getting the best materialistic simplification possible for now. Religion would be used to see everything together informally to deal with what can't be made precise. If religion is used to do science's job, it is likely to make mistakes which need to be thrown out when science discovers them.
Whew... I hope my responses answered your excellent/insightful questions.
I realize this is getting more and more offtopic, but I'm interested in how you can be perceived as an atheist while being a pantheist?
Well, for example, the Catholic church considers pantheism to be atheism in disguise. (Which I personally disagree with).
You say "I don't believe in silly deities or magical forces." and yet claim "I am a pantheist". Doesn't Pantheist mean effectively "Many Deities". Or do you use it in another context?
Actually, pantheism means, "All is god." So I consider the universe and everything in it, taken as a whole, to be god. There are many varieties of pantheism, some more supernatural than others. Hinduism, for example, is a highly supernatural form of Pantheism. Spinoza, on the other hand, had a very un-supernatural form of Pantheism. I read once that Einstein wanted to unite the pantheism of Spinoza with atheism. I don't know how that would be possible but, hey, I'm no Eintstein.;)
What are these contradictions in materialism to which you refer ? Are there physical phenomena which cannot be adequately examined and perhaps explained with scientific thought? That is not to say there are no holes in human knowledge, that there are theories which have been wrong, or inadequate... no, you assert that there are phenomena which will never be so explained. How do you know that ?
I don't know that for sure, it's just a belief. Part of it is a gut feeling (faith I guess) and various strands of evidence of science (such as Godel's Incompleteness Theorem). Informally, what I feel is that we must experience the world around us second-hand through our senses. To process it, we must make assumptions to create a logical framework to make sense of how all we see works together. Since the universe doesn't need to make assumptions (it just acts) I believe that no understanding we can form about the universe can explain it all adequately. No matter how much science we do, there will always be some inconsistencies between scientific theorems or phenomenon we cannot explain. If this point is disproven, my pantheistic belief system falls.
I never said science was pop philosophy. I love science. I'm saying your analysis of religion and beliefs are pop philosophy.
I agree, all empirical claims are within the reach of science. But scientific thought (as is probably all thought) is based on a metaphysical framework. As can seen by the advances science has given us, the framework upon which science is supported is fantastic FOR WHAT IT IS MEANT TO DO. I'd argue, however, that science isn't the right tool for all problems. Like a sense of well-being, compassion, or morals.
Unlike you, anything I believe can be shown to be based on flimsy evidence, or can be backed up by more or stronger evidence.
I never told you what I believed in. I don't believe in silly deities or magical forces. You just wanted to be an asshole and assume it about me because I dared to give you an opinion other than your own. I am a pantheist (some would say that I'm really an atheist). I don't believe in the supernatural. I also believe that no materialistic view of the world can explain all physical phenomenon without contradiction. This leaves room for what I'd consider "religious beliefs" that can exist without contradicting science. (Sorry. Not much time to get into more detail than that). I also freely admit when I don't know exactly how something works.
Now do you want an honest, thoughtful discussion or do you just want to continue being abusive?
Shouldn't you have solid evidence of your religion's claim, instead of requiring discoveries to come along to contradict it? Not every claim can be contradicted-- that's what falsifiability is all about.
Do you even know what Taoism is about? Are you claiming that every non-scientific statement is worthless? What makes you so sure a complete, consitent, materialistic explanation for all phenomenon is possible?
Look I know it's exciting when you start learning a little bit of pop philosophy and think you know everything. But you really should do some more thinking/reading/exploring before you proclaim yourself The Almight Know-It-All that you think you are.
He's kidding here, right? He's just joking? He's not actually saying "gosh, the best way to defend America in the 80's was to randomly shoot drug dealers?" I loved NARC. It was an amazing game. But how can he criticize GTA for violence and depravity? Even if you think drugs should be illegal, what you did to them in NARC wasn't exactly "due process."
Amen. How the creator of NARC and Smash TV (a personal favorite of mine) can bitch about the violence in other video games is beyond me. In Smash TV, you would kill untold thousands of opponents for game-show prizes like VCRs, vacations, and toasters. If that's not amoral then I don't know what is.
I haven't played GTA games a lot. But from what I can tell, it's your choice as the player how moral or immoral of a path you will take. And, like real life, immoral actions have consequences that prevent you from reaching your goal. In NARC, to win the game you assumed to know who were the bad guys right away and killed them all first before asking questions later. This isn't amoral, but a pretty fucked up moral code imho.
It's the best _adapted_ screenplay, yeah, I agree with that. It took an -amazing- amount of work to convert that from book to screen. No other project took even a tenth amount of work as LOTR did
Just because adapting a certain screenplay from a book takes a lot of busy work doesn't mean it deserves an Oscar for it. The way American Splendor was adapted showed far more creativity and skill than any of the LOTR movies ever did.
None of the adaptive screenplays for LOTR were that great. Fellowship was probably the best. ROTK was just barely decent and I can't even watch TTT without cringing in disgust. How is it that the same Rohirrim who were too chickenshit to even ride out against their enemies when they were under attack would suddenly get the courage to save Minas Tirith amongst much bigger odds? (For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, read TTT and take note on how the Rohirrim went about defending their land and how they ended up in Helm's Deep as opposed to the movie).
Well from the reviews I read, the people opposed to the degree of violence are saying that you lose the point of Christ's teachings (love for fellow man, compassion, etc. ) when you focus so completely on the gore and violence and not much else. Christ's suffering is just one piece of the puzzle.
Also, in my personal opinion, the manner in which the suffering is portrayed may be off. As awful as Jesus suffered, if we think back in ancient history on all the different travesties of torture and cruelty inflicted, I'm almost certain that others have suffered more physically than Jesus. To me, the worst suffering is psychological. If Jesus was God then he got to see how his ultimate insights and compassion that he shares with his most beloved creation (mankind) is thrown back at him with scorn and contempt. It's analogous to being tortured and killed by your own favorite child. If all the movie stresses is bloodshed, then the treatment of the suffering becomes shallow imho.
'Course I'm just commenting on what I've heard about it so far. I'll form my true opinion about the movie when I see it this weekend.
Drunk driving risks other lives, getting drunk by yourself only risks your own. So it makes sense that drunk driving would be against the law. The same reasoning can be applied to drugs other than alcohol. I didn't say that it should be legal to drive while under the influence of drugs, now did I?
- Columbian drug lords would stage a coup and take over the whole country to rule as a bloody dictatorship, killing thousands
Actually, if we didn't have the prohibition of drugs in the US to create the illegal drug market and the huge appetite for said drugs to allow it to thrive, Columbian drug lords wouldn't be an issue. For a great read on cocaine, as well as the violent market for it, check out a book called "Cocaine: An Unauthorized Biography" by Dominic Streatfield.
I've never had the chance to play against other people on Soul Calibur, but playing against the computer is embarassingly easy. I used to play the guy with the num-chucks from the first version, and I could get pretty far right from the start. All you have to do is know how to block.
On a whim, after not having played Soul Calibur for years, I wondered into an arcade and saw the sequel. So, what the hell, I pop in some coins, find the guy wielding the num-chucks and go to work. Even with some of the special moves changed, I was able to get to the last guy. Never beat him, but didn't fair too poorly against him either. Played the game again from the beginning 3 more times with the same result. *yawn*
Other people have mentioned it here, but if how the theories and everything were presented impressed you in "The DaVinci Code", then try "Foucault's Pendulum" by Umberto Eco on for size. It's the same kind of book, except much much better.
This is slightly OT, but gosh am I having problems with upgrading to the 2.6 kernel. The upgrade is from a 2.4.18 kernel running on a SuSE 8.0 installation.
I've upgraded all the software specified in Changes, but it's a real pain trying to figure out what features to include when doing a "make xconfig". I finally got PPP working after some screwing around, but getting the correct sound modules and making them work correctly has me stumped, as well as some other little things.
Is a major kernel upgrade usually such a chore, or am I just an idiot? (Or maybe I just have atypical hardware). There're friends I know who would like to run Linux, but if upgrading to the 2.6 tree is usually so difficult I think I'll suggest they wait until the major distributions come with the new kernel already set up.
What's really sad is the fact that movies have become predictable enough for someone to be able to do this well. If people made quality movies anymore this wouldn't happen.
Yea if only clinton would have taken Bin laden when the sudanese offered to hand him over.. You may not rember the bombing of Iraq but it did happen
Unfortunately I don't have the text in front of me, but there's a part of Al Franken's most recent book that brings out some facts about the Sudanese offer you should know. As I recall, the offer was made by one Mansoor Ijaz personally. First of all, Ijaz had business interests he wanted to push of his own (he had been trying to get the US to lift santctions agains Sudan for this purpose) so he wasn't a very reputable source. Secondly the Clinton Administration checked with the Sudanese government to see if getting Bin Laden was a possibility since it was against public policy to make such deals with individuals. That was the first the Sudanese government had heard of it.
Ijaz has gone on where many people of such *ahem* stellar reputations migrate towards. He now appears regularly on Fox News.
I mean, think about it: Why would a president let a known high-profile terrorist against the US get away if he had and iron-clad method of getting him?
Someone mentioned the idea on Slashdot before, but I couldn't help but think of something after seeing your My Honor Student Beat Up Your Kid.sig. Do they sell My Honor Student Shot Your Bully bumper stickers? That would be cool.
Q: How can you go out shooting jocks? A: Simple. You just lead them a little more than normal.
Slashdot Mirror
Well in-so-far as there being no supernatural force in the universe is a part of materialism, I'd agree. But I also think materialism states that all phenomenon can be reduced to material. Since this would simply amount to another model with which to explain the universe, I would argue that it would always fall somewhat short.
Please keep in mind that the limitations I'm stating wouldn't just be unique to being human. It would be a limitation implicit in any consciousness trying to understand the world around them, regardless of their intellect. Like Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, it doesn't matter how smart of a mathematician you are, you will never come up with a consistent set of axioms to prove or disprove all statements regarding arithmetic.
By saying intuition is more than another tool to arrive at verifiable scientific theories, one runs the risk of allowing equal time to quackery and mysticism.
I'd definitely say it would be more than other tools to arrive at the correct scientific theories. It is the root of all of these tools, and all that they work on.
This I agree with. The way I'd say it would be, "Intuitions favor the ready mind." If you're not prepared to comprehend how an insight will help you, how can it occur to you in the first place?
Furthermore, few scientists worth the name will take the inspiration they've just had and *without inspection* catapult it into daylight. Rather they take these flashes and build on them with their rational tools at hand. I'm pretty sure that the apple didn't hit Newton on the head and he said "Of course! The Laws of Dynamics! How could I have missed them."
This I also agree with. Inspirations regarding science must be verified with the scientific method. I found a neat quote from Einstein regarding this...
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant.We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
As far as your underlying questions go, what I'd like to say is this. I doubt there is a precise set of steps to take to gain a specific intuition you require. You can prepare for them with study, but in the end they just happen; that's what makes them intuitions. Therefor, there will always be uncertainties as we try to understand the world around us. The word "supernatural" would be nonsense to a panetheist. All it nature, there is no beyond nature.
But I feel that, because the conscious mind is incapable of comprehending nature completely, it will always require a bit of "mysticism" (as in using imprecise descriptions, not making up ghosts and goblins) to make your way around it. It's not because there would be supernatural elements to nature, but because we would always be incapable of pinning it all down to one consistent, all-encompassing model.
Well think of it this way. In the world there are an infinite variety of facts. From these facts, scientists have to decide which are relevant and which are not. When choosing the right facts, they have to build a logical framework out of axioms to make sense out of them. I don't believe it is possible to do this without some intuitive sense about how to go about it. Of course, which intuitions work and which don't need to be verified via the scientific method before they can yield good results. Also, someone can take forever trying to find meaning out of the wrong facts or the wrong axioms. Without occassionally stepping back from the problem and letting it sink in as to what will work, a lot of time can be wasted.
Seeing as how the physical laws of the universe create us, give us life and define who we are, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think we have innate insights into what they may be. I don't know if I'd call it "spooky magic." Just something we'd be unable to precisely defined, that's all.
Again, have you ever taken a physics class? Even the most basic things challenge your preconceived notions, it's why you should not rely on them.
Unfortunately, I only took one physics course as an undergrad (which I did well in) and I'm regretting the fact. However, I do keep track on what's going on in physics with Scientific American and whatever books I can get a hold of. I read Einstein's book on relativity. I'm interested in particle physics and quantum mechanics. (My math skills just ain't what they should be, goddammit.)
But I've also taken a lot of mathematics and (of course) foundations of Comp. Sci. courses. I love how they all challenge my preconceive notions. But I'm also interested in how physicists and mathematicians can find exciting new lines of thought. People like Godel, Einstein and Ramanujan. All of them tell great tales of how intuition helped them make their discoveries. (Hell, Godel proved that mathematics would always need to depend on undefinable intuitions.) Are there any physics sources you have in mind that I should be checking out?
"Any idiot can learn any amount of mathematics. It only requires patience. To create some is another matter." -Alonzo Church
I've taken enough of your abuse for one night. You're a real fucking asshole, you know that? You're not as smart as you think you are. Not by damn sight.
Haven't you ever worked on a particularly difficult problem for a prolonged period of time - thought and thought and thought about it and nothing? Then you take a break, go outside to relax and *boom* the solution hits you. When you focus on facts and reasoning all of the time, sometimes you prevent seeing what your intuition could be telling you. Nothing magic about it. Sometimes tuition is wrong, but so what? That's life.
"If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism." -Einstein
I'm not claiming Buddhism influenced Einstein's physics work. More like his approach to physics helped him to appreciate Buddhism. Einstein also was fond of Pantheism (Spinoza's brand of Pantheism, to be specific). The beliefs you call me a fool for believing.
But Einstein was not the supergreat scientist he is made out to be. Einstein himself did make the mistake of relying on his intuition-- he rejected quantum mechanics based on his gut feelings, and it looks more and more like he was wrong. A true scientist does not reject something with supporting evidence based on "gut feeling".
Einstein didn't reject all of quantum mechanics. Hell, he helped create it. But, you're right, he did make mistakes trusting in his tuition. But that's just the price you play. For him it did much more good than bad. The only physicist I can think of greater than him would be Newton. One mathematician, Ramanujan (sp?), also did fantastic work by following his instincts. He also made mistakes. The key is to balance rationality with tuition. Too much reliance on tuition and you reject proofs to the contrary. Too much reliance on rationality and you can miss solutions staring you right in the face.
Yeah, anything that disagrees with the GREAT FORCE OF KNOWLEDGE that is Taoism is "pop philosophy".
One thing's got nothing to do with the other. There are many arguments against Taoism that I can respect. But you seem too willfully ignorant of what Taoism is about to make them.
You do know realize that science is a branch of philosophy, right?
You have yet to explain how materialism is contradictory when science itself is materialistic
Right. Science is materialistic. If materialsm is incapable of explaining all natural phenomenon without contradiction, does that mean that all science is bunk? I know I don't think so.
Snipped a bit of ranting
Metaphysics is just the question, "What is reality?" At least it was the last time I took that Metaphysics philosophy course. That and metaphysical claims are claims that cannot be verified or disproven with the senses. Not trying to look smart - they're very simple concepts.
Sorry kid, I don't mean to troll you or anything but your ideas are the ones that are lacking. Just because you want "more to life" doesn't mean that there -is- more to life. Empirical observation beat speculation any day.
You still refuse to try and understand my point of view, don't you? There are many many philosophers, scientists, and thinkers out there with opinions contrary to your own. Read them. You don't have to agree with them, but you can at least try to argue against what they say instead of what you want them to. And you might be able to respect them, too. I'm sorry that you cannot repect mine.
Einstein had a lot of good things to say about Buddhism. It probabaly appealed quite well to his great instincts/intuition on physics. I'm sure he took physics classes. Created some too.
It's more like having an intuitive sense of the world around you without needing to rely on rational thought all of the time. Anyone who is great at fact-gathering and reason alone would make a passable scientist at best. The greats are able to combine these abilities with intuition and insight to arrive at the big theorems that nobody else could foresee. You shouldn't take gut-feelings so lightly, friend.
We have a surprising amount of agreement on morals between many different cultures. It's probably more than just "subjective interpretation and fellings", but that's another discussion.
You seem to think that any thoughts that cannot be verified in a lab are worthless. Not the most productive world-view.
You just want and need an excuse for having weird beliefs.
I've probably been an atheist longer than you have, and I was perfectly happy with that world-view. I just found another one that seems to work better.
In your example, the literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong. I believe that religious beliefs must stick with metaphysical claims, or informal perspectives on the world around us. Otherwise, they are treading on territory best-suited for science and are likely to be proven incorrect over time. However, many people feel that metaphysical claims are worthless and "informal perspectives" should be made formal or thrown out. But if my point about a complete materialistic explanation always falling short is true, then MP claims and informal statements will always have a place. Then religion becomes defined as a way for people to arrive to some kind of overhead view of our undefinable world. Taoist philosophy does this very well, in my opinion.
Are such religious beliefs as valid as information gathered through scientific inquiry? What if future scientific theories contradict some of these beliefs ? Which ones do we throw out if they're equally valid ? Or are these religious beliefs only ok until they contradict science and then they automatically get thrown out in favour of science ?
They're valid for the aims they are best-suited for. Science is king when it comes to making precise predictions about the world and getting the best materialistic simplification possible for now. Religion would be used to see everything together informally to deal with what can't be made precise. If religion is used to do science's job, it is likely to make mistakes which need to be thrown out when science discovers them.
Whew... I hope my responses answered your excellent/insightful questions.
Well, for example, the Catholic church considers pantheism to be atheism in disguise. (Which I personally disagree with).
You say "I don't believe in silly deities or magical forces." and yet claim "I am a pantheist". Doesn't Pantheist mean effectively "Many Deities". Or do you use it in another context?
Actually, pantheism means, "All is god." So I consider the universe and everything in it, taken as a whole, to be god. There are many varieties of pantheism, some more supernatural than others. Hinduism, for example, is a highly supernatural form of Pantheism. Spinoza, on the other hand, had a very un-supernatural form of Pantheism. I read once that Einstein wanted to unite the pantheism of Spinoza with atheism. I don't know how that would be possible but, hey, I'm no Eintstein. ;)
What are these contradictions in materialism to which you refer ? Are there physical phenomena which cannot be adequately examined and perhaps explained with scientific thought? That is not to say there are no holes in human knowledge, that there are theories which have been wrong, or inadequate... no, you assert that there are phenomena which will never be so explained. How do you know that ?
I don't know that for sure, it's just a belief. Part of it is a gut feeling (faith I guess) and various strands of evidence of science (such as Godel's Incompleteness Theorem). Informally, what I feel is that we must experience the world around us second-hand through our senses. To process it, we must make assumptions to create a logical framework to make sense of how all we see works together. Since the universe doesn't need to make assumptions (it just acts) I believe that no understanding we can form about the universe can explain it all adequately. No matter how much science we do, there will always be some inconsistencies between scientific theorems or phenomenon we cannot explain. If this point is disproven, my pantheistic belief system falls.
I never said science was pop philosophy. I love science. I'm saying your analysis of religion and beliefs are pop philosophy.
I agree, all empirical claims are within the reach of science. But scientific thought (as is probably all thought) is based on a metaphysical framework. As can seen by the advances science has given us, the framework upon which science is supported is fantastic FOR WHAT IT IS MEANT TO DO. I'd argue, however, that science isn't the right tool for all problems. Like a sense of well-being, compassion, or morals.
Unlike you, anything I believe can be shown to be based on flimsy evidence, or can be backed up by more or stronger evidence.
I never told you what I believed in. I don't believe in silly deities or magical forces. You just wanted to be an asshole and assume it about me because I dared to give you an opinion other than your own. I am a pantheist (some would say that I'm really an atheist). I don't believe in the supernatural. I also believe that no materialistic view of the world can explain all physical phenomenon without contradiction. This leaves room for what I'd consider "religious beliefs" that can exist without contradicting science. (Sorry. Not much time to get into more detail than that). I also freely admit when I don't know exactly how something works.
Now do you want an honest, thoughtful discussion or do you just want to continue being abusive?
Do you even know what Taoism is about? Are you claiming that every non-scientific statement is worthless? What makes you so sure a complete, consitent, materialistic explanation for all phenomenon is possible?
Look I know it's exciting when you start learning a little bit of pop philosophy and think you know everything. But you really should do some more thinking/reading/exploring before you proclaim yourself The Almight Know-It-All that you think you are.
Amen. How the creator of NARC and Smash TV (a personal favorite of mine) can bitch about the violence in other video games is beyond me. In Smash TV, you would kill untold thousands of opponents for game-show prizes like VCRs, vacations, and toasters. If that's not amoral then I don't know what is.
I haven't played GTA games a lot. But from what I can tell, it's your choice as the player how moral or immoral of a path you will take. And, like real life, immoral actions have consequences that prevent you from reaching your goal. In NARC, to win the game you assumed to know who were the bad guys right away and killed them all first before asking questions later. This isn't amoral, but a pretty fucked up moral code imho.
Just because adapting a certain screenplay from a book takes a lot of busy work doesn't mean it deserves an Oscar for it. The way American Splendor was adapted showed far more creativity and skill than any of the LOTR movies ever did.
None of the adaptive screenplays for LOTR were that great. Fellowship was probably the best. ROTK was just barely decent and I can't even watch TTT without cringing in disgust. How is it that the same Rohirrim who were too chickenshit to even ride out against their enemies when they were under attack would suddenly get the courage to save Minas Tirith amongst much bigger odds? (For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, read TTT and take note on how the Rohirrim went about defending their land and how they ended up in Helm's Deep as opposed to the movie).
Well from the reviews I read, the people opposed to the degree of violence are saying that you lose the point of Christ's teachings (love for fellow man, compassion, etc. ) when you focus so completely on the gore and violence and not much else. Christ's suffering is just one piece of the puzzle.
Also, in my personal opinion, the manner in which the suffering is portrayed may be off. As awful as Jesus suffered, if we think back in ancient history on all the different travesties of torture and cruelty inflicted, I'm almost certain that others have suffered more physically than Jesus. To me, the worst suffering is psychological. If Jesus was God then he got to see how his ultimate insights and compassion that he shares with his most beloved creation (mankind) is thrown back at him with scorn and contempt. It's analogous to being tortured and killed by your own favorite child. If all the movie stresses is bloodshed, then the treatment of the suffering becomes shallow imho.
'Course I'm just commenting on what I've heard about it so far. I'll form my true opinion about the movie when I see it this weekend.
Drunk driving risks other lives, getting drunk by yourself only risks your own. So it makes sense that drunk driving would be against the law. The same reasoning can be applied to drugs other than alcohol. I didn't say that it should be legal to drive while under the influence of drugs, now did I?
Are you trolling or just stupid?
Actually, if we didn't have the prohibition of drugs in the US to create the illegal drug market and the huge appetite for said drugs to allow it to thrive, Columbian drug lords wouldn't be an issue. For a great read on cocaine, as well as the violent market for it, check out a book called "Cocaine: An Unauthorized Biography" by Dominic Streatfield.
I agree with many of your other points, though.
I've never had the chance to play against other people on Soul Calibur, but playing against the computer is embarassingly easy. I used to play the guy with the num-chucks from the first version, and I could get pretty far right from the start. All you have to do is know how to block.
On a whim, after not having played Soul Calibur for years, I wondered into an arcade and saw the sequel. So, what the hell, I pop in some coins, find the guy wielding the num-chucks and go to work. Even with some of the special moves changed, I was able to get to the last guy. Never beat him, but didn't fair too poorly against him either. Played the game again from the beginning 3 more times with the same result. *yawn*
Other people have mentioned it here, but if how the theories and everything were presented impressed you in "The DaVinci Code", then try "Foucault's Pendulum" by Umberto Eco on for size. It's the same kind of book, except much much better.
Not necessarily.
Logic is a wonderful, powerful tool. But to do good mathematics demands not just mastery of logic but a knack for unexpected insights as well.
This is slightly OT, but gosh am I having problems with upgrading to the 2.6 kernel. The upgrade is from a 2.4.18 kernel running on a SuSE 8.0 installation.
I've upgraded all the software specified in Changes, but it's a real pain trying to figure out what features to include when doing a "make xconfig". I finally got PPP working after some screwing around, but getting the correct sound modules and making them work correctly has me stumped, as well as some other little things.
Is a major kernel upgrade usually such a chore, or am I just an idiot? (Or maybe I just have atypical hardware). There're friends I know who would like to run Linux, but if upgrading to the 2.6 tree is usually so difficult I think I'll suggest they wait until the major distributions come with the new kernel already set up.
What's really sad is the fact that movies have become predictable enough for someone to be able to do this well. If people made quality movies anymore this wouldn't happen.
Unfortunately I don't have the text in front of me, but there's a part of Al Franken's most recent book that brings out some facts about the Sudanese offer you should know. As I recall, the offer was made by one Mansoor Ijaz personally. First of all, Ijaz had business interests he wanted to push of his own (he had been trying to get the US to lift santctions agains Sudan for this purpose) so he wasn't a very reputable source. Secondly the Clinton Administration checked with the Sudanese government to see if getting Bin Laden was a possibility since it was against public policy to make such deals with individuals. That was the first the Sudanese government had heard of it.
Ijaz has gone on where many people of such *ahem* stellar reputations migrate towards. He now appears regularly on Fox News.
I mean, think about it: Why would a president let a known high-profile terrorist against the US get away if he had and iron-clad method of getting him?
Someone mentioned the idea on Slashdot before, but I couldn't help but think of something after seeing your My Honor Student Beat Up Your Kid .sig. Do they sell My Honor Student Shot Your Bully bumper stickers? That would be cool.
Q: How can you go out shooting jocks?
A: Simple. You just lead them a little more than normal.
Haw-haw fraggin' haw.