I'm in the Church, doing some contemplating, spiritually feeling much better really. fucking reception went on my phone though, good job the contemplation chilled me out though.
so exactly how many plaque lengths to the left or right do I have to move to get my reception back.... oh and can you remind me what left and right are again?
Ok, just so as to avoid circular arguments, you actually had some stuff on your journal.
", there are some things we just can't know."
I like the way you call them things. objectifying them.
QM says these are the limits of our given approach. I don't think it says that their can't be something more stable underlying it all that can then be reflected back, so it doesn't in any way limit or describe reality nor our limits except dogmatically.
It's really a kind of deductive reasoning based on a number of hypothesis, but without any absolute truth it's meaning cannot be asserted.
as you said, one true god. the 'trinity', triangulation.
Scientists didn't invent chainsaws, a Doctor did..
How did he invent the chainsaw without science? Did God (by your earlier assumption of God as an object) just place it in his had one day?
your objectifying.
You are just as brainwashed as the rest of us, though apparently (you presume) also quite misinformed and opinionated. Not a good combination.
I also like bacon, it's tasty. (is that illogical?)
If logic were not valid, you wouldn't be using a working computer right now.
Which type of logic?
deductive (which can be sound or unsound, never valid or invalid) I'm using a keyboard, the keyboard is using a computer... unless you mean by computer my brain?
if you read about martin Luther and the protestant reform the basis is essentially that in catholisism your good deeds lead to good faith (thoughts) where as the protestant reform inverted that, your faith (good thoughts) are what matters and that will lead to good deeds.
so to put that in more 'scientific' terms, your citations and publications will make you a good scientist vs your belief in science will make you a good scientist.
So then basically protestant reform (very bible based) went on to question the faith and it's meaning. but if that must have happened before the reform or the reform wouldn't have happened.
many well known scientists (Newton) where staunchly religious, believing that, generally, they where studying God.
that attempts to explain that which is not understood.
is the set of belief exists something which is not understood.
Scientists call beliefs "hypothesis", and test them until they are either disproven, or until they have done their best to disprove the hypothesis but to no avail.
margin of error? (how much do you not understand?)
given the dogma of mathematics.
as they say 1+1 = 2, except for very large values of 1.
yes the lamb that is made out of god (is it made of anything else?)
as they claim only one TRUE god, yes the only truth is that you know nothing. (Socratic, Buddhist etc.....)
everything else is spoken with a forked tongue.
I like to climb trees. but are you doing it scientifically... ha, can't be bothered with dogma, I just like to climb them. now who the fuck invented the chain saw, fucking scientists.
looking at Wikipedia it would appear that new thing in this article is that it may be possible to show that Tautology problems (or possibly just one of them) can only be checked in NP-complete not P that is the solution only reduces the harness of the problem to NP-complete but not to P.
I'm 'arguing' since you seem to have separated those who believe in 'science' from those who believe in religion, for some religion is a science and science a religion.... you've probably just been told not to mix the two, they are inseparable.
Possibly what you should say is that people of certain phenotype believe things in a posthumous manner or an authoritarian presumptions patronizing manner and will lie to achieve that level of self-righteousness, other's are less selfish.
There's a story on/. about the Vatican saying hackers show that christian morality and virtue is endemic, some people are naturally virtuous. I'd say that's pretty adaptive.
in any set of scientists there will be some 'radicals' of the 'old school' and also radical reformists and people who just milk it. (lies dam lies and statistics as they say)
Certainly I've seen some very harsh words against anything that doesn't fit the status quo before, just look at the drug industry etc.... or indeed the banking industry.
The same is true for religions too.
Now just because your ignoring that and trying to work your way around it, doesn't make you any different.
(Though that is in part on of the fundamental teachings of some religions, which have been around a good long time so quite matured)
On a 'psychology' perspective it's related to conditioned responses and also psychological makeup. (attachment or in-site or 'free will').
here are a couple of things for you to take a gander at:
(This is the for the relation between the more somatic (external) and internal 'self' and nervous systems. and indeed the truth (or lack their of) in Buddhist teaching) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12661646
any kind of rejection, for instance the rejection of your ideas by yourself or someone else or science. again the different nervious systems and regions in play.
More metaphor, symbolism and hidden messages than you could throw a stick at, it's a work of revolutionary art... as with all religions like that, the idea is to be colloquial so that it has different meanings and interpretations to different people and so it's kind of 'collects' more people with different views.
Now look up the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism some info on people like Socrates, the various modern teachings and belief systems under the umbrella of Christianity (you'll find a hell of a lot of Christian references in a lot of music for instance, Atheist Christian beliefs) vs the 'out with the old' beliefs in the old testament.
Hell go take a look at David Icke's metaphor mixed with 'truth' (reptile sounds a lot like a snake in the grass to me)
It's open to interpretation and re-interpretation by it's very nature and that has certainly been happening for centuries and very often revolutionary, seriously revolutionary.
just look at things like Women in the church of England (or indeed Gay marriage).. Now some people may not take too well to those changes in philosophy (just like scientists don't always or people don't always take to science)..
Grade school certainly doesn't teach the latest and greatest using the latest and greatest techniques and there are various opinions in science with different people and groups taking their own views and ideas of what is and is not acceptable.
just because the man didn't push the atheist view of Christianity or Buddhism (Hinduism with a different nature of Maya) in grade school, just like they don't teach (well didn't teach me) something like set-theory but instead to remember times tables by wrote (I didn't)... my sister was told 'not to use her fingers' after I showed her how she could use them like an abacus and she was way ahead of the 'teacher' just the teacher didn't ask 38 x 189 she asked 4x5.
There's always latency.
So, do you change your views on religion and science or try to work around it and ignore the bits you don't agree with.
As for science a 1 in a trillion chance of being wrong is still one in a trillion and it could still be wrong...
Do you know anything about eastern philosophy and things like Buddhism? (also western philosophy is pretty similar, just with a tad more propaganda propping up the 'presented' view)...
The difference is that scientific models are intended to be replaced as soon as something better (more accurate) comes along.
Well that happens in religion too.... (christianty, protestant reform for instance, Hinduism, Buddhism etc... politics and government models [their a way of life with rituals])
Now there may be a degree of error [possibly a more useful theory in some regards].
But the point is that it's never going to be perfect...
Science is a way of life, a belief, that's passed on with rituals... There's a lot of ivory tower, a lot of dismissing things because they don't fit the status quo etc....
Science may be more 'adaptive' that 'some' religions, but I believe your post has just ignored that and tried to route around it.
"Any time one of the basic beliefs of a religion is proven false, they either route around it or ignore it.",
Yes it is all theory, but if we tweak it like this and just ignore the bits that don't add up and pretend it all adds up I'm sure we'll find salvation one day... keep the faith in science man, don't tell them all it's all theory. possibly a more useful theory in some regards, but I like trees.
I know very many caring creative thinking schizophrenics, don't fit in too well with government requirements though.
They all seem to learn things in a way that's different from the way that I do. Like they trust the origin, as opposed to the more 'authoritarian' types and the train spotter / geek types (absorbed in other things).
I'd say that a system could be setup to cherish and keep happy, the psychos, the schizophrenics, the autistic and the NTs.... but one lot seem to like to have it all their way.... I wonder which lot that would be?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in the Church, doing some contemplating, spiritually feeling much better really. fucking reception went on my phone though, good job the contemplation chilled me out though.
so exactly how many plaque lengths to the left or right do I have to move to get my reception back.... oh and can you remind me what left and right are again?
Ok, just so as to avoid circular arguments, you actually had some stuff on your journal.
", there are some things we just can't know."
I like the way you call them things. objectifying them.
QM says these are the limits of our given approach. I don't think it says that their can't be something more stable underlying it all that can then be reflected back, so it doesn't in any way limit or describe reality nor our limits except dogmatically.
It's really a kind of deductive reasoning based on a number of hypothesis, but without any absolute truth it's meaning cannot be asserted.
as you said, one true god. the 'trinity', triangulation.
for a single value of x
x=5
f(x) -> x*2
is a kind of triangulation for instance.
f(x) -> x
isn't less relative to the first.
and that example is also a kind of triangulation.
religion 101.
I love to climb trees...
So your saying that your nice to your friends and family so that you can climb trees?
or should I assert:
love = love of ones self. I love, self love, like iPhone.
ergo objectification. (such that object = noun, noun tends to self).
that would be one phenotype.
similarly:
"though apparently also quite misinformed and opinionated. ", putting yourself above me, authoritarian.
though there is a delta in the objectification vs authoritarian.
Scientists didn't invent chainsaws, a Doctor did..
How did he invent the chainsaw without science? Did God (by your earlier assumption of God as an object) just place it in his had one day?
your objectifying.
You are just as brainwashed as the rest of us, though apparently (you presume) also quite misinformed and opinionated. Not a good combination.
I also like bacon, it's tasty. (is that illogical?)
If logic were not valid, you wouldn't be using a working computer right now.
Which type of logic?
deductive (which can be sound or unsound, never valid or invalid)
I'm using a keyboard, the keyboard is using a computer... unless you mean by computer my brain?
or inductive
who am I?
are you ready for this, get a mirror handy to see if you pull the same expressions as Rand.
I give you the horror of 'Ayn Rand'
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/18/truth-about-ayn-rand/
I want to chop your head off Ayn and suck out your brains and spit them on the floor, how'd ya like that then. more suckers born every day.
your objectifying.
Ok, if you listen to this (just saul williams, but I presume a bit easier than me gabbling on)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcEgpAjB5iM
if you read about martin Luther and the protestant reform the basis is essentially that in catholisism your good deeds lead to good faith (thoughts) where as the protestant reform inverted that, your faith (good thoughts) are what matters and that will lead to good deeds.
so to put that in more 'scientific' terms, your citations and publications will make you a good scientist vs your belief in science will make you a good scientist.
So then basically protestant reform (very bible based) went on to question the faith and it's meaning. but if that must have happened before the reform or the reform wouldn't have happened.
many well known scientists (Newton) where staunchly religious, believing that, generally, they where studying God.
that attempts to explain that which is not understood.
is the set of belief exists something which is not understood.
Scientists call beliefs "hypothesis", and test them until they are either disproven, or until they have done their best to disprove the hypothesis but to no avail.
margin of error? (how much do you not understand?)
given the dogma of mathematics.
as they say 1+1 = 2, except for very large values of 1.
what is the end of your means?
yes the lamb that is made out of god (is it made of anything else?)
as they claim only one TRUE god, yes the only truth is that you know nothing. (Socratic, Buddhist etc.....)
everything else is spoken with a forked tongue.
I like to climb trees. but are you doing it scientifically... ha, can't be bothered with dogma, I just like to climb them. now who the fuck invented the chain saw, fucking scientists.
the reason (taking the dictionary definition) is that Tautology is saying the same thing in two different ways.... a bit like: this is not an example.
but more like 'I went over the bridge not under the bridge'
looking at Wikipedia it would appear that new thing in this article is that it may be possible to show that Tautology problems (or possibly just one of them) can only be checked in NP-complete not P that is the solution only reduces the harness of the problem to NP-complete but not to P.
I think this may possibly be the only time you can say:
a bunch of niggers.
and not be trolling, my nigger.
some quality psy-cops and counter propaganda if ever there was.
Sony did not forgive, it will not forget.
on any real god.
Well the bible clearly says that man is akin to god and created of god, it also says that the lamb is god too etc...
As does Buddhism metaphorically.
Where as Hinduism draw a separation between the self and the deity, the universe or other people.
You have a belief in 'God' it would appear.
Define: " the actual believers of a religion "
belief: something which is not understood.
define "religion"
a way of life with rituals and dogma.
define "science"
a way of life with rituals and dogma.
yes, those who do not understand what religion or science are do not understand they do not understand.
I'm 'arguing' since you seem to have separated those who believe in 'science' from those who believe in religion, for some religion is a science and science a religion.... you've probably just been told not to mix the two, they are inseparable.
Possibly what you should say is that people of certain phenotype believe things in a posthumous manner or an authoritarian presumptions patronizing manner and will lie to achieve that level of self-righteousness, other's are less selfish.
There's a story on /. about the Vatican saying hackers show that christian morality and virtue is endemic, some people are naturally virtuous. I'd say that's pretty adaptive.
scientists are just the same.
in any set of scientists there will be some 'radicals' of the 'old school' and also radical reformists and people who just milk it.
(lies dam lies and statistics as they say)
Certainly I've seen some very harsh words against anything that doesn't fit the status quo before, just look at the drug industry etc.... or indeed the banking industry.
The same is true for religions too.
Now just because your ignoring that and trying to work your way around it, doesn't make you any different.
(Though that is in part on of the fundamental teachings of some religions, which have been around a good long time so quite matured)
On a 'psychology' perspective it's related to conditioned responses and also psychological makeup. (attachment or in-site or 'free will').
it's endemic.
here are a couple of things for you to take a gander at:
(This is the for the relation between the more somatic (external) and internal 'self' and nervous systems. and indeed the truth (or lack their of) in Buddhist teaching)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12661646
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-28/broken-heart-burns-like-hot-coffee-study-of-ex-lovers-shows.html (check out the actual science not the 'news' write up crap about 'ex-lovers')
any kind of rejection, for instance the rejection of your ideas by yourself or someone else or science. again the different nervious systems and regions in play.
whereas science has no such ties to the past ...
Troll all you like, do you know anything about set-theory or triangulation? no ties to the past what so ever.
have you read the bible?
More metaphor, symbolism and hidden messages than you could throw a stick at, it's a work of revolutionary art... as with all religions like that, the idea is to be colloquial so that it has different meanings and interpretations to different people and so it's kind of 'collects' more people with different views.
Now look up the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism some info on people like Socrates, the various modern teachings and belief systems under the umbrella of Christianity (you'll find a hell of a lot of Christian references in a lot of music for instance, Atheist Christian beliefs) vs the 'out with the old' beliefs in the old testament.
Hell go take a look at David Icke's metaphor mixed with 'truth' (reptile sounds a lot like a snake in the grass to me)
It's open to interpretation and re-interpretation by it's very nature and that has certainly been happening for centuries and very often revolutionary, seriously revolutionary.
just look at things like Women in the church of England (or indeed Gay marriage)..
Now some people may not take too well to those changes in philosophy (just like scientists don't always or people don't always take to science)..
Grade school certainly doesn't teach the latest and greatest using the latest and greatest techniques and there are various opinions in science with different people and groups taking their own views and ideas of what is and is not acceptable.
just because the man didn't push the atheist view of Christianity or Buddhism (Hinduism with a different nature of Maya) in grade school, just like they don't teach (well didn't teach me) something like set-theory but instead to remember times tables by wrote (I didn't)... my sister was told 'not to use her fingers' after I showed her how she could use them like an abacus and she was way ahead of the 'teacher' just the teacher didn't ask 38 x 189 she asked 4x5.
There's always latency.
So, do you change your views on religion and science or try to work around it and ignore the bits you don't agree with.
As for science a 1 in a trillion chance of being wrong is still one in a trillion and it could still be wrong...
it's a postulation.
Do you know anything about eastern philosophy and things like Buddhism? (also western philosophy is pretty similar, just with a tad more propaganda propping up the 'presented' view)...
sound != true or false.
inductive vs deductive reasoning.
The difference is that scientific models are intended to be replaced as soon as something better (more accurate) comes along.
Well that happens in religion too.... (christianty, protestant reform for instance, Hinduism, Buddhism etc... politics and government models [their a way of life with rituals])
Now there may be a degree of error [possibly a more useful theory in some regards].
But the point is that it's never going to be perfect...
Science is a way of life, a belief, that's passed on with rituals... There's a lot of ivory tower, a lot of dismissing things because they don't fit the status quo etc....
Science may be more 'adaptive' that 'some' religions, but I believe your post has just ignored that and tried to route around it.
I see you've taken physics 101.
"Any time one of the basic beliefs of a religion is proven false, they either route around it or ignore it.",
Yes it is all theory, but if we tweak it like this and just ignore the bits that don't add up and pretend it all adds up I'm sure we'll find salvation one day... keep the faith in science man, don't tell them all it's all theory. possibly a more useful theory in some regards, but I like trees.
unfortunately those very same morons get to say who the morons are.
Maybe it's just a natural part of evolution that a species splits by one part of it being repulsed by the other.
Does Gold posses any merits?
I know very many caring creative thinking schizophrenics, don't fit in too well with government requirements though.
They all seem to learn things in a way that's different from the way that I do. Like they trust the origin, as opposed to the more 'authoritarian' types and the train spotter / geek types (absorbed in other things).
I'd say that a system could be setup to cherish and keep happy, the psychos, the schizophrenics, the autistic and the NTs.... but one lot seem to like to have it all their way.... I wonder which lot that would be?
NSA tells you to upgrade your Windows or Mac OS, a friend comes round and upgrades your linux.