The constitution wasn't written in accepted legal language, it was written in common english. It is, and always was, intended to be possible to read and understand by every literate man.
The ISPs are carriers of speech across state lines, as such they are solidly within the scope of the commerce clause. The right to free press, free assembly, free speech, and the freedom to travel between states are ALL negated by what this justice is suggesting, that these carriers can block and even alter speech, press, and commerce in flight across state lines.
Kavanaugh is proposing to ignore the Constitution.
The ISPs are carriers of speech across state lines, as such they are solidly within the scope of the commerce clause. The right to free press, free assembly, free speech, and the freedom to travel between states are ALL negated by what this justice is suggesting, that these carriers can block and even alter speech, press, and commerce in flight across state lines.
The ISPs are carriers of speech across state lines, as such they are solidly within the scope of the commerce clause. The right to free press, free assembly, free speech, and the freedom to travel between states are ALL negated by what this justice is suggesting, that these carriers can block and even alter speech, press, and commerce in flight across state lines.
The problem with the air force is the Constitution did not empower the federal government to keep a standing land force, to assemble one in time of war yes, but not in time of peace.
The marines are part of the navy. If you follow the way in which power was distributed by the founders then yes there is obvious guidance. The greater the scope of any empowered entity the more power had to be distributed. That is why a jury of peers has the power to prevent the enforcement of any act of any federal or state government one case at a time, collectively it was intended that the people could override what they felt was an unjust law within their community.
It enumerates EXAMPLES of things the government is forbidden to do when it comes to imposing limits on people. It specifically states that all other powers are reserved for the people.
A.308 does just fine. But don't let everyone know, you are right, they will try to find some way to ban them. Most hunters wouldn't even consider the classic round in an AR-15 to be a humane way to kill a deer.
The side that wants defense spending cuts... doesn't really want defense spending cuts they just think they do. Most science in the US is funded out of the defense budget.
Seriously, that is the great firewall of China, that means altering what a news reporter is saying, in flight. This would give the ISPs not only the right to control speed and quality of access but to literally rewrite fake news into the content on the fly!
Yes but the Constitution is the HIGHEST law... nothing congress passes can preempt it. He is a supereme court justice, these opinions aren't consistent with that law.
Ummm.... you know there have been plans on the internet since the 90's for guns you could make yourself with regular old metalworking tools from the hardware store right? And there have been books you could send to the military for by mail which explain how to make improvised munitions as well.
For that matter, you can make an incredibly devastating dust bomb with a bag of flour from the grocery store and a fan with a sparking motor. It has never been particularly difficult to wipe out half a school if you really wanted to. What is new is the number of crazy people willing to do such a thing and that is most likely because people are heavily sensitized and emotionally weak due to lack of dealing with things like every guy bullying every other guy in high school and such. A slightly rougher society and "words will never hurt me" attitude actually results in a thicker skin and words genuinely not bothering you so much.
That is good news. I suppose I could see the point, a particularly clever individual might somehow figure out a way to take advantage of that positioning to hyper-accelerate a ceramic projectile or something but I doubt it.
Exactly. The AR-15 was in fact made in collaboration with the military. Honestly, don't these people think our actual military is slightly better qualified than the secretary of state to determine what is and is not a military firearm?
For those who aren't aware, there was a major revision to the list of military weapons by Secretary Clinton which triggered ITAR authority. There was also a coinciding adjustment to ATF regulations regarding gun manufacturing, hopefully this has or will be revised as well. The combination created a situation where a seller so much as adding a scope to a purchased AR-15 was considered to be engaging in gun manufacture and required to submit to regulation under ITAR as an international arms manufacturer, the fee was something like $10,000 AND ITAR was ordered to disregard the applications.
Not to mention serving as a deterrent for invasion. The AR-15 may not be the best of sniper rifles, especially the lower cal variants but occupation would certainly be uncomfortable with a dozen snipers along every street. This isn't like Iraq or Afghanistan where they could be anywhere, in the US they ARE everywhere.
It's entanglement of thought with previous thoughts. There are multiple paths to patterns that are very similar in a loose logical way, those are looser patterns that contain a greater possibility space by virtue of being less defined, but the more you define them, the smaller the possibility space becomes. Because we are passing these ideas across generations, and both reusing the words and have brains filled and encumbered by previous ideas and thoughts it actually becomes very hard to separate the two. For instance, depending on who you talk to and when evolution means a different thing. The more confidence you've gained both in your definition and the higher collective of brains that it's built on, the smaller the possibility space from at least one perspective...... but there isn't one two or three perspectives, we've given mathematical proofs for infinity (although what that means, again, depends on the context and model).
Because you are building your idea from a root of chain that is literally intended to reduce probability space as rapidly as possible (ie, make it objective), if anything, you are magnifying the impact. Working from the assumption that there is some sort of neural pattern behind every other observer shade/perspective/aspect/what have you behind each of those other ideas of evolution which represents a tool, if nothing else it is a filter, and more likely their idea DOES have some useful model of logic behind it and that idea held by many of them is the result of a larger and more powerful computer is a very easy concept that doesn't really conflict with any rule of rationality or religion I've known yet it does something magical, it proves there is value in everything everyone is "wrong" about while at the same time not requiring giving up what you've up till now. Electricity was a concept produced in one model/hypothesis... you can't use the same word to describe it in a different model without creating a hyper model where the two are now being logically entangled, the new with the previous. That reduces your capability to keep the two separated and remember a model is not reality, it is a tool. We have a model of the atom... you know the absolute smallest indivisible thing, that was the definition, if you find something smaller IT IS THE ATOM in this model if you are following it objectively and you were wrong about what you thought was the atom not wrong about there being an atom. You can disagree, that is fine, understanding what I'm getting at only requires admitting that there is a path of logic behind what I'm saying and retaining and/or improve your ability to understand and take advantage of any logical concept makes you more flexible and therefore stronger.
That is what I'm saying. I'm not at all arguing with the value and utility of the concept of electricity or in denial of the amazing tool we've built out of it I'm just pointing out that pretending models of reality are the things themselves, the nobel ideals, if you will, to bring back something from older model that provides tools with value makes it more difficult to actually apply the principals we pay lip service to in order to argue with those who disagree with us. I offer this entire thread about denialists even happening and not being started by a denialist as proof. You are educated, you know full well that if you try YOU could make the effort to start making their argument for them... in the interchange you make them stronger with better logic AND find out something of value, even if it just a way of healing a divide... a concept that can be used in a logical model with practical application later.
Really, is it difficult to understand the idea of all thoughts as patterns and that producing an endless string of values that are nearly without pattern but not entirely, so they can then maintain internal coherence requires entropy for pseudorandom generation? The patterns and thoughts of the other conflicting paths of observation continue to provide this entropy, each provides a first step in a new sequence of logical division which will collapse in a new way that remains coherent and consistent later so long as the seed remains the same.
We can model this in other forms now. Pseudo random number generation, the algebraic concept of being able to multiply in any order but it mattering which way you divide. None of these need be THE truth, we can model and demonstrate these patterns therefore there is a rational and objective validity to the PATTERN. The brain is an analog neural net which uses information. If you fully define the math you limit yourself to that exact system of math and the chain of ideas in it. Accept that a loose logical concept that has worked in one place can be reused in others and that if you can even think it you've already proven that your mind if capable of using it and therefore it is a valid tool of LOGIC in contexts. This pattern requires very little faith because we've modeled it objectively, abstracted it, virtualized it, tunneled it, used it to synchronize disparate systems believed to be operating at the speed of light. We have demonstrated the need for new entropy both in continuing to produce results that can't be predicted and in biological systems where a lack of entropy results in recessive traits.
If you are trying to build a chain of thought that continues to allow you to keep an internal blockchain of mental programming starting from this one "seed" pattern contains what you need to create a list of values which always collapse into the same result, and to use new information to use the blocks in that chain as start points for new models. Do you have a better idea for an extremely simple yet powerful place to begin using your own brain as the computer you program instead of burning away the world performing computation entirely on weaker systems that are difficult and expensive to build and share?
This is built from the idea that I can think there is an invisible unicorn behind you, I can imagine it moving, if I can do so then I can MODEL it that way IN MY BRAIN. Models of mathematics, counting, algebra, geometry, and of course computing have done amazing things by proving we can build tools from behaviors we don't know but that we are able to model. They lead to us doing amazing things with THIS concept. If you want to retain its power in the simplest form all you have to do is think it and continue to build on it, all the best proven methods of extreme memory amount to some form of chaining the information. I can model it, the best models for building human memory have utilized it, and you can understand it WITHOUT telling your brain how to represent it, letting your brain do the work.
"As I said, the first-order effects of electricity are readily observable. Sure, the underlying theory behind it may not be, but that's hardly relevant. I don't care if god is pushing little electroangels through the air."
So... your view is paying lip service to the idea you could be wrong but entangling your perspective with an idea that doesn't allow you get results from a conflicting model the longer your current model goes without recognizing the more entangled you get and more trapped in the ideas of the model and the harder it becomes to see that the model you are using is very valuable and contains concepts which if loosened and disentangled from the assumption that you can't go back and divide things a different way if you always assume that having been successful the way you are doing it means it is the ONLY way things can divide.
Do you really think there aren't valuable tools that have been discarded by using "physical" reality as a higher power just because someone declared them "irrational"? Electricity carries the connotation of the model, it is innately entangled with that explanation of the observation. If you keep confusing the fact, the observation, with thing never intended to be fact, how are you going to be able to keep an open mind and test for tools that blend that effect with other ideas and collapse into other patterns that could have more utility for different things?
No but I don't know of too many people saying that who remember science is a system based on axiom that was known and understood to be faulty logic. It's a tool for building tools. At no point can Evolution ever conflict with religion because at no point is science anything but a model for building useful tools and not something you are supposed to take on faith. Evolution is a logical tool, we can build a chain of information and patterns on it, that doesn't mean there aren't conflicting patterns to be found if we divide by a consistent but different way, say using the lose abstract concepts in evolution and a couple other pieces of existing models and building new fundamental models on them.
If your current model says the human brain is the most powerful supercomputer we've ever devised, have you ever considered that if your current model is getting in the way of finding the value in the patterns they are finding and instead resulting in you concluding all those supercomputers are evil idiots you might be able to find common ground by embracing a more flexible model that allows more entropy and allows new kinds of consensus? For maintaining healthy skepticism you certainly are throwing away an awful lot of pattern matching power because of lack of skepticism in the previous results of your own model (and I mean all of us).
Have you considered that refusing to look at "occult knowledge" means that you could be throwing away powerful tools for developing much better definition in representing reality INSIDE your brain by visualizing it mapped on reality, and that by combining that with something like bone conduction audio and the now shown to be easy to teach system of echolocation and proof it can be mapped to a virtual space you might just be able to an insanely easy way to project things onto an actual screen in the mind. Simply because we've developed models that assume no "soul" or similar concept doesn't mean we can't exploit tools developed in models that DIDN'T use that axiom and as long as we remember the models are tools and not reality we can build "faith" in the tools.
Now, go back to telling me to keep progressing in my craft until someone will listen or entertain the possibility that my chosen craft has been listening to everyone with conflicting views for the last 30 years developing information tools and philosophy and trying to find a rational way to embrace the irrationalities without throwing out the value in the different systems, largely intentionally rewriting my own personal view through a combination of roleplaying while learning and applying the core concepts of observation, hypothesis, testing, revision, with skepticism of all views and most importantly myself throughout. They taught us that in school and called it the scientific method, I had the crazy idea we could use the tools logically in our heads to keep growing WITHOUT losing the concept of thinking outside the box. Maybe, just maybe, I'm trying to introduce the concept to those who have the education to understand the concept and do the most with it if I can break them out of their box hoping they'll be able to notice there IS a pattern in what I'm saying and run with it.
When I've come up with something non-disruptive I've shared it here where we used to find legions of experts in their fields, debated, adjusted, revised, remembering rhetoric isn't the same as being right.
If by the GP you mean me, yes, that is in fact close to where I'm coming from. I've been trying to redefine my philosophy using the most basic logical tools in science, math, and greek models which have given excellent objective results, while studying philosophy and religion from around the world, assuming all of it was useful while the only I could be certain of was that because I can always have an idea, and ideas change over time even in your own mind, none of those ideas were exactly the same observation point as mine. I even looked at ancient occult systems as well as tibetan mystic systems, etc. Many of those systems contain tools that certainly can be combined with tools developed in scientific philosophy if you just allow for each to be a hop on mental routing table and can provide tools that definitely can be consistently imagined. If you can develop the imagination canvas as an objective tool and map it back to something objective we can model on a computer and make that mapping recursive enough, we can certainly build some very powerful tools.
I could be wrong about any of these things but you aren't going to disprove the base concept behind what I'm saying, any one of these systems alone represents a box that can be shown as irrational using the basic logical tools that have lead to computing and space flight, including many steps along the path and that are core to that model. There IS a wisdom to be found in that which is a valuable contribution and can lead to a greater consensus with less conflict without losing what we've gained through our most successful tools. I haven't built one model to release and sell for some profit from this, I've built many tests, both logical and objective including code, honed through discussion, debate, and embracing those who are different.
Yes, and since all of our objective models have contained irrational elements remaining skeptical of them is a great way to use one of our powerful tools to expand objectivity and axiom and built new models. You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, you want to keep the tools, especially the logical ones, that would be throwing away the baby with the bathwater, but we also want to be able to step back and remember there we can keep both if we remember there is a bathroom, and we can do even more if we remember there is a house and build a kitchen, and if we blend relativity and shake things up, say modeling reality as entirely consistently of observers with relatively as the constant instead of time.... what can we do with that without now needing to come up with an insane uber model that beats everything we've managed in the past couple years for every purpose or losing the ability to explain the existing model?
No you have a memory, a thing we've shown via video and images is the least objective evidence, a consensus of others, others you have no proof exist only your inability to ALWAYS predict their actions alongside a memory that will surely confirm you can not predict your own actions and therefore you can't know the others aren't you. You have sight, which could just as easily be a field of distortions as reality. You have no objective path for distinguishing between reality and non-reality except memory (see above), your senses (which you'll note, we've determined are subjective instead of the ultimate tool of objectivity and removed from our models), anecdotal evidence which we consider the least reliable form of evidence, and a system of logic otherwise largely built on the idea of counting working... except that none of us can establish that there are any two things.
Maybe, just maybe, given how useful this model has been there could be others that toss out major principles of the ones we've built on it that are much simpler to use for various tasks than giant mega models that get so complex we forget how to store them in the trunk under the bed, keeping it like Newtonian physics, without losing the ability to embrace enough irrationality and entropy to build simple new tools, like new maths.
It's pretty good evidence of some kind of interaction, correlation doesn't equal causation and it certainly doesn't automatically make the abstraction reality. Electricity is a model, we made it up, when things didn't work with the model we changed the definition, we added properties. That just means we've built a tool and the tool is useful, just because we can define a hammer and use it for things does not make it part of physical reality, to anyone not entangled in your model it isn't a hammer it is an abstraction they may or may not even perceive. We don't know there isn't an intelligence in rock on a relative time so out of sync with our own that our interaction appears mostly constant. We only know we've been able to do stuff by pretending that is true, not that there isn't other stuff we could do by building a new model with incompatible math and logic if the first models resulted in irrational elements... which they all have there is no reason to assume we can't build highly conflicting models which produce better tools than current models. Models have axioms, axioms aren't truths they are something we pretend is true in order to build a tool. Remembering THAT axiom is the only way I've found to minimize overly entangling yourself with the previous model.
Slashdot Mirror
The constitution wasn't written in accepted legal language, it was written in common english. It is, and always was, intended to be possible to read and understand by every literate man.
The ISPs are carriers of speech across state lines, as such they are solidly within the scope of the commerce clause. The right to free press, free assembly, free speech, and the freedom to travel between states are ALL negated by what this justice is suggesting, that these carriers can block and even alter speech, press, and commerce in flight across state lines.
Kavanaugh is proposing to ignore the Constitution.
Bingo.
The ISPs are carriers of speech across state lines, as such they are solidly within the scope of the commerce clause. The right to free press, free assembly, free speech, and the freedom to travel between states are ALL negated by what this justice is suggesting, that these carriers can block and even alter speech, press, and commerce in flight across state lines.
The ISPs are carriers of speech across state lines, as such they are solidly within the scope of the commerce clause. The right to free press, free assembly, free speech, and the freedom to travel between states are ALL negated by what this justice is suggesting, that these carriers can block and even alter speech, press, and commerce in flight across state lines.
And juries to have the power to negate them in their communities one case at a time.
The problem with the air force is the Constitution did not empower the federal government to keep a standing land force, to assemble one in time of war yes, but not in time of peace.
The marines are part of the navy. If you follow the way in which power was distributed by the founders then yes there is obvious guidance. The greater the scope of any empowered entity the more power had to be distributed. That is why a jury of peers has the power to prevent the enforcement of any act of any federal or state government one case at a time, collectively it was intended that the people could override what they felt was an unjust law within their community.
It enumerates EXAMPLES of things the government is forbidden to do when it comes to imposing limits on people. It specifically states that all other powers are reserved for the people.
Those aren't places with lax gun laws either so what is your point?
A .308 does just fine. But don't let everyone know, you are right, they will try to find some way to ban them. Most hunters wouldn't even consider the classic round in an AR-15 to be a humane way to kill a deer.
The side that wants defense spending cuts... doesn't really want defense spending cuts they just think they do. Most science in the US is funded out of the defense budget.
Seriously, that is the great firewall of China, that means altering what a news reporter is saying, in flight. This would give the ISPs not only the right to control speed and quality of access but to literally rewrite fake news into the content on the fly!
Yes but the Constitution is the HIGHEST law... nothing congress passes can preempt it. He is a supereme court justice, these opinions aren't consistent with that law.
Ummm.... you know there have been plans on the internet since the 90's for guns you could make yourself with regular old metalworking tools from the hardware store right? And there have been books you could send to the military for by mail which explain how to make improvised munitions as well.
For that matter, you can make an incredibly devastating dust bomb with a bag of flour from the grocery store and a fan with a sparking motor. It has never been particularly difficult to wipe out half a school if you really wanted to. What is new is the number of crazy people willing to do such a thing and that is most likely because people are heavily sensitized and emotionally weak due to lack of dealing with things like every guy bullying every other guy in high school and such. A slightly rougher society and "words will never hurt me" attitude actually results in a thicker skin and words genuinely not bothering you so much.
That is good news. I suppose I could see the point, a particularly clever individual might somehow figure out a way to take advantage of that positioning to hyper-accelerate a ceramic projectile or something but I doubt it.
Exactly. The AR-15 was in fact made in collaboration with the military. Honestly, don't these people think our actual military is slightly better qualified than the secretary of state to determine what is and is not a military firearm?
For those who aren't aware, there was a major revision to the list of military weapons by Secretary Clinton which triggered ITAR authority. There was also a coinciding adjustment to ATF regulations regarding gun manufacturing, hopefully this has or will be revised as well. The combination created a situation where a seller so much as adding a scope to a purchased AR-15 was considered to be engaging in gun manufacture and required to submit to regulation under ITAR as an international arms manufacturer, the fee was something like $10,000 AND ITAR was ordered to disregard the applications.
Not to mention serving as a deterrent for invasion. The AR-15 may not be the best of sniper rifles, especially the lower cal variants but occupation would certainly be uncomfortable with a dozen snipers along every street. This isn't like Iraq or Afghanistan where they could be anywhere, in the US they ARE everywhere.
You are definitely right on that last bit.
It's entanglement of thought with previous thoughts. There are multiple paths to patterns that are very similar in a loose logical way, those are looser patterns that contain a greater possibility space by virtue of being less defined, but the more you define them, the smaller the possibility space becomes. Because we are passing these ideas across generations, and both reusing the words and have brains filled and encumbered by previous ideas and thoughts it actually becomes very hard to separate the two. For instance, depending on who you talk to and when evolution means a different thing. The more confidence you've gained both in your definition and the higher collective of brains that it's built on, the smaller the possibility space from at least one perspective...... but there isn't one two or three perspectives, we've given mathematical proofs for infinity (although what that means, again, depends on the context and model).
Because you are building your idea from a root of chain that is literally intended to reduce probability space as rapidly as possible (ie, make it objective), if anything, you are magnifying the impact. Working from the assumption that there is some sort of neural pattern behind every other observer shade/perspective/aspect/what have you behind each of those other ideas of evolution which represents a tool, if nothing else it is a filter, and more likely their idea DOES have some useful model of logic behind it and that idea held by many of them is the result of a larger and more powerful computer is a very easy concept that doesn't really conflict with any rule of rationality or religion I've known yet it does something magical, it proves there is value in everything everyone is "wrong" about while at the same time not requiring giving up what you've up till now. Electricity was a concept produced in one model/hypothesis... you can't use the same word to describe it in a different model without creating a hyper model where the two are now being logically entangled, the new with the previous. That reduces your capability to keep the two separated and remember a model is not reality, it is a tool. We have a model of the atom... you know the absolute smallest indivisible thing, that was the definition, if you find something smaller IT IS THE ATOM in this model if you are following it objectively and you were wrong about what you thought was the atom not wrong about there being an atom. You can disagree, that is fine, understanding what I'm getting at only requires admitting that there is a path of logic behind what I'm saying and retaining and/or improve your ability to understand and take advantage of any logical concept makes you more flexible and therefore stronger.
That is what I'm saying. I'm not at all arguing with the value and utility of the concept of electricity or in denial of the amazing tool we've built out of it I'm just pointing out that pretending models of reality are the things themselves, the nobel ideals, if you will, to bring back something from older model that provides tools with value makes it more difficult to actually apply the principals we pay lip service to in order to argue with those who disagree with us. I offer this entire thread about denialists even happening and not being started by a denialist as proof. You are educated, you know full well that if you try YOU could make the effort to start making their argument for them... in the interchange you make them stronger with better logic AND find out something of value, even if it just a way of healing a divide... a concept that can be used in a logical model with practical application later.
Don't embrace false dichotomy.
Really, is it difficult to understand the idea of all thoughts as patterns and that producing an endless string of values that are nearly without pattern but not entirely, so they can then maintain internal coherence requires entropy for pseudorandom generation? The patterns and thoughts of the other conflicting paths of observation continue to provide this entropy, each provides a first step in a new sequence of logical division which will collapse in a new way that remains coherent and consistent later so long as the seed remains the same.
We can model this in other forms now. Pseudo random number generation, the algebraic concept of being able to multiply in any order but it mattering which way you divide. None of these need be THE truth, we can model and demonstrate these patterns therefore there is a rational and objective validity to the PATTERN. The brain is an analog neural net which uses information. If you fully define the math you limit yourself to that exact system of math and the chain of ideas in it. Accept that a loose logical concept that has worked in one place can be reused in others and that if you can even think it you've already proven that your mind if capable of using it and therefore it is a valid tool of LOGIC in contexts. This pattern requires very little faith because we've modeled it objectively, abstracted it, virtualized it, tunneled it, used it to synchronize disparate systems believed to be operating at the speed of light. We have demonstrated the need for new entropy both in continuing to produce results that can't be predicted and in biological systems where a lack of entropy results in recessive traits.
If you are trying to build a chain of thought that continues to allow you to keep an internal blockchain of mental programming starting from this one "seed" pattern contains what you need to create a list of values which always collapse into the same result, and to use new information to use the blocks in that chain as start points for new models. Do you have a better idea for an extremely simple yet powerful place to begin using your own brain as the computer you program instead of burning away the world performing computation entirely on weaker systems that are difficult and expensive to build and share?
This is built from the idea that I can think there is an invisible unicorn behind you, I can imagine it moving, if I can do so then I can MODEL it that way IN MY BRAIN. Models of mathematics, counting, algebra, geometry, and of course computing have done amazing things by proving we can build tools from behaviors we don't know but that we are able to model. They lead to us doing amazing things with THIS concept. If you want to retain its power in the simplest form all you have to do is think it and continue to build on it, all the best proven methods of extreme memory amount to some form of chaining the information. I can model it, the best models for building human memory have utilized it, and you can understand it WITHOUT telling your brain how to represent it, letting your brain do the work.
"As I said, the first-order effects of electricity are readily observable. Sure, the underlying theory behind it may not be, but that's hardly relevant. I don't care if god is pushing little electroangels through the air."
So... your view is paying lip service to the idea you could be wrong but entangling your perspective with an idea that doesn't allow you get results from a conflicting model the longer your current model goes without recognizing the more entangled you get and more trapped in the ideas of the model and the harder it becomes to see that the model you are using is very valuable and contains concepts which if loosened and disentangled from the assumption that you can't go back and divide things a different way if you always assume that having been successful the way you are doing it means it is the ONLY way things can divide.
Do you really think there aren't valuable tools that have been discarded by using "physical" reality as a higher power just because someone declared them "irrational"? Electricity carries the connotation of the model, it is innately entangled with that explanation of the observation. If you keep confusing the fact, the observation, with thing never intended to be fact, how are you going to be able to keep an open mind and test for tools that blend that effect with other ideas and collapse into other patterns that could have more utility for different things?
No but I don't know of too many people saying that who remember science is a system based on axiom that was known and understood to be faulty logic. It's a tool for building tools. At no point can Evolution ever conflict with religion because at no point is science anything but a model for building useful tools and not something you are supposed to take on faith. Evolution is a logical tool, we can build a chain of information and patterns on it, that doesn't mean there aren't conflicting patterns to be found if we divide by a consistent but different way, say using the lose abstract concepts in evolution and a couple other pieces of existing models and building new fundamental models on them.
If your current model says the human brain is the most powerful supercomputer we've ever devised, have you ever considered that if your current model is getting in the way of finding the value in the patterns they are finding and instead resulting in you concluding all those supercomputers are evil idiots you might be able to find common ground by embracing a more flexible model that allows more entropy and allows new kinds of consensus? For maintaining healthy skepticism you certainly are throwing away an awful lot of pattern matching power because of lack of skepticism in the previous results of your own model (and I mean all of us).
Have you considered that refusing to look at "occult knowledge" means that you could be throwing away powerful tools for developing much better definition in representing reality INSIDE your brain by visualizing it mapped on reality, and that by combining that with something like bone conduction audio and the now shown to be easy to teach system of echolocation and proof it can be mapped to a virtual space you might just be able to an insanely easy way to project things onto an actual screen in the mind. Simply because we've developed models that assume no "soul" or similar concept doesn't mean we can't exploit tools developed in models that DIDN'T use that axiom and as long as we remember the models are tools and not reality we can build "faith" in the tools.
Now, go back to telling me to keep progressing in my craft until someone will listen or entertain the possibility that my chosen craft has been listening to everyone with conflicting views for the last 30 years developing information tools and philosophy and trying to find a rational way to embrace the irrationalities without throwing out the value in the different systems, largely intentionally rewriting my own personal view through a combination of roleplaying while learning and applying the core concepts of observation, hypothesis, testing, revision, with skepticism of all views and most importantly myself throughout. They taught us that in school and called it the scientific method, I had the crazy idea we could use the tools logically in our heads to keep growing WITHOUT losing the concept of thinking outside the box. Maybe, just maybe, I'm trying to introduce the concept to those who have the education to understand the concept and do the most with it if I can break them out of their box hoping they'll be able to notice there IS a pattern in what I'm saying and run with it.
When I've come up with something non-disruptive I've shared it here where we used to find legions of experts in their fields, debated, adjusted, revised, remembering rhetoric isn't the same as being right.
If by the GP you mean me, yes, that is in fact close to where I'm coming from. I've been trying to redefine my philosophy using the most basic logical tools in science, math, and greek models which have given excellent objective results, while studying philosophy and religion from around the world, assuming all of it was useful while the only I could be certain of was that because I can always have an idea, and ideas change over time even in your own mind, none of those ideas were exactly the same observation point as mine. I even looked at ancient occult systems as well as tibetan mystic systems, etc. Many of those systems contain tools that certainly can be combined with tools developed in scientific philosophy if you just allow for each to be a hop on mental routing table and can provide tools that definitely can be consistently imagined. If you can develop the imagination canvas as an objective tool and map it back to something objective we can model on a computer and make that mapping recursive enough, we can certainly build some very powerful tools.
I could be wrong about any of these things but you aren't going to disprove the base concept behind what I'm saying, any one of these systems alone represents a box that can be shown as irrational using the basic logical tools that have lead to computing and space flight, including many steps along the path and that are core to that model. There IS a wisdom to be found in that which is a valuable contribution and can lead to a greater consensus with less conflict without losing what we've gained through our most successful tools. I haven't built one model to release and sell for some profit from this, I've built many tests, both logical and objective including code, honed through discussion, debate, and embracing those who are different.
Yes, and since all of our objective models have contained irrational elements remaining skeptical of them is a great way to use one of our powerful tools to expand objectivity and axiom and built new models. You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, you want to keep the tools, especially the logical ones, that would be throwing away the baby with the bathwater, but we also want to be able to step back and remember there we can keep both if we remember there is a bathroom, and we can do even more if we remember there is a house and build a kitchen, and if we blend relativity and shake things up, say modeling reality as entirely consistently of observers with relatively as the constant instead of time.... what can we do with that without now needing to come up with an insane uber model that beats everything we've managed in the past couple years for every purpose or losing the ability to explain the existing model?
No you have a memory, a thing we've shown via video and images is the least objective evidence, a consensus of others, others you have no proof exist only your inability to ALWAYS predict their actions alongside a memory that will surely confirm you can not predict your own actions and therefore you can't know the others aren't you. You have sight, which could just as easily be a field of distortions as reality. You have no objective path for distinguishing between reality and non-reality except memory (see above), your senses (which you'll note, we've determined are subjective instead of the ultimate tool of objectivity and removed from our models), anecdotal evidence which we consider the least reliable form of evidence, and a system of logic otherwise largely built on the idea of counting working... except that none of us can establish that there are any two things.
Maybe, just maybe, given how useful this model has been there could be others that toss out major principles of the ones we've built on it that are much simpler to use for various tasks than giant mega models that get so complex we forget how to store them in the trunk under the bed, keeping it like Newtonian physics, without losing the ability to embrace enough irrationality and entropy to build simple new tools, like new maths.
It's pretty good evidence of some kind of interaction, correlation doesn't equal causation and it certainly doesn't automatically make the abstraction reality. Electricity is a model, we made it up, when things didn't work with the model we changed the definition, we added properties. That just means we've built a tool and the tool is useful, just because we can define a hammer and use it for things does not make it part of physical reality, to anyone not entangled in your model it isn't a hammer it is an abstraction they may or may not even perceive. We don't know there isn't an intelligence in rock on a relative time so out of sync with our own that our interaction appears mostly constant. We only know we've been able to do stuff by pretending that is true, not that there isn't other stuff we could do by building a new model with incompatible math and logic if the first models resulted in irrational elements... which they all have there is no reason to assume we can't build highly conflicting models which produce better tools than current models. Models have axioms, axioms aren't truths they are something we pretend is true in order to build a tool. Remembering THAT axiom is the only way I've found to minimize overly entangling yourself with the previous model.