| Blogs > DreaM)XeRO |
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
On July 04 2009 14:50 Rekrul wrote: looks like this guy just watched that video and is claiming all its points for himself lolol plagarizing on tl.net blogs ftw Or he just took a logic class. This is pretty much the first thing taught in a logic class. That and God created man and man created god. | ||
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On July 04 2009 18:04 Railz wrote: Or he just took a logic class. This is pretty much the first thing taught in a logic class. That and God created man and man created god. no actually everything he's saying is an exact copy from that video, i can't find it charliemurphy posted it lol | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On July 04 2009 18:04 Kickstart wrote: Just because you can't prove one way or the other doesn't mean the likelihood is 50-50. That doesn't change the fact that neither is provable...and that makes a huge fucking difference. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On July 04 2009 18:04 Railz wrote: Or he just took a logic class. This is pretty much the first thing taught in a logic class. That and God created man and man created god. You must have taken a shitty logic class, then. | ||
|
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On July 04 2009 20:24 PH wrote: That doesn't change the fact that neither is provable...and that makes a huge fucking difference. you cant prove that neither is provable neener neener neeeeeener | ||
|
Ghardo
Germany1685 Posts
that would be my answer to religious probability. this whole blabbering about "you can't prove that you can't prove that you can't prove that you can't prove ..." hasn't advanced humanity one bit, only functional reasons for the things happening around us have. if people like galilei hadn't voiced their observations we would still believe that the earth is the centre of the universe (how ever appealing that may sound). there are no final answers at this state of evolution, i'm sorry On August 07 2008 19:34 HeavenPanda wrote: My Philosophy: The universe is everything that exists, and is limited by physical laws that all things within it must adhere to. Everything in the universe is in a constant state of change and the measurement of change is known as Time. Humans have come to be inside the universe, bound to its physical laws, for the period of Time that our bodies can maintain active consciousness before the change in our cells reach a point where they can maintain it no longer. Throughout this period of consciousness, the brain maintains homeostasis, and actively seeks the instinctual wills of self-preservation and race advancement that has, through pure random chance, allowed it to grow and survive on this planet compared with other evolutionary strains of life. The universe does not care for or value humans. Humans care for and value the universe, because it is beneficial to them. Luckily, the universe and its physical laws can be predicted, and from it we derive logic. It is impossible to 100% prove the laws of the physical universe from within it, but we have come to such a point of observation as to assume them as true. Therefore, we can present argument, we can debate, and we can advance our own understanding of ourselves and the universe we are lucky enough to reside in using irrefutable reasoning. We can theorize about our roles in the universe, our purpose, our meaning of life. But additionally, we can expound those theories with logic and reason, overriding emotion and pseudo-science, to achieve greater truth then simply making guesswork and following what sounds satisfactory. The language of life is not spiritual; it is simple and logical, and because of that, numbingly complex. The only way I feel I can live my life is not by devoting it to frivolous spiritual pursuits, but instead staying true to my biological nature- self preservation, race advancement, and the adherence to logic and reason above all things. These concepts are what award me inner peace, so I label them as philosophy, although there is very little 'philosophical' about them. | ||
|
duckett
United States589 Posts
On July 04 2009 14:07 DreaM)XeRO wrote: I cannot agree with or disagree against the first part of the statment. "There are events in the physical world that cannot be explained." I am firmly rooted in the notion that science, while still primitive, will one day answer all the questions that human beings have to answer. Science provides a reliable method based on observation, logical reasoning and experimentation, for human beings to answer their quesions.. I was listening to some random TL kid speak when this one passage caught my attention. "There are events in the physical world that cannot be explained. Therefore it is PROOF that there is a scientific basis dictates how the world operates on every level". The above statement is both a logical fallacy as well as a bellweather on the education and common sense of scientific figures in our society today. There is no complete rational basis for human action; everyone who does anything operates on certain fundamental assumptions. One of yours is clearly that science will explain everything. Another is probably that science will make everything better. Beyond that, you might even believe that science will save the world and stop it from exploding, that it will reconcile all the problems we have. Those beliefs were not derived form your senses of sight, smell, taste, hearing, or touch; those are not scientifically reasoned beliefs. Also, consider this: what defines science? Just things that you have directly observed? Are things that people tell you are experimentally proven scientifically correct and therefore "right"? So when North Korean schoolteachers tell their students about the well proven divinity of Kim Jong Il, is that right? Trust is not a sense; it is something we establish based on trends in human interaction but it is certainly not consistent with the scientific basis. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Heisenberg in Tradition in Science (my own translation): The role of tradition in science is not merely limited to the selection of problems...tradition exercises its entire influence in the deeper folds of the scientific process, where it is not easily recognized... In the scientific work of our century we still follow more or less the methods which were discovered by Copernicus, Galileo, and their successors in the 16th and 17th centuries. At the same time, these methods are misunderstood, in the sense that one identifies them as empirical science, in contrast to the speculative science of previous centuries. In reality, Galileo departed from the empirical, aristotilean science of his age, and adopted the philosophical ideas of Plato. He displaced the descriptive science of Aristotle with the structural science of Plato... Galileo understood Copernicus exactly, that one should discover, departing from immediate experience and through the idealization of experience, mathematical structures within phenomena, and thereby reach a renewed simplification as the basis for a new understanding. Now, modern physics has radically changed the positivistic assumptions of the 19th century, whereby quantum mechanics and its most widely-accepted interpretations eschew either a complete or objective understanding of the physical process. Whether one would interpret this as the non-existence of physical causality, or merely the unknowability of such systems, is debatable. However, its dilemmas place human beings back in the center of the physical system, and in that sense Ptolomy may be given a new interpretation: the earth is again at the center of the universe, because it is the only place where the universe is seen, studied, and explored. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Vedic
United States582 Posts
On July 04 2009 17:04 PH wrote: That's really my point, lol. You can't assume either way. You have to prove either way. I don't think I ever directly said that physicalism is wrong and phenomenalism is right...if I did, then I didn't mean to. There are lots of arguments for both written by people much smarter and well read than anyone here, and it's still inconclusive. This is also a logical fallacy, but I highly doubt anyone here has a solid answer that will win me, or anyone else, over. There is no evidence supporting a need to consider that you would have to prove that anything exists past what we can observe. This is the exact opposite of everything that science and logic stand for. It's not even an argument, just a cop out. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
I've also thought that Hume was a kind of precursor to quantum indeterminancy in that Hume philosophically postulated that our notion of causality was the description of extreme statistical probabilities. BTW, a couple of funny videos on a topic Hume also occupied himself with: miracles, and perhaps also relevant to this blog. I found a couple of videos reenacting the historical debates between Chesterton and Blachford/Darrow. Of course, these debates are reconstructred and inaccurate, but gives the general gist of the respective positions: | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On July 04 2009 16:57 Rekrul wrote: everyone that disagrees with me has an inferior intellect, but thats because i am the truth i see how when other people say that it's annoying though | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On July 04 2009 16:57 Rekrul wrote: everyone that disagrees with me has an inferior intellect, but thats because i am the truth i see how when other people say that it's annoying though I agreed with you before you even posted! Do I win a prize? | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
I've honestly stopped taking most of you seriously. The majority of you really aren't grasping what I'm saying, and have a limited understanding both of modern science and of what it means for something to exist beyond the natural. What I linked to above is a famous article from the '68 I think that further developed one of the most famous cases for epiphenomenalism. While even the author Jackson eventually abandoned his own theory, there is still a very large camp of philosophers who use it, albeit edited to cover up for one major flaw of philosophical epiphenomenalism which Daniel Dennett hits straight on the head. However, more recent phenomenalists have, as far as I'm concerned, somewhat made it a non-issue. I can't find any of the other articles, though. I only have photocopies. -____- Simply telling me over and over that it's stupid of me or anyone else to think that there is anything beyond the physical realm is a circular argument, folks. That is a premise that no phenomenalist would accept, and so you need to argue for it. Keep in mind, a phenomenalist is not immediately a religious person, and does not immediately point to the existence of a god, anthropomorphic or not. So...it is logically fallacious to assume, without support, that physicalism completes the picture of the universe. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On July 04 2009 21:45 Ghardo wrote: can only quote that awesome post from heavenpanda in one of travis's spiritual topics. that would be my answer to religious probability. this whole blabbering about "you can't prove that you can't prove that you can't prove that you can't prove ..." hasn't advanced humanity one bit, only functional reasons for the things happening around us have. if people like galilei hadn't voiced their observations we would still believe that the earth is the centre of the universe (how ever appealing that may sound). there are no final answers at this state of evolution, i'm sorry A looot of that is still being debated. The "physical laws" based upon logic/mathematics that we apply to the universe are only applied to the universe. It is currently has yet to be proven that the physical laws we understand the universe by would exist without us. That's a project Frege and Russell tried to undertake, but both ultimately failed at. "The universe is everything that exists, and is limited by physical laws that all things within it must adhere to." No phenomenalist would accept that either. The first part is vague and unacceptable. Something phenomenal, and thus not physical, would not be bound by physical law. If you consider the "universe" to be the totality of all physical things, then the phenomenalist does not believe the "universe" to be all that there is...it is simply a grouping of certain objects that fall under the "physical" category, leaving out the phenomenal part of what would be...umm...everything. Quite frankly, most of what HeavenPanda is saying is simply another perspective looking at things. He makes no solid metaphysical argument that really supports anything he says...and forces one to ask as many questions as he tries to answer. Because I can't seem to go on without saying this, I'm...going to say it. I'm neither a solid physicalist or a phenomenalist. I'm content not knowing which is ultimately correct. I also don't think that phenomenalism being true points directly to the existence of god. I also don't think it implies that we need to have spiritual lives, or whatever. I probably lean towards phenomenalism, though, but I haven't taken a solid stance yet, and as this is philosophy, not politics, that's completely acceptable. I've argued in both directions before, and am probably playing devil's advocate here solely because IT IS NOT LOGICALLY VALID TO ASSUME PHYSICALISM IS TRUE...which is the argument that EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU HAS MADE. I'm getting owned by the internet, right now...but I really can't seem to get over it. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
On July 04 2009 14:16 Kickstart wrote: This is a very common "tactic" used, Dawkins refers to it as the "God of gaps". Whenever there is something that science has not figured out religious groups will jump at the chance to fill the "gap" with God. It is pretty annoying and overused but is clearly illogical; as you stated, just because science does not yet know the answer, doesn't mean that their theory is automatically correct. You are also assuming that science can in fact explain everything? Don't be so sure about that. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
i approve | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Invitational
herO vs GuMiho
Clem vs Solar
MaxPax vs SHIN
ByuN vs Dark
Replay Cast
Online Event
Replay Cast
Master's Coliseum
Maru vs Lancer
herO vs Lancer
GuMiho vs herO
Korean StarCraft League
Master's Coliseum
Maru vs GuMiho
Lancer vs GuMiho
herO vs Maru
CranKy Ducklings
Defiler Tour
CranKy Ducklings
|
|
|
EPT
