EPTRandomness...again - Page 2
| Blogs > Cpt Obvious |
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
| ||
|
Etherone
United States1898 Posts
i had a similar discussion with my brother about 7 months ago, and my first answer was the gist of the conclusion we came too, it was of course accompanied by a few lines of reasoning, but ultimately it was something similar with a small part that i omitted. that part is basically that we are forced into a logical corner where we ,as insecure people, felt the need to rationalize our existence in the afore mentioned way and a few variants ( I.E god), as bleak as it sounds. he believes in god, to an extent, and not the church per say, just a higher being, and that jesus christ sacrif..etc. any who, i confronted him once again, believing he is just copping out of rationally mulling existence over. the way i went about it was somewhat convoluted (details will be omitted ) in generally i goated him into it by stating something similar to what you ( cpt.obvious) but of course much more dramatic and with out the links and references, since it was a live discussion. he of course tried to console me and knowing that trying to convince me god existed would utterly fail, he tried by putting his mind to work searching out a common meaning to life. he failed because he was thinking simply on a personal basis. Initially as a child (8-12) i wanted to become a zoologist, mostly on the assumption that "animals" were the purest form of life in our world and i found that beautiful. that assumption was based on the premise that all animals act out of instinct. this is relevant because i applied this logic to humanity and tried then to rationalize the question through view. an "animal's" goal in life is simple, survival. can't our meaning for living be that simple, with the slight modifications that we strive to prosper, and our goal for survival is not limited only to ourselves? of course i accept that we are limited beings and not all of us have the capacity to unravel these mysteries. I am willing to live my life out simply waiting for another Copernicus/Kepler/Newton/Einstein to reveal himself and shake the very foundations of our paradigm on the subject. also I accept that death is the end for me as potential (nothing i was or did will then after have the possibility of becoming reality). i hope of course that my accomplishments and my thoughts live on after me through others, but that is only hope. PS: for the record the reason i engaged my brother is that he is far more intelligent and educated than i am and i wanted him to give me an answer. | ||
|
Cpt Obvious
Germany3073 Posts
 Anyway, thanks for the responses so far. I am very pleased that so many actually understood what I was trying to say, and, in my eyes, failed to make as clear as it could have been. Especially the guy telling me to have an open mind, I will do my best to do that. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 03 2009 18:21 {88}iNcontroL wrote: interesting I randomly read this blog and found I was mentioned, neat. bullshit u searched for yourself + Show Spoiler + im not serious. but i could still be right! | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On May 03 2009 09:54 Cpt Obvious wrote: Maybe you're right. Maybe I am looking for a "grand unified truth" that just isn't there. Still, on some subjects I find it incredibly hard to come to a decision which I can be happy with. I'd go as far as calling it a disability to make a call and then live with the consequences. Apart from that, I really like how philosophy intersects with science here. The methods are not that different either, from what I gather. I am a big fan of Russell as well, but I haven't really read that much about his work or that of the others. What baffled me most about all this is how conservatively the scientific world reacted to the implications of Gödel's and Boltzmann's propositions. I was strongly reminded of how the church reacted towards Galilei, and I would never have thought that scientists could be so stubborn. Come to think of it, I think I remember hearing Einstein heavily opposed Quantum theory until his death. Oh well, nothing is black-and-white I guess. Haha, I know exactly how you feel. I will tell you what many people have probably told you (and me) already: "You think too much". There's really no way around it...the best way to get past this is to just submit to the fact that it's something we'll probably never satisfactorily figure out. ): On May 03 2009 12:46 Makhno wrote: Very interesting stuff and a great challange to your mind. I can certainly see what your problems derive from and it really is something that the human mind is (up to this point at least) incapable of grasping. Personally I don't think this has anything to do with a god or anything of the sort, but more with the fundamental flaws in human thinking and how incomplete our understanding of our existence is. We are capable of some truly amazing feats of abstract thinking, but obviously there are limits. Inifinity, uncertainty and mathematical paradoxes are some of these concepts which are basically unfathomable to the human mind yet conceivable in their unsolved form. I think the problem is rather mundane. A mechanical fallibility in our ability to comprehend existance and all the laws, logics and paradoxes that comes with it. A neurological impairity. Impurity if you will. Just think about some of the things these mathematicians and physicists claimed, that there are problems that are unsolvable and that you actually cannot know which problems are. Is it even possible for an entity that we can hypothesize about to solve these unsolvable problems and find structure where we believe to have proven that no structure is to be found? It's a great topic of discussion, 5/5. I disagree with this statement. All the fields of the sciences and philosophy, in the end, work to do the same one thing: Make explicit what we already implicitly know or can plainly observe. That's as far as any empirical discipline can go. With that in mind, we have actually come very far with what you seem to be implying are "neurological impairities". In addition, what you're saying implies that there is an underlying order, a pure logic and rationality to the universe. First off, I think that our own existence is really something we know and understand very well. People become frustrated and dissatisfied with it when they can't explicate it; hence why philosophy has been obsessed with it for ages. Reading some of Heidegger (whether you agree with him or not) really lets this sink in...our existence is quite simple, really (I know this is kind of a short and gay answer, but I can't really think of a way to condense it to a sentence or two right now). Second, as I wrote about in my previous post in this blog, as things are looking now, mathematics and logic do not hold up against the universe free of psychologicism...that is to say some kind of human/intuitive input. Set theory, which modern mathematics and even philosophical logic are based on, is still questioned under those regards. There is no reason to think that the universe is bound by any real kind of order, or if we're just observing purely coincidental phenomenon in its function and our inference. I don't like this idea either, but sadly, that's how it is. The physics and metaphysics of the universe may very well be unsolvable, but I sincerely hope that is not the case. On May 03 2009 17:10 Xela wrote: Exactly what I think too. Alot of people just begin to think about these things(god/meaning of life etc) and then make their idea as fast as possible and are stuck in that way of thinking for the rest of their life. IMO, people should think about those things and create their own ideas all their life, but the problems we humans have is that we NEED an answer and unfortunately like you said: there is no clear answer to fundamental questions. So instead of constently re-think about it and change their minds, people in general just choose an already made answer (religions) for all those questions. I mean, it's so much easier to have someone telling you what to think and what to do in every circumstances. "Does god really exists?" "What should I do if he do(not) exist?". You could wake up every morning for all your life asking yourself those questions, you would never have a clear answer. Or you could make your mind in 2-3 days and act accordingly for the rest of your life trying to hide away from different ideas so your beliefs are not challenged. You're assuming that any person who ascribes to any kind of religion or system of beliefs they didn't come up with themselves is an inauthentic coward who chooses not to think for themselves at all. I think you're being unfair, and are, to put it simply and bluntly, arrogant and wrong. On May 03 2009 18:50 Etherone wrote: i had a similar discussion with my brother about 7 months ago, and my first answer was the gist of the conclusion we came too, it was of course accompanied by a few lines of reasoning, but ultimately it was something similar with a small part that i omitted. that part is basically that we are forced into a logical corner where we ,as insecure people, felt the need to rationalize our existence in the afore mentioned way and a few variants ( I.E god), as bleak as it sounds. he believes in god, to an extent, and not the church per say, just a higher being, and that jesus christ sacrif..etc. any who, i confronted him once again, believing he is just copping out of rationally mulling existence over. the way i went about it was somewhat convoluted (details will be omitted ) in generally i goated him into it by stating something similar to what you ( cpt.obvious) but of course much more dramatic and with out the links and references, since it was a live discussion. he of course tried to console me and knowing that trying to convince me god existed would utterly fail, he tried by putting his mind to work searching out a common meaning to life. he failed because he was thinking simply on a personal basis. Initially as a child (8-12) i wanted to become a zoologist, mostly on the assumption that "animals" were the purest form of life in our world and i found that beautiful. that assumption was based on the premise that all animals act out of instinct. this is relevant because i applied this logic to humanity and tried then to rationalize the question through view. an "animal's" goal in life is simple, survival. can't our meaning for living be that simple, with the slight modifications that we strive to prosper, and our goal for survival is not limited only to ourselves? of course i accept that we are limited beings and not all of us have the capacity to unravel these mysteries. I am willing to live my life out simply waiting for another Copernicus/Kepler/Newton/Einstein to reveal himself and shake the very foundations of our paradigm on the subject. also I accept that death is the end for me as potential (nothing i was or did will then after have the possibility of becoming reality). i hope of course that my accomplishments and my thoughts live on after me through others, but that is only hope. PS: for the record the reason i engaged my brother is that he is far more intelligent and educated than i am and i wanted him to give me an answer. What I don't understand is why believing in a higher power (some kind of "god-entity") always seems to cause this "cop-out" reaction. It is a horrible thing to say that all religious/spiritualist/whatever people are such cowards or non-thinkers on such a basis. You kind of contradict yourself, however. You criticized your brother because he left much of the implications of his existence up to a higher power, yet you are doing effectively the same thing. You said you would wait for "another Copernicus/Kepler/Newton/Einstein to...shake the very foundations of our paradigm on the subject". You are doing effectively the same thing as your brother, but it is perhaps even shakier at its foundations. Instead of looking to a being perceived to be superior in whatever way, you're looking to another human being whom you will perceive to be superior in whatever way. Also, this is just my personal opinion, but I think that there is a HUGE difference between living for survival and living for prosperity...especially when trying to apply the word "prosperity" to man as they be today. | ||
|
DeathSpank
United States1029 Posts
| ||
|
Xela
Canada203 Posts
On May 04 2009 12:21 PH wrote: You're assuming that any person who ascribes to any kind of religion or system of beliefs they didn't come up with themselves is an inauthentic coward who chooses not to think for themselves at all. I think you're being unfair, and are, to put it simply and bluntly, arrogant and wrong. I agree it was a bit arrogant, maybe I should say "most" and not "every" peope following a religion is someone who can't think for himself. I mean, I know alot of people who are constantly asking questions about religion, god, they don't accept everything their religion says 100% of the time and they still follow this system of beliefs. However, you gotta agree that those people are a minority and that at least 90% of others are just sheeps beliveing what they're told to believe, doing what they're told to do. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On May 04 2009 13:26 Xela wrote: I agree it was a bit arrogant, maybe I should say "most" and not "every" peope following a religion is someone who can't think for himself. I mean, I know alot of people who are constantly asking questions about religion, god, they don't accept everything their religion says 100% of the time and they still follow this system of beliefs. However, you gotta agree that those people are a minority and that at least 90% of others are just sheeps beliveing what they're told to believe, doing what they're told to do. I don't know about 90%, or even a majority (at least I'd like to think it's not a majority). Even then, it depends on how much one needs to question in order to not be a "sheep". You don't have to and shouldn't have to doubt and question constantly, and in fact, you can't, in order to be a Christian, or whatever. I don't think it's a bad thing to not doubt or question either. I don't like it when people aren't open-minded about whatever their beliefs may be, but that's really not asking for that much. You can't expect someone who considers themselves a part of whatever belief system (be it religious, agnostic, atheist, or whatever) to be actively doubtful of it. That's just ridiculous. When you ask a devout Christian to doubt the existence of God, that's like asking an atheist to doubt the non-existence of one. Personally, I don't really have a problem with the majority of religious people out there. In fact, they tend to be the more mature and happier people, from my experience. I can even take people who have never even thought twice about it. If it makes them happy, then what separates them from us, who seek fulfillment/happiness through questioning? I have a problem with the evangelists who won't leave me alone, the ones who go out of their way to tell me to fix my ways/that I'm doomed to hell/etc. The ones who take it personally that I don't ascribe to the same their same beliefs and who make it a mission to change my ways, or the ones who take offense at it somehow, are the problem ones. The majority of Christians are not like that. They are a vast minority, in fact. It only seems like they're all like that because the annoying ones are the only ones who stop you on the street. | ||
|
thez
Canada65 Posts
>I disagree with this statement. All the fields of the sciences and philosophy, in the end, work to >do the same one thing: Make explicit what we already implicitly know or can plainly observe. >That's as far as any empirical discipline can go. These are some of the wisest words i have come across in a long time. Any communication that i impart to you will include many simple parts that you have all observed in the past that may make up a whole that may be different than any of the simpler parts alone. All simple parts that i impart to you will be force and form. Any complex forms that i impart to you may be cats, dogs, bananas, the unified theory of simplicity, the uncertainty principle, the watever principle some famous philosopher stewed up in his head after years of toil and trouble that includes all this jargon and eccentric thought that make simple ideas more complicated than they should be to grasp. An example of this is in the video you presented. The first guy attempted to quantify infinity, but infinity is just that, infinite, and completely obscure without the concepts of force, form, separation, connection. Yet we always try to quantify what we have around us, but we can not quantify infinity in any way because it has no bounds. Infinity is the product of energy continuing or ending, both making up an infinity, constant expansion and contraction, separation and connection. All the verbs in the English language are the mental thoughts that define things that can be infinite. And at the same time the specifics of these verbs can be very finite, like a feeling or a lifting of a foot of a single person. But if you take all these thoughts and generalize them to every person and every thing that experiences them it becomes repetitious and infinite. It happens everywhere. So it could be the general and the connected is infinite. But the separated is finite. I have no idea if i make any sense at all to other people. I want to make sense to other people because i want to grant the same peace of mind to others that clairty has brought me. Please provide feedback. | ||
|
Cpt Obvious
Germany3073 Posts
On May 04 2009 15:09 PH wrote (amongst a LOT of other things): I don't know about 90%, or even a majority (at least I'd like to think it's not a majority). Even then, it depends on how much one needs to question in order to not be a "sheep". You don't have to and shouldn't have to doubt and question constantly, and in fact, you can't, in order to be a Christian, or whatever. I don't think it's a bad thing to not doubt or question either. I don't like it when people aren't open-minded about whatever their beliefs may be, but that's really not asking for that much. You can't expect someone who considers themselves a part of whatever belief system (be it religious, agnostic, atheist, or whatever) to be actively doubtful of it. That's just ridiculous. When you ask a devout Christian to doubt the existence of God, that's like asking an atheist to doubt the non-existence of one. Good point, but I disagree. As an agnostic, I feel compelled to question my belief every time a new argument is presented that suggests the existence of a higher being / a meaning to life / whatever. However, those are quite scarce As a scientist, it is my hobby to doubt every set of new data, every new theory, everything. Even the ones that were believed to be true. Science works that way. There's a saying: "When theory and reality don't match, you have to alter either the theory or reality. The first is called science, the latter is called religion". It's religious' people incapability to EVER question their beliefs what gets me. I'm going to re-quote House AGAIN: If you could reason with religious people, there'd be no religious people. Personally, I don't really have a problem with the majority of religious people out there. In fact, they tend to be the more mature and happier people, from my experience. I can even take people who have never even thought twice about it. If it makes them happy, then what separates them from us, who seek fulfillment/happiness through questioning? Same here. I've even met Jehova's witnesses that didn't quite force their beliefs on me, and I had one hell of a conversation with them (pun fully intended). I have no problem with people believing whatever the feck they want, as long as they don't get offended when I go on one of my agnostic rants about how there's no God and no Heaven. I have a problem with the evangelists who won't leave me alone, the ones who go out of their way to tell me to fix my ways/that I'm doomed to hell/etc. The ones who take it personally that I don't ascribe to the same their same beliefs and who make it a mission to change my ways, or the ones who take offense at it somehow, are the problem ones. The majority of Christians are not like that. They are a vast minority, in fact. It only seems like they're all like that because the annoying ones are the only ones who stop you on the street. I agree. However, they still exist. How many fanatic atheists/agnostics do you know? Furthermore, how many atheist organizations do you know of that TAKE YOUR MONEY because you don't believe in God. After all, that makes about as much sense as the other way, doesn't it? I'm gonna stop here before I atheist-rage again, I find this topic utterly disturbing in a positive way and I get carried away sometimes Thanks for all the responses guys, stay tuned for the next update, which is scheduled for 2011, statistically speaking. | ||
| ||
