I swear Jeanie, 90% of your posts are "I like you" "Your cool" and while it's very empowering, and I'm sure you make great friends. Can you like PM them or something? I've said this to people that say similar things about me, this is a forum for reasoned debate, it's not Lavalife and liking someone doesn't give any more credibility to what they are saying.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So, anyway. So far, I have my defintion of Scientism and the Wikipedia defintion. Everyone else is doing the carebear stare or trying to trash science or religion. Anyone feeling like addressing the topic?
Oh, I forgot. Angelica thinks scientism is anything that doesn't agree with her perspective. Anyone else?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm just another dude, in just another city
at just another job, makin' just a bit of money
I'm also the voice of reason. The prophet of science. I heal the sick with defribilators and penacillin. I predict the future and read thoughts with a deterministic view of reality.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
What is your point? It's a particle of light, that's what it says. "the photon is the elementary particle". "and makes up all forms of light". Did you want the full QM explanation of photons? Why did you ask what it is?
What is wave-particle duality?
In physics and chemistry, wave-particle duality holds that all objects in our universe exhibit properties of both waves and of particles.[wikipedia]
This applies to consciousness, how? If something is a wave, what does that imply? If you drop a stone in a puddle with the exact same conditions every time, will it blow up the world one time? No. The waves will behave relatively the same way every time. I don't know where you people get this perception that QM implies anything about our lives. You can't affect the way things behave with your mind, you can only affect the way you interpret them.
me either, because i trust my perception.
[/quote]
QM and understanding od wave/particle duality have nothing to do wioht tthis discussion.
But it's exactly becasue I share your view that my thoughts are really just teh bubbling of a biochemical stew, that I don't trust my perception. Without being psychotic, I have experienced incorrect perceptiona number of times, ususalyy when sleep deprived. It is also why I don't accept that just becasuse someone is convinced of something, that is has to be true.
I just LOVE the philosophers on this board. They need to be shared with the whole board, not just me in a room!
No, I mean the cabbage patch love triangle you got going on here.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
this thread was pretty good until page 9... then it started getting waaaay beyond me and out of control...
while I can't completely understand everything everyone is saying, I can understand most of what people are trying to say and I feel I can just throw my opinion out there.
I'm mostly with Ahnimus. I'm a science person. I believe "God" and religion etc. were created by humans for our own benefit... by this I mean, way back when we couldn't explain things it scared us... lightening, thunder etc. etc. I mean, our brains were advancing almost too much for our own good. So to try to "calm" ourselves or try to understand things we created God etc. to explain it. Old guy from hundreds of years ago says: "whoa man, you see that? the sky just threw a big loud bright line at a tree and it caught fire.. i'm FREAKED OUT... am i gonna die...I'M FREAKING...." meanwhile.. dude #2 says: "calm down man, that was a supreme being who is mad and threw that down here to warn us..." or something like that...
Eventually science caught up and could explain the event and we aren't "scared" of it anymore. I think thats how it is mostly now... while events happen that we can't explain it doesn't mean it was a spirit or god or whomever... just like it has hundreds of times throughout history, science will catch up and eventually have an explanation.
While I don't agree with religion I can see why many people have "faith" in it...
it makes them feel good, it makes a bad situation seem like it will all be all right. it is even a principle to try to get people to be nice to one another and help one another... (which is one thing about MOST religions that I applaud) back on track though.. like when a loved one is injured, people pray... just for comfort so they won't be as scared. I do not have a problem with people who have religion like that... but when religious people try to explain everything with "God did it" or "I experienced it and only people who are on my level can see what I mean" is when I think its a load of bologna.
I started rambling and would have liked to edit this to make it more clear but I have places to be. I'd like to check back later and see how all this is going. I apologize for posting and running, I'll reply later if I'm able.
The Sentence Below Is True
The Sentence Above Is False
QM and understanding od wave/particle duality have nothing to do wioht tthis discussion.
But it's exactly becasue I share your view that my thoughts are really just teh bubbling of a biochemical stew, that I don't trust my perception. Without being psychotic, I have experienced incorrect perceptiona number of times, ususalyy when sleep deprived. It is also why I don't accept that just becasuse someone is convinced of something, that is has to be true.
Thanks, can you just edit the last line, it was Rats of Multa that said he trusts his perception.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm mostly with Ahnimus. I'm a science person. I believe "God" and religion etc. were created by humans for our own benefit... by this I mean, way back when we couldn't explain things it scared us... lightening, thunder etc. etc..
All the thoughts of a turtle, are turtle - Emerson
So, anyway. So far, I have my defintion of Scientism and the Wikipedia defintion. Everyone else is doing the carebear stare or trying to trash science or religion. Anyone feeling like addressing the topic?
Oh, I forgot. Angelica thinks scientism is anything that doesn't agree with her perspective. Anyone else?
i'm not trying to bash science, but that idea of science as a religion is a bit worrisome to me, so perhaps ive come across rather one-sided in this discussion, and i apologize for that.
but to answer your question, i stand by my generic over-simplification of "scientism" as the religious application of scientific clauses and principles.
do you disagree?
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
this thread was pretty good until page 9... then it started getting waaaay beyond me and out of control...
while I can't completely understand everything everyone is saying, I can understand most of what people are trying to say and I feel I can just throw my opinion out there.
I'm mostly with Ahnimus. I'm a science person. I believe "God" and religion etc. were created by humans for our own benefit... by this I mean, way back when we couldn't explain things it scared us... lightening, thunder etc. etc. I mean, our brains were advancing almost too much for our own good. So to try to "calm" ourselves or try to understand things we created God etc. to explain it. Old guy from hundreds of years ago says: "whoa man, you see that? the sky just threw a big loud bright line at a tree and it caught fire.. i'm FREAKED OUT... am i gonna die...I'M FREAKING...." meanwhile.. dude #2 says: "calm down man, that was a supreme being who is mad and threw that down here to warn us..." or something like that...
Eventually science caught up and could explain the event and we aren't "scared" of it anymore. I think thats how it is mostly now... while events happen that we can't explain it doesn't mean it was a spirit or god or whomever... just like it has hundreds of times throughout history, science will catch up and eventually have an explanation.
While I don't agree with religion I can see why many people have "faith" in it...
it makes them feel good, it makes a bad situation seem like it will all be all right. it is even a principle to try to get people to be nice to one another and help one another... (which is one thing about MOST religions that I applaud) back on track though.. like when a loved one is injured, people pray... just for comfort so they won't be as scared. I do not have a problem with people who have religion like that... but when religious people try to explain everything with "God did it" or "I experienced it and only people who are on my level can see what I mean" is when I think its a load of bologna.
I started rambling and would have liked to edit this to make it more clear but I have places to be. I'd like to check back later and see how all this is going. I apologize for posting and running, I'll reply later if I'm able.
Nice post, that's where I'm at. It was quite clear to me, so no need to apologize. We should be on page 25 when you get back :P
Actually glad you said the way you did, because my way of explaining sometimes is difficult for some to understand.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i'm not trying to bash science, but that idea of science as a religion is a bit worrisome to me, so perhaps ive come across rather one-sided in this discussion, and i apologize for that.
but to answer your question, i stand by my generic over-simplification of "scientism" as the religious application of scientific clauses and principles.
do you disagree?
Absolutely. Simply put, scientism is the linking of fact and value. There is no church, no steeple, no priest, no book, no doctrine, no beliefs, no faith, no congregation. It's entirely up to the individual to extrapolate their own values. It is nothing like religion.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm just another dude, in just another city
at just another job, makin' just a bit of money
I'm also the voice of reason. The prophet of science. I heal the sick with defribilators and penacillin. I predict the future and read thoughts with a deterministic view of reality.
sounds interesting enough to me. but if there is no god, then what has determined you to keep starting these f*in philosophical conundrum threads on an internet messaging site,...?
[and no, Time is not a valid response.]
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
As much time as you've spent sharing your thoughts here...what else could it be?
Didn't mean to touch a nerve that way.
No nerve. I just don't think it really has anything to do with the conversation. It makes me wonder what your intentions are.
I'm actually not lonely
This is simply my leisure activity. I don't want TV.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
sounds interesting enough to me. but if there is no god, then what has determined you to keep starting these f*in philosophical conundrum threads on an internet messaging site,...?
[and no, Time is not a valid response.]
I don't see how the existence of a god or not has anything to do with my personal determination.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So, anyway. So far, I have my defintion of Scientism and the Wikipedia defintion. Everyone else is doing the carebear stare or trying to trash science or religion. Anyone feeling like addressing the topic?
Oh, I forgot. Angelica thinks scientism is anything that doesn't agree with her perspective. Anyone else?
see; you're lashing out at angelica for no reason. no one is trying to trash science.
if you want to split hairs; if man is flawed as you say; then your interpretation of the evidence you present is also flawed because you are man. you are seeing the evidence with flawed eyes by your own admission.
don't start lashing out when you paint yourself into a corner. there's a lot of good people here who don't deserve that. besides; you were the one who asked us to debate this this with you.
Ok, but you didn't explain why your bias is better. Scientists have a hell of lot more knowledge about you than you do.
Oh sorry Ahnimus, but that's just CRAP! Nobody knows you better than you know yourself. Scientists may be able to understand mind and body function, disease predictions and a plethora of other things about the human being, BUT the individual knows things about themselves that scientists will never know, understand or care to. AND that seems to be a big problem with some scientists. They are sooo prepared to ONLY go with evidence, instead of listening to the individual and to give a person's statements about themselves any credibility because it's not backed by the "science" as they understand it at the time. I have proven to be the best person to ask about what is happening with me on more than one occassion. A fact that my neurologist and numerous GP's and pharmacists are now starting to acknowledge.
I swear Jeanie, 90% of your posts are "I like you" "Your cool" and while it's very empowering, and I'm sure you make great friends. Can you like PM them or something? I've said this to people that say similar things about me, this is a forum for reasoned debate, it's not Lavalife and liking someone doesn't give any more credibility to what they are saying.
True , it's a forum for debate, but lacking personal face to face contact. Typed communications are easy to misinterpret and can easily offend.Being pointedly nice to people is one way of avoiding this.
Also, I duno about you, but I come here to have fun, and smileys are good for that. I agree that liking someone does not make them right.
You might not get lonely at work, but I do. Being right at the expense of being liked is not much fun either, though, so to come back on topic, maybe that has something to do with 'Scientism" being despised, or equivalent to an insult.
Science IS concerned with being right, whether or not people like the outcome. Often they don't and since they can't fight teh facts, they shoot the messenger instead.
yes for some unkown reason, i can post as many alias's as i dam well please and he still knows its me
Metsy, you give yourself away when you say : "who r u?" on the chat.
Or when you say you're going to bed, and as soon as you leave, a new alias arrives who is obviously a fake character with some "ed" name. Ahnimus made some good intuitive leaps.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
I swear Jeanie, 90% of your posts are "I like you" "Your cool" and while it's very empowering, and I'm sure you make great friends. Can you like PM them or something? I've said this to people that say similar things about me, this is a forum for reasoned debate, it's not Lavalife and liking someone doesn't give any more credibility to what they are saying.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
There is no God.
Get a room. Seriously.
then who do you think you are?
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Oh, I forgot. Angelica thinks scientism is anything that doesn't agree with her perspective. Anyone else?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm just another dude, in just another city
at just another job, makin' just a bit of money
I'm also the voice of reason. The prophet of science. I heal the sick with defribilators and penacillin. I predict the future and read thoughts with a deterministic view of reality.
QM and understanding od wave/particle duality have nothing to do wioht tthis discussion.
But it's exactly becasue I share your view that my thoughts are really just teh bubbling of a biochemical stew, that I don't trust my perception. Without being psychotic, I have experienced incorrect perceptiona number of times, ususalyy when sleep deprived. It is also why I don't accept that just becasuse someone is convinced of something, that is has to be true.
No, I mean the cabbage patch love triangle you got going on here.
this thread was pretty good until page 9... then it started getting waaaay beyond me and out of control...
while I can't completely understand everything everyone is saying, I can understand most of what people are trying to say and I feel I can just throw my opinion out there.
I'm mostly with Ahnimus. I'm a science person. I believe "God" and religion etc. were created by humans for our own benefit... by this I mean, way back when we couldn't explain things it scared us... lightening, thunder etc. etc. I mean, our brains were advancing almost too much for our own good. So to try to "calm" ourselves or try to understand things we created God etc. to explain it. Old guy from hundreds of years ago says: "whoa man, you see that? the sky just threw a big loud bright line at a tree and it caught fire.. i'm FREAKED OUT... am i gonna die...I'M FREAKING...." meanwhile.. dude #2 says: "calm down man, that was a supreme being who is mad and threw that down here to warn us..." or something like that...
Eventually science caught up and could explain the event and we aren't "scared" of it anymore. I think thats how it is mostly now... while events happen that we can't explain it doesn't mean it was a spirit or god or whomever... just like it has hundreds of times throughout history, science will catch up and eventually have an explanation.
While I don't agree with religion I can see why many people have "faith" in it...
it makes them feel good, it makes a bad situation seem like it will all be all right. it is even a principle to try to get people to be nice to one another and help one another... (which is one thing about MOST religions that I applaud) back on track though.. like when a loved one is injured, people pray... just for comfort so they won't be as scared. I do not have a problem with people who have religion like that... but when religious people try to explain everything with "God did it" or "I experienced it and only people who are on my level can see what I mean" is when I think its a load of bologna.
I started rambling and would have liked to edit this to make it more clear but I have places to be. I'd like to check back later and see how all this is going. I apologize for posting and running, I'll reply later if I'm able.
The Sentence Above Is False
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Thanks, can you just edit the last line, it was Rats of Multa that said he trusts his perception.
As much time as you've spent sharing your thoughts here...what else could it be?
Didn't mean to touch a nerve that way.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
All the thoughts of a turtle, are turtle - Emerson
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i'm not trying to bash science, but that idea of science as a religion is a bit worrisome to me, so perhaps ive come across rather one-sided in this discussion, and i apologize for that.
but to answer your question, i stand by my generic over-simplification of "scientism" as the religious application of scientific clauses and principles.
do you disagree?
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Nice post, that's where I'm at. It was quite clear to me, so no need to apologize. We should be on page 25 when you get back :P
Actually glad you said the way you did, because my way of explaining sometimes is difficult for some to understand.
Absolutely. Simply put, scientism is the linking of fact and value. There is no church, no steeple, no priest, no book, no doctrine, no beliefs, no faith, no congregation. It's entirely up to the individual to extrapolate their own values. It is nothing like religion.
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
sounds interesting enough to me. but if there is no god, then what has determined you to keep starting these f*in philosophical conundrum threads on an internet messaging site,...?
[and no, Time is not a valid response.]
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
No nerve. I just don't think it really has anything to do with the conversation. It makes me wonder what your intentions are.
I'm actually not lonely
This is simply my leisure activity. I don't want TV.
well,..?
[is he psychic?]
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
I don't see how the existence of a god or not has anything to do with my personal determination.
see; you're lashing out at angelica for no reason. no one is trying to trash science.
if you want to split hairs; if man is flawed as you say; then your interpretation of the evidence you present is also flawed because you are man. you are seeing the evidence with flawed eyes by your own admission.
don't start lashing out when you paint yourself into a corner. there's a lot of good people here who don't deserve that. besides; you were the one who asked us to debate this this with you.
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
Posting on a message board has a limit on intentions, such as making a post.
I understand the TV thing.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Oh sorry Ahnimus, but that's just CRAP! Nobody knows you better than you know yourself. Scientists may be able to understand mind and body function, disease predictions and a plethora of other things about the human being, BUT the individual knows things about themselves that scientists will never know, understand or care to. AND that seems to be a big problem with some scientists. They are sooo prepared to ONLY go with evidence, instead of listening to the individual and to give a person's statements about themselves any credibility because it's not backed by the "science" as they understand it at the time. I have proven to be the best person to ask about what is happening with me on more than one occassion. A fact that my neurologist and numerous GP's and pharmacists are now starting to acknowledge.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
of course you dont, but that is merely an opinion stemming from your perception.
personally i dont put much trust in your perception, since somehow [in contradiction] your perception allows you to believe in "uncaused-determinism".
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
True , it's a forum for debate, but lacking personal face to face contact. Typed communications are easy to misinterpret and can easily offend.Being pointedly nice to people is one way of avoiding this.
Also, I duno about you, but I come here to have fun, and smileys are good for that. I agree that liking someone does not make them right.
You might not get lonely at work, but I do. Being right at the expense of being liked is not much fun either, though, so to come back on topic, maybe that has something to do with 'Scientism" being despised, or equivalent to an insult.
Science IS concerned with being right, whether or not people like the outcome. Often they don't and since they can't fight teh facts, they shoot the messenger instead.
Or when you say you're going to bed, and as soon as you leave, a new alias arrives who is obviously a fake character with some "ed" name. Ahnimus made some good intuitive leaps.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!