It couldn't possibly be that you're among your own crowd at that site, while this one is much more diverse as the basis for people being here is something as random as a particular rock band we all like... I figure I'd find a lot of people agreeing with me too at "leftie-sociologists.com".
And I still ask you kindly for something written on your claims. I am not going to start watch stuff that goes on for hours, and fundamentally is for the particularly interested. Never mind the pedagogical usefulness for me to absorb it all, just gimme the highlights or anything really. Dont be a one-source pony.
Peace
Dan
Bad night Dan?
It's an infinite loop though. If I post my summation of material it's passed off as radicalism. If I give a source for my information it's ignored. You can't win with lazy people. People here are diverse, that's for sure. But they don't explore, they don't learn, they are stuck and too absorbed to spend the time reading or watching something intriguing. Instead, watch hours of mind-numbingly stupid sitcoms. Nelson from The Simpsons will tell you that your epidermis is your hair. If you didn't know any better, you might believe it. Skeptics is all about skepticism, not everyone there agrees, but there is certainly a lot more depth to the conversation.
Why can't we have a decent debate here? Is it as you say, because everyone here likes Pearl Jam, perhaps Pearl Jam represents some radical view of reality. I don't know, I just like their music. I thought this was a section for reasoned debate. It's more like an infinite black and white debate.
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
Good. Now if you combine the meanings we like to use the most, you get a system of reasoning that deals with criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. Emphasis on "a" system and "criteria" here. This does not equal science, nor does science equal this. But science as practiced is a such system.
And serisouly, dont be surprised if people on a message board wont necessarily just watch hours and hours of video lectures on a subject to view it your way. I do not doubt that you have found some people who stand at one side of the issues and present their case. Maybe even convincingly for all I know. But you can't with that sole and only reference present that view as undeniable fact that is accepted by all, when it isn't.
Find me a written piece that sums it up, and I may read it. Economy of time is a serious issue on boards like this. Not because I'm not at all interested, because I am, but what you consistently propose people to do is enormously time-consuming and may be viewed as a mere intimidation tactic, as you know noone will call you out on it. I'm not saying it is, just saying how it can be viewed. By all means, link me evidence and pieces supporting your view, that can be read in a timely fashion in a reasonable amount of time. Then I can judge their merit. But having an argument where you basically say: "It's all here in this long movie, and I will argue as if it is the entire and complete truth, and assume if you haven't seen it, you are ignorant and un-enlightened" won't get us very far.
Again, if the consensus and interpretation that you claim is so widespread and matter-of-factly, then getting me some other sources than those videos must surely be possible.
Peace
Dan
I'm suprised that this even requires proof. The idea that logic is a subjective human construct is absolutely absurd. Logic exists regardless of our experiencing it. Our environment is logical and we are part of it, therefor we are logical. Our brains are tuned to adapting to our logical environment by logical groupings of neurons that serve a logical purpose in our behavior.
What do you think? Newborns just instantly know everything? Or maybe they can't figure anything out. How then do they learn to speak? Is it their alogic that enables them to learn and adapt? How is it different than logic? I don't get the argument against logic, I guess I need to understand that first. So when you can give me a good argument for man-made logic, then I can make an argument.
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
It's an infinite loop though. If I post my summation of material it's passed off as radicalism. If I give a source for my information it's ignored. You can't win with lazy people. People here are diverse, that's for sure. But they don't explore, they don't learn, they are stuck and too absorbed to spend the time reading or watching something intriguing. Instead, watch hours of mind-numbingly stupid sitcoms. Nelson from The Simpsons will tell you that your epidermis is your hair. If you didn't know any better, you might believe it. Skeptics is all about skepticism, not everyone there agrees, but there is certainly a lot more depth to the conversation.
Why can't we have a decent debate here? Is it as you say, because everyone here likes Pearl Jam, perhaps Pearl Jam represents some radical view of reality. I don't know, I just like their music. I thought this was a section for reasoned debate. It's more like an infinite black and white debate.
Nah, my night was good.
But that's just the thing. You usually post something pretty radical (and it is, outside of skeptics.com) and at best back it up with one source (your videos or wikipedia). But the reason for most of the flak you get is your attitude, and quick resorting to labelling people stupid and ignorant. Mostly for just not sharing your view. That's a debate-killer if there ever was one.
This site is not a professional site for people within one particular field. This is a site with ordinary different people that take an interest on various issues, and differ on them. So many here may not see the world as you do. If you feel that makes for poor debates, well, find some place else then.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
But that's just the thing. You usually post something pretty radical (and it is, outside of skeptics.com) and at best back it up with one source (your videos or wikipedia). But the reason for most of the flak you get is your attitude, and quick resorting to labelling people stupid and ignorant. Mostly for just not sharing your view. That's a debate-killer if there ever was one.
This site is not a professional site for people within one particular field. This is a site with ordinary different people that take an interest on various issues, and differ on them. So many here may not see the world as you do. If you feel that makes for poor debates, well, find some place else then.
Peace
Dan
So, it's just a place for bored and tired average people to spew the same old assembly line statements over and over again, upsetting each other and creating a no-win environment? What's the point?
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 suprised that this even requires proof. The idea that logic is a subjective human construct is absolutely absurd. Logic exists regardless of our experiencing it. Our environment is logical and we are part of it, therefor we are logical. Our brains are tuned to adapting to our logical environment by logical groupings of neurons that serve a logical purpose in our behavior.
That's one philosophical direction, yes. Logic as mode of reasoning and sense-making we have no guarantee latches on to "truth", and certainly not that it latches on to "the complete truth". Your view is then best characterized as logical positivism. That is one perspective. Widespread in scientific circles, sure.
What do you think? Newborns just instantly know everything? Or maybe they can't figure anything out. How then do they learn to speak? Is it their alogic that enables them to learn and adapt? How is it different than logic? I don't get the argument against logic, I guess I need to understand that first. So when you can give me a good argument for man-made logic, then I can make an argument.
I think you read a lot more into "logic" than I do. You equate logic, truth and reality. To you they seem to be interchangable. I dont view them as that necessarily. How newborns learn I do not know, I dont research it, but I do know that those who do research it are not in agreement on anything there. Some claim innate ability, others claim tabula rasa.
And who is arguing against logic? I am merely limiting it's scope, or trying to make you see that logic is a system of reasoning and deducting, and as such, there may be different systems.
I am founding my view in the philosophical tradition of phenomenology, which is pretty often the opposite of the logical philosophers. (a particular direction and reasoning in a particular way in this sense) The key argument against the logics is mainly: "How can you be sure that something holds the same meaning for all universally, and also how can you get around the ambiguity inherent of all concepts to enable only one interpretation?". We're getting into a philosophical argument now, but that's what it is!
My view that logic is man-made has some basis. First of all, logic isn't just lying around until we discover it. Human minds actively uses (a) logic to make sense and categorize the world around them. Also all human minds are alone in the sense that noone knows what others are thinking. Speech and communication being flawed at best. To function together we must have a shared outlook on the world as that saves us a lot of time, and together establish what is logical, what values we respect, what tradition and norms we are to observe. Thus we get a shared logic, or just "logic" as we think of it. But that logic is not objective and not found in nature, but has appeared out of humans negotiating with eachother for a compromising agreement we can live with. The outcome of negotiations can be different. Maybe we in our culture happen to have latched onto the real objective truth but we have no way whatsoever to verify that. This doesn't negate science or logical discussion, it just puts it in perspective, and gives a view of it's limits.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
So, it's just a place for bored and tired average people to spew the same old assembly line statements over and over again, upsetting each other and creating a no-win environment? What's the point?
That is not what I said. That interpretation is on you.
You tell me. Why are you here?
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
But isn't logic proven to exist. A logical statment like 1 + 1 = 2 is undeniable. It's all symbols which is a logical construct in the sense you've represented. However, the actual logic that exists of which the symbols represent, exists regardless of the symbols. Two objects when placed together makes a "pair" which represents two objects. The symbol "Can of Coke" is used for communication. "I have two cans of coke, would you like one?" represents the fact that you do have two cans of coke and are willing to share one. The logic is there regardless of the symbols. If I said "I have 3 cans of coke" and in fact I only had 1, that would be a false representation of logic in terms of symbols, but the fact that I had 1 can of coke still remains true. My representation of fact was illogical. Everything we know is somehow logical. It's totally speculative to say something exists beyond what we can possibly know. And I don't really see the point of it. Unless you are attributing emotion to something besides logic. I guess it can seem like an opposing force, but I'm not so sure it is.
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
But isn't logic proven to exist. A logical statment like 1 + 1 = 2 is undeniable. It's all symbols which is a logical construct in the sense you've represented. However, the actual logic that exists of which the symbols represent, exists regardless of the symbols. Two objects when placed together makes a "pair" which represents two objects. The symbol "Can of Coke" is used for communication. "I have two cans of coke, would you like one?" represents the fact that you do have two cans of coke and are willing to share one. The logic is there regardless of the symbols. If I said "I have 3 cans of coke" and in fact I only had 1, that would be a false representation of logic in terms of symbols, but the fact that I had 1 can of coke still remains true. My representation of fact was illogical. Everything we know is somehow logical. It's totally speculative to say something exists beyond what we can possibly know. And I don't really see the point of it. Unless you are attributing emotion to something besides logic. I guess it can seem like an opposing force, but I'm not so sure it is.
Logically, speculative logic shows us logically that logic can be improved logic tomorrow, logically rendering the current logic illogical.
That is not what I said. That interpretation is on you.
You tell me. Why are you here?
Peace
Dan
Well you said people don't want to get in-depth. So isn't it just the same all the time. An abortion thread gets started, you get people on either side fighting it out. You are either all in favor of abortion at any stage, or you think that the soul begins at conception. I'm not so keen to take an extreme view of it. I can see both sides of the argument. But that doesn't fly here, you have to just keep referencing Roe vs Wade or arguing the unborn is part of the mother's person. The law as it stands is pretty much what I think it should be, maybe a bit different, but not much. So it's like a polarization pit, I think if it wasn't such an emotional experience we'd fine more compromise here.
So why am I here? Because I like conversation. I try to talk about important issues, but it's just not registering. I mean, the logic here is you read Michael Talbot and your an expert on everything. The guy is a sci-fi author. I would just look at his background, look at his references, look at his content and put it back on the shelf. I wouldn't read it, who is this guy? If you want to learn about cosmology, you read a book written by a cosmologist who references other cosmologists. This junk science is insane, it's far too much. Obstruction of the truth. Hey, I'm fully open to believing in the boogieman when we have his corpse in a morgue and his genome on our computers. What really is there besides logic? Where does this idea come from that there is something else? I can't think alogically. I just can't.
Anyway, a lot of studies have shown children to use logic. They pick stuff up, examine them, stick 'em in their mouths, twirl them with their toungues, stick 'em up their noses, ears, kids will try anything, with everything they can get their hands on. They are logically figuring everything out. Causality inference in other words. They are discover nature as it exists in objective 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
Logically, speculative logic shows us logically that logic can be improved logic tomorrow, logically rendering the current logic illogical.
Or our logical interpretation of logical events becomes clarified. I'm not saying we are perfect causal inference machines, I'm just saying that we are designed to integrate with reality. It's our innate ability to infer causation.
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
But isn't logic proven to exist. A logical statment like 1 + 1 = 2 is undeniable. It's all symbols which is a logical construct in the sense you've represented. However, the actual logic that exists of which the symbols represent, exists regardless of the symbols. Two objects when placed together makes a "pair" which represents two objects. The symbol "Can of Coke" is used for communication. "I have two cans of coke, would you like one?" represents the fact that you do have two cans of coke and are willing to share one. The logic is there regardless of the symbols. If I said "I have 3 cans of coke" and in fact I only had 1, that would be a false representation of logic in terms of symbols, but the fact that I had 1 can of coke still remains true. My representation of fact was illogical. Everything we know is somehow logical. It's totally speculative to say something exists beyond what we can possibly know. And I don't really see the point of it. Unless you are attributing emotion to something besides logic. I guess it can seem like an opposing force, but I'm not so sure it is.
Numbers work, because that is a closed system of interpretations. But what if we say that A + B = C, which can be a usual statement in formal logic. The question is what A stands for, what does B stand for and so on. For the statements to hold true, you have to have complete, precise understanding of the concept presented. When dealing with math, we have that to a larger degree. But how about inserting some concepts here to make it more difficult. Unemployment + Social Class = Poverty. Then you're in trouble as none of these concepts are without ambiguity. And that goes for most concepts. For formal logic to hold true, you have to have complete knowledge of the concept, whereas concepts have a tendency to be fuzzy around the edges.
There is nothing logically wrong with stating that you have 3 cans of coke. It would be lying, but it wouldn't be illogical. Or alternatively: if you state to have 3 cans, how can I know you dont have that, only that 2 of them are not in your hand at the moment?
My point is merely that you attribute logic to far more thigns than you should. Of course we think "logically", but there are different logics to be used. Logic does not equal truth. Logic is a system of thinking and deducing. Logic does only equal truth if you add the positivist notion of we always see objectively what is, and there is only one way for humans to think. Studies in social anthropology and psychology have put that notion under serious doubt. People can behave very strangely and "illogical" to us, while really having another logic we dont see at once. And people's senses are easily fooled.
I think you are really on about truth. And that does not equal logic, as I said, unless under very particular circumstances and one particular perspective.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Or our logical interpretation of logical events becomes clarified. I'm not saying we are perfect causal inference machines, I'm just saying that we are designed to integrate with reality. It's our innate ability to infer causation.
Well you said people don't want to get in-depth. So isn't it just the same all the time. An abortion thread gets started, you get people on either side fighting it out. You are either all in favor of abortion at any stage, or you think that the soul begins at conception. I'm not so keen to take an extreme view of it. I can see both sides of the argument. But that doesn't fly here, you have to just keep referencing Roe vs Wade or arguing the unborn is part of the mother's person. The law as it stands is pretty much what I think it should be, maybe a bit different, but not much. So it's like a polarization pit, I think if it wasn't such an emotional experience we'd fine more compromise here.
People want to get in-depth, but not in the way of having curriculum literature slammed in their head. I could start slamming people over the head with all the books I have read the last 5 years, but that wouldn't accomplish anything. And if you really hate slogan fests, stay out of the abortion threads. Word to the wise.
So why am I here? Because I like conversation. I try to talk about important issues, but it's just not registering. I mean, the logic here is you read Michael Talbot and your an expert on everything. The guy is a sci-fi author. I would just look at his background, look at his references, look at his content and put it back on the shelf. I wouldn't read it, who is this guy? If you want to learn about cosmology, you read a book written by a cosmologist who references other cosmologists. This junk science is insane, it's far too much. Obstruction of the truth. Hey, I'm fully open to believing in the boogieman when we have his corpse in a morgue and his genome on our computers. What really is there besides logic? Where does this idea come from that there is something else? I can't think alogically. I just can't.
In other words, if writers and people dont fit your scheme and worldview, they can get bent? You obviously see the limits that puts on conversation. If you dont like people's "crazy" ideas, then ignore them, or politely disagree. Dont slam them on the head with 6 hours of video, and some snide remarks about them being ignorant and stupid, and what they say is all junk...
I like conversation as well, but for it to get anywhere at all, you must hear people out, and be willing to entertain the notion that they may be right and see their side of things. If you don't, well you're just as guilty of turning topics into slogan fests and polarized standpoints.
(edit) And I might add that of course you cannot think illogically. Neither can I. We all have, and need systems for thinking. I am saying there isn't necessarily one single system, and even if there is, that single system may not be science as incarnated at the present moment.
Anyway, a lot of studies have shown children to use logic. They pick stuff up, examine them, stick 'em in their mouths, twirl them with their toungues, stick 'em up their noses, ears, kids will try anything, with everything they can get their hands on. They are logically figuring everything out. Causality inference in other words. They are discover nature as it exists in objective reality.
Have I ever stated otherwise? I am not arguing against logic. I am arguing it's limitations, particularly when it comes to highly abstract concepts and debates.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
There are many points that need to be addressed in this thread, Ahnimus. For example, what kind of ‘man-made’ logic are you talking about here? Deductive? Inductive?
It’s hard to debate this topic with you when you, yourself, do not have a good grasp on what you are debating, so it’s interesting that you would accuse others here of being ignorant and un-enlightened. Do I have the right to call you ignorant, simply because you do not have the formal schooling in mathematics and science? Of course not! So please refrain from calling others ignorant because they do not have the time to watch some extensive video.
I really think you should pay attention to Dan’s (OutOfBreath) posts. He has given you sound advice. It’s not that this topic is not interesting, it is! You usually do bring up some interesting points. The problem is that you think you have ‘the absolute truth’. It is at this point your arguments become silly and, well, illogical .
As an aside, I found it VERY interesting that your skeptic buddy would take a strictly Platonist view of Mathematics. Interestingly, most scientist that are atheist (esp the ones I work with) take a Formalist approach, ie, all math is invented. The Platonist usually ‘see’ things that you would find, umm, illogical. Simply put, a formalist believes that math is nothing more than symbol manipulation. When a kid learns arithmetic, he/she need concrete objects (fingers, cans of coke, etc) to relate to the ‘real’ world. Later they learn how to apply abstract mathematical operations, such as using X & Y in place of numbers. Then some move on to even more advanced mathematics that obey strange rules that don’t correspond to anything in the real world. In other words, there are many examples of math being ‘invented’ long before a practical or logical use, for example, non-Euclidean geometry.
Here’s something to think about as it pertains to ‘invented’ math & logic. Euclidean geometry, I would suggest, is based off of observable data. Non-Euclidean geometry arose when mathematicians decided to throw out Euclid’s fifth axiom. This later proved that Euclidean geometry was not completely correct. The resulting math turned out to be of great use later in science and Einstein used it in his general theory of relativity. However, kids are still taught Euclidean geometry in school as it a very good approximation most of the time. Moral of this story……………. A logical/deductive argument is only as good as the premise it was founded and it is unwise to consider any axiom or idea as so self-evidently correct that it could not be otherwise.
This is getting long, so I’ll wrap it up. I think, Ahnimus, you might find the mathematician & logician Kurt Godel of some interest. He proved a theorem that simply stated that mathematical statements existed for which NO systematic procedure could determine whether they are true or false. This disturbed mathematicians as it undermined logical foundations of mathematics. It also ‘breathed’ life into the Platonist point of view that math is discovered (not to mention Mandelbrot/fractals/Fibonacci sequence that your friend mentioned).
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
There are many points that need to be addressed in this thread, Ahnimus. For example, what kind of ‘man-made’ logic are you talking about here? Deductive? Inductive?
It’s hard to debate this topic with you when you, yourself, do not have a good grasp on what you are debating, so it’s interesting that you would accuse others here of being ignorant and un-enlightened. Do I have the right to call you ignorant, simply because you do not have the formal schooling in mathematics and science? Of course not! So please refrain from calling others ignorant because they do not have the time to watch some extensive video.
I really think you should pay attention to Dan’s (OutOfBreath) posts. He has given you sound advice. It’s not that this topic is not interesting, it is! You usually do bring up some interesting points. The problem is that you think you have ‘the absolute truth’. It is at this point your arguments become silly and, well, illogical .
As an aside, I found it VERY interesting that your skeptic buddy would take a strictly Platonist view of Mathematics. Interestingly, most scientist that are atheist (esp the ones I work with) take a Formalist approach, ie, all math is invented. The Platonist usually ‘see’ things that you would find, umm, illogical. Simply put, a formalist believes that math is nothing more than symbol manipulation. When a kid learns arithmetic, he/she need concrete objects (fingers, cans of coke, etc) to relate to the ‘real’ world. Later they learn how to apply abstract mathematical operations, such as using X & Y in place of numbers. Then some move on to even more advanced mathematics that obey strange rules that don’t correspond to anything in the real world. In other words, there are many examples of math being ‘invented’ long before a practical or logical use, for example, non-Euclidean geometry.
Here’s something to think about as it pertains to ‘invented’ math & logic. Euclidean geometry, I would suggest, is based off of observable data. Non-Euclidean geometry arose when mathematicians decided to throw out Euclid’s fifth axiom. This later proved that Euclidean geometry was not completely correct. The resulting math turned out to be of great use later in science and Einstein used it in his general theory of relativity. However, kids are still taught Euclidean geometry in school as it a very good approximation most of the time. Moral of this story……………. A logical/deductive argument is only as good as the premise it was founded and it is unwise to consider any axiom or idea as so self-evidently correct that it could not be otherwise.
This is getting long, so I’ll wrap it up. I think, Ahnimus, you might find the mathematician & logician Kurt Godel of some interest. He proved a theorem that simply stated that mathematical statements existed for which NO systematic procedure could determine whether they are true or false. This disturbed mathematicians as it undermined logical foundations of mathematics. It also ‘breathed’ life into the Platonist point of view that math is discovered (not to mention Mandelbrot/fractals/Fibonacci sequence that your friend mentioned).
God-given
Though I have found no source online for the definition of this term. I feel it is fairly straight forward. A "God-given" right as it's called is the moral rights to which we as a culture acknowledge en-masse. Whereas a "God-given" ability is typically considered a talent or an innate ability. An ability we are born with.
Logic is an innate ability, for without logic innately instilled in us we would only react based on hardcoded behaviors. The evidence that newborns are logical beings is undeniable. In-fact, newborns experience very little in terms of emotions or feelings. The majority of their time is spent discovering the logical system of reality and recognizing logical patterns. Logic is by no means something we have created, rather an innate ability, and perhaps the only innate mental power we possess to discover our surroundings. It is by definition of theism a God-given ability.
Discuss
so you've never had children then. man has named natural logic as instinct because he doesn't understand it. yet religion has endured 5000 years. and 5000 years later only 12% of the population are athiests. now if this 12% are the "enlightened" ones; the enlightenment came from a superior being. if it came from man; man is an inferior being. you were not born an athiet. either an event in your life caused you to decide God doesn't exist or it was taught to you. it could also be an inner need to rebel against the majority which you are in denial about.
you're trying to use man-made logic to explain away religion in which case you are using inferior logic to explain what you can't understand.
But isn't logic proven to exist. A logical statment like 1 + 1 = 2 is undeniable. It's all symbols which is a logical construct in the sense you've represented. However, the actual logic that exists of which the symbols represent, exists regardless of the symbols. Two objects when placed together makes a "pair" which represents two objects. The symbol "Can of Coke" is used for communication. "I have two cans of coke, would you like one?" represents the fact that you do have two cans of coke and are willing to share one. The logic is there regardless of the symbols. If I said "I have 3 cans of coke" and in fact I only had 1, that would be a false representation of logic in terms of symbols, but the fact that I had 1 can of coke still remains true. My representation of fact was illogical. Everything we know is somehow logical. It's totally speculative to say something exists beyond what we can possibly know. And I don't really see the point of it. Unless you are attributing emotion to something besides logic. I guess it can seem like an opposing force, but I'm not so sure it is.
you're using learning to explain away logic. logic cannot be established. you cannot establish a logical progression of events. you see the logical progression and learn what happened. you try to use mathmatics as examples. so who decided what 2 means? numeric progress could just as well have been: 358794106 with the symbol 5 meaning what we now accept as 2.
using the example of a baby; a baby finds it logical to make a noise when it is hungry. it is then taught the accepted noise to express it's wants. in english it's hungry. and that accepted noise is different for each language.
also; a baby accepts the existance of a superior being. it's mother. this superior being provides food and comfort; also mobility and education. studies have shown a fetus is capable of learning while in the womb.
But that's just the thing. You usually post something pretty radical (and it is, outside of skeptics.com) and at best back it up with one source (your videos or wikipedia). But the reason for most of the flak you get is your attitude, and quick resorting to labelling people stupid and ignorant. Mostly for just not sharing your view. That's a debate-killer if there ever was one.
This site is not a professional site for people within one particular field. This is a site with ordinary different people that take an interest on various issues, and differ on them. So many here may not see the world as you do. If you feel that makes for poor debates, well, find some place else then.
Peace
Dan
exactly.
i said as much earlier as well...and lately it seems especially evident in almost all discussions here. so i don't think it's the 'rest of us'...who insist on seeing all in just black and white, quite the contrary really. i don't see all that many who are outright 'i'm right, you are wrong'...except for a few. so yes...seems the proverbial pot calling the kettle black in this 'debate'.....how's that for logic?
anyhoo..i still think anhimus, gue_barium are one in the same...and this person he keeps quoting from skeptics.com? macros_man? i think is anhimus too. it's all good though, it's been qhuite a while since we've had a poster utilize differing personalities to bump his own opinions. and if i'm wrong...you can just dismiss me as ignorant...those sweeping generalizations for all who might dare to disagreee, or even question your wisdom, seem to get that treatment. definitely not a good way to spur debate, fuel interest.
exactly.
i said as much earlier as well...and lately it seems especially evident in almost all discussions here. so i don't think it's the 'rest of us'...who insist on seeing all in just black and white, quite the contrary really. i don't see all that many who are outright 'i'm right, you are wrong'...except for a few. so yes...seems the proverbial pot calling the kettle black in this 'debate'.....how's that for logic?
Yeah, humans have all sorts of beliefs. Some of us arrive at them through education, experience, or indoctrination. Where I take issue with Ahnimus, is not what he believes, but that he thinks he has epistemological rights to declare his conclusions as absolute truth. He is simply taking what little he knows of science & mathematics and extrapolating. This is no different than me doing the same and declaring the existence of God as absolute fact. I might believe it to be fact in my heart, from my experience & my knowledge, but I can't scientifically prove it. My views and his can't be declared as 'fact' according to the 'rules' of science. Extrapolation has no place in the scientific stomping grounds. It is not science, but philosophy.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Yeah, humans have all sorts of beliefs. Some of us arrive at them through education, experience, or indoctrination. Where I take issue with Ahnimus, is not what he believes, but that he thinks he has epistemological rights to declare his conclusions as absolute truth. He is simply taking what little he knows of science & mathematics and extrapolating. This is no different than me doing the same and declaring the existence of God as absolute fact. I might believe it to be fact in my heart, from my experience & my knowledge, but I can't scientifically prove it. My views and his can't be declared as 'fact' according to the 'rules' of science. Extrapolation has no place in the scientific stomping grounds. It is not science, but philosophy.
yep...full agreement here.
i don't really care what one personally believes to be 'right'...or even if necessarily one IS right on any given topic.....it's all in the delivery and communication of ideas. if one truly wants others to believe what they have to say, one should do so from a point of respect. if you do not respect the people you are preaching to, what's the point...why do you care? unless it is simply to increase your own self-importance in your own eyes...and if thast's the case, i far prefer someone keep their ego masturbation to themselves.
now if it is truly to discuss, and/or enlighten...i'm all for it.....but yes, i need to respect you and feel respected in turn...and so it goes.
exactly.
i said as much earlier as well...and lately it seems especially evident in almost all discussions here. so i don't think it's the 'rest of us'...who insist on seeing all in just black and white, quite the contrary really. i don't see all that many who are outright 'i'm right, you are wrong'...except for a few. so yes...seems the proverbial pot calling the kettle black in this 'debate'.....how's that for logic?
anyhoo..i still think anhimus, gue_barium are one in the same...and this person he keeps quoting from skeptics.com? macros_man? i think is anhimus too. it's all good though, it's been qhuite a while since we've had a poster utilize differing personalities to bump his own opinions. and if i'm wrong...you can just dismiss me as ignorant...those sweeping generalizations for all who might dare to disagreee, or even question your wisdom, seem to get that treatment. definitely not a good way to spur debate, fuel interest.
ya know, after i posted it..i was corrected...so yes i know and apologize. just from a few threads recently...it seemed so perfect...one and the same 'debating himself'...and absolutely, it wold NOT be the first time that's happened here, so it's not so far-fetched for me to think that. mea culpa.
so sheesh.
ya know, after i posted it..i was corrected...so yes i know and apologize. just from a few threads recently...it seemed so perfect...one and the same 'debating himself'...and absolutely, it wold NOT be the first time that's happened here, so it's not so far-fetched for me to think that. mea culpa.
so sheesh.
No problem. I've actually debated myself on here a few times, but I'm too lazy to sign on as two different posters.
No problem. I've actually debated myself on here a few times, but I'm too lazy to sign on as two different posters.
ya, and debate yourself honestly...that's a-ok.
me, i just don't see the point. i mean, i do see why some may see a point to it...but as i have no agenda here, not trying to preach my thoughts...nor use this place as a sick, twisted place to entertain myself at the expense of others. nah, just not interesting.
Thought this thread was about the origins of Logic.
Anyway, all of matter follows a logic and that logic exists regardless of our symbolism.
the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
Makes sense, regardless of our reasoning the logical system produces an outcome. Granted computers are developed by humans. The atmosphere follows a logic with which we use logical reasoning to deduce.
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
me, i just don't see the point. i mean, i do see why some may see a point to it...but as i have no agenda here, not trying to preach my thoughts...nor use this place as a sick, twisted place to entertain myself at the expense of others. nah, just not interesting.
I think it is incorrect to consider logic as innately human. I mean plenty of animal species attack tasks in a logical manner. Look for example at how dolphins use pack beahviour to catch whole schools of fish or chimps construct tool and collect termites with them from sites where they have had success before. Lions do not pursue prey once the initial chase has failed because it is illogical to expend more energy on something which will not provide any return.To imply that humans are the only logical life form implies that all other organisms go about life in an inherently illogical manner which is not the case.We give ousrelves to much credit I think.
I think it is incorrect to consider logic as innately human. I mean plenty of animal species attack tasks in a logical manner. Look for example at how dolphins use pack beahviour to catch whole schools of fish or chimps construct tool and collect termites with them from sites where they have had success before. Lions do not pursue prey once the initial chase has failed because it is illogical to expend more energy on something which will not provide any return.To imply that humans are the only logical life form implies that all other organisms go about life in an inherently illogical manner which is not the case.We give ousrelves to much credit I think.
so you've never had children then. man has named natural logic as instinct because he doesn't understand it. yet religion has endured 5000 years. and 5000 years later only 12% of the population are athiests. now if this 12% are the "enlightened" ones; the enlightenment came from a superior being. if it came from man; man is an inferior being. you were not born an athiet. either an event in your life caused you to decide God doesn't exist or it was taught to you. it could also be an inner need to rebel against the majority which you are in denial about.
you're trying to use man-made logic to explain away religion in which case you are using inferior logic to explain what you can't understand.
That's not a very fair analysis of my intent. You certainly aren't granting me any doubt. I don't understand how someone could be born atheist or religious. When a person is born they don't carry beliefs with them. That is all learned.
Religion has had 5000 years and it was mostly unrecorded. What we can decipher of some of the oldest texts the sumerian tablets, which were more abundant and older than the hebrew texts, suggests that aliens ruled over our species, the Anunnaki. We've been around for a lot longer than 5000 years my friend. We've got a few million years behind us. Christ was a sign of the times, lots of dudes like him were walking around performing magic shows. Maybe he didn't heal sick people, but they were so down on life and he gave them inspiration. I think Jesus was a wise man, he did some really good stuff. He gave people a motivation, because without it they wouldn't move. Life sucks if you don't understand it and have no purpose. For those first 6 billion years a lot of things happened. I doubt our species was really able to question it's own existance until a few hundred thousand years ago. About 2500 years ago we figured out how to manipulate stone to record stories. It was Gilgamesh.
Supreme over other kings, lordly in appearance,
he is the hero, born of Uruk, the goring wild bull.
He walks out in front, the leader,
and walks at the rear, trusted by his companions.
Mighty net, protector of his people,
raging flood-wave who destroys even walls of stone!
Offspring of Lugalbanda, Gilgamesh is strong to perfection,
son of the august cow, Rimat-Ninsun;... Gilgamesh is awesome to perfection.
It was he who opened the mountain passes,
who dug wells on the flank of the mountain.
It was he who crossed the ocean, the vast seas, to the rising sun,
who explored the world regions, seeking life.
It was he who reached by his own sheer strength Utanapishtim, the Faraway,
who restored the sanctuaries (or: cities) that the Flood had destroyed!
... for teeming mankind.
Who can compare with him in kingliness?
Who can say like Gilgamesh: "I am King!"?
Whose name, from the day of his birth, was called "Gilgamesh"?
Two-thirds of him is god, one-third of him is human.
The Great Goddess [Aruru] designed(?) the model for his body,
she prepared his form ...
... beautiful, handsomest of men,
... perfect
I mean, Appollonius of Tyana lived around the same time and is argued to have been more influential than Jesus Christ. Appollonius performed miracles and taught people morality as well. It was a hot time, a new invention for humankind. We evolved our brains to such a point that we ultimately questioned our own existance, we became disillusioned, these people came a long and reillusioned us with fascinating stories and miracles..
I don't need to argue for innate logic to disbelieve in Christianity, Islam, Gilgamesh or the Anunnaki. It's obvious to me that it's mythology. If that's offensive, I'm sorry, you questioned my intent. I'm debating a philosophical question of wether or not logic is an innate human ability. My argument is that reality follows a physical construct, it is our design (by nature) by evolution to decipher the physical world using logic. Therefor it seems reasonable that the physical world is logical.
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
Comments
Bad night Dan?
It's an infinite loop though. If I post my summation of material it's passed off as radicalism. If I give a source for my information it's ignored. You can't win with lazy people. People here are diverse, that's for sure. But they don't explore, they don't learn, they are stuck and too absorbed to spend the time reading or watching something intriguing. Instead, watch hours of mind-numbingly stupid sitcoms. Nelson from The Simpsons will tell you that your epidermis is your hair. If you didn't know any better, you might believe it. Skeptics is all about skepticism, not everyone there agrees, but there is certainly a lot more depth to the conversation.
Why can't we have a decent debate here? Is it as you say, because everyone here likes Pearl Jam, perhaps Pearl Jam represents some radical view of reality. I don't know, I just like their music. I thought this was a section for reasoned debate. It's more like an infinite black and white debate.
I'm suprised that this even requires proof. The idea that logic is a subjective human construct is absolutely absurd. Logic exists regardless of our experiencing it. Our environment is logical and we are part of it, therefor we are logical. Our brains are tuned to adapting to our logical environment by logical groupings of neurons that serve a logical purpose in our behavior.
What do you think? Newborns just instantly know everything? Or maybe they can't figure anything out. How then do they learn to speak? Is it their alogic that enables them to learn and adapt? How is it different than logic? I don't get the argument against logic, I guess I need to understand that first. So when you can give me a good argument for man-made logic, then I can make an argument.
Nah, my night was good.
But that's just the thing. You usually post something pretty radical (and it is, outside of skeptics.com) and at best back it up with one source (your videos or wikipedia). But the reason for most of the flak you get is your attitude, and quick resorting to labelling people stupid and ignorant. Mostly for just not sharing your view. That's a debate-killer if there ever was one.
This site is not a professional site for people within one particular field. This is a site with ordinary different people that take an interest on various issues, and differ on them. So many here may not see the world as you do. If you feel that makes for poor debates, well, find some place else then.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
So, it's just a place for bored and tired average people to spew the same old assembly line statements over and over again, upsetting each other and creating a no-win environment? What's the point?
I think you read a lot more into "logic" than I do. You equate logic, truth and reality. To you they seem to be interchangable. I dont view them as that necessarily. How newborns learn I do not know, I dont research it, but I do know that those who do research it are not in agreement on anything there. Some claim innate ability, others claim tabula rasa.
And who is arguing against logic? I am merely limiting it's scope, or trying to make you see that logic is a system of reasoning and deducting, and as such, there may be different systems.
I am founding my view in the philosophical tradition of phenomenology, which is pretty often the opposite of the logical philosophers. (a particular direction and reasoning in a particular way in this sense) The key argument against the logics is mainly: "How can you be sure that something holds the same meaning for all universally, and also how can you get around the ambiguity inherent of all concepts to enable only one interpretation?". We're getting into a philosophical argument now, but that's what it is!
My view that logic is man-made has some basis. First of all, logic isn't just lying around until we discover it. Human minds actively uses (a) logic to make sense and categorize the world around them. Also all human minds are alone in the sense that noone knows what others are thinking. Speech and communication being flawed at best. To function together we must have a shared outlook on the world as that saves us a lot of time, and together establish what is logical, what values we respect, what tradition and norms we are to observe. Thus we get a shared logic, or just "logic" as we think of it. But that logic is not objective and not found in nature, but has appeared out of humans negotiating with eachother for a compromising agreement we can live with. The outcome of negotiations can be different. Maybe we in our culture happen to have latched onto the real objective truth but we have no way whatsoever to verify that. This doesn't negate science or logical discussion, it just puts it in perspective, and gives a view of it's limits.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
That is not what I said. That interpretation is on you.
You tell me. Why are you here?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
But isn't logic proven to exist. A logical statment like 1 + 1 = 2 is undeniable. It's all symbols which is a logical construct in the sense you've represented. However, the actual logic that exists of which the symbols represent, exists regardless of the symbols. Two objects when placed together makes a "pair" which represents two objects. The symbol "Can of Coke" is used for communication. "I have two cans of coke, would you like one?" represents the fact that you do have two cans of coke and are willing to share one. The logic is there regardless of the symbols. If I said "I have 3 cans of coke" and in fact I only had 1, that would be a false representation of logic in terms of symbols, but the fact that I had 1 can of coke still remains true. My representation of fact was illogical. Everything we know is somehow logical. It's totally speculative to say something exists beyond what we can possibly know. And I don't really see the point of it. Unless you are attributing emotion to something besides logic. I guess it can seem like an opposing force, but I'm not so sure it is.
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.
Well you said people don't want to get in-depth. So isn't it just the same all the time. An abortion thread gets started, you get people on either side fighting it out. You are either all in favor of abortion at any stage, or you think that the soul begins at conception. I'm not so keen to take an extreme view of it. I can see both sides of the argument. But that doesn't fly here, you have to just keep referencing Roe vs Wade or arguing the unborn is part of the mother's person. The law as it stands is pretty much what I think it should be, maybe a bit different, but not much. So it's like a polarization pit, I think if it wasn't such an emotional experience we'd fine more compromise here.
So why am I here? Because I like conversation. I try to talk about important issues, but it's just not registering. I mean, the logic here is you read Michael Talbot and your an expert on everything. The guy is a sci-fi author. I would just look at his background, look at his references, look at his content and put it back on the shelf. I wouldn't read it, who is this guy? If you want to learn about cosmology, you read a book written by a cosmologist who references other cosmologists. This junk science is insane, it's far too much. Obstruction of the truth. Hey, I'm fully open to believing in the boogieman when we have his corpse in a morgue and his genome on our computers. What really is there besides logic? Where does this idea come from that there is something else? I can't think alogically. I just can't.
Anyway, a lot of studies have shown children to use logic. They pick stuff up, examine them, stick 'em in their mouths, twirl them with their toungues, stick 'em up their noses, ears, kids will try anything, with everything they can get their hands on. They are logically figuring everything out. Causality inference in other words. They are discover nature as it exists in objective reality.
Or our logical interpretation of logical events becomes clarified. I'm not saying we are perfect causal inference machines, I'm just saying that we are designed to integrate with reality. It's our innate ability to infer causation.
Numbers work, because that is a closed system of interpretations. But what if we say that A + B = C, which can be a usual statement in formal logic. The question is what A stands for, what does B stand for and so on. For the statements to hold true, you have to have complete, precise understanding of the concept presented. When dealing with math, we have that to a larger degree. But how about inserting some concepts here to make it more difficult. Unemployment + Social Class = Poverty. Then you're in trouble as none of these concepts are without ambiguity. And that goes for most concepts. For formal logic to hold true, you have to have complete knowledge of the concept, whereas concepts have a tendency to be fuzzy around the edges.
There is nothing logically wrong with stating that you have 3 cans of coke. It would be lying, but it wouldn't be illogical. Or alternatively: if you state to have 3 cans, how can I know you dont have that, only that 2 of them are not in your hand at the moment?
My point is merely that you attribute logic to far more thigns than you should. Of course we think "logically", but there are different logics to be used. Logic does not equal truth. Logic is a system of thinking and deducing. Logic does only equal truth if you add the positivist notion of we always see objectively what is, and there is only one way for humans to think. Studies in social anthropology and psychology have put that notion under serious doubt. People can behave very strangely and "illogical" to us, while really having another logic we dont see at once. And people's senses are easily fooled.
I think you are really on about truth. And that does not equal logic, as I said, unless under very particular circumstances and one particular perspective.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
The zero sum 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.
People want to get in-depth, but not in the way of having curriculum literature slammed in their head. I could start slamming people over the head with all the books I have read the last 5 years, but that wouldn't accomplish anything. And if you really hate slogan fests, stay out of the abortion threads. Word to the wise.
In other words, if writers and people dont fit your scheme and worldview, they can get bent? You obviously see the limits that puts on conversation. If you dont like people's "crazy" ideas, then ignore them, or politely disagree. Dont slam them on the head with 6 hours of video, and some snide remarks about them being ignorant and stupid, and what they say is all junk...
I like conversation as well, but for it to get anywhere at all, you must hear people out, and be willing to entertain the notion that they may be right and see their side of things. If you don't, well you're just as guilty of turning topics into slogan fests and polarized standpoints.
(edit) And I might add that of course you cannot think illogically. Neither can I. We all have, and need systems for thinking. I am saying there isn't necessarily one single system, and even if there is, that single system may not be science as incarnated at the present moment.
Have I ever stated otherwise? I am not arguing against logic. I am arguing it's limitations, particularly when it comes to highly abstract concepts and debates.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
It’s hard to debate this topic with you when you, yourself, do not have a good grasp on what you are debating, so it’s interesting that you would accuse others here of being ignorant and un-enlightened. Do I have the right to call you ignorant, simply because you do not have the formal schooling in mathematics and science? Of course not! So please refrain from calling others ignorant because they do not have the time to watch some extensive video.
I really think you should pay attention to Dan’s (OutOfBreath) posts. He has given you sound advice. It’s not that this topic is not interesting, it is! You usually do bring up some interesting points. The problem is that you think you have ‘the absolute truth’. It is at this point your arguments become silly and, well, illogical
As an aside, I found it VERY interesting that your skeptic buddy would take a strictly Platonist view of Mathematics. Interestingly, most scientist that are atheist (esp the ones I work with) take a Formalist approach, ie, all math is invented. The Platonist usually ‘see’ things that you would find, umm, illogical. Simply put, a formalist believes that math is nothing more than symbol manipulation. When a kid learns arithmetic, he/she need concrete objects (fingers, cans of coke, etc) to relate to the ‘real’ world. Later they learn how to apply abstract mathematical operations, such as using X & Y in place of numbers. Then some move on to even more advanced mathematics that obey strange rules that don’t correspond to anything in the real world. In other words, there are many examples of math being ‘invented’ long before a practical or logical use, for example, non-Euclidean geometry.
Here’s something to think about as it pertains to ‘invented’ math & logic. Euclidean geometry, I would suggest, is based off of observable data. Non-Euclidean geometry arose when mathematicians decided to throw out Euclid’s fifth axiom. This later proved that Euclidean geometry was not completely correct. The resulting math turned out to be of great use later in science and Einstein used it in his general theory of relativity. However, kids are still taught Euclidean geometry in school as it a very good approximation most of the time. Moral of this story……………. A logical/deductive argument is only as good as the premise it was founded and it is unwise to consider any axiom or idea as so self-evidently correct that it could not be otherwise.
This is getting long, so I’ll wrap it up. I think, Ahnimus, you might find the mathematician & logician Kurt Godel of some interest. He proved a theorem that simply stated that mathematical statements existed for which NO systematic procedure could determine whether they are true or false. This disturbed mathematicians as it undermined logical foundations of mathematics. It also ‘breathed’ life into the Platonist point of view that math is discovered (not to mention Mandelbrot/fractals/Fibonacci sequence that your friend mentioned).
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Kudos for me! I understood 15% of this post
so you've never had children then. man has named natural logic as instinct because he doesn't understand it. yet religion has endured 5000 years. and 5000 years later only 12% of the population are athiests. now if this 12% are the "enlightened" ones; the enlightenment came from a superior being. if it came from man; man is an inferior being. you were not born an athiet. either an event in your life caused you to decide God doesn't exist or it was taught to you. it could also be an inner need to rebel against the majority which you are in denial about.
you're trying to use man-made logic to explain away religion in which case you are using inferior logic to explain what you can't understand.
you're using learning to explain away logic. logic cannot be established. you cannot establish a logical progression of events. you see the logical progression and learn what happened. you try to use mathmatics as examples. so who decided what 2 means? numeric progress could just as well have been: 358794106 with the symbol 5 meaning what we now accept as 2.
using the example of a baby; a baby finds it logical to make a noise when it is hungry. it is then taught the accepted noise to express it's wants. in english it's hungry. and that accepted noise is different for each language.
also; a baby accepts the existance of a superior being. it's mother. this superior being provides food and comfort; also mobility and education. studies have shown a fetus is capable of learning while in the womb.
exactly.
i said as much earlier as well...and lately it seems especially evident in almost all discussions here. so i don't think it's the 'rest of us'...who insist on seeing all in just black and white, quite the contrary really. i don't see all that many who are outright 'i'm right, you are wrong'...except for a few. so yes...seems the proverbial pot calling the kettle black in this 'debate'.....how's that for logic?
anyhoo..i still think anhimus, gue_barium are one in the same...and this person he keeps quoting from skeptics.com? macros_man? i think is anhimus too. it's all good though, it's been qhuite a while since we've had a poster utilize differing personalities to bump his own opinions.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Yeah, humans have all sorts of beliefs. Some of us arrive at them through education, experience, or indoctrination. Where I take issue with Ahnimus, is not what he believes, but that he thinks he has epistemological rights to declare his conclusions as absolute truth. He is simply taking what little he knows of science & mathematics and extrapolating. This is no different than me doing the same and declaring the existence of God as absolute fact. I might believe it to be fact in my heart, from my experience & my knowledge, but I can't scientifically prove it. My views and his can't be declared as 'fact' according to the 'rules' of science. Extrapolation has no place in the scientific stomping grounds. It is not science, but philosophy.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
yep...full agreement here.
i don't really care what one personally believes to be 'right'...or even if necessarily one IS right on any given topic.....it's all in the delivery and communication of ideas. if one truly wants others to believe what they have to say, one should do so from a point of respect. if you do not respect the people you are preaching to, what's the point...why do you care? unless it is simply to increase your own self-importance in your own eyes...and if thast's the case, i far prefer someone keep their ego masturbation to themselves.
now if it is truly to discuss, and/or enlighten...i'm all for it.....but yes, i need to respect you and feel respected in turn...and so it goes.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
No, we're not. Sheesh.
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.
And you weren't born a Theist.
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.
ya know, after i posted it..i was corrected...so yes i know and apologize. just from a few threads recently...it seemed so perfect...one and the same 'debating himself'...and absolutely, it wold NOT be the first time that's happened here, so it's not so far-fetched for me to think that.
so sheesh.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
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.
ya, and debate yourself honestly...that's a-ok.
me, i just don't see the point. i mean, i do see why some may see a point to it...but as i have no agenda here, not trying to preach my thoughts...nor use this place as a sick, twisted place to entertain myself at the expense of others. nah, just not interesting.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Anyway, all of matter follows a logic and that logic exists regardless of our symbolism.
the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
Makes sense, regardless of our reasoning the logical system produces an outcome. Granted computers are developed by humans. The atmosphere follows a logic with which we use logical reasoning to deduce.
that's logical.
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.
Nice post.
Ahnimus likes to tinker with the vocabulary.
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.
That's not a very fair analysis of my intent. You certainly aren't granting me any doubt. I don't understand how someone could be born atheist or religious. When a person is born they don't carry beliefs with them. That is all learned.
Religion has had 5000 years and it was mostly unrecorded. What we can decipher of some of the oldest texts the sumerian tablets, which were more abundant and older than the hebrew texts, suggests that aliens ruled over our species, the Anunnaki. We've been around for a lot longer than 5000 years my friend. We've got a few million years behind us. Christ was a sign of the times, lots of dudes like him were walking around performing magic shows. Maybe he didn't heal sick people, but they were so down on life and he gave them inspiration. I think Jesus was a wise man, he did some really good stuff. He gave people a motivation, because without it they wouldn't move. Life sucks if you don't understand it and have no purpose. For those first 6 billion years a lot of things happened. I doubt our species was really able to question it's own existance until a few hundred thousand years ago. About 2500 years ago we figured out how to manipulate stone to record stories. It was Gilgamesh.
I mean, Appollonius of Tyana lived around the same time and is argued to have been more influential than Jesus Christ. Appollonius performed miracles and taught people morality as well. It was a hot time, a new invention for humankind. We evolved our brains to such a point that we ultimately questioned our own existance, we became disillusioned, these people came a long and reillusioned us with fascinating stories and miracles..
I don't need to argue for innate logic to disbelieve in Christianity, Islam, Gilgamesh or the Anunnaki. It's obvious to me that it's mythology. If that's offensive, I'm sorry, you questioned my intent. I'm debating a philosophical question of wether or not logic is an innate human ability. My argument is that reality follows a physical construct, it is our design (by nature) by evolution to decipher the physical world using logic. Therefor it seems reasonable that the physical world is logical.