-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
I apologize for DOS'ing the list, I can only get online about once a week.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:27:00 +0000 Lyberta lyberta@lyberta.net wrote:
Christopher Havel:
@ Lyberta -- I'll just say that I don't think it's any healthier to be wanting to kill other people than it is to be wanting to kill yourself. Somehow that doesn't fit my definition of 'normal'. But that's me -- and I don't want to, you know, tell you how to think. Not my job. So I'll drop this for now, except to say that pills can do you a world of good if you let them.
This is a humane execution. They turn you into a vegetable and other people think you are awake, but you are asleep, you have no coherent thoughts. I have gained 40 kgs under antipsychotics and now I have problems standing up and sitting down, I have low blood pressure, my knees hurt a lot, I can barely walk anymore. I'm just a lump of fat now. Lump of fat that waits for the world to kill it.
@ Lyberta, I've been thinking a lot about what you wrote, what I'm about to write could be totally wrong, but if I'm right it would lead to a cure for you. I'm not a psychiatrist, but I do know what a request for help from anyone, anyone at all, looks like. I suspect that you might be more intelligent than people give you credit for. I suspect that you're caught in the ultimate trap, weather you realize it consciously it or not. You see, when philosophers first removed God from their philosophies they are tasked then with trying to find a purpose to life. As others on this list pointed out becoming a homicidal maniac is pointless, but as the aforementioned philosophers found, the universe will eventually end and all that is, or was, or could be, or could have been will cease to exist. They were thus confounded in the question that never has been answered by atheists. That would be, "When should I die." and more generally, "What is the point of it all." I've seen many people caught in this trap, perhaps without knowing it. They start off as fun people capable of much, as they age they realize what they have not done, and what they are not and probably will never be. They then try things like suicide, or boasting, and thus they loose those qualities which draw others to them if not their life as well.
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.
You see, Killing others would be something (you describe laughing at them and being rid of them), and killing yourself would cause you to no longer think about your problems. So my theory would at least satisfy both of your, ahem, ravings, in as much as it would point to a root cause of both.
I said above that "I suspect that you might be more intelligent than people give you credit for," and here is what I mean. If you can reason that far, even subconsciously, then you have gotten farther then most in as much as you realize the lack of adequate solutions. Put another way, you are way up there with the very best Atheistic minds. Now I could easily go on, but I think that I'll leave you with a hopefully clearer understanding of what is bothering you. As Mr. Havel pointed out, I don't intend to tell you how to think, and ultimately, more people are cured everyday of mentally related problems by their own minds then drugs, or what others tell them. Think about it, panic, too much and a person can't function, too little and they are lackadaisical. Or fear, or pain, or love (I'm talking emotional attraction), or well, anything.
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening, insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view. This would at least give you lots of interesting and worthwhile things to think about IMHO and it would be something that even a vegetable could do :) I'd suggest "The Chronicles of Narnia" by C.S. Lewis and "The phantom Toll Both" by Norton Juster. It is from "The Chronicles of Narnia" that we get the quote "Oh my mistress do not by any means destroy yourself, for if you live you may yet have good fortune, but all the dead are dead alike!"
The very best, David
I very strongly second both suggested readings, if only because I have both (including the complete set of Narnia books), have read both, and find them to be examples of some of the best fiction writing known to mankind. I would be somewhat less of a person if I had not read those, I think. With regard to the Narnia series -- the books were written and published out of order. See here --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia#Reading_order (I recommend the "Harper Collins order" of reading the books, as referred to in the linked article.)
*The Phantom Tollbooth*, I will warn you, is a "Young Adult" novel -- read it anyways, it's a wonderful story and a wonderful book.
I can also recommend some of Brian Jacques' earlier works (the *Redwall* series of novels) -- I should warn you that the later ones get *very* predictable -- my favorite from his would have to be *The Bellmaker*. By the way -- if you're into sci-fi -- I could do far, far worse than to recommend *Coyote* by Alan Steele and *Eternity Road* by Jack McDevitt. *Coyote* is about colonizing another world -- but it's far more (pardon me) "down to earth" in how things work out, both in terms of character development and technology, than, say, *Star Trek*. *Eternity Road* is a post-apocalyptic book -- one of only two, honestly, I've really met that I've enjoyed (the other is called *The Rock* -- referring to Ayers Rock in Austraila, which is all I'll say about the plot) -- although I have to say I can't really recommend any of Jack McDevitt's other works. They... I dunno, they just don't 'click' for me, you know? If fantasy is more your thing, there's Anne McCaffrey's *Pern* series -- I loved those books when I was in high school. Absolutely ate them up. It's sort of a sci-fi/fantasy fusion sort of a setting, but it works quite nicely... I'll not explain what I mean by that, though, because that spoils major parts of the plot in one of the books...
Of course, I would also be quite remiss in failing to recommend the first three books in what Wiki wants me to believe is in fact a quintet -- Madeleine L'Engle's *A Wrinkle In Time*, followed by *A Wind in the Door* and *A Swiftly Tilting Planet*. (I have neither read nor even heard of, the two books that are supposed to go after those three, titled *Many Waters* and *An Acceptable Time* -- so I can't speak to those. Sorry.)
...you can probably tell already, but books and reading are valued things in my family... books are amazing things. They can -- if you let them -- take you all sorts of wonderful and strange places... I'm happy to recommend even more if you're interested -- shoot me an email with a topic or fiction genre and I'll gladly see what I can recommend. (I should note that I habitually stay away from horror and similar material at all cost, though, so if that's your thing, I can't really help.)
I chuckled when reading your message doark. This is pretty much the story of my life and my greatest fear, that is my mind degrading for whatever reason and become unable to understand or interact with the world intelligently ans have no way to defend myself against this degration. Im in my 20s and I already think of what I'll probalby never do in my life that I really want to do( such as programming and going to space to satisfy my curiosity). I have come to the same conclusions as you said about the logic gap of atheism and the meaning of life is the one question that I prefer to give the simplest answer to: just live to learn. I have read The Chronicles of Narnia when I was a little kid( all 7 of them) and I read them again a couple years ago for nostalgia reasons and wow are these books deeper than they look like. On May 8, 2017 6:02 AM, doark@mail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
I apologize for DOS'ing the list, I can only get online about once a week.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:27:00 +0000 Lyberta lyberta@lyberta.net wrote:
Christopher Havel:
@ Lyberta -- I'll just say that I don't think it's any healthier to be wanting to kill other people than it is to be wanting to kill yourself. Somehow that doesn't fit my definition of 'normal'. But that's me -- and I don't want to, you know, tell you how to think. Not my job. So I'll drop this for now, except to say that pills can do you a world of good if you let them.
This is a humane execution. They turn you into a vegetable and other people think you are awake, but you are asleep, you have no coherent thoughts. I have gained 40 kgs under antipsychotics and now I have problems standing up and sitting down, I have low blood pressure, my knees hurt a lot, I can barely walk anymore. I'm just a lump of fat now. Lump of fat that waits for the world to kill it.
@ Lyberta, I've been thinking a lot about what you wrote, what I'm about to write could be totally wrong, but if I'm right it would lead to a cure for you. I'm not a psychiatrist, but I do know what a request for help from anyone, anyone at all, looks like. I suspect that you might be more intelligent than people give you credit for. I suspect that you're caught in the ultimate trap, weather you realize it consciously it or not. You see, when philosophers first removed God from their philosophies they are tasked then with trying to find a purpose to life. As others on this list pointed out becoming a homicidal maniac is pointless, but as the aforementioned philosophers found, the universe will eventually end and all that is, or was, or could be, or could have been will cease to exist. They were thus confounded in the question that never has been answered by atheists. That would be, "When should I die." and more generally, "What is the point of it all." I've seen many people caught in this trap, perhaps without knowing it. They start off as fun people capable of much, as they age they realize what they have not done, and what they are not and probably will never be. They then try things like suicide, or boasting, and thus they loose those qualities which draw others to them if not their life as well.
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.
You see, Killing others would be something (you describe laughing at them and being rid of them), and killing yourself would cause you to no longer think about your problems. So my theory would at least satisfy both of your, ahem, ravings, in as much as it would point to a root cause of both.
I said above that "I suspect that you might be more intelligent than people give you credit for," and here is what I mean. If you can reason that far, even subconsciously, then you have gotten farther then most in as much as you realize the lack of adequate solutions. Put another way, you are way up there with the very best Atheistic minds. Now I could easily go on, but I think that I'll leave you with a hopefully clearer understanding of what is bothering you. As Mr. Havel pointed out, I don't intend to tell you how to think, and ultimately, more people are cured everyday of mentally related problems by their own minds then drugs, or what others tell them. Think about it, panic, too much and a person can't function, too little and they are lackadaisical. Or fear, or pain, or love (I'm talking emotional attraction), or well, anything.
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening, insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view. This would at least give you lots of interesting and worthwhile things to think about IMHO and it would be something that even a vegetable could do :) I'd suggest "The Chronicles of Narnia" by C.S. Lewis and "The phantom Toll Both" by Norton Juster. It is from "The Chronicles of Narnia" that we get the quote "Oh my mistress do not by any means destroy yourself, for if you live you may yet have good fortune, but all the dead are dead alike!"
The very best, David -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEL2N7+xWmVOJDQxWGm3XCrhg2YP8FAlkPgs4ACgkQm3XCrhg2 YP9kaxAA58VjxuBdopWgK2Po9nyUfXZmCtv3bq8fL7JoGD8/bQ0aLk9JpvtNm6J4 ZOIjtJzcz8Kdfap3v3ry6CwqXqY7yYnzFkLuCqVLxER7+WXe1F7fOlgupq+GGZAb nwgqoObJJbQR/TD3SKgUHJ3/tPykb2jWN9Kqorgr97DserqRG8hIOgqFN4pKo+8o bDxqKUpGzRIcSX6k3edt6G0I0aJTPwQVW6kegN3BEvOj3PlGByrg2mhWUPZXF4Da A9aQKAUfEJyyqjboeILi1MlIg9CJJjEpImCqvre19Y6b0s203D+epVn3sqCZcYTo MS/uYRk87GKU0zq15WO1lmNtprptXmDGob3YrI8CjocEUpgxqeZ9hwXniDnXHt2C zo6odx40sn283k/8lPA+Tfsc8CdhAs5b4QkNQtkRnZjFxJPaUe4diBhfWPyJHA4+ GhxFeC9Lpgh7ftAMAJfRRDuOqQ7juUHSmbJmulvUwf55sAzA4miP9qdrvR9zDIIz 8goJDinuU1IwTlDCjiGUDE3RMdHeNxwLoI2wtqsOErSJJunkd6zxUq/gy+1wZljd uvMAZpqy5ni6gc8+Ck5D7DFSl4WFfR/LbwTjoTY7Mii+2ipkbU+dQgm0IiFPmJIZ Beink0Hv7kBga1aAz5xe7/IdeG0kH0GXUn+/W2uEV27EuG4sWQ8= =BlCA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
doark@mail.com:
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.
When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had time to investigate.
And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.
The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact, I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I understand that I understand nothing.
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening, insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.
I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.
2017-05-09 10:45 GMT+02:00 Lyberta lyberta@lyberta.net:
doark@mail.com:
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.
When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had time to investigate.
And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.
There are many truths but non come close to reality.
The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact, I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I understand that I understand nothing.
Believe that you are here. Your time here is brief. Enjoy it while you can.
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening, insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.
I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.
You can't control anything but a small part of yourself.
You do however have a choice. Not making a choice is a choice itself.
The're is no thing in this world that you must but one thing: Undergo the results of your choice.
Getting enraged by books is a choice.
Don't get overwhelmed. When that happens you'll panic and reason will vacate your mind.
You are allowed to believe in things that are not real.
Science is not a fixed thing. It's an ever changing truth towards reality. http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
Religions mostly advocate absolute truth. There is no absolute truth.
Sience is knowing that your viewing the universe through a keyhole and you are probably be wrong in your assessment of what you see.
Accept that you'll need to base your choices on what you know now. You cannot make choices based on things you might come to know.
Relax and live. It is worth your time. Don't anger yourself on ignorance of others. But don't think you are above another. We're all different. Be proud of it.
This life might just be a test for the next. And the more/fuller you live the bigger your obstacles you must overcome. At least that's how I see it.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:48 AM, mike.valk@gmail.com mike.valk@gmail.com wrote:
Science is not a fixed thing. It's an ever changing truth towards reality.
there is one thing that i can caution against: permitting the victorian-era foundations on which science is based: the total and absolute rejection of "that which may be experienced" as being legitimate criteria for scientific enquiry and reasoning.
the victorians championed "total objectivity" and it's caused an... unbelievable amount of damage to the western psyche, as the success of science in expanding the british empire (and others) was correlated with supporting the "objective methodology".
if that isn't clear: try writing and submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal about the topic of consciousness in the human mind, and see how far it gets.
l.
2017-05-09 11:48 GMT+02:00 mike.valk@gmail.com mike.valk@gmail.com:
2017-05-09 10:45 GMT+02:00 Lyberta lyberta@lyberta.net:
doark@mail.com:
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.
When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had time to investigate.
And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.
There are many truths but non come close to reality.
The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact, I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I understand that I understand nothing.
Believe that you are here. Your time here is brief. Enjoy it while you can.
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening, insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.
I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.
You can't control anything but a small part of yourself.
You do however have a choice. Not making a choice is a choice itself.
The're is no thing in this world that you must but one thing: Undergo the results of your choice.
Getting enraged by books is a choice.
Don't get overwhelmed. When that happens you'll panic and reason will vacate your mind.
You are allowed to believe in things that are not real.
Science is not a fixed thing. It's an ever changing truth towards reality. http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
Found a more complete one: http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html
Religions mostly advocate absolute truth. There is no absolute truth.
Sience is knowing that your viewing the universe through a keyhole and you are probably be wrong in your assessment of what you see.
Accept that you'll need to base your choices on what you know now. You cannot make choices based on things you might come to know.
Relax and live. It is worth your time. Don't anger yourself on ignorance of others. But don't think you are above another. We're all different. Be proud of it.
This life might just be a test for the next. And the more/fuller you live the bigger your obstacles you must overcome. At least that's how I see it.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On 05/09/2017 06:33 AM, mike.valk@gmail.com wrote:
2017-05-09 11:48 GMT+02:00 mike.valk@gmail.com mailto:mike.valk@gmail.com <mike.valk@gmail.com mailto:mike.valk@gmail.com>:
2017-05-09 10:45 GMT+02:00 Lyberta <lyberta@lyberta.net <mailto:lyberta@lyberta.net>>: doark@mail.com <mailto:doark@mail.com>: > I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own > potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of > an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence. When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had time to investigate. And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything. There are many truths but non come close to reality. The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact, I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave? Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I understand that I understand nothing. Believe that you are here. Your time here is brief. Enjoy it while you can. > In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening, > insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as > opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view. I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction. You can't control anything but a small part of yourself. You do however have a choice. Not making a choice is a choice itself. The're is no thing in this world that you must but one thing: Undergo the results of your choice. Getting enraged by books is a choice. Don't get overwhelmed. When that happens you'll panic and reason will vacate your mind. You are allowed to believe in things that are not real. Science is not a fixed thing. It's an ever changing truth towards reality. http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm <http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm>Found a more complete one: http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html
Religions mostly advocate absolute truth. There is no absolute truth.
That I believe is an opinion, but the advice below is excellent.
Sience is knowing that your viewing the universe through a keyhole and you are probably be wrong in your assessment of what you see.
Except you spelled science wrong ;P
just pointing out for fun. ;)
Accept that you'll need to base your choices on what you know now. You cannot make choices based on things you might come to know. Relax and live. It is worth your time. Don't anger yourself on ignorance of others. But don't think you are above another. We're all different. Be proud of it. This life might just be a test for the next. And the more/fuller you live the bigger your obstacles you must overcome. At least that's how I see it.
_______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk <mailto:arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook <http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook> Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk <mailto:arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk>
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Lyberta lyberta@lyberta.net wrote:
doark@mail.com:
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I understand that I understand nothing.
Nobody "believes" in science. The entire point of logically describing and explaining the world via the means of science is to get as close to "the truth" as you can. Accepting the results of scientists is unlike religion not a matter of absolute truth. It is a matter of realizing that for every given time the scientific answer accepted by the community is the closest one to "the truth" that we have. Understanding this is key to having a stable worldview while still being open-minded. The entire point of science is to constantly question the validity of your theories.
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening,
insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.
I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.
Not liking reading books means locking yourself out of all information on the world. Since you seem like a smart person not having something to occupy your brain with will make you suffer. So honestly you should get over it for your own shake. _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Bill Kontos vkontogpls@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody "believes" in science.
sadly, they do. they're usually the ones who tell you that the climate's absolutely fine.
The entire point of logically describing and explaining the world via the means of science is to get as close to "the truth" as you can. Accepting the results of scientists is unlike religion not a matter of absolute truth. It is a matter of realizing that for every given time the scientific answer accepted by the community is the closest one to "the truth" that we have. Understanding this is key to having a stable worldview while still being open-minded. The entire point of science is to constantly question the validity of your theories.
ah. i'm glad you qualified this finally in the last sentence. the prior paragraphs give the impression that there *is* some form of "absolute certainty" that can be reached / experienced / perceived.
whereas what is *actually* the case is that most of our lives - science or not - are an "approximation that seems to do the job for most use-cases".
if we used the *actual* formula which *was* dead-accurate we'd go completely insane... or all be total geniuses. i'm reminded of a story that a friend told me, about an eminent scientist and mathematician friend. he told him the joke, "a bird flies between two trains that are on a collision course, at 60mph which start 120 miles apart. the bird turns around each time it reaches a train until finally it's squashed. how long does the bird fly for?"
and after a couple of seconds his friend answered, "one hour!"
so he asked, "you spotted that the time of the flight of the bird isn't relevant, you can just use the trains to work out that they'll meet in the middle, each travelling 60 miles, right?"
and he replied, "oh no! i just did the sum of an infinite series in my head on the bird's travel flight between the trains".
the usual example is the one about KE= 1/2 mv^2 being an approximation when v <<< c but i thought the above true story would be funnier.
l.
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Bill Kontos vkontogpls@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody "believes" in science.
sadly, they do. they're usually the ones who tell you that the climate's absolutely fine.
This contradicts itself. Science never said the climate was fine, it said we don't know if it's fine and then it said that it's not fine. Therefore those who claim that the climate is fine are neither believers nor supporters of science.
The entire point of logically describing and explaining the world via the means of science is to get as close to "the truth" as you can. Accepting the results of scientists is unlike religion not a matter of absolute truth. It is a matter of realizing that for
every
given time the scientific answer accepted by the community is the closest one to "the truth" that we have. Understanding this is key to having a stable worldview while still being open-minded. The entire point of
science
is to constantly question the validity of your theories.
ah. i'm glad you qualified this finally in the last sentence. the prior paragraphs give the impression that there *is* some form of "absolute certainty" that can be reached / experienced / perceived.
whereas what is *actually* the case is that most of our lives - science or not - are an "approximation that seems to do the job for most use-cases".
if we used the *actual* formula which *was* dead-accurate we'd go completely insane... or all be total geniuses. i'm reminded of a story that a friend told me, about an eminent scientist and mathematician friend. he told him the joke, "a bird flies between two trains that are on a collision course, at 60mph which start 120 miles apart. the bird turns around each time it reaches a train until finally it's squashed. how long does the bird fly for?"
and after a couple of seconds his friend answered, "one hour!"
so he asked, "you spotted that the time of the flight of the bird isn't relevant, you can just use the trains to work out that they'll meet in the middle, each travelling 60 miles, right?"
and he replied, "oh no! i just did the sum of an infinite series in my head on the bird's travel flight between the trains".
the usual example is the one about KE= 1/2 mv^2 being an approximation when v <<< c but i thought the above true story would be funnier.
l.
I tend to think of" the truth" as something that exists and is like a mathematical lim(x). All we can do is calculate closer and closer to it.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On 05/09/2017 04:45 AM, Lyberta wrote:
doark@mail.com:
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.
When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had time to investigate.
And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.
The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact, I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I understand that I understand nothing.
Your suffering needn't be endless. I don't normally say this especially on the internet, but God does love you and he only wants the best for you. He doesn't judge or condemn people will they live but he will try to convict us to rise higher.
I don't know if your religious or not, but I am, and being truly religious means putting away worries and doing your best at living an abundant life of freedom and happiness.
A good lesson I found was in this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y_AUsUmCEM
But I suggest watching most of it,
I say this because, you seem to be worrying too much. that isn't healthy whether you believe in religion or not.
I used to live ln constant worry even as a Christian, but I had a false idea of religion and reason as well as certain people in the world.
If you have no religious background and this annoys you, at least understand I am just trying to help.
I once thought about doing myself in too. But I realize now that, it would have hurt many, many people in my life.
As Bill said though, reason is important, but I will also add, God wants us to have reason as well.
Anyways, seek help if needed, I hate to hear people suffer especially those who are good inside.
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening, insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.
I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.
I am not too fond of fiction books myself nowadays although my reasons were that there was so much treachery between relationships of romance...
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
zap:
I don't know if your religious or not,
I'm agnostic and I have extreme anti-religion views: https://lyberta.net/articles/social/anti_religion.html
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Bill Kontos vkontogpls@gmail.com
wrote:
Nobody "believes" in science.
sadly, they do. they're usually the ones who tell you that the climate's absolutely fine.
Most of people usually predict the future using whatever science they know and most of them usually don't factor that they may be absolutely wrong.
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 02:56:00AM +0000, Lyberta wrote:
zap:
I don't know if your religious or not,
I'm agnostic and I have extreme anti-religion views: https://lyberta.net/articles/social/anti_religion.html
I'm an atheist whose basic emotional attitude is anger against God for not existing.
But i have noticed that, true or false, a lot of people are helped by belief in God. So the scientific question becomes, what is it that actually helps them if God does not exist??
And can that, whatever it is, be replicated without belief in God?
-- hendrik
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Hendrik Boom hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
I'm an atheist whose basic emotional attitude is anger against God for not existing.
hendrik, i have to be honest: don't take it the wrong way ok, but i found this very very funny. windmills?? chearrrrge!! :) it's like, if you _did_ believe in god you'd be castigated and Sent to Helllll for having a negatve emotion called "anger", but *come on* man: if you believe *god doesn't exist* what the heck are you doing damaging your psyche by bothering to be angry! about something that in your mind *doesn't exist*!
beautifully ironic :)
But i have noticed that, true or false, a lot of people are helped by belief in God.
eexactly. it's not "hedging bets": who cares what happens when we die, but if we *felt better about ourselves* does it actually really matter? no, of course not.
So the scientific question becomes, what is it that actually helps them if God does not exist??
their own belief helps them. it gives them a sense of stability and purpose in their own minds, which would otherwise not be there, and there's a good chance that the exact same person would be a menace to themselves and to the people around them if their "belief" was not there.
And can that, whatever it is, be replicated without belief in God?
hmmm that's a really _really_ good question.
now that i think about it, i believe i heard of something about 20 years ago called the humanist society (or something like that). apparently they live their lives according to a really quite [humane] wonderful "code"... just without the bits about "god" attached.
so i'd say definitively yes, you can... it's just that you'd have to choose to do so, and that can be really tough, to research, assess and then make the decision to adhere to a particular code. it means making changes in your life which might cost you friends, your job (because the company asks you to do something that is against your newly-chosen "code")...
now, what wasn't clear in your question was whether you were asking about the *internal dialogue* that one might have with oneself to replicate the same *effects* as "belief in code" or whether you could have meant specifically the *external appearance* i.e. the improvements in *other people's* lives that your new [atheist but humane] "code" has.
very cool question, hendrik.
l.
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net
wrote:
now that i think about it, i believe i heard of something about 20 years ago called the humanist society (or something like that). apparently they live their lives according to a really quite [humane] wonderful "code"... just without the bits about "god" attached.
so i'd say definitively yes, you can... it's just that you'd have to choose to do so, and that can be really tough, to research, assess and then make the decision to adhere to a particular code. it means making changes in your life which might cost you friends, your job (because the company asks you to do something that is against your newly-chosen "code")...
Exactly this. I always prefer to do something by choice. Being manipulated is the one thing that I hate the most in life. But this takes time, and I have come to a very similar conclusion to this society you are talking about, that following 95% of the Christian ethics is a good idea because it makes for the most benefit for the society as a total. But I find having to believe that god exists and he will punish me for not following these ethics in order to be able follow them utterly pointless.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On 05/10/2017 02:23 PM, Bill Kontos wrote:
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net mailto:lkcl@lkcl.net> wrote:
now that i think about it, i believe i heard of something about 20 years ago called the humanist society (or something like that). apparently they live their lives according to a really quite [humane] wonderful "code"... just without the bits about "god" attached. so i'd say definitively yes, you can... it's just that you'd have to choose to do so, and that can be really tough, to research, assess and then make the decision to adhere to a particular code. it means making changes in your life which might cost you friends, your job (because the company asks you to do something that is against your newly-chosen "code")...Exactly this. I always prefer to do something by choice. Being manipulated is the one thing that I hate the most in life. But this takes time, and I have come to a very similar conclusion to this society you are talking about, that following 95% of the Christian ethics is a good idea because it makes for the most benefit for the society as a total. But I find having to believe that god exists and he will punish me for not following these ethics in order to be able follow them utterly pointless.
Well, I would say its not about, following these ethics perfectly, it is impossible to do so.
I would say the act of trying to be a good person and being faithful to him for the goodness he gives you is more important than always obeying especially if your heart is far from him. That's just my thought.
Punishment in particular though is something he gives to arrogant people who defy him while pretending to obey.
the current conservative party in America is an example of the pharisees from the bible.
They have nothing to look forward to that's a fact. Though they reject such possibilities in their heart bitterly and cling to their evil thoughts.
To be honest, even atheists have a better chance of getting into heaven than those false teachers.
Though both sides if they don't repent at some point, are lost.
This is my understanding of what hell is for. Not for the average person, but for those who pretend they are good and really are the opposite. to sum it up, hypocrisy.
Life is a challenge but hypocrisy is unneeded.
_______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk <mailto:arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook <http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook> Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk <mailto:arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk>
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, zap zapper@openmailbox.org wrote:
To be honest, even atheists have a better chance of getting into heaven than those false teachers.
*cackle* :)
Life is a challenge but hypocrisy is unneeded.
it always makes me wonder, what do people get out of being hypocritical (on a regular and deliberate basis? making mistakes, sure, i can understand, but deliberately and consistently remaining cognitively dissonant? i don't get it. *why* would someone choose that? what are they "getting out of it"? what "reward" are they getting from continuing to persistently and consistently be hypocritical?
l.
On 05/10/2017 03:13 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, zap zapper@openmailbox.org wrote:
To be honest, even atheists have a better chance of getting into heaven than those false teachers.
*cackle* :)
I thought someone would enjoy that sad irony. but yeah if you want to know why I say that is sad, it is this:
it is sad because they think they will be rewarded at the end. But they already have their temporary very short term reward. Though they deserve it, I feel a mixture of pity and anger towards them.
Life is a challenge but hypocrisy is unneeded.
it always makes me wonder, what do people get out of being hypocritical (on a regular and deliberate basis? making mistakes, sure, i can understand, but deliberately and consistently remaining cognitively dissonant? i don't get it. *why* would someone choose that? what are they "getting out of it"? what "reward" are they getting from continuing to persistently and consistently be hypocritical?
The only thing they will get long term is to grovel in the dust for their arrogance and boastful ways.
I used to be like that in my mind to some extent, but out of mostly ignorance, I suffered greatly for it, but I cannot imagine what happens to people who consistently are hypocrites.
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:23 PM, zap zapper@openmailbox.org wrote:
it is sad because they think they will be rewarded at the end. But they already have their temporary very short term reward. Though they deserve it, I feel a mixture of pity and anger towards them.
steady, zap: i struggle with anger towards people who've betrayed me (etc.) - so i'm not the person to say "don't do that"... even though i know it's doing *me* harm to be so angry i can't even sleep at night, sometimes. what i would like to say is: f you manage to get your anger under control, do tell me how you managed it, ok? :)
l.
On 05/10/2017 06:44 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:23 PM, zap zapper@openmailbox.org wrote:
it is sad because they think they will be rewarded at the end. But they already have their temporary very short term reward. Though they deserve it, I feel a mixture of pity and anger towards them.
steady, zap: i struggle with anger towards people who've betrayed me (etc.) - so i'm not the person to say "don't do that"... even though i know it's doing *me* harm to be so angry i can't even sleep at night, sometimes. what i would like to say is: f you manage to get your anger under control, do tell me how you managed it, ok? :)
Like all things, it is a work in progress, but I try to humble myself and accept the reality that though I can become something very great, boasting of my accomplishments does nothing but cause me to get buried.
The more I boast the deeper the hole. That isn't the only thing that digs a hole of course, but it is the first step to becoming something vile. so yeah...
My fuse has greatly lengthened in many ways before I do something foolish.
All in all, it takes time, learning to humble ones self, and controlling my ego/pride. Pride is the first step before most evil actions at least that is why I think.
That's my thoughts on this. ;)
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
2017-05-11 0:44 GMT+02:00 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net:
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:23 PM, zap zapper@openmailbox.org wrote:
it is sad because they think they will be rewarded at the end. But they already have their temporary very short term reward. Though they deserve it, I feel a mixture of pity and anger towards them.
steady, zap: i struggle with anger towards people who've betrayed me (etc.) - so i'm not the person to say "don't do that"... even though i know it's doing *me* harm to be so angry i can't even sleep at night, sometimes. what i would like to say is: f you manage to get your anger under control, do tell me how you managed it, ok? :)
If the effect is not immediate we have the tendency to ignore. "I'm driving 200Km/h on the high way without crashing for four days so what's the problem? Let's up it another 10"
When other people do things that "hurt" you the first reaction might be anger. We immediately think that they hurt us on purpose. But in fact 70-90% time they are just doing what suits them. Not on purpose to you and blissfully unaware of the effects it has on you. You vent you anger and hurt them back. Only to be repaid with more hurting and anger. So anger might not be your best response. It is however a natural one. Just like tensing on impact while release might be a better one.
But beware of the trap that you disallow yourself to feel hurt because they didn't do it on purpose. They did hurt you and they need to stop their behavior even though it might be even unconsciously.
With hurt I mean it in a widest sense every form of mental of physical pain on any level from touch to damage, from discomfort to inability.
The mental pain is a perceived one and with change of perception you can alleviate the pain.
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On 10/05/17 20:49, mike.valk@gmail.com wrote:
But beware of the trap that you disallow yourself to feel hurt because they didn't do it on purpose. They did hurt you and they need to stop their behavior even though it might be even unconsciously.
Yes and no. If they didn't do it on purpose, and didn't mean to hurt, you might as well let the hurt go and forgive them. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to let them know that it does hurt, so they can be aware of it in the future.
With hurt I mean it in a widest sense every form of mental of physical pain on any level from touch to damage, from discomfort to inability.
The gradations of hurt you mention here are very real, and at the same time, for many it may be that they might be similarly hurt in a different way by trying to avoid hurting you. Others you mention are facts of life for some people, and the only option left in their case is to try to move on and find ways around it.
I think there is a lot to the old definition that it is physical harm that is unquestionably actionable. When you get to the realm of words, the very restraint against offending another person is itself an offense. Nevertheless, you still own your words, and are responsible for them, so although a restraint punishing you merely for having said them is wrong, the consequences of saying them may not be worthwhile.
Consider the classic free speech case of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Per free speech you certainly have the right to say it, but chances are high that if you are believed someone will be trampled in the stampede. Should someone be trampled to death in such a case, murder charges would be appropriate. Even if you get lucky and no one is hurt, billing you for a free ticket to another show for all the people who had their show disrupted might be in order.
The mental pain is a perceived one and with change of perception you can alleviate the pain.
This is true... and easier said than done.
Well, it seems I may have further derailed the topic, but since I'm not sure how to title it so it will be easier to find in the future, and the title covers random wanderings through the weeds, I'll let it pass. :)
Tor
On Wed, 10 May 2017 23:44:29 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:23 PM, zap zapper@openmailbox.org wrote:
it is sad because they think they will be rewarded at the end. But they already have their temporary very short term reward. Though they deserve it, I feel a mixture of pity and anger towards them.
steady, zap: i struggle with anger towards people who've betrayed me (etc.) - so i'm not the person to say "don't do that"... even though i know it's doing *me* harm to be so angry i can't even sleep at night, sometimes. what i would like to say is: f you manage to get your anger under control, do tell me how you managed it, ok? :)
l.
I've struggled with anger in the past as well and have tried to read up on the subject in order to get it under control. What I've learned so far and what has helped me is the understanding that anger is like a notificatin from within yourself that you or someone around you is not getting his or her needs met properly. Maybe you or someone else is getting bullied och treated badly at work, then the need for respect is not being met. Our job is to try to figure out what unmet needs are hidden behind the feeling of anger. When you look at anger this way it becomes a tool rather than a burden. This applies to other emotions as well, such as guilt and shame.
If I remember correctly these thoughts have their roots in Nonviolent Communication.
/fuumind
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Bill Kontos vkontogpls@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly this. I always prefer to do something by choice. Being manipulated is the one thing that I hate the most in life. But this takes time, and I have come to a very similar conclusion to this society you are talking about, that following 95% of the Christian ethics is a good idea because it makes for the most benefit for the society as a total.
f***'n-A :)
But I find having to believe that god exists and he will punish me for not following these ethics in order to be able follow them utterly pointless.
yyeah no i can definitely say that (in an indirect and complex-to-explain way) i'm what some people would define as "a christian" and (again in an indirect and comprehensive-and-complex-to-explain way) also definitely believe in what some people would define as "god", the "personal punishment" thing which characterised much of the past two thousand years is a total fucking load of horse-shit, plain and simple.
change of direction-of-topic (slightly): there's an insight that occurred to me after entering an essay contest about whether intelligence is an emergent property or not. i basically said "yes it is", and then began describing how.
if you take the classic "maxwell's demon" but modify it so that:
* the demon can move at a rate that's proportional to its size * its survival is dependent on "eating" the gas at a rate again that's proportional to its size * the "gas" is initially uniformly and infinitely distributed throughout the demon's "universe" * there are lots of "demons" that have to compete for their "food" (gas). * the "gas" can, in large enough concentrations, be toxic. * the distribution of the "gas" can locally change (like high and low pressures on a planet's weather)
now run that as a universe for a bit. what you find is that there will be emergent intelligent behaviour - entropy *will* be beaten - *not* because it was *deliberately designed in* but because of the *evolutionary process*.
to whit: any of the demons that do *not* evolve to have intelligent behaviour will *die* - plain and simple.
one very important thing which emerges from this is that entropy gets beaten in the medium known as "gas" because the demons will end up collaborating to *REMOVE* (reduce) the concentration of gas from their environment.
the next logical step in the chain was to analyse this emergent evolutionary process "in general", and to conclude that the intelligence is *NOT* a "birthright of humanity" as humans like to arrogantly believe, but is instead an *inherent property of the underlying fabric of the universe itself*.
*intelligence* is an inherent property of the fabric of the universe, and we (and all intelligent beings) simply "borrow" that capacity by being *in* the universe. which is something that never really occurred to me before and i find to be utterly, utterly cool.
now, if you want to throw "god" in there in some fashion that's entirely up to you, but in doing so it really doesn't have very much to do with the logic or the conclusion.
l.
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net
wrote:
the next logical step in the chain was to analyse this emergent evolutionary process "in general", and to conclude that the intelligence is *NOT* a "birthright of humanity" as humans like to arrogantly believe, but is instead an *inherent property of the underlying fabric of the universe itself*.
*intelligence* is an inherent property of the fabric of the universe, and we (and all intelligent beings) simply "borrow" that capacity by being *in* the universe. which is something that never really occurred to me before and i find to be utterly, utterly cool.
now, if you want to throw "god" in there in some fashion that's entirely up to you, but in doing so it really doesn't have very much to do with the logic or the conclusion.
I'm usually too shy and unsure of myself to actually talk about religion, but what you are saying here resonants with my beliefs.
I was raised LDS/Mormon, though I've never been a particularly good example of piety. Personal experience tells me that at least some of the doctrine is true. Right now I'd rather look at the theology (or my interpretation of it), and not about it's truth.
intelligence is *NOT* a "birthright of humanity" as humans like to arrogantly believe, but is instead an *inherent property of the underlying fabric of the universe itself*.
This is my belief. Intelligence IS a fundamental part of the universe. Humans have a great deal more of it than most things, however. The story behind this takes some exposition. God, to a member of the LDS church is not the intelligence as you said, but *a* intelligence. We are also intelligences, or spirits. We are, spiritually speaking, children of God - he created us out of intelligence, creation meaning to organize. Spirit/intelligence is also a type of matter, but finer than anything we have made as a species can detect.
So humans have spirits, created by God out of intelligence. So does everything, in fact, but only humans are like God.
There's a whole lot more that I could go into, but it's rather late. I don't know how all of you will receive this, but I thought it was important to say something :)
Just be gentle ripping this apart, ok?
On 5/10/17, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
*intelligence* is an inherent property of the fabric of the universe, and we (and all intelligent beings) simply "borrow" that capacity by being *in* the universe. which is something that never really occurred to me before and i find to be utterly, utterly cool.
That resonates a bit with what I said earlier. For conflict to exist their must be aims.
I believe their to be a strange element to the underlining universe which "sifts the sands" so-to-speak to spontaneously generate material "loops" and then again "sifts the sands" so-to-speak to spontaneously generate incremental degrees of awareness.
One could argue intelligence is just to be an evolution of approach towards one's aims.
now, if you want to throw "god" in there in some fashion that's entirely up to you, but in doing so it really doesn't have very much to do with the logic or the conclusion.
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 05:46:23PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Hendrik Boom hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
I'm an atheist whose basic emotional attitude is anger against God for not existing.
hendrik, i have to be honest: don't take it the wrong way ok, but i found this very very funny. windmills?? chearrrrge!! :) it's like, if you _did_ believe in god you'd be castigated and Sent to Helllll for having a negatve emotion called "anger", but *come on* man: if you believe *god doesn't exist* what the heck are you doing damaging your psyche by bothering to be angry! about something that in your mind *doesn't exist*!
beautifully ironic :)
Exactly. You get it.
Intellectual understanding and emotions can be in conflict. It's the way we are built.
I recognise the resulting contradictions, accept them, recognise I'm not perfect, and get along the best I can, using emotions and intellect as guides.
-- hendrik
On Wed, 10 May 2017 17:46:23 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
now that i think about it, i believe i heard of something about 20 years ago called the humanist society (or something like that). apparently they live their lives according to a really quite [humane]
... [humane] ...
Another wordplay Luke? I can see two levels of p(h)un. :)
wonderful "code"... just without the bits about "god" attached.
so i'd say definitively yes, you can... it's just that you'd have to choose to do so, and that can be really tough, to research, assess and then make the decision to adhere to a particular code. it means making changes in your life which might cost you friends, your job (because the company asks you to do something that is against your newly-chosen "code")...
now, what wasn't clear in your question was whether you were asking about the *internal dialogue* that one might have with oneself to replicate the same *effects* as "belief in code" or whether you could have meant specifically the *external appearance* i.e. the improvements in *other people's* lives that your new [atheist but humane] "code" has.
For me as a christian the very essence of my faith is my relationship with God. It's like having a parent that you'd trust with your life and a friend that you hang out with all the time and share *everything* with and so much more I can't describe. Trying to replace that with a sense of moral obligation towards your fellow human beings (which in itself is a good thing) is, well, futile. That's the way I see it.
very cool question, hendrik.
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
/fuumind
On Thu, 11 May 2017 09:57:04 +0200 fuumind fuumind@openmailbox.org wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2017 17:46:23 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
now that i think about it, i believe i heard of something about 20 years ago called the humanist society (or something like that). apparently they live their lives according to a really quite [humane]
... [humane] ...
Another wordplay Luke? I can see two levels of p(h)un. :)
wonderful "code"... just without the bits about "god" attached.
so i'd say definitively yes, you can... it's just that you'd have to choose to do so, and that can be really tough, to research, assess and then make the decision to adhere to a particular code. it means making changes in your life which might cost you friends, your job (because the company asks you to do something that is against your newly-chosen "code")...
now, what wasn't clear in your question was whether you were asking about the *internal dialogue* that one might have with oneself to replicate the same *effects* as "belief in code" or whether you could have meant specifically the *external appearance* i.e. the improvements in *other people's* lives that your new [atheist but humane] "code" has.
For me as a christian the very essence of my faith is my relationship with God. It's like having a parent that you'd trust with your life and a friend that you hang out with all the time and share *everything* with and so much more I can't describe. Trying to replace that with a sense of moral obligation towards your fellow human beings (which in itself is a good thing) is, well, futile. That's the way I see it.
It seems I came on too strong when I wrote this. I do apologize!
/fuumind
very cool question, hendrik.
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
/fuumind
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:14 AM, fuumind fuumind@openmailbox.org wrote:
It seems I came on too strong when I wrote this. I do apologize!
that's ok. these discussions had taken up quite a lot of time, so although it was fascinating to delve into i decided not to encourage the (long) side-track by participating.
l.
Hendrik Boom:
But i have noticed that, true or false, a lot of people are helped by belief in God. So the scientific question becomes, what is it that actually helps them if God does not exist??
Well, I have found that critical thinking is the most important thing for consciousness. If you start intentionally limiting your thoughts, you lose the freedom of mind.
Believing in religion is like buying Apple's iPhone. Sure, it's shiny, it has apps, you may feel good about yourself. But most people don't understand how much they sacrifice by using it. Like downloading apps not from Apple Store or not be constantly surveilled.
So you don't know if he exists, but you hate the idea of religion.
Religion is the cause of most homophobia and transphobia in the world. LGBT people get executed by ISIS, get imprisoned by Chechens and get discriminated in most of the world.
Trump has said that he considers passing a "religious freedom" law that will allow businesses to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
I don't care what mad thoughts religious people have in their minds but when they open their mouth and let these thoughts outside, they become my enemies.
zap:
I would say the act of trying to be a good person and being faithful to him for the goodness he gives you is more important than always obeying especially if your heart is far from him. That's just my thought.
So God is a he? Why not she? Why do you think God has gender at all? Being a transgender woman really made me understand how men get so much for free and are treated as superior gender. This made me a radical feminist.
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
now run that as a universe for a bit. what you find is that there will be emergent intelligent behaviour - entropy *will* be beaten - *not* because it was *deliberately designed in* but because of the *evolutionary process*.
Exactly. I've been making bots for Team Fortress 2 and after stopping development I wanted to take reusable code into separate library. So I've started thinking what code is useful for a general purpose AI and after several years of brainstorming the most fundamental learning algorithm I have come to the conclusion that it is random mutations and natural selection.
If we make our AI explore randomly in algorithmic space, given enough time, it will solve any solvable problem. Sure, this is the most inefficient algorithm, but it is universal.
On 2017-05-11 at 06:57:00 +0000, Lyberta wrote:
Believing in religion is like buying Apple's iPhone. Sure, it's shiny, it has apps, you may feel good about yourself. But most people don't understand how much they sacrifice by using it. Like downloading apps not from Apple Store or not be constantly surveilled.
Well, some people have faith, and they don't have a choice in having it or not. Personally I feel it's like having another sense like smell: imprecise, prone to misunderstanding, but it's there and those who have it cannot deny that they feel something.
Did I mention "imprecise"? Understanding *what* that something is is a whole different matter, and historically lots of people who claimed who know have been proved (or strongly suspected) to lie for their own advantage.
Religion is the cause of most homophobia and transphobia in the world. LGBT people get executed by ISIS, get imprisoned by Chechens and get discriminated in most of the world.
well, not really. power and lust for it is the cause of most *phobia in the world; homosexual and trans people are among the minorities that are currently used as an easy target to turn people's insatisfaction with the current situation on, like in the past it was the jews (and homosexuals, and jehowa's witnesses, etc) in germany, the japanese in the US during the war and the communists afterwards, etc.
Some of it uses the excuse of religion, some of race, some of politics, but the shared factor is that they are all minorities that are big enough to be visible, but small enough that the people in power (or who want to get in power) don't feel them as a danger.
Elena ``of Valhalla'':
Well, some people have faith, and they don't have a choice in having it or not. Personally I feel it's like having another sense like smell: imprecise, prone to misunderstanding, but it's there and those who have it cannot deny that they feel something.
Well, I had faith when I was a kid. When I grew up, I understood that it only does harm and consciously removed it from myself. It's possible. It is a choice.
well, not really. power and lust for it is the cause of most *phobia in the world; homosexual and trans people are among the minorities that are currently used as an easy target to turn people's insatisfaction with the current situation on, like in the past it was the jews (and homosexuals, and jehowa's witnesses, etc) in germany, the japanese in the US during the war and the communists afterwards, etc.
Yes, but religious people are so stupid that they accept it. People who fall into religion are usually weak-minded and prone to exploitation. That is why we must actively combat the spread of religion. We must ban all public religious practices, ban all religious holidays, we must destroy churches. While I'm usually for freedom of thought, the spread of religious thought does extreme harm to society. That's why we have prisons in even most democratic countries. Because some people pose enough harm to deny them freedom. Religious people are exactly like that.
On 05/11/2017 04:46 AM, Lyberta wrote:
Elena ``of Valhalla'':
Well, some people have faith, and they don't have a choice in having it or not. Personally I feel it's like having another sense like smell: imprecise, prone to misunderstanding, but it's there and those who have it cannot deny that they feel something.
Well, I had faith when I was a kid. When I grew up, I understood that it only does harm and consciously removed it from myself. It's possible. It is a choice.
I am sorry that you suffered because of having faith, I wish it didn't go down like that.
well, not really. power and lust for it is the cause of most *phobia in the world; homosexual and trans people are among the minorities that are currently used as an easy target to turn people's insatisfaction with the current situation on, like in the past it was the jews (and homosexuals, and jehowa's witnesses, etc) in germany, the japanese in the US during the war and the communists afterwards, etc.
Yes, but religious people are so stupid that they accept it. People who fall into religion are usually weak-minded and prone to exploitation. That is why we must actively combat the spread of religion. We must ban all public religious practices, ban all religious holidays, we must destroy churches. While I'm usually for freedom of thought, the spread of religious thought does extreme harm to society. That's why we have prisons in even most democratic countries. Because some people pose enough harm to deny them freedom. Religious people are exactly like that.
I should probably tell you that I am a liberal and a socialist. I do not support judging others especially minorities. If being gay is a sin, then that's gods job to punish not mine.
There are greater threats regardless of if gay is a sin or not, I do not personally like the idea, but its not my place to judge. So yeah...
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 09:51:41AM +0200, Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote:
well, not really. power and lust for it is the cause of most *phobia in the world; homosexual and trans people are among the minorities that are currently used as an easy target to turn people's insatisfaction with the current situation on, like in the past it was the jews (and homosexuals, and jehowa's witnesses, etc) in germany, the japanese in the US during the war and the communists afterwards, etc.
Some of it uses the excuse of religion, some of race, some of politics, but the shared factor is that they are all minorities that are big enough to be visible, but small enough that the people in power (or who want to get in power) don't feel them as a danger.
The japanese in the US during the war were imprisoned because the people in power *did* feel them as a danger. There might be Japan-sympathisers among that minority who could sabotage the war effort, especially on the est coast.
There was at least some plausibility in that fear. But the measures taken were out of proportion to the threat.
-- hendrik
On 05/09/2017 10:56 PM, Lyberta wrote:
zap:
I don't know if your religious or not,
I'm agnostic and I have extreme anti-religion views: https://lyberta.net/articles/social/anti_religion.html
Hmm that is rare, at least for me to hear,
So you don't know if he exists, but you hate the idea of religion. That saddens me, but then again everyone has their path to follow. although, you choose your own path contrary to what some preachers preach. Our choices ultimately decide our path in the long run. Continual rejection of life itself leads to nothing good though.
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Bill Kontos vkontogpls@gmail.com
wrote:
Nobody "believes" in science.
sadly, they do. they're usually the ones who tell you that the climate's absolutely fine.
Most of people usually predict the future using whatever science they know and most of them usually don't factor that they may be absolutely wrong.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On 5/9/17, Lyberta lyberta@lyberta.net wrote:
doark@mail.com:
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.
When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had time to investigate.
And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.
The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact, I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I understand that I understand nothing.
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening, insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.
I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.
The mountains of religious thought pumped into this thread has it visibly oozing (I mean no offense). Firstly, the speaker in that video linked @zap I'm familiar with and is very unreliable when their claims are checked or researched. Secondly, Nietzsche explores that so-called "trap". The thing is that religion presents the concept of morality which fills the space created by ennui and lack of obstacles to self-preservation. Noam Chomsky popularized abit the thought that the consistent trend in nature is more intelligent species tend to go extinct after a shorter period than obviously less intelligent ones (i.e. beetles), this is due to genetic drift and inbred weaknesses due to a lack of obstacles to their survival. Ethics is an artificial obstacle we present ourselves in order to keep us strong (Nietzsche referred to the model used by Christianity as Slave Morality, suggesting that the ethics therein enslave the subscriber to the whims and desires of the less fortunate, and thusly purporting the existence of less fortunate as ENDEMICALLY NECESSARY because without less fortunate people then there would be point to the ethics of christianity and therefore there would be no obstacle to occupy ourselves with and therefore genetic drift would set in and we would die as a species. In other words, Nietzsche considered christianity so obsessed with compassion, that in a world without suffering it would utterly and completely fall apart.).
Nietzsche's life's work was dedicated to attempting to create a well-developed replacement to both religion and "Slave Morality".
I don't know if I support Nietzsche's alternative of "Master Morality" (where the obstacle is to become the best human possible, the so-called "ubermensch"), but I do say that "trap" is hardly a "trap" rather it's just a human need for an obstacle or conflict, and by rejecting religion all one is doing is rejecting the type of conflict which that religion endorses. Thirdly, ______
.................| -> vvvvvvvv ______
On the subject of Relativity: ______
.................| -> ^^^^^^^^^ ______
"The only rule is everything changes, even this rule." is the best misquoting of Heraclitus I've heard and has rather impacted my view of "Relativity". Ultimately building off of the concept that the meaning of life is just any arbitrary form of conflict, then sometimes constant values contribute to having an increased selection of types of conflict. Technology of modern day allows us to have simulated battles over the net, and, without a whole slew of discovered constants (such as ways of making the voltage across a wire consistent with what is intended to deliver a message), then that would not be possible. I believe the universe only stays as consistent as it needs to be for every life to have a potentially unique purpose given work to discover new constant attributes to apply to a new purpose to assume. I believe it is quite possible high-fantasy magic might have existed at one point and that it was merely purged by the work devoted to the infinitely more rigorous "science". That's just my perspective, and it is also my perspective that science could be replaced with high-enough degree of arbitrary work dedicated to discovering attributes of the universe incompatible with modern science. This would require a large influx of unfulfilled persons highly motivated to transform the status quo and contradict conventional wisdom.
That was fun
On Tue, May 9, 2017, 6:14 PM John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/9/17, Lyberta lyberta@lyberta.net wrote:
doark@mail.com:
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.
When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had time to investigate.
And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.
The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact, I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I understand that I understand nothing.
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening, insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.
I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.
The mountains of religious thought pumped into this thread has it visibly oozing (I mean no offense). Firstly, the speaker in that video linked @zap I'm familiar with and is very unreliable when their claims are checked or researched. Secondly, Nietzsche explores that so-called "trap". The thing is that religion presents the concept of morality which fills the space created by ennui and lack of obstacles to self-preservation. Noam Chomsky popularized abit the thought that the consistent trend in nature is more intelligent species tend to go extinct after a shorter period than obviously less intelligent ones (i.e. beetles), this is due to genetic drift and inbred weaknesses due to a lack of obstacles to their survival. Ethics is an artificial obstacle we present ourselves in order to keep us strong (Nietzsche referred to the model used by Christianity as Slave Morality, suggesting that the ethics therein enslave the subscriber to the whims and desires of the less fortunate, and thusly purporting the existence of less fortunate as ENDEMICALLY NECESSARY because without less fortunate people then there would be point to the ethics of christianity and therefore there would be no obstacle to occupy ourselves with and therefore genetic drift would set in and we would die as a species. In other words, Nietzsche considered christianity so obsessed with compassion, that in a world without suffering it would utterly and completely fall apart.).
Nietzsche's life's work was dedicated to attempting to create a well-developed replacement to both religion and "Slave Morality".
I don't know if I support Nietzsche's alternative of "Master Morality" (where the obstacle is to become the best human possible, the so-called "ubermensch"), but I do say that "trap" is hardly a "trap" rather it's just a human need for an obstacle or conflict, and by rejecting religion all one is doing is rejecting the type of conflict which that religion endorses. Thirdly, ______
.................| -> vvvvvvvv ______
On the subject of Relativity: ______
.................| -> ^^^^^^^^^ ______
"The only rule is everything changes, even this rule." is the best misquoting of Heraclitus I've heard and has rather impacted my view of "Relativity". Ultimately building off of the concept that the meaning of life is just any arbitrary form of conflict, then sometimes constant values contribute to having an increased selection of types of conflict. Technology of modern day allows us to have simulated battles over the net, and, without a whole slew of discovered constants (such as ways of making the voltage across a wire consistent with what is intended to deliver a message), then that would not be possible. I believe the universe only stays as consistent as it needs to be for every life to have a potentially unique purpose given work to discover new constant attributes to apply to a new purpose to assume. I believe it is quite possible high-fantasy magic might have existed at one point and that it was merely purged by the work devoted to the infinitely more rigorous "science". That's just my perspective, and it is also my perspective that science could be replaced with high-enough degree of arbitrary work dedicated to discovering attributes of the universe incompatible with modern science. This would require a large influx of unfulfilled persons highly motivated to transform the status quo and contradict conventional wisdom.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On 05/09/2017 08:14 PM, John Luke Gibson wrote:
On 5/9/17, Lyberta lyberta@lyberta.net wrote:
doark@mail.com:
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.
When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had time to investigate.
And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.
The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact, I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I understand that I understand nothing.
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening, insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.
I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.
The mountains of religious thought pumped into this thread has it visibly oozing (I mean no offense). Firstly, the speaker in that video linked @zap I'm familiar with and is very unreliable when their claims are checked or researched. Secondly, Nietzsche explores that so-called "trap". The thing is that religion presents the concept of morality which fills the space created by ennui and lack of obstacles to self-preservation. Noam Chomsky popularized abit the thought that the consistent trend in nature is more intelligent species tend to go extinct after a shorter period than obviously less intelligent ones (i.e. beetles), this is due to genetic drift and inbred weaknesses due to a lack of obstacles to their survival. Ethics is an artificial obstacle we present ourselves in order to keep us strong (Nietzsche referred to the model used by Christianity as Slave Morality, suggesting that the ethics therein enslave the subscriber to the whims and desires of the less fortunate, and thusly purporting the existence of less fortunate as ENDEMICALLY NECESSARY because without less fortunate people then there would be point to the ethics of christianity and therefore there would be no obstacle to occupy ourselves with and therefore genetic drift would set in and we would die as a species. In other words, Nietzsche considered christianity so obsessed with compassion, that in a world without suffering it would utterly and completely fall apart.).
You can choose to think what you want, but for me it as relieved my suffering long term.
I feel peace more than I ever used to, as a child I was an athiest. as a teenager I was agonstic and four years ago I was in fact the kind of christian you think all christians are...
The fact of the matter is you have black and white thinking
Saying all religion is conflict is to me like all science is good.
Science after all is directly responsible for why climate change is happening.
I know you may mean well, but please try reading the gospels of jesus' ministry before you claim to understand what is true and false. IF it helps to motivate you do it for a laugh, not that I agree with that, but he spoke out against the very things you are saying he supports. He wants nothing to do with conflict other than to heal the hurts of those who are suffering.
By the way, I do not think I am unreliable. I think we just have a difference of opinion.
I don't think all atheists are bad heck, who knows what will happen at the end of ones life, they could turn to christ.
Hard to say,
conversely, not all christians are good, mostly because some lie about who they are.
You can find examples of both sides in all humanity I am sure but you have to seek it out and alas that is something I fear you will not do.
Nietzsche's life's work was dedicated to attempting to create a well-developed replacement to both religion and "Slave Morality".
I don't know if I support Nietzsche's alternative of "Master Morality" (where the obstacle is to become the best human possible, the so-called "ubermensch"), but I do say that "trap" is hardly a "trap" rather it's just a human need for an obstacle or conflict, and by rejecting religion all one is doing is rejecting the type of conflict which that religion endorses. Thirdly, ______
.................| -> vvvvvvvv ______
On the subject of Relativity: ______
.................| -> ^^^^^^^^^ ______
"The only rule is everything changes, even this rule." is the best misquoting of Heraclitus I've heard and has rather impacted my view of "Relativity". Ultimately building off of the concept that the meaning of life is just any arbitrary form of conflict, then sometimes constant values contribute to having an increased selection of types of conflict. Technology of modern day allows us to have simulated battles over the net, and, without a whole slew of discovered constants (such as ways of making the voltage across a wire consistent with what is intended to deliver a message), then that would not be possible. I believe the universe only stays as consistent as it needs to be for every life to have a potentially unique purpose given work to discover new constant attributes to apply to a new purpose to assume. I believe it is quite possible high-fantasy magic might have existed at one point and that it was merely purged by the work devoted to the infinitely more rigorous "science". That's just my perspective, and it is also my perspective that science could be replaced with high-enough degree of arbitrary work dedicated to discovering attributes of the universe incompatible with modern science. This would require a large influx of unfulfilled persons highly motivated to transform the status quo and contradict conventional wisdom.
I will also add that I haven't read what you speak of, but I do know the concept of blind chance...
and it makes me think that someone who doesn't want to accept the truth or the truth is too hard to bear came up with it.
Not saying that you feel that way even secretly, but I do think that such talk takes far more faith in science than it takes me to believe in God.
That's my perception though. Again it is my opinion. So try to chill.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On 5/9/17, zap zapper@openmailbox.org wrote:
On 05/09/2017 08:14 PM, John Luke Gibson wrote:
On 5/9/17, Lyberta lyberta@lyberta.net wrote:
doark@mail.com:
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.
When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had time to investigate.
And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.
The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact, I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I understand that I understand nothing.
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening, insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.
I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.
The mountains of religious thought pumped into this thread has it visibly oozing (I mean no offense). Firstly, the speaker in that video linked @zap I'm familiar with and is very unreliable when their claims are checked or researched. Secondly, Nietzsche explores that so-called "trap". The thing is that religion presents the concept of morality which fills the space created by ennui and lack of obstacles to self-preservation. Noam Chomsky popularized abit the thought that the consistent trend in nature is more intelligent species tend to go extinct after a shorter period than obviously less intelligent ones (i.e. beetles), this is due to genetic drift and inbred weaknesses due to a lack of obstacles to their survival. Ethics is an artificial obstacle we present ourselves in order to keep us strong (Nietzsche referred to the model used by Christianity as Slave Morality, suggesting that the ethics therein enslave the subscriber to the whims and desires of the less fortunate, and thusly purporting the existence of less fortunate as ENDEMICALLY NECESSARY because without less fortunate people then there would be point to the ethics of christianity and therefore there would be no obstacle to occupy ourselves with and therefore genetic drift would set in and we would die as a species. In other words, Nietzsche considered christianity so obsessed with compassion, that in a world without suffering it would utterly and completely fall apart.).
You can choose to think what you want, but for me it as relieved my suffering long term.
I feel peace more than I ever used to, as a child I was an athiest. as a teenager I was agonstic and four years ago I was in fact the kind of christian you think all christians are...
The fact of the matter is you have black and white thinking
Saying all religion is conflict is to me like all science is good.
Science after all is directly responsible for why climate change is happening.
I know you may mean well, but please try reading the gospels of jesus' ministry before you claim to understand what is true and false. IF it helps to motivate you do it for a laugh, not that I agree with that, but he spoke out against the very things you are saying he supports. He wants nothing to do with conflict other than to heal the hurts of those who are suffering.
By the way, I do not think I am unreliable. I think we just have a difference of opinion.
I don't think all atheists are bad heck, who knows what will happen at the end of ones life, they could turn to christ.
Hard to say,
conversely, not all christians are good, mostly because some lie about who they are.
You can find examples of both sides in all humanity I am sure but you have to seek it out and alas that is something I fear you will not do.
Nietzsche's life's work was dedicated to attempting to create a well-developed replacement to both religion and "Slave Morality".
I don't know if I support Nietzsche's alternative of "Master Morality" (where the obstacle is to become the best human possible, the so-called "ubermensch"), but I do say that "trap" is hardly a "trap" rather it's just a human need for an obstacle or conflict, and by rejecting religion all one is doing is rejecting the type of conflict which that religion endorses. Thirdly, ______
.................| -> vvvvvvvv ______
On the subject of Relativity: ______
.................| -> ^^^^^^^^^ ______
"The only rule is everything changes, even this rule." is the best misquoting of Heraclitus I've heard and has rather impacted my view of "Relativity". Ultimately building off of the concept that the meaning of life is just any arbitrary form of conflict, then sometimes constant values contribute to having an increased selection of types of conflict. Technology of modern day allows us to have simulated battles over the net, and, without a whole slew of discovered constants (such as ways of making the voltage across a wire consistent with what is intended to deliver a message), then that would not be possible. I believe the universe only stays as consistent as it needs to be for every life to have a potentially unique purpose given work to discover new constant attributes to apply to a new purpose to assume. I believe it is quite possible high-fantasy magic might have existed at one point and that it was merely purged by the work devoted to the infinitely more rigorous "science". That's just my perspective, and it is also my perspective that science could be replaced with high-enough degree of arbitrary work dedicated to discovering attributes of the universe incompatible with modern science. This would require a large influx of unfulfilled persons highly motivated to transform the status quo and contradict conventional wisdom.
I will also add that I haven't read what you speak of, but I do know the concept of blind chance...
and it makes me think that someone who doesn't want to accept the truth or the truth is too hard to bear came up with it.
Not saying that you feel that way even secretly, but I do think that such talk takes far more faith in science than it takes me to believe in God.
That's my perception though. Again it is my opinion. So try to chill.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
I think you heavily misinterpreted most of what I said, mostly because the first "thing" was more a side comment. I didn't watch the video, because I find the speaker seems willfully unreliable. I've listened to their lectures before. Everything else was more pointed at what doark had said.
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 3:14 AM, John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
The mountains of religious thought pumped into this thread has it visibly oozing (I mean no offense). Firstly, the speaker in that video linked @zap I'm familiar with and is very unreliable when their claims are checked or researched. Secondly, Nietzsche explores that so-called "trap". The thing is that religion presents the concept of morality which fills the space created by ennui and lack of obstacles to self-preservation. Noam Chomsky popularized abit the thought that the consistent trend in nature is more intelligent species tend to go extinct after a shorter period than obviously less intelligent ones (i.e. beetles), this is due to genetic drift and inbred weaknesses due to a lack of obstacles to their survival. Ethics is an artificial obstacle we present ourselves in order to keep us strong (Nietzsche referred to the model used by Christianity as Slave Morality, suggesting that the ethics therein enslave the subscriber to the whims and desires of the less fortunate, and thusly purporting the existence of less fortunate as ENDEMICALLY NECESSARY because without less fortunate people then there would be point to the ethics of christianity and therefore there would be no obstacle to occupy ourselves with and therefore genetic drift would set in and we would die as a species. In other words, Nietzsche considered christianity so obsessed with compassion, that in a world without suffering it would utterly and completely fall apart.).
Nietzsche's life's work was dedicated to attempting to create a well-developed replacement to both religion and "Slave Morality".
I don't know if I support Nietzsche's alternative of "Master Morality" (where the obstacle is to become the best human possible, the so-called "ubermensch"), but I do say that "trap" is hardly a "trap" rather it's just a human need for an obstacle or conflict, and by rejecting religion all one is doing is rejecting the type of conflict which that religion endorses.
Well said. I read on a neurology book that the human brain is made in such a way that if we pumped ourselves with dopamine and endorphin all day we would end up committing suicide. We are designed to need both pain and happiness in our lives to keep ourselves balanced. If you think about it it makes sense: pain does exist in the world and we are bound to feel it at some point, we might as well design ourselves in such a way that we actually need it. A bit of evolution 101 there. Also I like to think of ethics as the way that we prefer to make society work. As someone who bases his world view on logic, I prefer a set of ethical rules that benefit society as a whole the most. Others prefer ethics deriving from religions.
Thirdly, ______
.................| -> vvvvvvvv ______
On the subject of Relativity: ______
.................| -> ^^^^^^^^^ ______
"The only rule is everything changes, even this rule." is the best misquoting of Heraclitus I've heard and has rather impacted my view of "Relativity". Ultimately building off of the concept that the meaning of life is just any arbitrary form of conflict, then sometimes constant values contribute to having an increased selection of types of conflict. Technology of modern day allows us to have simulated battles over the net, and, without a whole slew of discovered constants (such as ways of making the voltage across a wire consistent with what is intended to deliver a message), then that would not be possible. I believe the universe only stays as consistent as it needs to be for every life to have a potentially unique purpose given work to discover new constant attributes to apply to a new purpose to assume. I believe it is quite possible high-fantasy magic might have existed at one point and that it was merely purged by the work devoted to the infinitely more rigorous "science". That's just my perspective, and it is also my perspective that science could be replaced with high-enough degree of arbitrary work dedicated to discovering attributes of the universe incompatible with modern science. This would require a large influx of unfulfilled persons highly motivated to transform the status quo and contradict conventional wisdom.
Maybe. But As Arthur C. Clarke said, Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. At that point I don't care if it's magic or god or too advanced technology, it's just way beyond my reach and that's what matters the most.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Bill Kontos vkontogpls@gmail.com wrote:
Well said. I read on a neurology book that the human brain is made in such a way that if we pumped ourselves with dopamine and endorphin all day we would end up committing suicide. We are designed to need both pain and happiness in our lives to keep ourselves balanced.
y'know... even Maharishi Mahesh Yogi said that "total bliss" can get a bit boring after a few decades. the "Wheel of Time" series by robert jordan - the ending is just stunningly unexpected but reinforces the same theme.
If you think about it it makes sense: pain does exist in the world and we are bound to feel it at some point, we might as well design ourselves in such a way that we actually need it. A bit of evolution 101 there. Also I like to think of ethics as the way that we prefer to make society work. As someone who bases his world view on logic, I prefer a set of ethical rules that benefit society as a whole the most.
can i say: do take care with that perspective. it's only been a quite recent discovery, for myself, that i realise quite how brain-washed all of us are to believe that western society's "benefit" is fast becoming tyranny and fascism. asian and indian society, that's a different matter: at least in both those societies there seems to be a strong foundation, but in the west? pfffh. all i can say is: no wonder religious extremists are prepared even to sacrifice their lives to make a point about how corrupt and corrupting western society really is.
Others prefer ethics deriving from religions.
everyone does what is most useful to them. such a strange phrase that: everyone does what is *most useful* to them.
the discussion on "codes of conduct" was a challenge that made me think, and i realised that people set themselves criteria which fall into the same type of categories as 2nd, 3rd and 4th normalised form, for databases.
most religions have "rules" which fall into either 2nd or 3rd normalised form. in fact: most atheists do, too. very *very* few people operate by a set of ethical decision-making evaluation criteria that fit into 4th normalised form: a "compact" way to ASSESS whether a particular RULE may be DERIVED against which a situation may be evaluated.
why do people not do that? because it takes too long, that's why. some decisions - particularly those involving safety - have to be split-second. but even when it's not it can simply take too long or can be too complex / involved.
anyway.... :)
l.
arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
-
Bill Kontos -
Christopher Havel -
doark＠mail.com -
Elena ``of Valhalla'' -
fuumind -
Hendrik Boom -
John Luke Gibson -
Louis Pearson -
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton -
Lyberta -
mike.valk＠gmail.com -
Peter Carlson -
Tor, the Marqueteur -
zap