If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Calgary Herald)   "Born-again atheists are as irritating as born-again religious persons"   (calgaryherald.com) divider line 660
    More: Interesting, born-again  
•       •       •

9316 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 May 2012 at 10:01 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



660 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-12 05:33:48 PM

GilRuiz1: Are you are asking whether or not round things exist in the physical world?


No, they do exist in the physical world, and are so common, you're taking them for granted as some form of innate knowledge, and part of rationalism.

In reality, you only know of the circle because your have become intimate with it via experience of empiricism.

You know the straight rod's image is made into an angle because water bends the light. It's not a pure excercise in thought, it's a familiarity based on empiricism.

You claim that they're incompatible. Progress in thought, requires exposure to the material, and progress in understanding materials requires some adeptness in rational thought.

You can extrapolate a prediction about the physical based on previous exposure to it or something similar, but cannot simply create something by reason alone. There is no such thing as rationalism as an isolated process.

What you're attempting to describe in the over complicated philosophical way, is simply critical thinking, and it's a part of everything being with intellect do, to include science, there is no need to subdivide it down that far. It's a waste of time and effort, the ultimate insult to efficiency.
 
2012-05-12 06:36:46 PM

GilRuiz1: I'm very sorry the internets ate your post. I hate that with the burning hatred of ten billion angry armadillos.

As far as philosophy and science goes, I thought the "Reason" part of the "Reason Rally" was supposed to be dedicated to the careful thought of the meaning of science and reality. Was it not? And isn't that just another way of saying "philosophy of science"?


I honestly didn't pay much attention to the Reason Rally. I imagine they intended it as a jab at religion, with reason as the antithesis of faith.

My primary beef with philosophy isn't with philosophy so much as it is with philosophers. The "blah blah I can run logical circles around mathematicians and make them cry" types that think they've uncovered the wellspring of all thought. Really, philosophy can come from anyone, anywhere, at any time, and takes hundreds (if not thousands) of years to fully bear out.

To take a page from the classics, science is akin to rolling the stone up the hill, only to find that at the top of the hill are 50 other stones and a thousand bigger hills. Philosophy is more like teleporting the stone to the top of the hill and hoping it doesn't roll off before anyone else sees it.
 
2012-05-12 08:00:45 PM

GilRuiz1: Really? I thought it was your thing. Whatever happened to:


That's more considered the territory of mathematics, these days -- the mother of sciences.

omeganuepsilon: In reality, you only know of the circle because your have become intimate with it via experience of empiricism.


Actually, no. On one hand, it's known because you have experience of things with common properties approximating such an abstraction. On the other, the abstraction is known by it's relation to other abstract ideas (EG: points, distance, dimensionality...).

omeganuepsilon: You can extrapolate a prediction about the physical based on previous exposure to it or something similar, but cannot simply create something by reason alone. There is no such thing as rationalism as an isolated process.


Incorrect; however, the something created ergo does not necessarily relate to anything physical. EG, the Banach-Tarski sphere dissection seems likely in that category (its main practical application is creating headaches), as do most types of large cardinals (mainly useful for saying "we can describe that by..." to smug philosophers).

All reality instantiates mathematical abstractions; not all abstract mathematics has anything to say about the real world.

Epicedion: The "blah blah I can run logical circles around mathematicians and make them cry" types that think they've uncovered the wellspring of all thought.


It's more "blah blah blah mathematicians have showed mathematics can't show everything therefore it's useless and can be ignored in favor of wishful thinking" that are really annoying. The ones who are actually good enough at mathematics to make mathematicians break down in tears? I admit some grudging respect for them.

Contrariwise, most of the philosophy that's really impressed me in the last decades has been more the work of mathematicians dabbling in philosophy, rather than philosophers dabbling in mathematics.
 
2012-05-12 08:38:42 PM

abb3w: omeganuepsilon: In reality, you only know of the circle because your have become intimate with it via experience of empiricism.

Actually, no. On one hand, it's known because you have experience of things with common properties approximating such an abstraction. On the other, the abstraction is known by it's relation to other abstract ideas (EG: points, distance, dimensionality...).


Where do those other abstract idea's come from?

My point is, we can do a lot with very little, but can only do nothing with nothing. Without input, some form of innate knowledge is needed to achieve any sort of, well, anything with pure thought, or all you get is static on the tube.

A computer without an OS/bios is nothing but dead weight. Sure, maybe things power up, but in the end do nothing but generate heat by running current through it.

abb3w: Incorrect


See above.

Gil is a bit slow on the uptake(it took 3 or for posts for him to even start answering the questions(or attempting to), a common tactic on fark(head in the sand) or ignorance, I don't know), so I'm taking the brute force route and just rephrasing the same concepts in different ways to see if anything will take. Inevitably phrases will come off as odd or wrong when looked out out of context. All I can say, is, my bad.

I admit, "create" was a bad term to use if looked at out of context. Arrive at a certain conclusion maybe? I asked him to demonstrate pure rationalism, and he jumped straight to "circle" with no why or where for. That's common imagination, drawn from decades of having seen planets, soap bubbles, etc. Not proof of concept in the least, as he created it out of nothing, no work shown. No logic, not even reason, just, "here, it's a bubble, I thought of it and it's there."
 
2012-05-12 10:45:54 PM
So close, yet so far.
Suppose I'll save up for the next one.
 
2012-05-13 12:17:38 AM

omeganuepsilon: Where do those other abstract idea's come from?


In some cases, arbitrarily chosen as arbitrary abstract relations of undefined entities.

Pure math gets really, really weird.

omeganuepsilon: Without input, some form of innate knowledge is needed to achieve any sort of, well, anything with pure thought, or all you get is static on the tube.


Actually, static is an awful lot like what some of that math looks like....

www.stephenwolfram.com


omeganuepsilon: I asked him to demonstrate pure rationalism, and he jumped straight to "circle" with no why or where for.


Pure math is one of the standard philosophical examples in the category; Euclidean geometry, the oldest form of mathematics using formal proof.

Essentially, he's assuming you're more familiar with some of the more well-hashed arguments than it presently appears you are.

And he's not as familiar as I am with some of the stupidly abstract examples possible.
 
2012-05-13 01:49:14 AM

abb3w: than it presently appears you are.


Granted, but with his post on rationalism, it only goes so far before it runs into a wall. Either innate knowledge, or something learned(from where?).

Philosophy takes a lot of common and uncomplicated practices and carries them to the stupidly abstract.

Normal rationality may be able to be an independent process after it's developed so far(IE Stephen Hawking as the celebrity example via his inability to do anything but think), but, as an -ism, is more akin to a theory, much as the typical magical god is a theory, at any rate. In which case, no one really has any reliable ability to tote it around as fact.

Even if it's theoretically possible as an abstract(say, in a well designed device), it's outside of the limitations of the human ability. How long does it take for a child to even begin to count WITH input from the physical world?

It's not my familiarity, but rather my disagreement about the basic principles of rationalism as stated in his cite and a hundred other pages out there.

It's faulted in its perception of how our perception works(biology, psychology, etc) in accordance with our intelligence. It leans heavily into the same fluffy abstract area that results in supposed universal morals, justice, and other man created concepts. Concepts of innate intelligence/knowledge, how rationalism/empiricsm are exact opposites and incompatible(that's laughable).

Rationalism is incompatible with modern science as man's understanding of how things work on a physical level are directly unraveling it, we're actually beginning to realize how people learn and grow mentally. Same for most religions. Not the whole fields, but many purported precepts and bylaws.
Emotions are explained chemically, the mothers love for he baby, by god![formerly answered with "GOD" and "I don't know" now we know!), memory and brain function is being mapped and even explained in some areas(camera to brain implants, by god!).

Sure, in their balanced and crafted poetry, following their flowing lines, it's even elegant in it's own way, but so much of it is rubbish, just as so much of religion is pretty, but utter make-believe.

But they refuse to let go. As the saying goes, They want to Believe.

I've got a theory, I've previously notched it up to religious people, but it goes for any sort of fundy/zealot.
It's an addiction.
Euphoria (farking magnets, how do they work), an enjoyment of that childlike wonder, and they don't want it ruined.
More euphoria, what laws are innately moral and just? Self vindication, pride,

Their very states of being could be similar to a mothers bond to her children/spouse(which I'll describe the mechanics of in short sequence)
Random stranger
Casual acquaintance (before this step you may have some empathy, but won't miss the loss of too much)
Acclimation to very frequent exposure (At this stage, one is capable of love, cousins friends - loss here is great and "hurts")
Intimacy (hormones enhance and "burn in" the level of love of that to close family")
Physical intimacy (more hormone doses for further burn in, lovers/babies, really close family(lots of hug/snuggle, for whatever pervs may be reading, it all counts)

I mention the level of hurt of loss there. A very real thing, just as if you had lost a limb that's a part of you. It's rooted in familiarity. You're really familiar with your hand, and it's strange when it's suddenly gone, same for people. Brain goes haywire and any number of things can surface. Familiarity is a sort of addiction, when what you're used to goes missing you go through withdrawl(this is why breakups suck even though you may really actually hate the biatch)

That's sort of the going theory, in however many stages you may feel comfortable with. Language doesn't dictate, it merely attempts to describe.

Now, back to the addiction of philosophers and the religious.
That euphoria.
They wax philosophical or in praise to the almighty, because it makes them feel sooo goooood. Fuzzy, awww, cute. Must cling to it.

It all kind of makes a weird kind of sense.
 
2012-05-13 01:50:35 AM
Current SMBC feels suspiciously well-timed:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2609
 
2012-05-13 02:20:52 AM

cthellis: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2609


Awesome!
 
2012-05-13 02:40:15 AM

abb3w: Actually, static is an awful lot like what some of that math looks like....

www.stephenwolfram.com


... not sure ....

A sailboat maybe...?
 
Displayed 10 of 660 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report