Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

PlanetSpores.ca
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1079487 -

"Or just try using logic to understand some forms of art, it is like trying to use a calculator to prepare dinner. "

The human mind is designed in a logical fashion. This doesn't mean that it won't produce things that seem illogical. I'm sure the art that you're talking about is stimulating various emotions and ideas through images, sounds, tastes, smells, whatever. These connections already exist in our minds, we see the art, and we don't have to use logic to make the connections. Just because logic as a system of thought isn't being used, doesn't mean that what is happening is illogical.

Let's say you had a very elaborate calculator. It took into account one's past, what they were fed as a child, where they grew up, their likes and dislikes, and it had various tastes programmed into it, it would likely spit out an excellent recipe.

"Push logic to the limits and will get paradoxes."

Please explain this further.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1079492 -

you can never know these things for sure, believing in them would be stupid
if you are so afraid to be stupid, you can always sit tight in your comfortable (proovable) couch. you hold tight, let the idiots explore

there are far more plausible explanations that one can come up with logically
i'm sure there are. just not for everything

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1079560 -

The human mind is designed in a logical fashion.
designed? by whom?

Let's say you had a very elaborate calculator. It took into account one's past, what they were fed as a child, where they grew up, their likes and dislikes, and it had various tastes programmed into it, it would likely spit out an excellent recipe.
I mean a simple arithmetic calculator  :smile: This was supposed to be taken metaphorically

"Push logic to the limits and will get paradoxes."
There are paradoxes in the scientific world. I suspect some of them may be because the tool being used to understand them is inappropriate. This does not mean that there are no "logical" explanations, but at least that the current "logic" being used is kind of flawed or incomplete. It has to do with the symbolic, concrete approach of concepts.   

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: GoBlue!]
    #1079571 -

"there are things that are true, that cannot be proven, e.g. something is either true or false"
Are you sure that's "true"? How do you know?
I personally don't, but Goedel proved it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1079707 -

Just because logic as a system of thought isn't being used, doesn't mean that what is happening is illogical
this kind of what I am trying to say, with your words

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1079814 -

And Goedel 'proved' it using logic. Sounds kinda circular to me.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1079816 -

"if you are so afraid to be stupid, you can always sit tight in your comfortable (proovable) couch. you hold tight, let the idiots explore"

I'm all for exploring. Here's the difference between science and religion:

Science: based on well documented observations, come to what is the most logical conclusion.

Religion: based on emotions and whimsy, come up with an idea, then selectively find evidence to back it up.

The second model is how most people come up with various forms of alternative medicine, theories about aliens, esp, etc... They start with a conclusion, and work backwards.

Lots of artists and scientists use the first method of thinking. It doesn't hinder you creativity, it just prevents you from believing in things that are likely false. The problem with most of these whimsical ideas is that a lot of them are false. The kind of evidence that people use to prove them doesn't really have any basis, and can be used to "prove" anything. That's exactly what my pseudoscience post is about.

Did you read this?:
http://skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

"i'm sure there are. just not for everything"

Okay, give me some examples.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1079825 -

Everything follows logic. Even if you don't know the intricacies, it is still logical.

If something goes against logic as we understand it, this does not mean that our logic is flawed, or that it is beyond our understanding. Maybe it does, but in most cases, this is certainly not true. It would be pretty stupid to just to that conclusion without first subjecting the theory to well laid out scientific analysis. Something that many of these people avoid doing, or when they do fail these tests, as many inevitably do, they brush off the results using ad-hoc hypothesis.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: ]
    #1079827 -

hmmm, can logic be right and be correct that it's wrong? Does logic have a self-destruct button?
:confused: 


--------------------
focusing
Flow
The Enneagram

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1081277 -

I am all for science. I love the sense of wonderment science inspires.

Yes, beliefs can be dangerous. Yes, people are being deceived,
but what causes people fall into deception?

"Hardcore" scientists have been practicing bad science,
they have scared people away from science:

"look, you are nothing special, I can make someone like you"
"look, there is nothing unexplained in love"
"look, you are the puppets of your genes", etc

You have to leave the human element breathe.

These BELIEFS are a lot more dangerous than having faith that there is something ineffable about you, no logic can describe, no human system can accommodate.

The very basis of scientific beliefs have to be challenged, for they have bring us to the verge of destruction. The mechanistic point of view of nature is simply a belief. Such beliefs are very well guarded by self proclaimed "skeptics", for they serve the current exploitation of nature, and fulfil personal ambitions.


The second model is how most people come up with various forms of alternative medicine, theories about aliens, esp, etc... They start with a conclusion, and work backwards."
There is nothing wrong with letting your intuition (or empirical evidence) point the way. Then there is the work to back it up. There are many wonderful theories that are expecting to be validated, but that is only if given the chance.

Okay, give me some examples.
I'll let you guess.

Edited by raytrace (11/24/02 07:18 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1081427 -

Lots of artists and scientists use the first method of thinking. It doesn't hinder you creativity, it just prevents you from believing in things that are likely false.

Mmm...how exactly does an artist use logical thinking? Nothing is "right" or "wrong" in art. Creativity and Logic are in different hemispheres of the brain.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1081571 -

"These BELIEFS are a lot more dangerous than having faith that there is something ineffable about you, no logic can describe, no human system can accommodate."

Excellent point! If I had enough posts i'd rate you.
The subjective experience is why we should RESPECT sentient life! It's the special somthing that we all have in common.
I dont think it should get to our heads though; who knows? Sombody may come up with an answer one day that might blow are minds!
:cool:
 


--------------------
focusing
Flow
The Enneagram

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: David_Scape]
    #1081739 -

The subjective experience is why we should RESPECT sentient life!

Dear Aretha,

How we define what life is sentient is totally subjective.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1081762 -

"look, you are nothing special, I can make someone like you"
"look, there is nothing unexplained in love"
"look, you are the puppets of your genes", etc

No scientist is saying these things. None of those things have anything to do with science. No scientist is claiming to be able to create humans from scratch.

Many might argue that love is really just a biological function. While this might take the magic out of it if you let it, and you may not WANT it to be true, but it's a perfectly valid idea. I think this may be true, and I still think love is a wonderful thing. Why do you have to be confused by something to enjoy it?

Genes are the blueprint for a person. I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that last

"You have to leave the human element breathe."

What does that even mean?

"There is nothing wrong with letting your intuition (or empirical evidence) point the way."

No, nothing wrong with letting them point you in the right direction, but you need to do a few tests before you start claiming it might work, and then you need to a full blown analysis before you can start claiming it DOES work.

"Okay, give me some examples.
I'll let you guess."

Guess? I think you just can't come up with any.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1081781 -

You're claiming that those things are beliefs. A claim like that just proves that you don't even know what science is.

The very basis of science is that there are no beliefs. None of the three things that you listed are believed by ANY scientist. Science is a system of documenting observations and attempting to implement this data. When there is enough evidence that a theory is incorrect, then that theory is abandoned. This generally isn't the case for systems based on beliefs.

No scientist claims to be able to explain love, for instance, because no scientist has a full understanding of the human brain.

Just because you WANT the universe to be a magical place with gods and spirits controlling forces you cannot comprehend doesn't mean that it IS this way.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Swami]
    #1081792 -

Who's Aretha? I did a search and all i found was Aretha franklin. I know nothing about this woman except that she is "The Queen of Soul who reigns supreme with a heavenly voice and terrestrial passion".

"How we define what life is sentient is totally subjective."

After looking up sentient to be sure i was even using the word correctly...  :confused:
Subjective experience is synonymous with sentience so maybe i didnt have to use it. But I think your saying that there is no way of knowing absolutley that all of us are sentient and your right. I should have put "The subjective experience is why I RESPECT sentient life!"
 


--------------------
focusing
Flow
The Enneagram

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: David_Scape]
    #1081817 -

sidebar: "R-E-S-P-E-C-T" - Aretha's #1 hit.

What I meant was that we have NO WAY of knowing which life forms are sentient and which ones aren't. I believe that the popular criterion is by which life forms interact with humans.

Creatures such as ants don't "acknowledge" humans, so we tend to deem them as not sentient.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Swami]
    #1081993 -

"R-E-S-P-E-C-T" - Aretha's #1 hit.

Not to be confused with "Rescue me" by Fontella Bass..........although many have fallen into this trap :grin: 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1082079 -

Everything follows logic.
says who?

No scientist is saying these things.
Daniel Dennet, Marvin Minsky, Ray Kurtzwell, Richard Dawkins?

I think you just can't come up with any
Of course I can, you.


"You have to leave the human element breathe."
What does that even mean?
It is fairly clear by now, that there is something binary behind you. Human-like structure does not mean there is a human inside. Try to read me not with only your analytical brain, it?s boring talking with a Prolog program. If you fail, I suggest you cut yourself, check if there is blood running inside you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1082088 -

The many $100,000,000 Las Vegas hotels were built by people using intuition and hunches.
pretty good example for where logic is essential, now if you could give us some examples where logic does not fit...


silence... as expected...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* For the sceptics...
( 1 2 3 all )		 Chronic7 3,861 59 03/29/08 08:48 PM
by allisthesame
* the boundaries of scepticism mr crisper 850 12 12/08/03 08:03 AM
by Alan Stone
* The Unprovable Nature of Faith and Belief
( 1 2 all )		 DoctorJ 3,094 33 08/11/03 07:13 AM
by fireworks_god
* Maya, space-time and scepticism. Alan Stone 2,378 19 10/20/03 11:19 AM
by Anonymous
* My sceptical belief in "god" deafpanda 1,148 17 01/07/05 04:05 PM
by uriahchase
* Calling Swami & all other Sceptics... lucid 784 10 12/11/03 09:41 PM
by Anonymous
* 2012: Skeptics vs Believers
( 1 2 all )		 Titus_Pullo 1,069 23 02/05/10 08:09 PM
by OrgoneConclusion
* The Buddha and Becker on the problem.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 Icelander 6,730 164 02/03/10 04:45 PM
by Icelander

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,214 topic views. 2 members, 168 guests and 20 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.