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

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
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!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1082111 -

In reply to:
pretty good example for where logic is essential, now if you could give us some examples where logic does not fit...

silence... as expected...



Believing in logic is illogical. How do you prove that logic "works" as a tool? By using logical deductions. There's this idea that all one's beliefs can be traced to more basic beliefs, back and back to the foundation. These foundational beliefs just "are." The belief in causality is a cornerstone of scientific research. How do we know causality is? The belief in the scientific method is a belief, after all.
-m


--------------------
(the above was deciphered from phi (~1.62) using an advanced alphanumeric conversion algorhythm and should not be perceived as meaningful.)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1082116 -

now if you could give us some examples where logic does not fit...

I know this was not directed at me, but I would like to say that art, or music in particular..for me, requires no logic and oftentimes logic can intefere with the process.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1082129 -

"Daniel Dennet, Marvin Minsky, Ray Kurtzwell, Richard Dawkins?"

I think the problem here, is that you're not interpreting them very well. You aren't understanding what they're saying. None of these scientists are saying the things that you've listed. They may be doing research to try and find evidence that would prove conciousness is a mathematical system, but they aren't claiming to have any answers yet. That's how science works, you don't claim to know anything until it's proven, and even then, you've got to continue to operate under the assumption that everything you know could be wrong. Perhaps you could link me to some information that says otherwise?

"You have to leave the human element breathe."
The reason I didn't understand what you meant here is that it doesn't follow english syntax. You aren't communicating any solid ideas with that sentance, it does not follow correct grammar.
"Of course I can, you."
Same thing here. Are you trying to say, "Of course I can, can't you?"
I apologize if english isn't your first language, but some of the things you're saying are difficult to understand.



"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."

I have no problems whatsoever with my creative side. You have to be able to turn it on and off though. When trying to communicate an idea to someone, you can't use poetry, that's for communicating images and emotions. When you're trying to efficiently communicate an idea, poetry will not work.

You're probably sitting there thinking I'm the left-brained analytical type. I'm really not. I love nonsense, disorder, and chaos. I love the way my brain spits out non-sequitors, makes bizarre connections, and associates strange images with different emotions and themes.

This has nothing to do with what the universe actually is. My brain was not designed to understand the universe. I don't think that what my brain and my conciousness do has anything to do with an understanding of the universe. Brains have been known to deceive their owners. Different brains seem to have conflicting information. One brain tells it's owner that there are 5 gods, another brain tells it's owner that there are none. They can't both be correct. The only information that is consistant is that which comes from outside of the brain.

You don't have to lose appreciation of beauty in order to understand it.


--------------------
"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]
    #1082142 -

Don't you get it? Your brain IS the universe. The universe is Order and Chaos existing simultaneously in harmony.. your brain is Order and Chaos on seperate sides, functioning as if they don't even know each other. Make them work together, harmonize.. and you will understand the universe.


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

Edited by Shroomism (11/24/02 04:20 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Shroomism]
    #1082264 -


INTRESTING!!!! Does the information we get from the percieved universe actually come from an "unknown source"? A source which science is trying to understand? or does it all come from our brains?

WAIT A MINUTE! if i agree i have a brain, then i have no choice but to accept that there is a universe outside of me!

So if i want to prove that there is a brain-- er a universe..er... :confused: :confused:I can't get anywhere without assumptions. Im I doing somthing wrong?

The only conclusion i can come to with any certainty is "i am percieving" or "I exist".   


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: David_Scape]
    #1082273 -

I can only think to reply with, "As above, So below"

The microcosm of a macrocosm.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Shroomism]
    #1082476 -

"Don't you get it? Your brain IS the universe. The universe is Order and Chaos existing simultaneously in harmony.. your brain is Order and Chaos on seperate sides, functioning as if they don't even know each other. Make them work together, harmonize.. and you will understand the universe. "

The preceeding sounds pretty, but really isn't based on anything.


--------------------
"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]
    #1082989 -

I must say I have some new found respect for you.  I didn't realize that you were as astute scientifically as you are.  :wink:

However, that is beside the point.  I do not know what your background is but you are conflating methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

Do you really think that scientific opinion is absolute?  That certain theories cannot be completely disgarded?

What, in your mind, is science? 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: machineelf368]
    #1083004 -

How do you prove that logic "works" as a tool?
By asking this question using a computer on the Internet.

The belief in the scientific method is a belief, after all.
Caution: your ignorance is showing. It is a methodology based on trial and error.


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



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Swami]
    #1083233 -

Caution: your ignorance is showing.

This "be nice" policy seems to be putting a bit of a strain on you swami...could you at least give it a try and quit with the insults?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: machineelf368]
    #1083245 -

Believing in logic is illogical. How do you prove that logic "works" as a tool? By using logical deductions. There's this idea that all one's beliefs can be traced to more basic beliefs, back and back to the foundation. These foundational beliefs just "are." The belief in causality is a cornerstone of scientific research. How do we know causality is? The belief in the scientific method is a belief, after all.

Are you trying to use logic to prove that it is illogical to use logic???  Is that logical?  :wink: 


--------------------
:smile:  Just stating my thoughts, not trying to offend  :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: ]
    #1083274 -

"Do you really think that scientific opinion is absolute? That certain theories cannot be completely disgarded?"

I'm not really sure what you meant here.

"Dictionary.com

No entry found for disgarded."
:confused: :confused:

Discarded, maybe? Because I said the exact opposite. I said that any theory could potentially be wrong, and any good scientist knows this. Theories are NOT absolute. That's what I'm saying. There is no belief in science.

It seems like you read the exact opposite of what I wrote.


--------------------
"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: Xlea321]
    #1083311 -

Ignorance means not knowing the facts. If you do not know the capital of Ubekistan and I say that you are ignorant in that regard, how is that an insult?

The fact that I have to explain the meaning of this word and how to use it, perhaps you too are --------.


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



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Swami]
    #1083361 -

You beat it me to it.

Yes, that is the correct interpretation of the word however:

"SYNONYMS: ignorant, uneducated, untaught, unlearned, untutored, unlettered, illiterate. These adjectives mean lacking in knowledge or education. Ignorant can refer to a person's low level of knowledge in general or to the person's lack of information about or awareness of a specific fact or subject: was ignorant of the hidden dangers. Uneducated, untaught, unlearned, and untutored imply lack of schooling: uneducated youngsters; untaught people whose verbal skills are grossly deficient; an unlearned group incapable of understanding complex issues; an untutored genius. Unlettered describes one deficient in book learning: exhibited contempt for his unlettered colleagues. Illiterate most often refers to the inability to meet an established minimum level of achievement in reading and writing: developed special tutorials to assist the illiterate sector of society."

This means that there are other connotations. Many people assume you mean the later.  But that is probably just their subjective interpretation kicking in.

I am ignorant about a lot of things as are you.  I am ignorant as to what you are wearing right now, etc.

Thanks for the explanantion and thanks for trying to help. :smile:

Cheers, 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1083383 -

:grin: :grin: :grin:

Yes, I meant discarded.  Kinda like "preceeding", ya know? :wink:

Yes, people say there is no dogma in science but the opposite is actually the case.  I wasn't referring to what you said I was referring to the way things actually are.  The reason dogma exists is because as human beings we get comfortable with our knowledge.  Watch any new theory or revision of a popular theory get an entry into a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  Howls of protestation will go up as many get in line to prove why the revision cannot be so.  THAT is dogma.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1083710 -

I apologize if english isn't your first language, but some of the things you're saying are difficult to understand.
I apologize for my English. Yes, English is not my first language.

I understand that ?You have to leave the human element breathe." is wrong. I didn?t notice at the time. But do you get ANY meaning out of it, even though syntactically incorrect, even if you find it stupid? A computer wouldn't have a clue.

By ?Of course I can, you.?, I mean that an example is? you?


When trying to communicate an idea to someone, you can't use poetry, that's for communicating images and emotions. When you're trying to efficiently communicate an idea, poetry will not work.
Poetry can communicate the ideas that science cannot. Efficiency is not an issue.


This has nothing to do with what the universe actually is. My brain was not designed to understand the universe. I don't think that what my brain and my conciousness do has anything to do with an understanding of the universe.
Again: designed by whom?
How do you know your brain was not designed to understand the universe?


You don't have to lose appreciation of beauty in order to understand it.
Well yes, but describing a phenomenon does not mean there is UNDERSTANDING, or a rational EXPLANATION.


Science is half the truth. Mathematical correlations mean nothing on their own. Restricting your world view to the scientific, is like putting ear-plugs on before going to a concert.


If you accept that science can explain everything on you, then it is possible to make a copy of you on a disk. You are claiming that the hair at the back of the neck of your digital self, will stand up when listening to certain music. (I am making the wild assumption here, that certain music does have that effect on you).



*** Note: Please, tell me when I say something wieyrd, my English can be consfusying. ***

Edited by raytrace (11/25/02 05:08 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: ]
    #1083712 -

Thank you Mr. Mushrooms. This has saved me time trying to explain. There IS dogma in science.

Edited by raytrace (11/25/02 04:36 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Phluck]
    #1083717 -

I mean that an example is? you?

I know that you will enquire on this, so:

Everything is based on assumptions. You sort of have to have a frame of reference for everything. If you trace back any scientific conclusion that is accepted today, you will realise that it is based on an assumption. We accept these assumptions to be true, without a logical proof. Your very existence does not have a proof. It cannot be explained logically.

Try to apply the theory of relativity not only on the material plane. It was never meant to be restricted on the material.

If there is one thing that cannot be denied, I would say that this is that you BELIEVE you exist. If you could stop believing that, and still exist, then we can discuss it. It seems to me faith is deeper than logic.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: Shroomism]
    #1083720 -

oftentimes logic can intefere with the process
logic can interfere with the process of love, too

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Scepticism [Re: raytrace]
    #1083726 -

*** I hope it is clear that I do not mean to say one should not use logic. I mean to say one has to acknowledge the irrational in our nature. ***

Edited by raytrace (11/25/02 04:55 AM)

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

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

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 2,377 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 783 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. 1 members, 443 guests and 41 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 0.027 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.