| Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning |
3-May-04/6:22 AM |
"The only valid investigations are those conducted by men in white coats, and preferably involving one of those giant pipettes that are about a meter long, and have to be operated by teacher. Moreover, all diagrams must be labelled, and safety glasses should be worn at all times, even in jest."
If the notion of 'soul' was defined well enough to be used in some model which could formulate verification conditions, then of course I have no objection to investigations into the soul. And indeed any individual who attempts to model the universe on a fixed, unchangeable assumption that matter is composed of atoms is liable to run into trouble at some point - namely, the point at which the atomic model of matter breaks down.
It's obvious that my arguments have nothing to do with what the people formulating the models call themselves.
|
|
|
 |
| Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning |
3-May-04/3:33 AM |
No. They are 'entirely discrete', for two reasons.
1. Atoms are part of a model. They are not 'literally' taken to exist. They are only talked about as a useful part of a useful explanatory model.
Conversely, souls are not part of a model. They are believed to literally exist, independently of, in spite of, their explanatory power.
2. As atom-believers gather more data, they are liable to abandon atoms are part of their physical model. New observations causing a change in model happens all the time in science. The aim is to have a model which accounts for all the observations simply and completely; keeping atoms as part of the model is not a general aim, except inasmuch as the theory of atoms is well-developed and well-understood and therefore possibly practical to keep in some form.
Conversely, as soul-believers gather more data, they are not liable to abandon or revise their belief in souls. Instead, they are liable to come up with more and more exceptions and ad hoc reasons as to why souls explain the data. There is no possible observation a soul-believer could make that could cause him to stop believing in souls; he can only tack on special cases to his model, never change it. The one trick he has up his sleeve is to gradually change the definition of 'soul', so that if things get too bad, he can say 'soul' actually means something else, and has done all along.
These aren't the differences of two things in a continuum. Especially not a 'continuum of vagueness', which is bosh, if I know bosh.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on The Brigadier's Motto by wFraser Allonby Q.C.w |
3-May-04/1:24 AM |
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on The Brigadier's Motto by wFraser Allonby Q.C.w |
2-May-04/5:05 PM |
|
There are only two ways in which a Gentleman can assume a position of utter dominance over his butler. The first is to consume him. The second, to bugger him.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on The Brigadier's Motto by wFraser Allonby Q.C.w |
2-May-04/4:29 PM |
"There is a world of difference between 'being a homo' and 'maintaining discipline among the servant classes'. The former is gay to the max; the latter is the duty of any self-respecting Gentleman of wealth and standing."
- from "Bugger Your Butler" by Mervyn Touchet, Earl of Castlehaven
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning |
2-May-04/4:17 PM |
1. Most discussions of philosophy are unlikely to affect you, but then most discussions of science or politics are either. That isn't to say that philosophy, science and politics don't affect you.
2. What is a "real possibility"?
3. There is no such person as "Xeno". Perhaps you are thinking of "Xena".
4. You do not have a wife. Stop pretending you do.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning |
2-May-04/3:54 PM |
"No, if I believed in nothing, if I did not have a soul that truely spoke to me, but consciously felt the need to attach myself to "something", that something would be an affirmation not a denial of my flesh and blood desires."
Look at yourself, my boy. Look what you've become. Here is the form of your argument:
PROOFE THAT P:
1. I believe that P.
2. For if not-P, I would not believe that P.
3. Therefore if I believe that P, P.
4. Therefore P.
5. Q.E.D.
Which is so badly lodged in its own codswallop that the Mayor has commissioned a special Unbuncombe Brigade to destroy it before it becomes so swollen that it blocks out the sun.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning |
2-May-04/3:50 PM |
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning |
2-May-04/3:49 PM |
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning |
2-May-04/3:44 PM |
(This is the -=Dark_Angel=- you despise, not 131. I have no qualifications in philosophy.)
Science does not say "atoms exist". There are merely a number of mathematical models of the Universe which assert that matter is composed of atoms. These models can be used to predict the behaviour of the Universe. We can then use experiments to check whether or not these predictions are accurate. The job of the physicist is to (a) formulate a model of the universe (b) see if the model matches experimental data. An example is classical Newtonian mechanics, which was shown to be a good model (in the sense that its predictions matched experimental results) for everyday objects travelling at ordinary speeds. However, when physicists were able to test objects travelling at speeds close to the speed of light, experiments showed us that at such speeds Newton's model could only be described as "unbelievably appalling".
My point is that my only 'belief' concerning atoms is that there exist mathematical descriptions of the universe which model matter as being composed of atoms, and which have been shown to be good models (in the sense that the predictions they make are reasonably consistent with experiments designed to test those predictions).
The trouble with souls is that I don't even know what a soul is meant to be. People who talk about souls have an utterly vague, guff-soaked notion of what they think a soul is, yet to them it seems obvious what a soul is because they have been so bum-crushingly deluded from birth that the question has never even lodged itself in their brain glandes. Atoms, on the other hand, are very clearly defined, so the consequences of assuming the existence of atoms in some model can be clearly described.
"Plus all scientific theories are held as language. How can you possibly verify the transferability of language to the physical."
If you're saying what I think you're saying, then what you're saying is basically what I've said above. Atoms are mathematical objects in a mathematical model of the universe. I suppose you would say they are 'held as language'. Fine. But I don't 'transfer atoms to the physical' in the sense you seem to be suggesting.
Suppose - and this is just a simple example - that in some model we assume matter is made of atoms, which are defined as spheres of radius x cm and mass y kg. Now suppose we use our model to see what would happen if we wack your face with a mallet. Suppose our model says that your face will splatter over an area of up to 10 meters squared. To test the model, we wack your face with a mallet and measure how far it splats. But alas! We actually find that your face splatters over an area of 110 meters squared! Our model is therefore buncombe, and must be changed. That's all science is.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning |
2-May-04/3:08 PM |
|
Do you believe you have a 'soul' because certain actions make you feel guilty?
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on AIDS in a van by -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. |
2-May-04/2:27 PM |
|
How does that excuse your posting it?
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning |
2-May-04/6:50 AM |
You're going off on your own on a wild rant that's not related to anything in the conversation so far.
1. Nothing about pleasure has been mentioned, or whether it's good to submit to pleasure. You've made a series of silly implications and are now ranting about what you think I would think about pleasure, even though the subject hadn't even been raised.
2. I don't think it's artificial because it can't be "captured in a test tube". I think it's artificial because there are no verification or falsification conditions for it. What evidence would you have to see to stop believing in souls? What evidence could I see for me to start believing in souls? In both cases, there is no such thing. No evidence could have any bearing on whether souls exist, because believing in souls is a superstition that can neither be proved nor disproved.
3. "That was not my question it was yours". Well, you know, that is the topic of this argument, i.e. whether believing in "spirituality" is a wishy-washy platitude.
4. "I know the issue of God is one that you still wrestle with".
No, it actually isn't. After five years of studying philosophy and innumerable arguments with innumerable Christians, the question of whether God exists is, to me, beyond stupid. I would rather eat my own foot than have one more argument about God. Luckily, that isn't what we're talking about.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning |
2-May-04/5:31 AM |
1. Would you mind using the occasional linebreak in your bizarre rants?
2. I fear you've become terribly confused. This isn't some sort of competition to see who can have the theory of human nature that requires the most spine to accept. Whether or not one theory is more difficult to accept than another is beside the point. The question is which theory better explains human nature.
You seem determined to hold a theory which is demonstrably buncombe because it poses a "deeper challenge". You think that artificially imposing a grand cosmic structure on your life is a worthwhile thing to do. Fine. But whether it's worthwhile to do that is totally separate from whether you can explain actual human behaviour with some grand cosmic theory of "spirituality".
A good theory of X explains all of the observations about X with the fewest exceptions and special cases. But your theory is based on the principle that humans are essentially "spiritual", which means that for the 90% of human behaviour which isn't "spiritual", you have to make exceptions and call them special cases. Ergo it is a buncombe theory.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on LOVE-ABOVE LISTE by Everyone |
2-May-04/2:58 AM |
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning |
1-May-04/5:35 PM |
Furthermore, this claptrap about how we're ignoring our spiritual sides is some of the most inflamed buncombe I've ever come across.
There are some people who understand that humans are essentially chimpanzees with over-connected brains. Because humans are animals, humans act like animals, which is why it's unsurprising and inevitable that humans will be "ruled by the urges and desires of our egos and flesh". To think any differently is to totally ignore the facts.
But then there are people like you, who have an utterly wrong-headed idea of what humans are. You think their essential nature is "spiritual", and therefore when humans act like animals, you're surprised and shocked. You think that when humans act like animals, they're betraying their essential spiritual nature, and failing somehow.
And, of course, you have an exceedingly difficult time reconciling that actual behaviour of humans with your crazy theory, because your theory is based on fancy and superstition and produces nothing but wishy-washy platitudes. Your theory 'explains' a few isolated traits of humans, and struggles with the other 90%, but you still cling to it because it's cosy and you're too god damned spineless to admit it's unverifiable cod.
-10-
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning |
1-May-04/5:21 PM |
1. "I do think that we've all made life a whole lot more complicated and painful than it needs to be."
2. "A little more love, compassion, and charity would go a long long way towards making this world a better place to live in."
3. "We are in the mess we're in because we are ruled by the urges and desires of our ego and flesh and completely ignore our spirtitual nature."
I don't "disagree" with any of those. They're undisagreeable with, because they're wishy-washy platitudes with no verificiation or falsification conditions. No evidence or sensible thought process could lead you to believe them, nor could it lead you to disbelieve them.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on AIDS in a van by -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. |
1-May-04/3:04 PM |
|
But at least I don't write bafflingly cack knockoffs of Nine Inch Nails lyrics and post them under titles like "Pain" and "Depression".
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning |
1-May-04/1:31 PM |
|
Your writing would be better if you weren't totally convinced that you'd summed up all the important facts about life in a few wishy-washy platitudes and superstitions.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on Losing Control by DrinkYouAway |
1-May-04/10:47 AM |
|
|
|
