Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	11-Apr-06/1:59 PM
"Yeah, it's the science-touting, logic-claiming atheists who shoot their own feet. You'd think they'd have learned from a thousand years of science that some of the most preposterous-sounding propositions turn true. Raise a glass to the ones who don’t throw out the impossible, who go where no one has gone."
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	11-Apr-06/1:59 PM
Wow. Look, I think we are really talking at cross purposes. In no way did I attack anyone's beliefs. Should I accuse you of attacking my beliefs for insisting on the possibility of God? Of course not. I don't think I ever said categorically "there is no God." I may have said that I don't believe in God, but so? That's an attack on your belief? My participation in this discussion was limited--or so I thought--to a fairly academic discussion of the concept of God *as it relates to* (1) the scientific method (which is how I got into this in the first place--well, it started, as things will, with an apple) and (2) Occam's Razor. That's it. I don't think logic is the only way to consider/think about/"experience" (if you like) God. People approach it many different ways. This was the way *I* was approaching it. At almost every step, I tried to stress that *I* don't need to add God to *my* world view and that *for me, personally* it was unessential, but I understood that, for you, it was not. Comparing belief in God to belief in pirate ghosts and unicorns was a reflection of *my* thought processes, not yours, since I find them to be possible but not, in *MY* worldview, particularly probable (and, also, I though ghost pirates were kind of funny). It was a response to a statement you made somewhere about things existing in other dimensions or whatever. If I misinterpreted what you said about God being beyond comprehension to mean that God was "that which is unknowable" it was because I misunderstood what you meant--it was not intended to "twist your words and spit them back at you." None of it meant as a slam, and I'm at a loss as to why you would take it that way. If I were to compare belief in God to belief in aliens, would you have taken that as a slam? Just because I don't believe in aliens, particularly, doesn't mean I'm insulting everyone that does. Nor does the mere discussion of belief and disbelief--or I didn't think it did, anyway. I never claimed any insider knowledge. I don't think I was malicious or insulting or patronizing, and if I came off that way, well, sorry about that. If you read what I actually said, I don't think there's much basis for your accusations--but whatever. I don't know how I can make it clearer that my statements were narrow in scope (the concept of God vis a vis logic/Occam's Razor) and that I wasn't claiming any superior knowledge, just having what I thought was a friendly discussion about God and logic. I guess I was wrong. No hard feelings.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	11-Apr-06/7:26 AM
I know you didn't say that, AlChemy. I flipped it for two reasons: 1. To fuck with you a little bit. ;) 2. Because *for me* it IS adding, not eliminating. Do I allow for the possibility that your grand architect exists? Sure--in the same way I allow for pirate ghosts and unicorns. It's possible that somewhere, on some level or dimension or whatever, that pirate ghosts exist. Their existence may explain a lot of things (all those missing socks, for one thing). But they're not necessary to my world view. They are to yours (well, okay, pirate ghosts may not be). That's entirely fine with me. I have no interest in converting you to my way of thinking. I thank you for affording me the same courtesy. Seriously--if you define God as "that which is unknowable," and I believe that there are things that are unknowable (at the present moment or in the future), then, sure, I suppose by your definition, I believe in "God." (I don't call that God though. I call it "things that we don't know yet but may one day." Of course, that makes "God" a shifting target or goal.) Dovina's smugness and your assumptions aside, just because I'm not a deist doesn't mean I'm a Vulcan, you know. I'm not ruled entirely by logic. I take a lot of things on faith. (For example, I believe quite firmly that our magnificent -=Dark Angel=- is the existential dragon from John Gardner's _Grendel_. And, also, one hell of a gumshoe.) I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning if I didn't. Spirituality or, if you prefer, self-actualization (to go all Maslow on you) is likely as important to me as it is to you. Millions of people manage to live lives full of hope and joy and spiritual fulfillment without any deity involved. To think otherwise is pretty fucking arrogant. And one last thing: I don't see anything terrible about having an argument based on logic/Occam's Razor about God's existence or lack thereof. I don't see it as an attack on anyone's faith, and I wonder that you do. Logic is all about ways of thinking and arguing. For me, the logic/Occam's/scientific method part of this discussion was what was interesting. By the way, Zodiac gave a good description of what Occam's Razor is. It's not so much what's "simple" as what's nonessential (to my way of thinking). And it's a logic platform. That's all. Thanks for the discussion. I found it interesting. Now I suppose I'd better go do what they pay me to do. ;-D See ya later.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	10-Apr-06/3:07 PM
I am literally sneakers-on-out-the-door, so quickly: hell yes. As far as we know, we are the smartest thing going. "Will soon have"? I never said that. But we've made astonishing leaps in our understanding of our surroundings. I see no reason why those leaps won't continue, particularly as we continue to supplement our abilities with the speed and ability to address complexity of computers and the like. Arrogant? Maybe. But no more arrogant, in my view, than creating a God in our image, as many seem (to me) to do. And I don't know that animals have faith in the abilities of their species, so I don't think the analogy is all that accurate. 'til tomorrow. Have a good evening.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	10-Apr-06/2:26 PM
I disagree. I don't think I need to add God to explain the unknown. It's unknown, not necessarily unknowable. I have great faith in human ingenuity to comprehend what, for now, is incomprehensible--assuming we survive ourselves. Sure, we'd probably never understand or prove EVERYTHING there is to know about reality, but I, personally, feel no need to add some divine all-knowing being to the mix just because *we* don't know everything. On that point, we'll just have to disagree. Amiably, of course. ;) Have a good night.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	10-Apr-06/2:12 PM
To clarify--I just meant, originally, that I didn't see the Occam article as an attack, per se, on anyone's faith. I do think it effectively presents the concept of God as "nonessential" to our understanding of reality/evolution/etc.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	10-Apr-06/2:02 PM
Actually, I took it to mean the opposite--the article points out (rightly, I think) that Occam's Razor is a good argument *against* the existence of God because, when boiled down to the essentials, God is a outlier, not an essential. God "introduces a truly new, unrelated element to the explanatory system. Occam's Razor can shave away the God concept without affecting any of the basic concepts of science. If we try to cut away evolution theory, we have to shave away an enormous amount of knowledge about the world, as evolution theory is just a name for the patterns basic processes produce." Occam's Razor is just a tool, a way of thinking, though. It doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything. It does help to provide clarity in thinking when dealing with complex systems and theories though. So much for working today. Yikes.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	10-Apr-06/1:26 PM
Well, I don't think that's what I'm doing. And I don't have the same interpretation of the Wikipedia article re: Occam's Razor as you do; it does, at the end, state explicitly: >>The principle is only a guide to the best theory based on current knowledge, not to the "truth". It is argued that Ockham was an intellectual forefather of the scientific method . . . however, [he can] be seen as an apologist for Divine Omnipotence, since he was concerned with demonstrating that creation is contingent and the Creator is free to change the rules at will. Thus, if God is free to make an infinity of worlds with completely different rules from those which prevail in our world, then we are free to imagine such worlds and their logical and practical consequences.<< I agree that it's unlikely that one can "disprove" God, and I wouldn't really want to try (seems kind of pointless), but I also don't think there's any verifiable proof of God to BE disproved, not from a scientific standpoint. I have no problem with faith or individual beliefs. (Whatever gets you through the night/it's all right/it's all right.) I do have a problem when people try to use pseudo-science to justify belief in a god--especially systematic attempts, such as those of certain school boards, to put belief in God on an equal scientific footing as theories that meet the accepted rigors of the scientific process. Faith is not science. God is not a theory in the accepted meaning of that term. Outside of that, I don't much care what people believe, as long as it's not a basis for harming others. Me, why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	10-Apr-06/12:19 PM
Tell you what--show me ANY objective, observational evidence of your magically appearing apple, any at all (without relying on trickery or sleight of hand), and I'll consider this something more than a flip response. The Big Bang theory, as I understand it, doesn't posit that the universe appeared from nothing. It says that it emerged from a "dense, hot state"--a primordial atom, if you like. The beauty of it--and what makes it a theory as we define that term--is that it does rest on observational evidence. Take this recent, exciting discovery: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/03/16/cosmic.inflation.ap/ Of course, you can ask what came before that primordial atom and speculate that some grand designer put it into place. But that's not science. It's not a scientific theory. That's faith. That's all I'm saying.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	10-Apr-06/10:21 AM
Well, sure--that's just peachy in my book too. Assuming the apple appeared in Rio and not, say, Anchorage. And, if Rio, still not a theory until it meets certain rigorous criteria, any more than "intelligent design" is a real scientific theory. (But I think I'm preaching to the choir here.) Do you know of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster? Enlivens all discussion of intelligent design. ;) http://www.venganza.org/
Re: a comment on The copper man and Labrador by Caducus	10-Apr-06/8:02 AM
Hee--I can't vote this a zero, Caducus. But I *have* been trying to vote "Beard My Negro Jesus" to the top (which hasn't been working either). Sorry. ;)
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	10-Apr-06/7:55 AM
Pardon me for butting in (oh, fuck it--it's a public board), but the two aren't remotely the same. The Big Bang isn't a concept that relies entirely on faith, you know. If you can apply our agreed-upon scientific method to the phenomenon of an apple appearing from nowhere with verifiable results, I wouldn't laugh (well, maybe with delight) and neither would the scientific community. That would take (following description borrowed from http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html): >>1. Observation and description of the phenomenon. 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. *It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved.* (my emphasis) There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.<< The Big Bang is a theory supported by the application of the scientific method. As time goes on, we continue to learn things that support that theory. To compare the Big Bang to some unverifiable magical happening (such as that out-of-nowhere apple) ignores the definition of a "theory."
Re: Random Design by thepinkbunnyofdoom	10-Apr-06/7:47 AM
Curtains and seas and wolves, oh my! Ambitious, but comes across a bit pedantic and pseudo-profound (that sounds meaner than I mean it--sorry bunny). I think that with more cohesive imagery and a clearer, more defined focus, this would improve. Still, kudos for takin on the big stuff. You come closest, I think, in the last three stanzas--much to grab onto and identify with.
Re: Semaphores from the Chaos by cyan9	10-Apr-06/7:44 AM
I generally like your imagery, cyan, but I always think there's lots you can cut or condense (e.g., "Flash shots of landscapes made from acsii characters"--why not just "Flash shots of ascii landscapes"? "Made from" -- just bleh words, dilutes the image.) Why the shift in tenses (past perfect to simple past) from the first stanza to the rest and back again in the last? Just makes it seem confused. "Alured" is not a word. Still, not bad.
Re: Maybe I Wasn’t Born on a Fool’s Day by Dovina	10-Apr-06/7:38 AM
Cute, D. Every mother's nightmare. ;)
Re: a comment on Or Outward by MacFrantic	10-Apr-06/7:34 AM
Yes, they are. I frown on "intentional grammar flaws" even more than the other kind. ;) If you capped Furies, I'd've known what you meant without the explanation. Capping them wouldn't have thrown anything off, really. I thought you meant "fury's spell," which would have worked, by the way. Maybe even better. That aside, I don't get much sense from this. Now, if something is interesting enough, I don't always care if I get it (I like Dental Panic's stuff a great deal, for example, and half the time I'm damned if I know what he or she is talking about), but I don't think you quite hit the mark here.
Re: Morning City by Jack Diamond	10-Apr-06/7:23 AM
Pretty good--a little staccato in the beginning. Good details though.
Re: Buried by Enkidu	10-Apr-06/7:18 AM
You don't set this up enough--it needs more context and story. Second verse is better than the first.
Re: Inbetween Lovers/Blueprint by Ranger	7-Apr-06/9:26 AM
Holy shit, Ranger. Most excellent. Hate to nitpick this one at all, because I think it's really good--some really terrific lines and good rhymes and half rhymes throughout--a truly nice tribute. I really enjoyed it.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	6-Apr-06/8:46 AM
I think she means Fort Bragg in Mendocino, CA, so I don't think so. I could be wrong though. FWIW, you (well, the Hessian troops under British command) burned my hometown to the ground in 1779, leaving only a handful of buildings standing (all royalist sympathizers). There's a cannon ball still embedded in a rock down the street from me (little known local secret). After landing on our beach, the Redcoats marched through town and inland, burning everything in their path. The British general, Tryon, according to local legend, watched my town burn from a rocking chair placed on the East Rocks bluffs. Always loved that story. Funny how we still have a Fort Tryon across the state line in New York--you'd think we would have renamed it. Another local legend claims (with decent substantiation) that the song, Yankee Doodle ("stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni"), was prompted by the ragtag uniforms of a regiment from my hometown. LOL--there's an aside for you! You got me going--I find local history fascinating. :)