The point. The line. The plane. The numeral 1. The numeral 2. The numeral 3. The numeral 4. The numeral 5. The numeral 6. The numeral 7. The numeral 8. The numeral 9.The numeral 0.
All of these are abstract concepts that are accepted on faith. That is, consensual definitions. Truly, they are effective. Truly, they achieve things. Truly, they do not exist in the entire cosmos except as the result of the human mind. They are abstractions. They posses no physical reality. They do not exist in the material universe. This is precisely the objection that so-called "secular humanists" have with religion.
They object that the fundamental premises of religion are faith based and they do not exist in the material world. Show me God, they say. Show me the spirit, they say.
Show me a 5.
No, not the symbol of a 5. No, not 5 things. These are indirect and are not 5 itself. Show me 5. You cannot. It does not exist. Except for one instance: When people accept that it exists and begin their operations based upon that consensual agreement.
"Science" is faith based. It is a belief system. It is a religion. Technology Guru's are mere evangelists and preachers spreading their version of the gospel. Einstein was a "prophet".
19 comments:
if you can't see god in it all, you can't see god at all.
D.V. you are way off base on this and being anti-intellectual.
How is it one can equate science as a belief system ? A belief system is supported by nothing more than an opinion. --- Science is nothing more than the prediction of the next most probable.--- Any belief system is supported by nothing except imagination, while the next most probable is supported by observation of some phenomenon that can be recreated under the same conditions by anyone, at any time and the result will be the same. This is Science. This is how fact is established.--- One can imagine anything, however it can only become Science when it can be measured i.e. detected either directly or remotely. Failing this it simply does not exist.
"it can only become Science when it can be measured i.e. detected either directly or remotely. Failing this it simply does not exist."
Skip,
Can love be measured?
Does love exist?
Science is a belief system, Skip. It's a system that believes the mind of man is the measure of all.
Which is laughable in it's arrogant ignorance.
If it were not for science this conversation could not take place.
Science is simply the next most probable.
Those whose minds become fixed on complicated theories and admiration of their own ideas loose the ability to deal with reality.
Love is an emotion. Love can not be measured.
Very often people kill each other over it.
Emotions do not make a lot of intellectual sense.
I remember recently a murderer being asked why they killed someone.
Answer, because they 'loved' them.
D.V. said...
"It's a system that believes the mind of man is the measure of all."
Not sure where you got that 'original conclusion' but you did not get it from me.
Apparently it is something you nurture in your own mind.
DV.
I assume you are sitting at a computer invented by a "belief system" typing this nonsense.
Mathematic symbols are used to describe reality. They are not reality themselves. Thus I can't show you a "five" cause it is a descriptive term.
You say that to believe that the mind of man is the measure of all is laughable in it's arrogant ignorance.
Ok. If that is so, unless that statement is a result of whatever resides in your ass rather than your head, your very statement is negated by itself.
For you are making a categorical pronouncement based on whatever your, I assume you have one somewhere, mind came up with. However, since you put the products of man's minds in doubt, i.e., believe there is no way to arrive at a scientific conclusion rooted in objective reality, your mind (assuming it is also that of a human being's) is subject to the same constraints you put on other folk's minds.
Now. Having said that, you also negate everything you ever unequivocally stated as true in your blog and reduced it to a belief. Which, I must admit is an almost convincing argument for the validity of your thesis. Only I'd modify it a little as thus:
"that believes the mind of DV is the measure of all.
Which is laughable in it's arrogant ignorance."
By the way, DV. How do you explain, 'scuse me, believe, that electronic engineers can even use symbols describing mathematically contradictionary terms such as imaginary numbers (the letter i being defined as the the square root of -1} in order to create very real and functioning products?
Besides the whole computer thing is based on binary numbers, just like the ones you are mentioning D.V.
That is the literal/linear way your computer works.
There is no scientific philosophy either. That is a misnomer, and as mentioned makes you sound anti-intellectual.
The only scientific philosophy, if you could call it that, would be getting at 'facts'.
Belief or opinions are not facts
In a corrupt society, run by belief as we have, any idiot can pass judgment on you, and sentence you to whatever.
A science society is preferable.
ill math says Its looks like you are proving the point that man created God.Why is God Just like us? He's jealous yet perfect. Gravity is not religion Negro that shit is real. Thats science physics is science!!! you KNOW you can talk on that cellphone. What RELiGION were the africans BEFORE the WE got here? Why were we allowed to have church on sundays as enslaved people? Brother have you asked these questions?if you were in islam ur behind would be muslim. Americans have been instilled with CHRISTIAN values. Its enstilled in us. im having a hard time saying truth for fear of being struck down!!! lol Really these myths have permeated our fabric and put us in mental chains and although you have broke free of some Denmark this Bible thing is holding you back my brotha.
Many people believe that science and religion are at odds with each other. I do not. Hindus, for example, believe that religion and science are one in the same - they just ask "different questions." The problem is that we in the West have been taught to think of science and religion as opposed to each other because we are being manipulated by politicians who seek to divide and conquer. If we dump the politics, we'll see that we can't have one without the other.
The unspoken truth is that most folks fell off long before they assimilated the rudiments of a solid education in math and science. People shun subjects they don't understand for fear of being made to look stupid.
I've been teaching little hard head boys and girls in my community for three years now, and have grown accustomed to seeing it. My mentor, the chairman of the Dubois Learning Center and a retired industrial mathematician at the old Bendix bomb plant here in KC, could tell you a life's time worth of these stories - because its what he's been combating for the better part of his adult life.
With the tools and methods now at our fingertips, there's really no excuse for allowing this fearful ignorance to persist. It's just vanity turned in on itself.
If you can't get with (and get your kids with) the simplicity and beauty of a thing like this, the the mysteries of sacred geometry will elude you forever and you might as well not let the word "religion" even cross your lips - because you're a poser and a fraud....,
Yes, Fisher, regarding numbers as symbols!
Just as letters are symbols, words, stop signs! Before any of it makes any sense, we have to agree what the symbols mean.
Btw, null and 0 are not the same. i can hear some programmers groaning aloud but it is not! It's simply a placeholder; 0 means nothing, null means 'no thing [something can be added later].'
Glad you posted this DV, it started a good discussion, but science is not a belief. When data no longer supports a scientific conclusion, that conclusion changes. Am i the only person noticing that the abramic faiths (judaism, islam, christianity) seem to be the only faiths that do not change and develop? O, wait, buddhism and taoism are philosophies, not religion; but even the hindu faith is evolving to keep up with the growing intellect of the populace...can anyone think of any other religion that isn't developing as we ourselves develop, as a species?
Religion in general goes with 'if you believe the premise, the rest is easy'
It is obvious that D.V. is a believer.
There is no accounting for belief.
The trouble comes when two belief systems collide. In a closed loop unto themselves they form special interest groups.
Those groups run our society presently.
but even the hindu faith is evolving to keep up with the growing intellect of the populace...can anyone think of any other religion that isn't developing as we ourselves develop, as a species?
This presumes a growth in intellect. It seems to me humanity is actually devolving when it comes to intellect; getting dumber and dumber with each generation. How can people who have no skills, are terrified of their machinery and gadgets because they don't understand how they operate be flattered with such thing as an intellect?
With regard to a religion or philosophy "evolving" to keep up with humanity's intellect, the juxtaposition of the terms religion and evolution in your statement is quite interesting. But what exactly does that mean?
Who says there is any evolution of intellect happening? What does that evolved state look like? Who is defining it for us?
Is it possible there is no evolution of intellect happening but, rather, a destruction of religion and morality?
Seems that this conundrum is a similar mind trick as when you are sitting in a stationary train, but get the sensation of moving because the train on the next track is moving. You don't know which is moving and which is standing still.
"Is it possible there is no evolution of intellect happening but, rather, a destruction of religion and morality?"
Both religion and morality are devolved intellect in the first place. Brainwashing.
They were given as surrogate controllers by the power groups, to control people in a so called 'civil' society.
Skip,
Religion and morality are the essence of everything that exists on earth. The fact that they have been abused does not make them independent of the intellect. Indeed, each is the product of multitudes of intellects over centuries.
If there is no such thing as morality, by what measure do you claim that technocracy is better than any other system?
All i can really say about religion is it chronicles the social evolution of mankind, and to stay stuck in raping, killing and pillaging your neighbors to take what ya want, cus hey, got SAID so...sorry, it's just wrong. When the believers change, the religion changes, like the Episcopalians tried to do by embracing the glbt community.
Morality? Who's? The believers of a book that says it's ok for me to go take over Palestine cause god gave me the land? The one that says 'bomb the Iraqis back to the stone ages?' The one that's pacifist at all costs? The one that prefers nonviolence but will act in defense of self and country? The one that says it's ok for corps to charge rediculous amounts for goods it costs them very little to produce, and for pharmacos to kill us while claiming to help us, the one that says usury is just fine and the bank can charge $44 for a $2 overdraft mistake?
We need a more noble religion or morality; or perhaps if we throw them both out, people might start to do the right thing?
Ack, double post.
Hm, love, hate, pleasure, pain, neuro-electro chemical reactions. Any emotion you can think of having felt, someone somewhere in the world has an affective disorder where they haven't felt it. i feel badly for 'em.
Now, we claim we feel these things; what good does it do us if we do nothing with em?
I like the answer given in the first post to Insurgent by ConspiracyNut. It is well put.
"If there is no such thing as morality, by what measure do you claim that technocracy is better than any other system?" Insurgent.
Sorry but that is bullshit.
Technocracy is not a moral club.
It is a science based social proposal.
It is based on science and survival.
It does not try to control people with abstract concepts.
Civil society and Political society are 'one'.
Technocracy does not use belief systems.
It allows for people to believe as they will. There is no judiciary as we think of one, and no laws.
It does not revolve around contracts and private property as the 'law' does.
The only proscription is violence against people.
That is dealt with.
Beliefs are imaginary. There is no accounting for belief.
It makes sense to not allow violence. Violence breeds violence and although sticks and stones may break bones, belief systems should not.
If something can not be measured or detected except through someones abstract OPINION it is not real.
That mechanism invented by Political culture known as morality and religion is a stranglehold on humanity.
"...they do not exist in the entire cosmos except as the result of the human mind."
By that same logic, God does not exist, as well, except as the result of the human mind.
Your entire argument is utterly fallacious.
Post a Comment