 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)belb big ...and 56 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2609372 Today 6 Topics 127254 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
by Richard Dawkins. Very amusing and very well structured. Well worth watching. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Dawkins is usually crap, but I'm going to watch it anyway, just to see what he manages to say this time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
pwn |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't like dawkins. i read the first few pages of the god delusion and decided he is exactly the same as all the people he lectures against. he's like an atheist fundamentalist or something. i'm an atheist and i wish dawkins would disappear. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't like satan. i read the first few pages of the satanic bible and decided he is exactly the same as all the gods he stands against. he's like a satanic fundamentalist or something. i'm a satanist and i wish satan would disappear. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, he used to be an angel... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Actually, he still is an Angel. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I wonder if the TED organisation relates to Chris Clark titled EP of the same name. Anyway, Dawkins is wasting his time as are all religions/believers. Christian/Muslim/Jew/Atheist/Agnostic, whatever - they are all beliefs, and beliefs derive from the intellect and are therefore meaningless - the ideologies of the intellect are all meaningless. Other animals are incapable of believing yet are they meant for any grander purpose than humans? Of course not - we are going the same way as them and the sophistication of thought cannot interfere with that process. Human thought was designed to understand the basic principles of self-survival and reproduction only, anything outside of that is of no interest to the human body or nature. The mind is itself totally divisive and fragmented, so how can order be created out of chaos via a belief system?. The mess of the world is merely a mirror of the mess of thought so it has already been proved that no beneficial answer can ever come out of that, as thought is clearly incapable of unraveling its own layers. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You've got everything the wrong way around: the only meaningful things are the things that we do and create. Of course they aren't objectively meaningful, but nothing is, and we don't have access to anything objective anyway (if we did, it'd just show itself as meaningless, meaning we couldn't make sense out of it anyway). Secondly, human thought wasn't designed for anything, and there are lots of things that are of interest to us outside of survival and reproduction. Just take a second to think about your own life, and you'll know that to be true. Bah, reductionism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well you're right in that thoughts are meaningful to us, but as you also say that does not make thought meaningful in itself - nothing we do is objectively meaningful. So I'm not sure where the disagreement is there as that clarifies what I wrote about thought's divisive nature - thinking that it's somehow more important or useful to us than it actually is. I would say thought has been "designed", although I suppose it depends on which context you'd like to use that word as language has its own limitations. The hands, arms and legs are clearly designed by nature to do a job, and thought equally is created in conjunction with that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
By the way, I think it's important to differentiate between intellectual thought which is meaningless and the basic function of thought, survival, reproduction etc. which of course is not meaningless. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The disagreement is in giving objectivity (in this sense of the word) any weight at all; I just doesn't matter that nothing objectively makes sense because what we do makes sense. And thinking is important, it's one of the most important things we do. Nothing is designed by nature. In nature, everything just happens to happen (it's random). Even in the context of causality, to say that there is necessity in it being so would imply some sort of design, and design implies intelligence. Nothing meant for our arms to be as they are. This is why I hate dawkins.. his annoying anthropomorph vocabulary that keeps on confusing people. Selfish genes, bah. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Once again you have it in reverse. Even if the basic function of thought was to be reproduction and survival (it isn't), that would be the meaningless part, as that would be the object part. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You confuse me, the link is broken here. Perhaps you can tell me what relevance the basic function of thought has other than for reproduction and the survival of the species? Other than that, any activity thought has is useless as far as nature is concerned - and nature is the master of you, intentionally or otherwise. That entity which gave you life will recycle you irrespective of thought's illusions of grandeur. If that entity is an accident then so be it, it still exists. Thought is merely a tool of the human body, does the heart ask itself how to beat? Likewise why should thought ask itself anything intellectual. Thought is only required to do the most basic of actions, anything above that is entirely meaningless - even if you might not think so, but that's just thought attempting to give itself a sense of importance. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Let's take the anthropomorphisms first. Nature isn't capable of neither concern, mastery or giving life. Nature isn't even one single entity, it's a whole bunch of systems. Of course you can treat these systems as a whole, and it's even beneficial to do so in certain cases, but not in this case because here it paints a pretty wrongful picture of things. Thought isn't "merely" anything. Thought is a huge and complex thing, and if you want to try and disregard all your experience by stating that thought is some sort of tool for your body, go ahead and try, but if you think things through a bit more thoroughly, you'll see that it isn't so (and neither is the body a tool for thought; they're interrelated: In acting, there is a unity of thought and body, both of which can only be considered separately in abstraction (which doesn't devalue considering them as such, but doing so won't give you the whole picture). You don't concentrate on moving your limbs as "just limbs," and they aren't just flailing around uncontrollably either). Also, comparing thought to the heart just doesn't work: It is quite clearly so that thought is something special, as opposed to the heart (only humans seem to have thought, but most animals have a heart. If you're going to nag about animals having thought too, then I won't really say anything against it, but I'm agnostic towards it, and I just don't care, it doesn't diminish the point, and the quite clear qualitative difference in animal and human thought). Thought and our way of thinking probably arose randomly like most other things, but it is here now, and it's neither illusion nor a simple mechanism. It has no purpose outside of the purpose it gives itself. We can only experience things as we experience them, and we experience and produce meaningful things. Knowing that the world is absurd is good, but by that knowledge reducing everything to absurdity doesn't work; there's no experiences to support such a notion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Dawkins and his shallow indignant sputtering have come to annoy me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't feel we understand enough about nature to make generalisations regarding its origin - our understanding of it is too scientifically limited to say how random everything is, or whether it's a chain of events or whatever. We don't even understand the human brain much yet never mind its creator. I agree with much of what you say regarding thoughts unitary, inseparable relationship to the body. All the more reason to imagine that thought's usefulness outside of that is strictly limited. The problem, if you regard it as one, that mankind faces is how thought is used outside of its relationship with the body, and the futility of using thought for intellectual purposes when it is strictly a reactor that responds to the impetus that is put in there. This process of intellectualising can only cause confusion and chaos, because thought stripped bare is not interested in that action, although it does seem to be interested in its self-preservation. Were we have to disagree is on the role of thought. You mentioned it as distinguishable from the heart or any other organ, which is in direct contradiction to your statement that thought is a unitary, interrelated function of the human body -yet one cannot function without the other so I don't see what makes thought any more important than any other major organ. I definitely believe animals have thoughts, it's not unique to humans - it's just a matter of sophistication. And maybe this seems to be the essence of where we drift apart. For me, evolution has a necessary hierarchical structure, and as thought is an inseparable part of the human body its evolution naturally encompasses that hierarchy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
gay niggers |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fo realz |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Nature is either created or random. I believe it is random, in itself. In our experience of it, it is constituted through our (in a double sense) history. And thought, as being in a a relationship with the body.. actually, I'd like to use consciousness instead of thought. It's more correct for what we're talking about now, I think. Thought is more limited than consciousness, but invariably a part of it. Consciousness, as in the relationship with the body (a unitary one), is also intrinsically in the world, so there is no problem of anything being used outside of its relationship with the body. Consciousness is also not a reactor that simply responds to stimuli. Where'd you get that idea? You make choices, you transcend situations reaching into the future, and you do this everyday by acting; an action is transcendent: it goes from what is to what you want, and it's near impossible for you to not have experienced this. If you haven't, you're most likely close to a mental breakdown. There's nothing contradictory with it being distinguishable from the heart and the body being interrelated to consciousness: You can tell the difference between the cog and the actuator in a machine, and they have decidedly different functions. Consciousness is you, you act in the world. The heart doesn't. That the body is interrelated with consciousness doesn't mean that consciousness reaches into each and every part of it, and there's a difference between the objective body and the conscious body. The objective body wouldn't make sense (outside of as being perceived by someone). The subjective (or conscious or phenomenal) body is quite different. It is you, as your consciousness. Consider yourself picking something up. Is it you picking something up, or is it your arm moving, your muscles, some neurons, something like that? Of course, you could try to see it as the objective body, but then you'd disregard a very large part of your actual experience of it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I may have misunderstood your concept of a hierarchy (it's vague), but I'll give it a go. If you truly believe in evolution, I don't see how you can put necessity in it. Necessity is only possible in relation to a goal, and there are no goals in evolution: There are random mutations that happen to enable the organism to persist in the environment it happens to be in. There is no necessity, and you don't necessarily get "progress" (as we see it); If the mutation providing the ability to persist happens to coincide with one reducing mental capacity, and basically limiting the organisms survivability outside of that particular environment, would you call that progress? Is it hierarchical? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Got a question for those in charge? Religion came about from people knowing nothing, being afraid, worshipping the sun, a long time ago. Now, depending where you are born in the world, you stand a good chance of being indoctrinated into one of the many religions. They are obviously not all right. In fact, none of them are right. We clearly know better now too, tho we do not know everything of course. Most of the people in the world have a faith because there is so little faith to have in the real tangible world. But this faith is misguided, all the allah’s and jesus and buddah’s are within humans themselves, there is only the force of mother nature, of energy and the universe. As long as we run around like a bunch of monkeys trusting in and disagreeing about such obvious nonsense there is no hope. Without religion, the world would be a holier place. I haven’t even read Richard dawkins “the god delusion” yet either, but to me it’s so glaringly obvious. As long as people like tony blair and george bush believe in god and atheists are in the minority we have no chance. its a bit more of a statement than a question... ;0) Well the question is “how are we going to get people to vote and hence more accurately reflect people’s desires and cater for their priorities” But without adequate qualification all we will get back is some political small-minded answer I guess tony blair would also say it was more of a statement than a question and hence not answer it And that’s the whole problem A currently political mindset is only half the picture Which is why its hopeless Real innovation and intelligent thinking is the solution Dali Lama and david icke should be on the front bench with hague and blair etc That impossiblility makes it all the more hopeless/pointless Tho i totally respect and advocate what YOU are doing It’s like mending the same old banger year in year out without considering using a bicycle I am a cynical old fart and clearly don’t have a grip anymore, somebody help me out |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
somebody help me out a track by light of the world who also recorded london town a track amazingly similar to yusuka ogawas classic l.a. nights wicked old casual soul / dance magic! i've turned god back into music bought any amazing records lately? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What gave dawkins this reputation? South park is extremely popular and had him being fucked by mr hat or something, so probably mostly that. "Science H. Logic", yeah ha ha because science is just a form of religion. Dawkins is a necromancer of the english language, has a black belt in pedagogy and a commendable grip on reality. Read the selfish gene and blind watchmaker. These are this medium called 'books' that contain more information than videos. The extended phenotype restates alot of what was in the selfish gene so has a lot of skippable parts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm really not sure there's any difference between consciousness and thought. Does thought enable you to experience consciousness or are they one and the same? Where is the separation - would you be a conscious entity without thought. This is a very murky area. Regarding thought as a reactor, I tend to believe that is exactly what it is, a computer. Every thought you have has been put in there from birth. Everything you know has been either genetically coded or referenced from your culture, language or every scrap of knowledge that exists there. Every time you think something you have to reference that knowledge through memory. It is a very mechanical process, but the speed and repetitiveness of the process eventually conditions you to believing it's unrepentant choice. For that reason I don't believe humans are capable of being creative in the accepted sense, it's impossible. No thought is your own, just a re-jumbling of thoughts manifested from information taken learned from others. You make choices within that sphere; when somebody asks you a question you reference that knowledge through memory and give an automated response to what is in there. It is not really an original choice. That is exactly why the expression of beliefs and philosophies are futile, as they are all regurgitated in subtly different ways from an identical framework. It seems that their primary purpose is to protect ones continuity via the manipulation of others. I do agree with you that there is no necessity to nature's evolution, I didn't express that well at all. All the same, there is a hierarchy of intelligence, albeit an accidental one. Obviously a human is a more sophisticated form of animal over other animals - that doesn't make it better or more suited to its environment, that's just the way it is. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well the question is “how are we going to get people to vote and hence more accurately reflect people’s desires and cater for their priorities” The government is borne out of society - it is not a separate species. Humans build the world they want - the divisive, violent world is a reflection if divisive, violent human thought - it is a pure expression of that. No political system is workable, because all systems and beliefs are intrinsically the same, evolving from the fractured, destructive mechanism that is thought. The root of the problem is that until humans truly understand thoughts place and then put it within the framework of the society you want to create then we are probably heading towards inevitable destruction. I only say that because as technology and information gets cheaper and more easily available, using them as potentially lethal weapons of destruction becomes easier and more likely, particularly as man's intolerance and impatience is leading them to become increasingly violent in the face of the obvious frustration of going around in circles. But human thought will only ever go around in circles in relation to the intellectualisation of various beliefs and ideologies. This vicious, unintelligent spiral will never cease. The best thing you can do is live intelligently and intellectually separate yourself from society. That IS action. The minute you try to coerce and manipulate others towards your way of thinking you are part of the whole destructive belief system. Any minor changes political systems make for the better are superficial in the face of the required change that needs to be made. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
big people running big things amassing big suspicion, big mess |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Thought is an activity by consciousness, a way for consciousness to direct itself towards something, to be about something. When you're thinking, you're always thinking about something, but thinking is not the only way to be consciousness of something. You can also perceive, imagine, remember, project, etc, etc. Secondly, there's nothing that's like a computer except in a pretty shallow way. You aren't "coded." You're an active subject in the world, you interact with the world. Of course, there's an influence from the world, but that you, for instance, have to learn what a bike is to know what a bike is doesn't mean you're determined to know what a bike is. And when it comes to genes, you should probably check some kind of actual research on the area, as no-one seems to have found any sort of evidence pointing to genes coding for more than hereditary diseases and the actual physical traits of the body. There is no gay gene, there is no religious gene, there is no gene for sitting on the toilet when you're going to shit, there is no gene for maths, etc. Some of these are habitual, you use them almost unconsciously (but you still have to gain them somehow, and you can still break habits). Other things, like knowledge, you learn. Learning is not memorising. Learning involves understanding and creativity, not mindless repetition of fragmented thoughts. By learning, a thought becomes mine. Thoughts are like values: By holding a value, I am the one sustaining the value; By holding a thought, I am the one sustaining the thought. If I didn't think of the particular thought originally (and new, original thoughts arise all the time, they are just mostly very bad), I am creative in my use of it, and I am free to choose how I relate to it. How in the world is expressing belief and philosophical theories futile? If it is futile, how can it then be that the course of history has been drastically influenced many times by people's beliefs and philosophy? (cont.) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Was it really futile when copernicus expressed his belief, that the earth revolved around the sun? Was it really futile when women's rights activists spoke out publicly against discrimination? I doubt you'd be able to call all of this futile; futility implies that whatever action you take, this action won't make a difference, and quite clearly, most actions make a difference, and some even make a remarkably large difference! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I agree that the genetic coding of thought is unproven, but I just threw that in there as a possibility. Genetic traits, homosexuality, for instance is an ongoing project, if they discover it's genetic then I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually discovered some form of cultural genetics, manifested as thought - we'll have to wait and see. I mean a lot of people tell me that my views on this are somewhat nihilistic, but it's what I believe nevertheless. For me, remembering, imagining, perceiving is all in the field of thought, and it's arguable that thought is any different from consciousness. Regardless, of course learning IS memorising, you are using your memory of language otherwise you would be unable to piece together the information or make any sense of it. When someone teaches you, you are adding knowledge to the computer and then you regurgitate it for somebody's else want. Therefore a thought is never yours, as everything you know is learned from another, everything in your mind is second-hand information. Even when you are 'creating' you are constantly referring to your knowledge and memory, of things that you would never know had you not been told them. You have a free will to choose what thoughts to think with reference to the dictionary of thoughts your computer contains - but other than that, you have no true creative expression, unless you can somehow detach yourself from everything you have been taught but this seems impossible. Of course history has taken a course, and will continue to do so, but always operating within the same framework. Technologically, thought has it's uses and has enabled incredible sophistication, the process of adding slowly but surely information upon information and continually refining, but psychologically I would question if humans have progressed one inch. If thought could apply itself to psychology in the same way it has technology it would be an enormously more intelligent world. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but when you worry you make it double; don't worry, be happy |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Perceiving and thinking are linked together, but perceiving is not a form of thinking. They are both intentionalities in consciousness. These are all technical terms to me, this is what I study. Now, it's interesting that you bring up language, because in your natural language, there's nothing farther from the truth. You don't go around remembering words (remembering is quite active) to express thoughts. It is still, however, correct to say that you learn to speak. Also, the words and the thoughts are almost simultaneous, when you're thinking propositionally, and the word is the fulfilment of thought, not simply the external expression of internal thought. When you memorise something, it's implicit that you only commit it to memory, and that you "simply regurgitate" it when you choose to. When you learn something, however, you acquire it as your own, as something you understand. Now, returning to language, I believe my take on this is even backed in neurology (though don't take my word for it, I could be mistaken here); When you remember something, you use a completely different part of your brain from when you're talking. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If there is a god, will you fucking destroy Drunken MAstah? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
My mom says that nonbelievers are bad people. Jesus Christ is my savior. I go to church every Sunday. Sometimes on Wednesday! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Your mom needs to get her ass onto the lavatory seat more often. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but I think if you are a nice person, you are alright with me. you won't go to heaven, though : ( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You are not very nice marlowe : ( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's not my fault that your female parent is full of shit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why do use bad words? That is very mean of you. to big I like that picture very much! Did you drawed it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
--------------"Because your mother has bad thoughts." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it is great it is |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What do you mean? My mom treats me good and we love each other. I believe in God. I don't think I have bad thoughts. That man in your picuture looks familar. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
He's everything your mother isn't. (And his having a cock is the least of their differences). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
to big some of those pictures are naughty! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ja! heehee |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
to marlowe I don't know what you mean, but I think you are still being mean! Why do you have to be so mean? I'm just a kid and I love my mom. : ) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm afraid I don't like the sort of Christian who damns "non-believers". Call me fickle. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
go mastah go mastah GO ! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
to marlowe But I believe you are not going to Heaven. If you are a nonbeliver then you are not going to Heaven anyways. For me you are bad because you hate my mother when she doesn't hate you. I don't hate you too. : ) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
