Electronic Music 411 - New Atheism - new, atheism, god, religion, science

edited: Jan 06 2007 + cbit

bsr said: "the whole unicorn idea isn't useful or relevant to this discussion - it's a cheap party trick, probably why dawkins seemingly didn't use it in his book - but why you saw the relation between what he said and what you've read elsewhere - it doesn't apply"

Please explain why its not relevant. (also dawkins does mention it in his book)

Recent blogs: Cocoa coding query, DIY Monome schematic, Mormo: fly-on-the-wall view of track in progress

01/06/07 + bsr

i think you've deviated from intelligent discussion, to illustrate why: go back to my analogy a couple of posts back - in the case of this analogy what use does attributing qualities have? none - the question is 'is there' or 'isn't there' - anything else is outside of the discussion. you can talk unicorns all day with someone easier to get a rise out of, but not me, i find it a little insulting.

edited: Jan 06 2007 + cbit

bsr said: "i think you've deviated from intelligent discussion, to illustrate why: go back to my analogy a couple of posts back - in the case of this analogy what use does attributing qualities have? none - the question is 'is there' or 'isn't there' - anything else is outside of the discussion. you can talk unicorns all day with someone easier to get a rise out of, but not me, i find it a little insulting."

again: i'm not looking for a rise, i'm very open to hearing why you think the example isn't relevant. you haven't answered so far.

as i said before, if you can think of an appropriate being/thing/etc for which theres no evidence of, that you can substitute into the example without making it look foolish please name it. i don't think its possible.

bsr said: " the question is 'is there' or 'isn't there' "

For me the question is 'is there x' . x being something quite specific and by definition undetectable.

Recent blogs: Cocoa coding query, DIY Monome schematic, Mormo: fly-on-the-wall view of track in progress

edited: Jan 06 2007 + cbit

bsr said: "in the case of this analogy what use does attributing qualities have? none - the question is 'is there' or 'isn't there' - anything else is outside of the discussion."

to specifically answer what the point is of attributing qualities, and why i think its of crucial relevance to this discussion: the point is to demonstrate that god as an idea enjoys a particular taboo status in our culture and as soon as you strip away that conditioned respect the idea is revealed in all its absurdity.

Challenging the idea of his existence is 'not done'. The influence of this taboo is shown quite starkly when you substitute other beings in his place into the example (like the unicorn). It's necessary to use devices like the unicorn because we don't have the same conditioned respect for the idea of a unicorn as we do for the idea of a god, or the very word 'god'.

I'm going to stop for a while now because i feel my frustration/animosity level rising and thats not a feeling i enjoy

Recent blogs: Cocoa coding query, DIY Monome schematic, Mormo: fly-on-the-wall view of track in progress

edited: Jan 06 2007 + bsr

i feel you projecting your attitude toward theists (which i find distasteful in the first place) onto me. i couldnt give a flying fuck about culture or taboos or unicorns (or some old bloke with a beard). i was enjoying the discussion but it's gone down a stupid avenue. you strip away whatever you like - whats left certainly is not absurd. challenging the idea of 'his existence' (your words) certainly 'is done', we're doing it now, people have done it for thousands of years and you've been free more than ever to do it in recent history. you're doing every reasonably intelligent person who doesn't agree with your pov a disservice. i can't see that i mentioned 'god' in any previous post in the last few pages (besides a mention that a system may have heaven-like properties).

from your position - it's not enough to debate the possibility of something/anything existing outside of what we call natural - that's not enough - we have to (must!) debate what qualities it might have - that doesn't make any sense.

edited: Jan 06 2007 + cbit

You lost me there

Here's is why i rule out the possibility of the existence of an undetectable extra level of complexity. It's so beautifully simple:

In our lives none of us feels the need to entertain the possibility that propositions that we have no evidence for are true. Heaven/god/an-extra-plane-of-something-inconceivable-to-our-human-minds/the unicorn all fit into this category.

While there's no evidence of these things, theres no need to entertain the possibility of their existence (no one is 'unicorn agnostic' or 'flying spaghetti monster' agnostic).

To be agnostic about the existence of god, or any of these other undetectable things is hypocritical and, to use sam harris' words, 'intellectually bankrupt'.

Recent blogs: Cocoa coding query, DIY Monome schematic, Mormo: fly-on-the-wall view of track in progress

edited: Jan 06 2007 + bsr

beautiful and simple to you ears. i can't see it as hypocrytical at all. there are greater minds than mine and yours who aren't as sure as you are.

now you're refuting the possibility of an extra 'system' wrapped around our own whereas previously you pasted a dawkins passage that argued that even if you go up a level the same problems exist - so which is it? do you deny the possibility that some system created ours? or are you just arguing that the topmost level must be natural? if it's the former - my little computer story is an obvious fly in the ointment - if it's the latter then we reach an impass. either way i think we've gone as far as we can without becomming rude and frustrated.

'While there's no evidence of these things, theres no need to entertain the possibility of their existence' - that statement tells me you havn't grasped much of what we've been talking about.

edited: Jan 06 2007 + cbit

lol oh come on!

bsr said: "beautiful and simple to you ears. i can't see it as hypocrytical at all. there are greater minds than mine and yours who aren't as sure as you are."

there are greater minds than mine and your's who are just as sure as i am ;)

bsr said: "'While there's no evidence of these things, theres no need to entertain the possibility of their existence' - that statement tells me you haven't grasped much of what we've been talking about."

and that reply tells me that you haven't grasped my idea of what we were talking about ;)

sorry, couldn't resist.

bsr said: "do you deny the possibility that some system created ours? or are you just arguing that the topmost level must be natural? if it's the former - my little computer story is an obvious fly in the ointment - if it's the latter then we reach an impass. either way i think we've gone as far as we can without becomming rud and frustrated.
"

yes, i believe (until we are shown otherwise) that the latter is the case. i agree that this might be a good point to stop.

Recent blogs: Cocoa coding query, DIY Monome schematic, Mormo: fly-on-the-wall view of track in progress

01/06/07 + bsr

my view -
is it possible a universe sits in another system - yes
therefore is it possible our universe sits in another system - yes
do you believe in god - no

your view -
is it possible a universe sits in another system - yes
therefore is it possible our universe sits in another system - no
do you believe in god - no

does this not display some hypocrisy?

edited: Jan 06 2007 + bsr

evidence of course is completely irrelevant to the questions (or previous ones).

edited: Jan 06 2007 + cbit

ok to clarify:

my view -
is it possible a universe sits in another system - yes (this seems undisprovable based on what i know)
therefore is it possible our universe sits in another system - yes (this seems undisprovable)
is a god possible - yes (this seems undisprovable)
is the unicorn possible - yes (this seems undisprovable)

do you believe the universe sits in another system - not based on what i know
do you believe it is possible our universe sits in another system - no
do you believe in god - no
do you believe in the unicorn - no

Recent blogs: Cocoa coding query, DIY Monome schematic, Mormo: fly-on-the-wall view of track in progress

edited: Jan 06 2007 + bsr

therefore i'm agnostic.

[edit - wait - you don't think we could create a system that becomes self aware but completely oblivious to the fact that it's sitting in a computer? that's pretty amazing to me, if we don't wipe ourselves out first the development of machines that are aware seems certain, to create an environment where such complex agents reside inside a system we created isn't such a stretch once you have that - therefore it seems you think we will never attain artificial intelligence

edit2 - rereading your post i jumped the gun, you seem to have slightly contradictory opinions - are you saying your opinion is a matter of belief?]

edited: Jan 06 2007 + cbit

bsr said: "therefore i'm agnostic."

strictly speaking so am i (perhaps we agree?). but there are different kinds of agnostic. I am agnostic about the existence of the tooth fairy, but the likelyhood is small enough for me to say, in common speech, that 'i don't believe' in it (rather than 'i don't know')

bsr said: "[edit - wait - you don't think we could create a system that becomes self aware but completely oblivious to the fact that it's sitting in a computer? that's pretty amazing to me"

I do believe this is a possibility. but i maintain that (even if i happened to be living in such a system) it'd be imprudent for me to suppose there was anything outside the system until there was evidence to suggest that there was (that evidence could never arrive of course).

Recent blogs: Cocoa coding query, DIY Monome schematic, Mormo: fly-on-the-wall view of track in progress

01/06/07 + cbit

bsr said: "edit2 - rereading your post i jumped the gun, you seem to have slightly contradictory opinions - are you saying your opinion is a matter of belief?]"

when i say 'i believe' it's common speech shorthand for 'i accept that there is a possibility that my view doesn't match with the truth, but i consider the likelyhood of being wrong small enough to rule out that possibility'. I believe the pencil will drop to the floor when i release it.

For me, to say 'in don't believe' in something doesn't contradict the idea that that something is possibly the truth. I just consider that possibility to be small enough to rule out.

Recent blogs: Cocoa coding query, DIY Monome schematic, Mormo: fly-on-the-wall view of track in progress

edited: Jan 06 2007 + Jetsom

Is there a need to entertain the idea (which is a non-fact) that nothing exists beyond what I have been perceiving?

Two sides of the same coin: <insert whatever here> exists/<insert whatever here> doesn't exist. The only fact here is that I don't know. Whatever bullshit beliefs/ideas I've got myself caught up in doesn't alter that.

You can explain that thing to me again and again cbit, about 'I don't need to say 'I don't know what other things might be'', but I don't go along with it. I think I always get stuck because I feel afraid, in this kind of conversation - where I feel it's my rare chance to talk about WHAT IS, without having to conform to the usual patterns, ques and limitations expected in normal, everyday conversation -that I won't get that opportunity, AND I'll waste lots of energy pretending to do that, which feels kinda like a cheat.

If I have to start that conversation by accepting a non-fact, it feels like I'm just starting a conversation about sth hypothetical & seeing where it might go. It might be entertaining, but it's not what my soul is craving for.

I've been losing my lust for these kinds of conversations, so nobody get me more involved in this thread. thx. (happy new year too!)

Recent blogs: Hi. I'm Jetsom. I never blog.