I have discovered that many scientists have a very rich spirituality,
and one that in most cases does not conform with established religion.
The reason is that, the more they study the universe, the more they
see of its richness and complexity, and the rational response to that
is respect for and even awe before what they see. A serious student of
biology will have very high regard for what he sees, whether it be the
human body with its three trillion cells arranged in organ systems and
staying alive for 100 years or the richness of an Amazonian
rainforest. The reason is that such things possess greater complexity
than anything that people yet know how to create, and understanding of
this logically leads to respect for the processes that made such
things possible.
Someone possessing in-depth knowledge of science would therefore have
respect for and even awe of the universe; but that does not
necessarily mean that he is going to agree with the concept of
Biblical God. The reason is that Christianity holds a dismissive, even
damning, attitude toward nature, seeing "flesh" (meaning the human
body and the rest of physical natural world) as being a creation of
the Satan or as being poisoned by sin. A serious student of biology
would be angered by attitudes of this nature. The reason is that
what's being damned or impugned here is something possessing far
greater complexity, richness and viability than anything that the
person possessing such attitudes knows how to create. And he would
likewise be angered by brainless economic practices such as destroying
the extraordinarily rich environment that is Amazon to make ranches
that become useless in two years, when there are many other ways to
feed Latin America, or flooding the atmosphere and the oceans with CO2
from dirty coal and oil, when there are many other ways to provide
energy that are a lot less destructive.
That does not mean that the scientist is going to have no spiritual
feelings; indeed he may have very profound spiritual feelings - once
again as a rational consequence of what he sees. He may be more likely
to agree with a creed such as Deism, which was practiced by America's
founders Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, that sees divine truths as
being found in nature and discovered through rational inquiry. He may
believe in some providence or some higher intelligence, but he is not
likely to agree with the Biblical beliefs that damn the natural world
or the human body. The reason once again is that he will have respect
for the natural world and the human body as a rational reaction to
what he finds out about these things.
Science and spirituality do not have to be opposed to one another;
indeed life-affirming spirituality is fully in conformance with
scientific knowledge. The more one studies natural life the more he
values it and respects it. The attitude of the romantic is a natural
outgrowth of the obvious implications of scientific inquiry: A logical
consummation of the respect for natural life that scientific study of
life engenders. And if one believes in some higher power, it becomes
power that is congruent with, and not held opposite to, life.
The person involved in real scientific inquiry is likewise going to be
in disagreement with the people who deem themselves rational while
they have contempt for natural processes. Such contempt is an obvious
mark of inadequate cognition and inadequate knowledge. Until one can
create something as complex as human body or Amazonian rainforest, one
has no business having contempt for such things; and a person who has
such contempt either possesses inadequate understanding of the
preceding or does not possess adequate reasoning faculties to
understand the logical implications thereof.
There are any number of scientists with very profound spiritual
understanding, and it is spiritual understanding that is driven by
fact and logic. It is driven by understanding just what it is that
exists in nature and in the universe and by grasping the full
complexity thereof. What the Native Americans referred to as the Great
Mystery, science makes explicable, and in the process instills respect
for it. The lack of such respect - whether it comes from Biblical
attitudes or from attitudes that falsely claim themselves natural - is
a mark that one does not know what one is talking about and has no
real knowledge of what it is that he holds in disrespect.
I have discovered that many scientists have a very rich spirituality,
and one that in most cases does not conform with established religion.
The reason is that, the more they study the universe, the more they
see of its richness and complexity, and the rational response to that
is respect for and even awe before what they see. A serious student of
biology will have very high regard for what he sees, whether it be the
human body with its three trillion cells arranged in organ systems and
staying alive for 100 years or the richness of an Amazonian
rainforest. The reason is that such things possess greater complexity
than anything that people yet know how to create, and understanding of
this logically leads to respect for the processes that made such
things possible.
Someone possessing in-depth knowledge of science would therefore have
respect for and even awe of the universe; but that does not
necessarily mean that he is going to agree with the concept of
Biblical God. The reason is that Christianity holds a dismissive, even
damning, attitude toward nature, seeing "flesh" (meaning the human
body and the rest of physical natural world) as being a creation of
the Satan or as being poisoned by sin. A serious student of biology
would be angered by attitudes of this nature. The reason is that
what's being damned or impugned here is something possessing far
greater complexity, richness and viability than anything that the
person possessing such attitudes knows how to create. And he would
likewise be angered by brainless economic practices such as destroying
the extraordinarily rich environment that is Amazon to make ranches
that become useless in two years, when there are many other ways to
feed Latin America, or flooding the atmosphere and the oceans with CO2
from dirty coal and oil, when there are many other ways to provide
energy that are a lot less destructive.
That does not mean that the scientist is going to have no spiritual
feelings; indeed he may have very profound spiritual feelings - once
again as a rational consequence of what he sees. He may be more likely
to agree with a creed such as Deism, which was practiced by America's
founders Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, that sees divine truths as
being found in nature and discovered through rational inquiry. He may
believe in some providence or some higher intelligence, but he is not
likely to agree with the Biblical beliefs that damn the natural world
or the human body. The reason once again is that he will have respect
for the natural world and the human body as a rational reaction to
what he finds out about these things.
Science and spirituality do not have to be opposed to one another;
indeed life-affirming spirituality is fully in conformance with
scientific knowledge. The more one studies natural life the more he
values it and respects it. The attitude of the romantic is a natural
outgrowth of the obvious implications of scientific inquiry: A logical
consummation of the respect for natural life that scientific study of
life engenders. And if one believes in some higher power, it becomes
power that is congruent with, and not held opposite to, life.
The person involved in real scientific inquiry is likewise going to be
in disagreement with the people who deem themselves rational while
they have contempt for natural processes. Such contempt is an obvious
mark of inadequate cognition and inadequate knowledge. Until one can
create something as complex as human body or Amazonian rainforest, one
has no business having contempt for such things; and a person who has
such contempt either possesses inadequate understanding of the
preceding or does not possess adequate reasoning faculties to
understand the logical implications thereof.
There are any number of scientists with very profound spiritual
understanding, and it is spiritual understanding that is driven by
fact and logic. It is driven by understanding just what it is that
exists in nature and in the universe and by grasping the full
complexity thereof. What the Native Americans referred to as the Great
Mystery, science makes explicable, and in the process instills respect
for it. The lack of such respect - whether it comes from Biblical
attitudes or from attitudes that falsely claim themselves rational -
is a mark that one does not know what one is talking about and has no
real knowledge of what it is that he holds in disrespect.
I have discovered that many scientists have a very rich spirituality,
and one that in most cases does not conform with established religion.
The reason is that, the more they study the universe, the more they
see of its richness and complexity, and the rational response to that
is respect for and even awe before what they see. A serious student of
biology will have very high regard for what he sees, whether it be the
human body with its three trillion cells arranged in organ systems and
staying alive for 100 years or the richness of an Amazonian
rainforest. The reason is that such things possess greater complexity
than anything that people yet know how to create, and understanding of
this logically leads to respect for the processes that made such
things possible.
Someone possessing in-depth knowledge of science would therefore have
respect for and even awe of the universe; but that does not
necessarily mean that he is going to agree with the concept of
Biblical God. The reason is that Christianity holds a dismissive, even
damning, attitude toward nature, seeing "flesh" (meaning the human
body and the rest of physical natural world) as being a creation of
the Satan or as being poisoned by sin. A serious student of biology
would be angered by attitudes of this nature. The reason is that
what's being damned or impugned here is something possessing far
greater complexity, richness and viability than anything that the
person possessing such attitudes knows how to create. And he would
likewise be angered by brainless economic practices such as destroying
the extraordinarily rich environment that is Amazon to make ranches
that become useless in two years, when there are many other ways to
feed Latin America, or flooding the atmosphere and the oceans with CO2
from dirty coal and oil, when there are many other ways to provide
energy that are a lot less destructive.
That does not mean that the scientist is going to have no spiritual
feelings; indeed he may have very profound spiritual feelings - once
again as a rational consequence of what he sees. He may be more likely
to agree with a creed such as Deism, which was practiced by America's
founders Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, that sees divine truths as
being found in nature and discovered through rational inquiry. He may
believe in some providence or some higher intelligence, but he is not
likely to agree with the Biblical beliefs that damn the natural world
or the human body. The reason once again is that he will have respect
for the natural world and the human body as a rational reaction to
what he finds out about these things.
Science and spirituality do not have to be opposed to one another;
indeed life-affirming spirituality is fully in conformance with
scientific knowledge. The more one studies natural life the more he
values it and respects it. The attitude of the romantic is a natural
outgrowth of the obvious implications of scientific inquiry: A logical
consummation of the respect for natural life that scientific study of
life engenders. And if one believes in some higher power, it becomes
power that is congruent with, and not held opposite to, life.
The person involved in real scientific inquiry is likewise going to be
in disagreement with the people who deem themselves rational while
they have contempt for natural processes. Such contempt is an obvious
mark of inadequate cognition and inadequate knowledge. Until one can
create something as complex as human body or Amazonian rainforest, one
has no business having contempt for such things; and a person who has
such contempt either possesses inadequate understanding of the
preceding or does not possess adequate reasoning faculties to
understand the logical implications thereof.
There are any number of scientists with very profound spiritual
understanding, and it is spiritual understanding that is driven by
fact and logic. It is driven by understanding just what it is that
exists in nature and in the universe and by grasping the full
complexity thereof. What the Native Americans referred to as the Great
Mystery, science makes explicable, and in the process instills respect
for it. The lack of such respect - whether it comes from Biblical
attitudes or from attitudes that falsely claim themselves rational -
is a mark that one does not know what one is talking about and has no
real knowledge of what it is that he holds in disrespect.
> I have discovered that many scientists have a very rich spirituality,
> and one that in most cases does not conform with established religion.
> The reason is that, the more they study the universe, the more they
> see of its richness and complexity, and the rational response to that
> is respect for and even awe before what they see.
"..science can only be created by those who are thoroughly
imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.
This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of Religion...
science without religion is lame,
religion without science is blind.
- Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion:
a Symposium", 1941
^^^^^
"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a
little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the
ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that
someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It
does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the
child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a
mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly
suspects." - Albert Einstein
> A serious student of
> biology will have very high regard for what he sees, whether it be the
> human body with its three trillion cells arranged in organ systems and
> staying alive for 100 years or the richness of an Amazonian
> rainforest. The reason is that such things possess greater complexity
> than anything that people yet know how to create, and understanding of
> this logically leads to respect for the processes that made such
> things possible.
> Science and spirituality do not have to be opposed to one another;
> indeed life-affirming spirituality is fully in conformance with
> scientific knowledge.
--
Ex- Atheist, now Prophet, Richard Dawkins claims that some atheist
"Gods have come into being.." somewhere in the Universe "by an
explicable scientific progression of incremental evolution",
(which no atheist can explain). B^D
# "After two hours of conversation, Professor Dawkins walks far afield.
# He talks of the possibility that we might co-evolve with computers, a
# silicon destiny. And he’s intrigued by the playful, even soul-stirring
# writings of Freeman Dyson, the theoretical physicist.
#
# 'In one essay, Professor Dyson casts millions of speculative years
# into the future. Our galaxy is dying and humans have evolved into
# something like bolts of superpowerful intelligent and moral energy.
#
# Doesn’t that description sound an awful lot like God?
#
# "Certainly," Professor Dawkins replies. "It’s highly plausible that
# in the universe there are God-like creatures."
#
# He raises his hand,
# just in case a reader thinks he’s gone around a
# religious bend. "It’s very important to understand that these Gods
# came into being
When did that happen? where? How many 'came into being'?
Do they have names?
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?!??
# by an explicable scientific progression of incremental evolution."'
Explain how IMMATERIAL and SUPERNATURAL entities, "superpowerful
intelligent and moral energy" can be affected by Natural Selection,
which occurs in BIOLOGICAL species subject to physical mutations!?
# Could they be immortal? The professor shrugs.
#
# “Probably not.” He smiles and adds, “But I
# wouldn’t want to be too dogmatic about that.”"
So, which atheist is going to explain the inexplicable,
unscientific, BELIEF in "these {atheist] Gods", with no proof
whatsoever, and show us the evidence of how, and where, God evolved?
The place is a mystery to 'us' constrained 'humans'.
Hence 'we' make up 'stories'. Those 'stories' are within
'our' constraints, and subject to measured study of origin
(read brains). Brains are worthy subjects of study and understanding. As it is, the folk talk is 'hunter-gatherer'
on brain function and virtual reality(representation),
hence '"spirituality". But then, the Sun used to go around the Earth.
> I have discovered that many scientists have a very rich spirituality,
> and one that in most cases does not conform with established religion.
> The reason is that, the more they study the universe, the more they
> see of its richness and complexity, and the rational response to that
> is respect for and even awe before what they see. A serious student of
> biology will have very high regard for what he sees, whether it be the
> human body with its three trillion cells arranged in organ systems and
> staying alive for 100 years or the richness of an Amazonian
> rainforest. The reason is that such things possess greater complexity
> than anything that people yet know how to create, and understanding of
> this logically leads to respect for the processes that made such
> things possible.
> Someone possessing in-depth knowledge of science would therefore have
> respect for and even awe of the universe; but that does not
> necessarily mean that he is going to agree with the concept of
> Biblical God. The reason is that Christianity holds a dismissive, even
> damning, attitude toward nature, seeing "flesh" (meaning the human
> body and the rest of physical natural world) as being a creation of
> the Satan or as being poisoned by sin. A serious student of biology
> would be angered by attitudes of this nature. The reason is that
> what's being damned or impugned here is something possessing far
> greater complexity, richness and viability than anything that the
> person possessing such attitudes knows how to create. And he would
> likewise be angered by brainless economic practices such as destroying
> the extraordinarily rich environment that is Amazon to make ranches
> that become useless in two years, when there are many other ways to
> feed Latin America, or flooding the atmosphere and the oceans with CO2
> from dirty coal and oil, when there are many other ways to provide
> energy that are a lot less destructive.
> That does not mean that the scientist is going to have no spiritual
> feelings; indeed he may have very profound spiritual feelings - once
> again as a rational consequence of what he sees. He may be more likely
> to agree with a creed such as Deism, which was practiced by America's
> founders Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, that sees divine truths as
> being found in nature and discovered through rational inquiry. He may
> believe in some providence or some higher intelligence, but he is not
> likely to agree with the Biblical beliefs that damn the natural world
> or the human body. The reason once again is that he will have respect
> for the natural world and the human body as a rational reaction to
> what he finds out about these things.
> Science and spirituality do not have to be opposed to one another;
> indeed life-affirming spirituality is fully in conformance with
> scientific knowledge. The more one studies natural life the more he
> values it and respects it. The attitude of the romantic is a natural
> outgrowth of the obvious implications of scientific inquiry: A logical
> consummation of the respect for natural life that scientific study of
> life engenders. And if one believes in some higher power, it becomes
> power that is congruent with, and not held opposite to, life.
> The person involved in real scientific inquiry is likewise going to be
> in disagreement with the people who deem themselves rational while
> they have contempt for natural processes. Such contempt is an obvious
> mark of inadequate cognition and inadequate knowledge. Until one can
> create something as complex as human body or Amazonian rainforest, one
> has no business having contempt for such things; and a person who has
> such contempt either possesses inadequate understanding of the
> preceding or does not possess adequate reasoning faculties to
> understand the logical implications thereof.
> There are any number of scientists with very profound spiritual
> understanding, and it is spiritual understanding that is driven by
> fact and logic. It is driven by understanding just what it is that
> exists in nature and in the universe and by grasping the full
> complexity thereof. What the Native Americans referred to as the Great
> Mystery, science makes explicable, and in the process instills respect
> for it. The lack of such respect - whether it comes from Biblical
> attitudes or from attitudes that falsely claim themselves rational -
> is a mark that one does not know what one is talking about and has no
> real knowledge of what it is that he holds in disrespect.
Nowhere in this post does it say if you're related to Illya Kuryakin.
Turn heading 340 and expidite your climb to FL 200.
On Feb 9, 10:46 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
wrote:
> The place is a mystery to 'us' constrained 'humans'.
> Hence 'we' make up 'stories'. Those 'stories' are within
> 'our' constraints, and subject to measured study of origin
> (read brains). Brains are worthy subjects of study and
> understanding. As it is, the folk talk is 'hunter-gatherer'
> on brain function and virtual reality(representation),
> hence '"spirituality". But then, the Sun used to go
> around the Earth.
One model might be to treat our brian like any computer; design
programs, then learn how to insert into the memory banks, thus that it
control the machinery [body] for FUNCTION in certain ways.
Questioning the 'meaning' of life might not be a FUNCTION for the
masses for example...or perhaps anyone, since it is becoming obvious
we can never know [for certain anyway].
But as I have always argued, pragmatic function might not carry well
to the masses [a new type of slavery perhaps]. I know I wouldn't want
to be programmed with one them 'worker' programs they got, hehe.
Oh...wait a minute...uh...
In article <FKOYq.2852$v14.2...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>,
fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 9/02/2012 10:03 PM, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> > I have discovered that many scientists have a very rich spirituality,
> > and one that in most cases does not conform with established religion.
> > The reason is that, the more they study the universe, the more they
> > see of its richness and complexity, and the rational response to that
> > is respect for and even awe before what they see.
> "..science can only be created by those who are thoroughly
> imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.
> This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of Religion...
Nonsense. Religion relies on credulity, science requires doubt.
> science without religion is lame,
> religion without science is blind.
> - Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion:
> a Symposium"
But then, Einstein's view on what constitutes religion does not include any personal gods.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
> > A serious student of
> > biology will have very high regard for what he sees, whether it be the
> > human body with its three trillion cells arranged in organ systems and
> > staying alive for 100 years or the richness of an Amazonian
> > rainforest.
After two hours of conversation, Professor Dawkins walks far afield. He talks of the possibility that we might co-evolve with computers, a silicon destiny. And he¹s intrigued by the playful, even soul-stirring writings of Freeman Dyson, the theoretical physicist.
In one essay, Professor Dyson casts millions of speculative years into the future. Our galaxy is dying and humans have evolved into something like bolts of superpowerful intelligent and moral energy.
[So the context of discussion is now established as being in Dyson's far future, and the following must be interpreted in that context]
Doesn¹t that description sound an awful lot like God?
[Again establishing that the context is Dyson's future universe]
³Certainly,² Professor Dawkins replies. ³It¹s highly plausible that in the [Dyson future] universe there are God-like creatures.²
He raises his hand, just in case a reader thinks he¹s gone around a religious bend. ³It¹s very important to understand that these [future] Gods came into being by an explicable scientific progression of incremental evolution.²
Could they be immortal?
The professor shrugs. ³Probably not.² He smiles and adds, ³But I wouldn¹t want to be too dogmatic about that.²
A version of this article appeared in print on September 20, 2011, in
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:57:53 -0800 (PST), tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Feb 9, 10:46 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
>wrote:
>> The place is a mystery to 'us' constrained 'humans'.
>> Hence 'we' make up 'stories'. Those 'stories' are within
>> 'our' constraints, and subject to measured study of origin
>> (read brains). Brains are worthy subjects of study and
>> understanding. As it is, the folk talk is 'hunter-gatherer'
>> on brain function and virtual reality(representation),
>> hence '"spirituality". But then, the Sun used to go
>> around the Earth.
>One model might be to treat our brian like any computer; design
>programs, then learn how to insert into the memory banks, thus that it
>control the machinery [body] for FUNCTION in certain ways.
>Questioning the 'meaning' of life might not be a FUNCTION for the
>masses for example...or perhaps anyone, since it is becoming obvious
>we can never know [for certain anyway].
>But as I have always argued, pragmatic function might not carry well
>to the masses [a new type of slavery perhaps]. I know I wouldn't want
>to be programmed with one them 'worker' programs they got, hehe.
>Oh...wait a minute...uh...
Neural networks, are not like the computers 'we' know.
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:57:53 -0800 (PST), tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Feb 9, 10:46 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
> >wrote:
> >> The place is a mystery to 'us' constrained 'humans'.
> >> Hence 'we' make up 'stories'. Those 'stories' are within
> >> 'our' constraints, and subject to measured study of origin
> >> (read brains). Brains are worthy subjects of study and
> >> understanding. As it is, the folk talk is 'hunter-gatherer'
> >> on brain function and virtual reality(representation),
> >> hence '"spirituality". But then, the Sun used to go
> >> around the Earth.
> >One model might be to treat our brian like any computer; design
> >programs, then learn how to insert into the memory banks, thus that it
> >control the machinery [body] for FUNCTION in certain ways.
> >Questioning the 'meaning' of life might not be a FUNCTION for the
> >masses for example...or perhaps anyone, since it is becoming obvious
> >we can never know [for certain anyway].
> >But as I have always argued, pragmatic function might not carry well
> >to the masses [a new type of slavery perhaps]. I know I wouldn't want
> >to be programmed with one them 'worker' programs they got, hehe.
> >Oh...wait a minute...uh...
> Neural networks, are not like the computers 'we' know.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
What's the difference? Complexity? Don't our own neural networks work
upon binary logic, just like computers [the binary information being
in chemical design, you know, off/on, true/false, stop/go, open/
close[as in synapses] etc].
I've watched an entire society being changed right before my eyes with
new METHODOLOGY as found in things like 'social engineering' and
'deconstruction-construction technique' etc. These methods are toying
with psychological programming at least in a grand 'jesture'. Things
like 'brainwashing' have been tried in the past...an advent offshoot
of PROPOGANDA techniques, a realization by marxists and nazi's alike
(and applied in the modern era as well) as to a great significanse in
conquering a people [and making them do your biddings etc]. Why
exactly did you buy Tide laundry detergent over that other off brand
anyway? Human behavior has been pigeon holed long ago, as to what
colors, wordings, textures, labels, lingos and whatever else, evoke
them to 'buy things' [as one application]. It is not a great leap to
apply such knowledge with new understandings of the brain, to evoke
'changed persona' altogether...another creature in fact [in
essence...maybe rid of that hunter-gatherer ball and chain you always
allude to etc].
As an engineer, you perhaps see 'bottom up'...and the intricacy of
neural networks. But, there might be a 'meeting' at some point of the
'bottom up' approach with old 'top down' methods of past eras, where
PROGAMMING takes on a new efficacy meshing both biological and
psychological techniques.
Of course, there is always the 'ethical' problem to all this...but, as
I see it, our capacity to 'rationalize' can sidestep any moral
misgivings easy enough. Morality has never stopped science and new
discovery before [and that was during times when God was real to the
imaginations of humans everywhere]. No longer of course.
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 17:02:44 -0800 (PST), tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Feb 9, 6:26 pm, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:57:53 -0800 (PST), tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Feb 9, 10:46 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> The place is a mystery to 'us' constrained 'humans'.
>> >> Hence 'we' make up 'stories'. Those 'stories' are within
>> >> 'our' constraints, and subject to measured study of origin
>> >> (read brains). Brains are worthy subjects of study and
>> >> understanding. As it is, the folk talk is 'hunter-gatherer'
>> >> on brain function and virtual reality(representation),
>> >> hence '"spirituality". But then, the Sun used to go
>> >> around the Earth.
>> >One model might be to treat our brian like any computer; design
>> >programs, then learn how to insert into the memory banks, thus that it
>> >control the machinery [body] for FUNCTION in certain ways.
>> >Questioning the 'meaning' of life might not be a FUNCTION for the
>> >masses for example...or perhaps anyone, since it is becoming obvious
>> >we can never know [for certain anyway].
>> >But as I have always argued, pragmatic function might not carry well
>> >to the masses [a new type of slavery perhaps]. I know I wouldn't want
>> >to be programmed with one them 'worker' programs they got, hehe.
>> >Oh...wait a minute...uh...
>> Neural networks, are not like the computers 'we' know.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>What's the difference? Complexity? Don't our own neural networks work
>upon binary logic, just like computers [the binary information being
>in chemical design, you know, off/on, true/false, stop/go, open/
>close[as in synapses] etc].
>I've watched an entire society being changed right before my eyes with
>new METHODOLOGY as found in things like 'social engineering' and
>'deconstruction-construction technique' etc. These methods are toying
>with psychological programming at least in a grand 'jesture'. Things
>like 'brainwashing' have been tried in the past...an advent offshoot
>of PROPOGANDA techniques, a realization by marxists and nazi's alike
>(and applied in the modern era as well) as to a great significanse in
>conquering a people [and making them do your biddings etc]. Why
>exactly did you buy Tide laundry detergent over that other off brand
>anyway? Human behavior has been pigeon holed long ago, as to what
>colors, wordings, textures, labels, lingos and whatever else, evoke
>them to 'buy things' [as one application]. It is not a great leap to
>apply such knowledge with new understandings of the brain, to evoke
>'changed persona' altogether...another creature in fact [in
>essence...maybe rid of that hunter-gatherer ball and chain you always
>allude to etc].
>As an engineer, you perhaps see 'bottom up'...and the intricacy of
>neural networks. But, there might be a 'meeting' at some point of the
>'bottom up' approach with old 'top down' methods of past eras, where
>PROGAMMING takes on a new efficacy meshing both biological and
>psychological techniques.
>Of course, there is always the 'ethical' problem to all this...but, as
>I see it, our capacity to 'rationalize' can sidestep any moral
>misgivings easy enough. Morality has never stopped science and new
>discovery before [and that was during times when God was real to the
>imaginations of humans everywhere]. No longer of course.
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 17:02:44 -0800 (PST), tooly<rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 6:26 pm, Sir Frederick Martin<mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:57:53 -0800 (PST), tooly<rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 9, 10:46 am, Sir Frederick Martin<mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> The place is a mystery to 'us' constrained 'humans'.
>>>>> Hence 'we' make up 'stories'. Those 'stories' are within
>>>>> 'our' constraints, and subject to measured study of origin
>>>>> (read brains). Brains are worthy subjects of study and
>>>>> understanding. As it is, the folk talk is 'hunter-gatherer'
>>>>> on brain function and virtual reality(representation),
>>>>> hence '"spirituality". But then, the Sun used to go
>>>>> around the Earth.
>>>> One model might be to treat our brian like any computer; design
>>>> programs, then learn how to insert into the memory banks, thus that it
>>>> control the machinery [body] for FUNCTION in certain ways.
>>>> Questioning the 'meaning' of life might not be a FUNCTION for the
>>>> masses for example...or perhaps anyone, since it is becoming obvious
>>>> we can never know [for certain anyway].
>>>> But as I have always argued, pragmatic function might not carry well
>>>> to the masses [a new type of slavery perhaps]. I know I wouldn't want
>>>> to be programmed with one them 'worker' programs they got, hehe.
>>>> Oh...wait a minute...uh...
>>> Neural networks, are not like the computers 'we' know.- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> What's the difference? Complexity? Don't our own neural networks work
>> upon binary logic, just like computers [the binary information being
>> in chemical design, you know, off/on, true/false, stop/go, open/
>> close[as in synapses] etc].
>> I've watched an entire society being changed right before my eyes with
>> new METHODOLOGY as found in things like 'social engineering' and
>> 'deconstruction-construction technique' etc. These methods are toying
>> with psychological programming at least in a grand 'jesture'. Things
>> like 'brainwashing' have been tried in the past...an advent offshoot
>> of PROPOGANDA techniques, a realization by marxists and nazi's alike
>> (and applied in the modern era as well) as to a great significanse in
>> conquering a people [and making them do your biddings etc]. Why
>> exactly did you buy Tide laundry detergent over that other off brand
>> anyway? Human behavior has been pigeon holed long ago, as to what
>> colors, wordings, textures, labels, lingos and whatever else, evoke
>> them to 'buy things' [as one application]. It is not a great leap to
>> apply such knowledge with new understandings of the brain, to evoke
>> 'changed persona' altogether...another creature in fact [in
>> essence...maybe rid of that hunter-gatherer ball and chain you always
>> allude to etc].
>> As an engineer, you perhaps see 'bottom up'...and the intricacy of
>> neural networks. But, there might be a 'meeting' at some point of the
>> 'bottom up' approach with old 'top down' methods of past eras, where
>> PROGAMMING takes on a new efficacy meshing both biological and
>> psychological techniques.
>> Of course, there is always the 'ethical' problem to all this...but, as
>> I see it, our capacity to 'rationalize' can sidestep any moral
>> misgivings easy enough. Morality has never stopped science and new
>> discovery before [and that was during times when God was real to the
>> imaginations of humans everywhere]. No longer of course.
> Even 'logic' comes up fuzzy, as that is most pragmatic
> in complex evolution.
We should probably avoid the topic of fuzzy logic because the kook regulars around here have enough trouble as it is with basic logic.
-- Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church."
-- Ferdinand Magellan
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 17:02:44 -0800 (PST), tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Feb 9, 6:26 pm, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:57:53 -0800 (PST), tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Feb 9, 10:46 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> The place is a mystery to 'us' constrained 'humans'.
>> >> Hence 'we' make up 'stories'. Those 'stories' are within
>> >> 'our' constraints, and subject to measured study of origin
>> >> (read brains). Brains are worthy subjects of study and
>> >> understanding. As it is, the folk talk is 'hunter-gatherer'
>> >> on brain function and virtual reality(representation),
>> >> hence '"spirituality". But then, the Sun used to go
>> >> around the Earth.
>> >One model might be to treat our brian like any computer; design
>> >programs, then learn how to insert into the memory banks, thus that it
>> >control the machinery [body] for FUNCTION in certain ways.
>> >Questioning the 'meaning' of life might not be a FUNCTION for the
>> >masses for example...or perhaps anyone, since it is becoming obvious
>> >we can never know [for certain anyway].
>> >But as I have always argued, pragmatic function might not carry well
>> >to the masses [a new type of slavery perhaps]. I know I wouldn't want
>> >to be programmed with one them 'worker' programs they got, hehe.
>> >Oh...wait a minute...uh...
>> Neural networks, are not like the computers 'we' know.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>What's the difference? Complexity? Don't our own neural networks work
>upon binary logic, just like computers [the binary information being
>in chemical design, you know, off/on, true/false, stop/go, open/
>close[as in synapses] etc].
<SNIP>
No, Neural networks are analog. The output from an NN "gate" can be a wide
range of values, not binary.
While it is "relatively" easy to program a computer with software, the reverse
is not the case for neural networks.
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:59:38 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>We should probably avoid the topic of fuzzy logic because the kook >regulars around here have enough trouble as it is with basic logic.
Ilya Shambat wrote:
> I have discovered that many scientists have a very rich spirituality,
> and one that in most cases does not conform with established religion.
> The reason is that, the more they study the universe, the more they
> see of its richness and complexity,
Pulled their head out of their ass looked up and had the audacity to
wonder why, instead of accepting the fodder fed the sheeple!
Sir Frederick Martin wrote:
> The place is a mystery to 'us' constrained 'humans'.
> Hence 'we' make up 'stories'.
Some of those STORIES you lump together in an almost snear, were ways of
some ancient peoples remembering their HISTORY!
As for HEROES and GODS, your ONLY Immortal if "They Remember your
Name"!
Takes 300 Years to Become a Hero, and 1,000 to become a God.
> On Feb 9, 10:46 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
> wrote:
> > The place is a mystery to 'us' constrained 'humans'.
> > Hence 'we' make up 'stories'. Those 'stories' are within
> > 'our' constraints, and subject to measured study of origin
> > (read brains). Brains are worthy subjects of study and
> > understanding. As it is, the folk talk is 'hunter-gatherer'
> > on brain function and virtual reality(representation),
> > hence '"spirituality". But then, the Sun used to go
> > around the Earth.
> One model might be to treat our brian like any computer; design
> programs, then learn how to insert into the memory banks, thus that it
> control the machinery [body] for FUNCTION in certain ways.
> Questioning the 'meaning' of life might not be a FUNCTION for the
> masses for example...or perhaps anyone, since it is becoming obvious
> we can never know [for certain anyway].
> But as I have always argued, pragmatic function might not carry well
> to the masses [a new type of slavery perhaps]. I know I wouldn't want
> to be programmed with one them 'worker' programs they got, hehe.
> Oh...wait a minute...uh...
Yes that is one model. another model might be to throw bones onto the
ground and derive truth from the angles they form with respect to each
other.
Doing this correctly might not be a FUNCTION for the masses though.
It might take decades of slaughtering goats and running bare foot
across
coals in order to have access to that FUNCTION.
On Feb 13, 2:48 am, "Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole"
<laddie'o'lugh@gall's.org> wrote:
> Sir Frederick Martin wrote:
> > The place is a mystery to 'us' constrained 'humans'.
> > Hence 'we' make up 'stories'.
> Some of those STORIES you lump together in an almost snear, were ways of
> some ancient peoples remembering their HISTORY!
> As for HEROES and GODS, your ONLY Immortal if "They Remember your
> Name"!
> Takes 300 Years to Become a Hero, and 1,000 to become a God.
Actually, one becomes immortal only if the worms that gobble up your
rotting carcas reconstructs the molecules as some statue or something
in town square for future first graders on field trips to oggle over
as Ms. Masterson, their teacher, prattles over how so brave and
extraordinary people were back in your time.
Except for Bedford Forest. Now, he actually was an extraordinary
fellow...a true hero. Perhaps he was Alexander the Great class even.
But of course, his name was erased from the annals of time for his
flirting with the KKK. Too bad. All them carpet baggers probably did
need a resistance aroused...but alas, not palpable to today's
perceptions. Not to suggest vindication for the KKK...but only to
espouse amazement over this guy's war antics.
So, our stories become vehicles for political disbursement of hegemony
too. Critical theory even goes further, to politicize ALL literature
as means to 'control people'...overtly or covertly, whatever. Ever
visit your local University library lately...and make an assessment on
feminist literature? Hells bells, you come away thinking the entire
female kingdom has gone lesbo...and they've taken over the college
cirricula. Hmm...gotta go; I hear a toilet flushing...
> On Feb 9, 10:57 pm, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 10:46 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
> > wrote:
> > > The place is a mystery to 'us' constrained 'humans'.
> > > Hence 'we' make up 'stories'. Those 'stories' are within
> > > 'our' constraints, and subject to measured study of origin
> > > (read brains). Brains are worthy subjects of study and
> > > understanding. As it is, the folk talk is 'hunter-gatherer'
> > > on brain function and virtual reality(representation),
> > > hence '"spirituality". But then, the Sun used to go
> > > around the Earth.
> > One model might be to treat our brian like any computer; design
> > programs, then learn how to insert into the memory banks, thus that it
> > control the machinery [body] for FUNCTION in certain ways.
> > Questioning the 'meaning' of life might not be a FUNCTION for the
> > masses for example...or perhaps anyone, since it is becoming obvious
> > we can never know [for certain anyway].
> > But as I have always argued, pragmatic function might not carry well
> > to the masses [a new type of slavery perhaps]. I know I wouldn't want
> > to be programmed with one them 'worker' programs they got, hehe.
> > Oh...wait a minute...uh...
> Yes that is one model. another model might be to throw bones onto the
> ground and derive truth from the angles they form with respect to each
> other.
> Doing this correctly might not be a FUNCTION for the masses though.
> It might take decades of slaughtering goats and running bare foot
> across
> coals in order to have access to that FUNCTION.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I read in leviticus, that ancient Israelite priests had to smear
things like goat's blood and guts on the tabernacle entrance [or
wherever] before they could enter. If you didn't follow strict
procedure, you would fall dead upon looking upon it [or something like
that]. I've scratched my head many times trying to figger' that one
out. Sacrifice, lambs blood, flesh and bone, death and life,
fear...even repulsion? How does it all tie together?
I watch a Quentin Tarintino movie, and I come away with a 'voided'
empty feeling. Blood and guts leaves you like that I think. A bit
sickly, a bit scared, a bit 'yukky'. Yet, as I pass a bad car
accident on the road, I'm compelled to rubber neck like everyone
else...even as I know I will 'regret' it if I 'see anything' bad. And
I find myself watching the 'next' Quentin Tarintino movie when it
comes out [sort of like the alcohoic that knows he will hate himself
in the morning].
The Aztecs and Mayans were heavy into this sacrifice thingy too;
offering tens of thousands of 'fresh beating hearts' ripped from the
bosoms of hapless victims, up to their sun god. We're a pitiful
creature when you get right down to it I think.
After 61 years, I come more and more to an existential conclusion of
any philosophical truth there might be. And all that says is there is
NO truth, that we can know; no absolute 'something' out there that
defines it all, is the mother equation of all equations. So, TRUTH
must then [if my conclusions are close], be MOMENTARY. And...a
function of our existence. This is both good and bad I think; for on
the one hand, it can lead to despondency and nihilism...but it also
can lead us to 'freeing' ourselves up from our environment which
oftens acts upon our senses in a DICTATORIAL way. It perhaps puts a
different angle of insight to our attempts to justify a 'spirituality'
to things...by trying to diminish and even denounce our flesh and bone
[reality] through history. In that very causality, that in the very
NEED to escape our physicalness, we find that 'spirit' in and of
itself as a kind of seperate identity of self; and it could even
justify, to some extent a duality of what we are.
Our bodies are balls and chains to something in us. That
'something'...yearns for freedom...and in so doing, is WILLING to take
on struggle and pain...and even 'sacrifice' [?].
Or maybe we are just ignorant backwards fools who know nothing about
those neural networks that Sir brags about all the time.
Errol wrote:
> On Feb 9, 10:57 pm, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 10:46 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
> > wrote:
> > > The place is a mystery to 'us' constrained 'humans'.
> > > Hence 'we' make up 'stories'. Those 'stories' are within
> > > 'our' constraints, and subject to measured study of origin
> > > (read brains). Brains are worthy subjects of study and
> > > understanding. As it is, the folk talk is 'hunter-gatherer'
> > > on brain function and virtual reality(representation),
> > > hence '"spirituality". But then, the Sun used to go
> > > around the Earth.
> > One model might be to treat our brian like any computer; design
> > programs, then learn how to insert into the memory banks, thus that it
> > control the machinery [body] for FUNCTION in certain ways.
> > Questioning the 'meaning' of life might not be a FUNCTION for the
> > masses for example...or perhaps anyone, since it is becoming obvious
> > we can never know [for certain anyway].
> > But as I have always argued, pragmatic function might not carry well
> > to the masses [a new type of slavery perhaps]. I know I wouldn't want
> > to be programmed with one them 'worker' programs they got, hehe.
> > Oh...wait a minute...uh...
> Yes that is one model. another model might be to throw bones onto the
> ground and derive truth from the angles they form with respect to each
> other.
> Doing this correctly might not be a FUNCTION for the masses though.
> It might take decades of slaughtering goats and running bare foot
> across
> coals in order to have access to that FUNCTION.
Walking the Waters of the Lake, are a vastly different concept!
You are the Avatar of your life's story!
You, are the Image of GOD walking.
When you can let go of your egoic self existence and become one with the
waters of the Lake, it becomes a vastly different world.
Voodoo Flinging Ego Maniac's drawing Circles in the Sand, to throw Curses at
some one, calling Spirits to be your slaves, binding Nature to your will,
selling your soul to Satan, all but acts of Ego, demanding Instant
Gratification, with out regard to consequences.
Walking the Waters of the Lake, such mundane matters are irrelevant,
dangerous and Harmful!
You don't need to murder life to see the future.
tooly wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2:48 am, "Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole"
> <laddie'o'lugh@gall's.org> wrote:
> > Sir Frederick Martin wrote:
> > > The place is a mystery to 'us' constrained 'humans'.
> > > Hence 'we' make up 'stories'.
> > Some of those STORIES you lump together in an almost snear, were ways of
> > some ancient peoples remembering their HISTORY!
> > As for HEROES and GODS, your ONLY Immortal if "They Remember your
> > Name"!
> > Takes 300 Years to Become a Hero, and 1,000 to become a God.
> Actually, one becomes immortal only if the worms that gobble up your
> rotting carcas reconstructs the molecules as some statue or something
In "Your Illiterate Opinion!
Ancients told their story regardless of what You "BELIEVE"!
There are Christian's, unlike your Fundie Bigots, who can "PROVE" their
existence before Constintine and his Buddies Took over!
Just because YOU don't like JESUS, doesn't make Rama, or Buddha, a LIE!
Like Buddhists teach though, the Churchers always alter the teachings to make
it sell better, which is why a new messenger comes along to evolve the
teachings every 2,000 Years.
Jesus may have been the "ONE" at the Time, but that does not make him the
ONLY!
He is Far from the First or Last "Golden Calf" mankind will ever know!
As for Statues, how about Gog and Magog.
tooly wrote:
> On Feb 13, 4:42 am, Errol <vs.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 10:57 pm, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Feb 9, 10:46 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > The place is a mystery to 'us' constrained 'humans'.
> > > > Hence 'we' make up 'stories'. Those 'stories' are within
> > > > 'our' constraints, and subject to measured study of origin
> > > > (read brains). Brains are worthy subjects of study and
> > > > understanding. As it is, the folk talk is 'hunter-gatherer'
> > > > on brain function and virtual reality(representation),
> > > > hence '"spirituality". But then, the Sun used to go
> > > > around the Earth.
> > > One model might be to treat our brian like any computer; design
> > > programs, then learn how to insert into the memory banks, thus that it
> > > control the machinery [body] for FUNCTION in certain ways.
> > > Questioning the 'meaning' of life might not be a FUNCTION for the
> > > masses for example...or perhaps anyone, since it is becoming obvious
> > > we can never know [for certain anyway].
> > > But as I have always argued, pragmatic function might not carry well
> > > to the masses [a new type of slavery perhaps]. I know I wouldn't want
> > > to be programmed with one them 'worker' programs they got, hehe.
> > > Oh...wait a minute...uh...
> > Yes that is one model. another model might be to throw bones onto the
> > ground and derive truth from the angles they form with respect to each
> > other.
> > Doing this correctly might not be a FUNCTION for the masses though.
> > It might take decades of slaughtering goats and running bare foot
> > across
> > coals in order to have access to that FUNCTION.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> I read in leviticus, that ancient Israelite priests had to smear
> things like goat's blood and guts on the tabernacle entrance [or
> wherever] before they could enter.
I read in Numbers and Deu., that Only the Levites, can enter, the Tabernacle,
and Only Y'O'Shua can go in and out of the Citadel!
On Feb 9, 2:54 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 5:44 am, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have discovered that many scientists have a very rich spirituality,
> > and one that in most cases does not conform with established religion.
> I have discovered that the best of them have minds like
> finely tuned Swiss bullshit detectors.
I've seen that quality as well. They develop very effective techniques
to eliminate error as part of their studies. It comes with mastery of
scientific method.
