Posts
Comments
First define "truth", and I'll start to worry about that.
Just don't start calling people names. It's not helpful in any sense. I'm not trying to lower the quality of discussion here, quite the opposite (not that it isn't high quality discussion). If we don't disagree, it's not cause I'm stupider than you (which is the implication in comparing me to a flat earther)... It's cause our experiences lead us to different conclusions. Maybe I am stupider than you. even then is that a reason to exclude someone from a conversation? Maybe I want to talk about the relationship between "mythos" and "logos". Maybe that makes me irrational? Why jump to the conclusion that I have no idea what I'm talking about? Why assume I'm attached to my ideas to the point where you can't point out their flaws without ad hominem attacks? really... You guys take everything so seriously.
An explanation using myth is only "bad" from a rationalists' perspective. Devoid of "ism" it's as good as any... Maybe I only care about how condensation works far enough to make a painting of it, or write a song about it. As stated above, no one has the slightest idea what's going on... even if you can explain exactly how every phenomenon works and how it happens, tell me "why" it happens and I'll give you a virtua-lolipop. If I have a reality where I experience "ghosts" "god" "fairies" and "giant pyramid craft hovering over the kremlin" (hold on...) then I have a reality where those things happen to me. maybe evolutionary biology rules out fairies- that doesn't change the fact that they sometimes happen to people. If that experience can have meaning attached to it, in what sense is it not "real"? I mean, my dreams are "real". "reality" is very ambiguously defined.
I assume you're joking... Otherwise this statement is incredibly ignorant. I guess art is worthless to you?
Yeah, well. You're mother wears combat boots. LOL I can't believe you're stooping to name calling. I'm just promoting alternate views.. I really don't give a damn which one is true. We just use the belief we find most useful. Beauty is truth. What does "objective" mean? My brain is clearly wired differently than yours. That's okay! I hope I haven't dropped below your "sanity threshold"... Pfft. I personally think I'm NOT mistaken and confused, even though there's a choir of "rationalists" preaching at me. It's not "rational" to subdue dialogue like that. The fact that a dogmatic comment like yours gets voted up while an open minded one like mine gets voted below the viewing threshold is part of the reason "rationalism" is still in the minority. You know what? I still love you. You should go outside more, and instead of explaining, just experience. No one has the slightest idea what's going on, not even you. What explanation will you give me if I ask you "Why"? You're succumbing to the worst parts of tribalism. I said something you think "rational people" don't believe, so "we" think I'm "irrational". Blah... I quickly lost faith (irony) in this website. Good articles, though.
It's incredibly frustrating how all my comments get voted down so much... Anyway, how does that have nothing to do with string theory? I guess maybe I don't understand anything about either of them. It's not like I have a degree. That said, I believe string theory relates to the way that at a base level, all form is caused by vibration? (PLEASE correct me if this is wrong) I relate this to cymatics (google it if you're unfamiliar). You're saying that the concept of a universal creative vibration (om) doesn't sound anything like the concept of vibration creating all form? Really? Even if it's totally coincidence (whatever that means), it still works as an explanation. The concept of archetypes repeating themselves would possibly account for that... I think it's irrational to rule that out instantly. With the Dogon, admittedly I could've done more research. The thing is, we're all looking at the same whole. It's amazing how many similarities there are between myths of different cultures- most of them revolving around the worship of "projective" and "receptive" principals (God and Goddess) which obviously exist in the form of sun and earth or man and woman or whatever. Do you see where I'm coming from?
Respectfully, you're missing the point. A solid answer like that is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things- unless you need to use condensation for something, it doesn't matter exactly how it works; which is why people are content with metaphor. You've really got to not be so closed to other ways of seeing reality... I like science as much as the next guy, but my experience of reality is a work of art (creative commons attribution license, tee hee).
Also, it was a really crappy metaphor.
Unless you're involved in an emotional relationship with someone... Yes, you could take the machine approach and go "your reaction is improper based on the stimulii" or you could take a more human approach and say "oh sorry I hurt your feelings" and maybe cry with them or something. Irrationality is allowed in human relationships.
I want to make the same request I make on every website with comment-scoring- Get rid of this nonsense! Yes I have made comments people think deserve to be voted down... I'd be making this request regardless. It really doesn't help with discussion. My suggestion: Remove the downvote, keep the report button. Hateful/ outright stupid messages should be hidden; this shouldn't be decided by mob rule. The "karma" concept results in unpopular or somewhat uneducated comments being removed from discussion, which I do not consider desirable.
Ha ha, yeah, rain is the result of divine pedophilia. Didn't think that one through... I dunno, just playing with ideas. My point is that "sky spirits" as an explanation isn't "incorrect", just imprecise and prone to misinterpretation. I mean, there are many myths that have turned out to be pretty good intuitions of real phenomenon. for instance, the Hindu belief in "divine vibration" sounds uncannily like string theory- then there is an African tribe known as the Dogon that was aware of the fact that Sirius is a binary system hundreds of years ago. "the plants told us". I'd expect a Curandero in the amazon to know more about the ecology there than any "rational" (quotes to highlight subjectivity) scientist... Even though they would probably use terms like "spirit" to describe it. Holding a glass over a pot of water doesn't explain condensation, it just demonstrates it. "why does water gather there?" It's very possible to intuit things about nature. Strange but it's true. [As an aside, I know this isn't on topic, but I'm multi-attentional, so it's okay.] I'd recommend Jill Bolte Taylors' talk on TED for a pretty good explanation of what I'm referring to; you don't need to have a stroke to get to that state of consciousness. I guess what I'm getting at is, why is it so important to be "right" in the objective sense? If you're trying to build some kind of precise machine, I can see the value. Otherwise, a pretty story is way more than good enough, especially if it conforms to universal archetype... IMHO
I think that the rejection of emotional reasoning is, in short, retarded. We aren't computers. We're smelly, sexual, squishy, awesomely alive and emotional humans. Logic is really useful, but it can be incredibly boring. What's important is your relationships to your environment; that includes the people around you, nature, dogs, birds, ETC. Just as a person with really good ideas can be hard to get along with, a person with terrible ideas can be awesome company. What is more important? to me it's obvious. BE NICE, not for any reason except that the highest power is LOVE. Trying to attach logical reasons for being nice is like attaching logical reasons to being angry: it works, but it's pointless. When someone's angry, they're angry- reason can override emotions sometimes, but should it? Obviously when decisions need to get made, or we're trying to figure out objective truth (whatever that means- you mean reality that exists outside of my experience of it? That happens?), reason should be accentuated. In personal relationships, emotionality deserves full respect. You have to avoid machine consciousness... Maybe you're trying to program an AI, but are you trying to BECOME an AI?
Aren't "sky spirits" a good metaphor for the scientifically un-inclined? Why not think in terms of "spirits"? I'm not suggesting to believe "bearded elder" blindly or anything. Consider the difficulty of explaining things in SERIOUS SCIENCE to someone used to more intuitive reasoning. Why shouldn't things like "condensation" forming on "dust particles" be explained in metaphors like "the water god finds purchase on the earth goddesses' children" (or something)? It's important to be aware of the metaphor, I suppose...