Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

I suspect we're using different definitions of the word opinion, as you seem to think an opinion holds only statements without backing up argument, and I use opinion for almost any statement whatsoever; either that, or you have a lot more faith in the assumptions of science than I do.

I guess the use of the word "opinion" here is valid according to some definitions of it, although it seems a bit misleading to me if you don't qualify it (the statement you were using it in previously seemed to be equivalating the strength of scientific "opinion" with those of world religions).  I would've thought something like "theory" or "hypothesis" would be more appropriate, but eh.

I probably misunderstood your position, but my point was that religious ideas shouldn't really be taught as having the same weight as scientific theories (due to the difference in evidence for the ideas, testable predictions and so on).  I've always thought of religious education as being there to help us understand/ accept people by knowing more about their beliefs, rather than presenting the beliefs as potential factual descriptions of the world.

[Vector]

Well, I'll also add that science doesn't have much to say about the non-empirical inner life, and it seems that to describe it in wholly scientific (i.e. numeric) terms would be to destroy it (uh, the Platonic concepts) completely.

Religion is a bit like literature.  It seems to me that you learn about it chiefly to discover yourself, since understanding of the subject immediately shows you that you can't accurately describe other people's hearts with strict usage of words.  You can become close, but the only person you can truly, fully come to know is yourself--and even that is a risky statement.

[Andir]

Everything we teach in school is our best guess.  It is not Truth.

OTOH, Creationism requires that you accept the unproven (unprovable/a very mysterious and personally diverse thing) as fact and assume that it's Truth.  Creationism relies on opinion where Science seeks to try to rule out opinion as much as possible based on our current ability to study and measure the phenomenon.

Well, I'll also add that science doesn't have much to say about the non-empirical inner life, and it seems that to describe it in wholly scientific (i.e. numeric) terms would be to destroy it (uh, the Platonic concepts) completely.

It only destroys it if you place weighted value on that inner life or soul.  (If you make the assumption that the inner you is somehow unique by design and not happenstance.)  Personally, I think the reason behind it not explaining your inner self is that people are afraid to explore that concept.  To some, it would seem to invalidate their self worth and feeling of expression... I fear saying, their ego.

[Vector]

Let me put it this way.

Does a bitmap for a graphic--just the code--have the same meaning, in all senses, as the painting it represents?  I consider the painting of worth, but I don't get much out of the computer code that also represents it.

Even if we manage to get an external description of the brain, will it really be the same thing as the internal exploration?

I'm not afraid of computer code in general.  I simply believe that the result can be greater than the representation.

[Andir]

Does a bitmap for a graphic--just the code--have the same meaning, in all senses, as the painting it represents?  I consider the painting of worth, but I don't get much out of the computer code that also represents it.

That's actually a really good example.  (I'm going to change "painting" to "picture" though... I think it makes a better point without bringing the act of painting into it at a higher abstraction layer.)  You see the final product as a whole where Science sees the code.

If you were the picture though, and nobody knew what code that made you up and some other picture was trying to reverse engineer that code... wouldn't it make you feel less special, like they were trying to undermine your worth to others?

Even if we manage to get an external description of the brain, will it really be the same thing as the internal exploration?

Hmm, you're into Math if I remember correctly?  Fractals are a good example of this.  If seemingly simple algorithms can create some spectacular figures and shapes.  There is generally more worth in the Science community on that algorithm than there is on the rendered result.  Though, some people see the result and question it no further, placing more value in that.

I guess my point is that some people might be afraid that their current worth may be diminished if we found out that we were all a bunch of deterministic beings, able to be molded and manipulated.  Genetic experimentation bumps up against this rationale.

[Vector]

No, that's perfectly true, and I've got no problem with people trying to figure out the code as long as they let me keep enjoying the picture; I'd be more worried about attempts to alter the code than just figuring out how it worked (I'm carbon-based, you're carbon-based, we're all carbon-based and no one is special!  Oh, wait...).  What I mean is that I think science has its place and religion/literary theory/art/etc. have their own regions of expertise, which should not be devalued or abandoned in favor of MORE EMPIRICAL TRUTH.

Empiricism and reductionism only get you so far.  Holism has stuff to offer, too.


I mean, hell, the current worth of people has already been diminished by things like animal intelligence studies (tool creation, occasional innovation, etc.).  The smartest animals behaves more intelligently (loaded term; please consider the definition at your will, and then let me know if you disagree) than the stupidest of humans... We're running headlong into an ethical crisis, in which we have to ask if it's okay to kill animals, and if it is okay to kill them, why it isn't okay to perform eugenics on our own population.

So yeah.  That's why I'm a vegetarian today.

[Willfor]

I mean, hell, the current worth of people has already been diminished by things like animal intelligence studies (tool creation, occasional innovation, etc.).

On that note, I've been trying to find information on the intelligence studies for Crocodiles as research for my current novel project, but google continues to fail me in this regard. Worst of all, the only crocodile videos I can find are not about the lifestyle of a crocodile, but the various attacks on humans. And literally every site I've been to repeats the same few factoids about crocs. It seems that despite them being the only reptile species that displays higher intelligence, it's hard to find specific information on the subject.

Unless I'm just continually looking in the wrong places.

[Rose]

Find somebody who lives in florida. Ask them for info.

[Andir]

No, that's perfectly true, and I've got no problem with people trying to figure out the code as long as they let me keep enjoying the picture; I'd be more worried about attempts to alter the code than just figuring out how it worked (I'm carbon-based, you're carbon-based, we're all carbon-based and no one is special!  Oh, wait...).  What I mean is that I think science has its place and religion/literary theory/art/etc. have their own regions of expertise, which should not be devalued or abandoned in favor of MORE EMPIRICAL TRUTH.

Empiricism and reductionism only get you so far.  Holism has stuff to offer, too.


I mean, hell, the current worth of people has already been diminished by things like animal intelligence studies (tool creation, occasional innovation, etc.).  The smartest animals behaves more intelligently (loaded term; please consider the definition at your will, and then let me know if you disagree) than the stupidest of humans... We're running headlong into an ethical crisis, in which we have to ask if it's okay to kill animals, and if it is okay to kill them, why it isn't okay to perform eugenics on our own population.

So yeah.  That's why I'm a vegetarian today.

Well, I personally think eventually, we're going to have to find substitutes for animal products (if we continue down the path of study.)  Someone is going to create a substitute product that is as nutritious for lesser ecological strain.  If not that, people have also been trying to create meat that is grown without the animal (creepy to some, but it avoids their association with the whole being... right or wrong)  ... but I'm generally optimistic about all that.

RE Empiricism/Holism: The problem (as you noted with the Eugenics/Vegetarian aspect) is when Science tries to "invade" that comfort area of Holism.  When someone tries to explain why we get angry, it only tends to make people more angry.  It's invading their holistic territory.  So in a way, it's still taboo to find the underlying algorithm for the picture.  If we find out how/why people love someone else, it could be abused by some.


Also, I do agree that animals can be more intelligent that humans at times.  In fact, the idea that it can happen could point out how flawed the idea that humans are unquestionably the most intelligent creatures to ever (or ever have) exist.

[RedKing]

Well, I personally think eventually, we're going to have to find substitutes for animal products (if we continue down the path of study.)  Someone is going to create a substitute product that is as nutritious for lesser ecological strain.  If not that, people have also been trying to create meat that is grown without the animal (creepy to some, but it avoids their association with the whole being... right or wrong)  ... but I'm generally optimistic about all that.

Yeah.....I'm not eating vat-meat. That shit is just WRONG. Ia, Ia, Cthulhu McNugget.


I'm still an omnivore in part because I see predation and the killing and eating of other animals as a natural process. We're far from the only animal that does it. But I do prefer that the animals be raised and slaughtered as humanely and naturally as possible. Free-range, no hormones or antibiotics, definitely no veal cages or debeaked chickens. Factory farming is a blight upon the soul of humanity, IMHO. We get all our meat locally now, from small farms that we can actually go visit and inspect ourselves. Plus, we feel that it's important that the kids understand where meat comes from, so that they can make the personal choice as to whether or not to eat it.

[Vector]

Heh, I was about to post to say that I've got absolutely no problem with vat-meat.

[Darvi]

WRONG FUCKING THREAD.

[Vector]

RIP David Morgan-Mar. We hardly knew ye.

... Relevant how?

[Darvi]

Not at all.

[Andir]

Yeah.....I'm not eating vat-meat. That shit is just WRONG. Ia, Ia, Cthulhu McNugget.

Heh, I was about to post to say that I've got absolutely no problem with vat-meat.

Such are the choices.

I personally have no problem with it as long as it has all the nutrients required, tastes right and all that.

I'm still an omnivore in part because I see predation and the killing and eating of other animals as a natural process. We're far from the only animal that does it.

Side question here, but let's say that someone finds a way to "turn off" the desire for animals to kill each other turning them all into herbivores... would you think that would impact future generations?  (I was going to say you, but we can probably guess the answer )