Isn't it us that can choose whether or not to bring those things which can be imagined into reality, or is that a gross oversimplification? I suppose now we are getting into will and agency. I've often wondered, when taking Dawkin's concept of memes, whether or not we are the just tools of metaphysical ideas and constructs. Our minds are constantly bombarded with massive amounts of information, and some ideas and information that we encounter are like parasites. They hit a host mind, and slowly but surely take over the entire mode of operations of a person. I find it even more disturbing that ideas can actually make a person go so far as to kill someone in the name of something that they can't even prove exists, or provoke them to strap explosives to themselves and jump on a plane. People don't just randomly come up with the decision to participate in this type of behavior, they have to become infected with the idea.
I think that many of us realize that ideas have the potential to rule a mind, and therefore some have the ability to mitigate or suppress ideas. However, others do not, and it's scary what can happen. On Jul 23, 12:06 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23 July, 16:42, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Has it ever occurred to you, Pat, that I would be really talking to > > you - the way that it is possible that parallel universes exist? > > Yes. However, reality is that you're writing on Google Groups and not > in some parallel fashion. I've thought deeply about it, yet logic > must step in somewhere and say, "enough". The fact is that parallel > universes only save time and, as no time can be saved by the One who > has it all (ipso facto, de facto and ad continuum), the 'possibility' > is relegated to "the set of those things which can be imagined, yet > are not real", which is a perfectly valid place where many of the > things discussed here exist. > > > On 23 Jul., 17:07, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 23 July, 15:26, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I still don't get your problem that you seek reconciliation for, I'm > > > > sorry. > > > > Let me paraphrase it: When you study English at a German university > > > > you are obliged to deal with your subject matter via the "scientific" > > > > linguistic specs AND the "religious" literary ones. Try to sell them a > > > > book on sequenced reconciliation and they wouldn't know where to place > > > > it. > > > > The reconciliation I seek is that Science recognise that God actually > > > IS a scientific possibility and, furthermore, given certain facts > > > about this universe, it's likely. Science isn't too happy about that, > > > as it has that unwritten statement that God simply can't be a viable > > > scientific outcome. Notwithstanding, I can demontrate a system, based > > > on the mathematics of string theory, that shows otherwise and answers > > > more questions than any other 'theory' on the market. > > > > 'Science', as a whole, is REALLY not going to like it when I point out > > > that, according to their own 'laws' that 'Creation in 6 days' is > > > absolutely plausible. And, they can only refute it if they completely > > > backtrack on the Hubble Constant and declare that it doesn't really > > > exist. > > > > > On 23 Jul., 14:04, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 22 July, 17:08, pindleton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Yeah, I've learned so much in college compared to what I was taught > > > > > > in > > > > > > public school that it is ridiculous. I tend to prefer English/Phil > > > > > > classes, as I have. a major in English and a minor in Philosophy. > > > > > > Just so all of you know, I do tend to lean more towards materialism > > > > > > and science over mysticism, however, I do not entirely discredit > > > > > > mysticism. There is a certain level of truth that can be found in > > > > > > mystical works that are on a higher level than straight fact or > > > > > > direct > > > > > > relation. I did not used to always be this way, however. I used to > > > > > > think that religion, mysticism, etc, were all hogwash, but now I see > > > > > > the other side of things. I read some works by Karen Armstrong (The > > > > > > Case for God) and Robertson Jr. (The Loss and Recovery of > > > > > > Transcendence), and I had never considered this fact: The > > > > > > scientific > > > > > > method fails at passing it's own criterion for truth. You see, > > > > > > something is considered empirically verifiable if observation > > > > > > statements logically imply the truth of the claim. If actual > > > > > > observation statements do imply the claim, then it is verified, so > > > > > > for > > > > > > instance the statement that "This sheep is white" verifies the > > > > > > statement that "There are white sheep." Now, taking verifiablity a > > > > > > step further, Popper insisted on falsifiablity as well. What this > > > > > > means is that for universal claims, if for any reason at any point > > > > > > in > > > > > > time I come upon a black sheep, or a blue sheep, then the universal > > > > > > claim that all sheep are white has come crashing down like a house > > > > > > of > > > > > > cards. On the surface, this set of standards seems to be quite a > > > > > > solid criterion for locating truth, but let's test the definition to > > > > > > itself. Science claims that if something is not falsifiable or > > > > > > verifiable, then it is meaningless. So, now let's run that > > > > > > statement > > > > > > through the grind. We cannot, indeed, verify whether or not the > > > > > > claim > > > > > > that "In order for something to be meaningful it must be > > > > > > verifiable," > > > > > > is true, and we cannot falsify the claim, so in actually, the > > > > > > foundations for modern science are pretty much on the same > > > > > > foundations > > > > > > as religion. Now, don't get me wrong, I am a strong advocate for > > > > > > science, and I love the life and luxury that science has provided > > > > > > me. > > > > > > I just wanted to make those of you who were not aware, that science > > > > > > cannot pass it's own criterions of meaning. > > > > > > Spot on! Science takes just as much faith as does religion. The > > > > > difference is that science cloaks it by referring to aspects of faith > > > > > as 'axioms', those things which you MUST accept without proof: like > > > > > F=MA (force=mass*acceleration), which has never been proven. > > > > > > > After pointing this fact out to me, I felt even more lost then > > > > > > before. You mean, both science and religion are still founded on > > > > > > bullshit!? This put me in a state of distress, however Robertson > > > > > > provides a solution. Since we are able to determine that the parts > > > > > > of > > > > > > reality that we experience are real and meaningful, then via modus > > > > > > ponens, the Whole is meaningful. If the Whole is meaningful, and > > > > > > not > > > > > > at all based on a nihilistic model of reality, then mankind has a > > > > > > responsibility to aspire for fellowship, community, transparency, > > > > > > and > > > > > > perfection. > > > > > > Which is, of course, a religious ideal! Ironic, ain't it? > > > > > > >Perhaps this last bit is a jump in logic, and hell, maybe > > > > > > even idealistic, but it's better for me to think this than it is for > > > > > > me to lie down and cry like a baby at my inability to come to an > > > > > > understanding of my reality, isn't it? :) > > > > > > I agree. It IS an ideal, however there's nothing inherently wrong > > > > > about having ideals. In an ideal world, science could pass its own > > > > > criteria for meaning and, maybe someday it will. But I reckon it will > > > > > have to reconcile with religion prior to that. And that > > > > > reconciliation is exactly what I'm working on. Glad to have you > > > > > aboard!! > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 9:01 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Welcome aboard! I think literature is a "poor man's" philosophy- > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > do you think? Diluted further would be great theater and movies > > > > > > > and a > > > > > > > few lyrics.//My major was Engl. Lit- B.A. and most of a an M.A. > > > > > > > program but I honestly preferred Classics/myth and Humanities > > > > > > > survey > > > > > > > courses- the latter to counteract a Catholic education and > > > > > > > enlighten > > > > > > > me about the rest of humanity- we were raised in such a glass > > > > > > > bubble- > > > > > > > so sheltered- it was ridiculous. > > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 9:40 pm, pindleton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone! This may be un-proper of me, since I will admit I > > > > > > > > haven't taken the time to read through all of the posting > > > > > > > > rules, but I > > > > > > > > just wanted to take the time to introduce myself. My name is > > > > > > > > Dustin, > > > > > > > > I'm a 23 year old college student studying English, and I love > > > > > > > > to talk > > > > > > > > about Philosophy! > > > > > > > > > Some of you may have already met me from Mind's Eye @ Gravity > > > > > > > > (Orn, > > > > > > > > Kierke, Darkwater, etc.) so I'm glad I could join you. > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I look forward to posting some convos and participating > > > > > > > > in the > > > > > > > > debate, see you guys around!- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
