Hmmm. Starting to get all angel tears and unicorn farts now....
Haven't heard "angel tears," so I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but based on "unicorn farts" it seems to me you are talking about "woo woo." I'm familiar with that term. It being to refer to the type that believes in fairies, trolls, and elves as real entities as portrayed by fairy tales. It's a sort of childish magic of the Disneyland sort. It is ridiculous nonsense. I am not talking about ridiculous nonsense, so I hope you are not referring to anything I have said. I'm talking about logic and reason and empirical experience that arrives at a view of reality that is NOT "unicorn farts." Would you care to elaborate on what it is you are talking about here?
I am fascinated Lucid, did we meet in my reality or yours?
Technically we have never met. Our egos have met...and possibly our minds, but we have not met. Maybe we will one day. I'd love to go to Australia. I was supposed to go to Perth and Tasmania but we bombed Afghanistan instead.
To directly answer your question however, we met in both of our realities. "We" being our online avatars, or our egos, nothing more (with the possible exception to our minds have met now as well...I'd have to think on that some more).
Getting a bit matrixy here....
A persons experiences may seem very real, but in my reality I think it is incorrect to impose my beliefs, or more importantly bet the lives of other on any belief that could not be verified. This is precisely what religions do. Promises in the afterlife for obedience here. In extreme levels we see people killing others on the promise of rewards in the afterlife.
This seems to be a bone you have to pick with religions, and as far as I know you are the only one who has brought up religions on this thread. I referenced Buddhism by referencing words of the Buddha, but Buddhism is not really a religion as understood by us westerners at least. It's more of a spiritual philosophy. It doesn't make sense exoterically to a Western mind. I agree with you assessment of religions. However, it's not so much the religions fault as it is the idiots that practice it exoterically, and the idiots that take advantage of the idiots who can't think for themselves and therefore miss the esoteric message that religions are meant to convey. Shit like don't worry about the splinter in your neighbors eye when you have a log sticking out of yours.
Science does not have all the answers, but the gaps should not be automatically filled in with beliefs.
You saying that the scientific gaps should not be filled in with beliefs is a statement of belief. Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle...our observations change the behavior of the observed...it's a mystery that no human tool will ever crack. However, the mind knows and can experience the truth.
Its not that the beliefs will always be wrong, but its the size of the risk.
I will bet the house on a certainty, but very little on a long shot.
What is certainty? Where does it truly exist? Also, I'm not so sure what the point you are trying to make here is.
Occams razor:
What is more likely:
1. An individual's faith based belief system which says once we have trashed this realm we will probably all be transformed into galaxy hopping metadata beings of pure love, because that is what I dreamt about after too much Bundaberg rum one night.....
or
2. Once we trash the joint we will probably cease to exist.
I hope for #1, but I am suspicious that #2 may be closer to reality.
Number 2 is more likely. Number one is rubbish. You should not equate esoteric spirituality with exoteric religion. I hate it when people do that because it comes from a place of ignorance. Look into the what Aldous Huxley called the "perennial philosophy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophyThe Perennial philosophy (Latin: philosophia perennis),[note 1] also referred to as Perennialism, is a perspective in the philosophy of religion which views each of the world's religious traditions as sharing a single, universal truth from which all esoteric and exoteric knowledge and doctrine has grown.
Agostino Steuco (1497–1548) coined the term philosophia perennis,[1] drawing on the neo-Platonic philosophy of Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–94).
In the early 19th century this idea was popularised by the Transcendentalists. Towards the end of the 19th century the Theosophical Society further popularized the concept under the name of "Wisdom-Religion" or "Ancient Wisdom".[2] In the 20th century it was popularized in the English-speaking world through Aldous Huxley's book The Perennial Philosophy as well as by the strands of thought which culminated in the New Age movement.
This being the case i am setting up robust systems to care for as many of my fellow meat bags as I can.
This is the logical course of action. Fight to the bitter end. RE mentioned some clown who has had 7 heart transplants. That sounds bizarre and a little creepy, but certainly fits the bill of never giving up I suppose. It could also mean he is just a rich narcisist wo can afford the operations and wants to live forever....
Yes, we should at least try. I am doing the same thing you are doing to the best of my ability. I'm living in two separate worlds in doing so as well.
I have always argued that faith based belief systems promote fear and Nihilism, no the other way around. They tell you it is alright to give up, as you will be rewarded later...
JOW
You have faith in science. Science is a belief system. By your measure science promotes fear and Nihilism. You can't have it both ways. You don't have any choice but to believe in something...unless you choose to believe in nothing (which is what Nihilism is) which itself is a belief...a belief in nothing meaning anything. Nihilism is a logical paradox IMO. One should have the intestinal fortitude to believe what one believes with integrity. That means understanding that all belief is not provable.
But then, prove to me that an atom is as science models it. You can't do that, but we take it on faith that science is correct. Until it's proven false, in which case we believe what science says again...and again...and again...even as it proves itself inaccurate and false over and over again. Why does science get a pass? Further, prove to me how science itself is not a belief. My contention is that science, like Nihilism, is nothing more than a belief, and one that contradicts itself on a regular basis.
WELCOME TO KOLLAPSNIK.COM
Topic: Thoughts & Ideas in the Philosophical World of Doom (Read 18365 times)
June 09, 2012, 11:00:49 AM