Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
spiritual stuff
#1
So...

Is the science and math sub-forum the right place for a thread of this title?

To anyone that asked that question, all i can say is "Fuck off! Enjoy the ride!)

Even if it was only me that asked that question, the sentiment remains valid.

(Between me and me, I'm pretty goddamned important. For all I know, I'm the feckin' center of the universe.)

This may sound egotistical as fuck, but I have  nagging suspicion, that when I go, so goes my perception, and my sensory feed back loop that had confirmed my existence...and, just like that...Poof! goes the universe.

When I am dead, all of you fucks will also be dead to me.
That I love you couldn't be more irrelevant....

When I'm dead, you are dead.
That's how I see this.

(After I become the cadaver that I told my guidance counselors in high school i wanted to become, when they asked the grown-up question, "What do you want to be when you grow up?")

"A corpse", I said....

As if I actually had a chance of achieving such a lofty goal.


Kind of sick, I guess, to except the end from the beginning.

How weird, right?

1. realize death
2. look forward to it as a goal in life, without being suicidally pro-active about it.
3. use it as an adviser.
4.be willing to kill people that want to sell you eternal life, in any of its weird forms.

5. if your immaterial "youness"  happens to insist on going on and on; consciously...with memory and sequence...absolutely essential in this particular field of 'existence' , play along.. Eventually the truthier truth will be revealed.

6. How fucking anti-spiritual do you have to be, to get into  life extension hooplah? Or , Colonizing space type crap?

7. Is the effort to rescue our planet from bad science , which is what has imperiled us, even worth the effort?

8. Why the fuck would stanky make a statement, for the purpose of a bet i had (I won $673.99; thank you) if he wasn't pretty damned grateful and sane?

(I have several thousand more posts pre-written for quick display, in case this becomes a debate forum.)

seriously.

I'm happy for the money.

(Some shit has been breaking on the farm...a spell of it, actually.)



this thread, hopefully, will be assaulted. Exalted, too.



The ultimate god of science spoke to me...
and it told me that my mission in life was to describe the religious nature of science, that the critical thinkers; atheists ; skeptics are blind to.

It's the actual obstacle to another 'parallel universe" of perceptual possibility.

Not heaven by any means.
Just more projection and perception; accumulation of data; interpretation of data; learning about what a very narrow band of data that is...

(I wish i could smell what my dogs do. If I was more stupider, i'd assumify that me feckn' hounds were tards.)

nope.

They are the geniuses of the spectra of energy that matters to us...


I hope to return, to delve into the spiritual nature of science.

My job is to bridge gaps.

Between the spirit and the matter.

this could get sad.
Reply
#2
Oh geeze, I'm starving, it's time to cook dinner, I don't have time to do this right now.

But it should pass an hour when I'm fed. Guess you'll be asleep then so I won't hurry it.
Reply
#3
(07-10-2017, 07:53 PM)stanky Wrote:  So...
.... 

(Between me and me, I'm pretty goddamned important. For all I know, I'm the feckin' center of the universe.)

Which one?

This may sound egotistical as fuck, but I have  nagging suspicion, that when I go, so goes my perception, and my sensory feed back loop that had confirmed my existence...and, just like that...Poof! goes the universe.

When I am dead, all of you fucks will also be dead to me.
That I love you couldn't be more irrelevant....

When I'm dead, you are dead.
That's how I see this.

Yep.  That's close to how I see it too.  Not that the universe vanishes, just that our perception of it does, ergo, our particular universal recognition dies with us. 

What other than the human mind knows that the universe exists at all?   And we only know when we're awake and educated.  So if it didn't exist would it be missed?   Not by us, we wouldn't be here either.

It's a bit loopy maybe to think that way?  I know sciency skepticy types see only the material hard evidence that it's there, but science itself only exists in the minds of humans.  Science didn't create the universe,  or vice versa.  We created science as a means to recognise the universe.  

If no one remembered, in some distant post apocalyptic  civilization that there was ever something called science would it matter?   Would the universe change for not being noticed?

So yeah, when we die so does all concept of the universe.  .. unless those aliens are out having similar delusions of knowing everything.
But our universe dies with us, one at a time.


(After I become the cadaver that I told my guidance counselors in high school i wanted to become, when they asked the grown-up question, "What do you want to be when you grow up?")

"A corpse", I said....

As if I actually had a chance of achieving such a lofty goal.


Kind of sick, I guess, to except the end from the beginning.

How weird, right?

Oh yeah, you have weird cornered on that one.

1. realize death   tick
2. look forward to it as a goal in life, without being suicidally pro-active about it.
Not a goal, a destination, but otherwise .. tick
3. use it as an adviser.
..and as an alternative. Many problems are less stressful when compared to being dead.  When the question "what's the worst that can happen" is answered by death then hey,  that's not so bad.
4.be willing to kill people that want to sell you eternal life, in any of its weird forms.
Not necessary, just don't buy it.

5. if your immaterial "youness"  happens to insist on going on and on; consciously...with memory and sequence...absolutely essential in this particular field of 'existence' , play along.. Eventually the truthier truth will be revealed.
I should pretend to know what the hell that's about but  .. ?

6. How fucking anti-spiritual do you have to be, to get into  life extension hooplah? Or , Colonizing space type crap?
What's spiritual?  Like the universe it's confined entirely to the human mind.  People identify spiritual with supernatural, and some with 'natural' but really it's just an emotional attachment to something or other.  Identifying with something, 'bonding'.  It gives people a feeling of connection with something that doesn't give a fart in a hurricane that they even exist.
A spiritual attachment is differnt to a love connection and there's no big worry about it really.  As long as we recognise that it's all happening between our ears.

7. Is the effort to rescue our planet from bad science , which is what has imperiled us, even worth the effort?

Yes.  We're going to be a long time dead, no need to hurry getting there though.  Things are still happening to entertain us.  The odds against any of us existing are astronomical. I reckono we should milk that piece of luck to the last drop. Right to when it turns sour.

We're alive, we see stuff, hear music, laugh and cry so we're not too bored.  When we've had enough of it we die.  Until we've had enough I see no harm in staying alive.  Up to the individual to weigh the worth of the effort.


8. Why the fuck would stanky make a statement, for the purpose of a bet i had (I won $673.99; thank you) if he wasn't pretty damned grateful and sane?

Beats me

(I have several thousand more posts pre-written for quick display, in case this becomes a debate forum.)

seriously.

I'm happy for the money.

(Some shit has been breaking on the farm...a spell of it, actually.)

Well tell us!!  We want stories!

this thread, hopefully, will be assaulted. Exalted, too.

We can do that.  Both at once if you like.

The ultimate god of science spoke to me...
and it told me that my mission in life was to describe the religious nature of science, that the critical thinkers; atheists ; skeptics are blind to.

Yes, well he would delegate that duty wouldn't he?  Who'd wanna try doing that?  Good luck anyway.
I agree with your comparison of blind faith in science being analogous with blind faith in the supernatural btw. 
Not sure I got that across last time this question flared up.


It's the actual obstacle to another 'parallel universe" of perceptual possibility.

Not heaven by any means.
Just more projection and perception; accumulation of data; interpretation of data; learning about what a very narrow band of data that is...

(I wish i could smell what my dogs do. If I was more stupider, i'd assumify that me feckn' hounds were tards.)

nope.

They are the geniuses of the spectra of energy that matters to us...


I hope to return, to delve into the spiritual nature of science.

My job is to bridge gaps.

Between the spirit and the matter.

this could get sad.

Bring it on, we can take it.
Reply
#4
Stanky says:  "I hope to return, to delve into the spiritual nature of science."

I wish you the best of luck with that.  Smile
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#5
Everything we perceive is vibrational in nature. ..wave lengths of spectra...the vast majority of those, inaccessible to our bio-hardware.

We live in an ephemeral universe, most of which (dark gravity and such) remains far from our comprehension.

For that matter, even the very concept of comprehension is very far from our comprehension.

The curse of evidenced-based science is that it is limited to its 'nuts and bolts' limits...which by its own rules, rules out the vast majority of everything. The rest of the story, let's call it 'spiritual'.

Why the fuck not?

Or, we could call it "Fred".

point being,

The discipline of science, and its clear limits, has polluted the Earth and our minds.
It has tricked us into abandoning the spiritual...even though it has no soothing gels for death or even experiments in awareness altering chemicals. It's a greedy little bitch.

And the sacred 'method'?

It amounts to a nasty religious intolerance of other dimensions.

(I'm allowed to go off on science. I drenched in it.)

It's really stunning what we don't know. It's humbling to know what we don't know.

Science is never humble about what it doesn't know...instead, it tends to be arrogant about what it does know.

It's willing to spray it all over us, and then dodge the point later.

"That wasn't science that invented that carcinogenic pesticide and its delivery system and the technology that enabled the lurid adds that sold it to hapless farmers...science is innocent. It's just a method. Science didn't make the atom bomb. Science didn't provide all the money."

The method is pure as the hexagonal crystals of snowflakes that require a speck of pollutant to form.

Science has become too stupid.
Worse, it has no means to access the spiritual.

(10 free points for Di! At least she seemed interested. Sparky will try to bust my ass, which I enjoy in a kinky-sex kind of way...)

anyway, let's get deep:
Reply
#6
The thing that I find most refreshing is when high profile scientists waxing lyrical about absolutely everything on TV very occasionally  acquire that expression of wonder and awe.  

The one they use when they look earnestly at the questioner, or into the camera, and say "We just don't know."

Those scientists' credibility skyrockets on my impression scale.  They're not pissed off about not knowing, they're enthusiastic about what they don't know.  
They don't write off the unknown as woo. That would be just silly.  They treasure it as an opportunity to push further into their chosen branch of brainwork.  The unknown is a challenge, not a threat.

It's an ingredient that's missing from our recipe.  We/they don't know what to call something we don't know about hence as Stanky points out it may as well be called Fred.   But there are ingredients missing.  The cake may seem okay but if we've never tasted the one made from the full recipe how the hell would we know??  What would we judge our cake, our knowledge against??  How do we have the slightest idea of what's missing??

And I think this where we differ from Sparky's view of science.  
He sees the material universe as it is, cake baked, and is satisfied with that.  
But some of us are curious as cats.  We're greedy nosy bastards who want to know how much we don't know yet.
We are Rumsfeldian heretics from the viewpoint of Sparkyism!   We don't stick to the catechism of Science.

Science and spirituality, and Fred, all reside in the same part of the human brain.
 They are all mental concepts. 
Thinking about something doesn't change it unless we're dead wrong about ESP being a crock of shit. 

Do you believe that Sparky?   Do you think if we talk about science as a mental concept we'll change the universe in some way?

We can only do that in physical, and infinitesimal ways on the grand scale of things. 
I wouldn't worry too much about upsetting the great god of science by comparing it that other great mental exercise, religion.  
It's not the evidence that comes into question it's the way the average human views that evidence which poses the problems.

If people see only that it's 'heresy' to play around with the way science is presented, but okay to rant and rave about how perfectly logical rules of society are presented as religion then they're missing the point.  Both only exist as concepts.  And only when we're awake.
Reply
#7
What stanky said is his usual crock of shit.

Here's something Di asked me: "Thinking about something doesn't change it unless we're dead wrong about ESP being a crock of shit.
Do you believe that Sparky? Do you think if we talk about science as a mental concept we'll change the universe in some way?"

Yes I do think that thinking about stuff doesn't change it. No, talking about science as a mental concept will not change the Universe one iota. If this sort of shit were happening, the change in the Universe would be noticeable. And no such evidence has been detected.

We need to put stanky together with Deeplypacked Chunkhead. They'd get along famously.

Now, any damned fool can compare science with religion: And for the last fucking time I'll tell you why this isn't so. Religion relies on faith without evidence. Science does not. This makes science self-correcting. Religion is not self correcting.

To assert that science is a religion is willful ignorance. Something that stanky seems to enjoy swimming in from time to time. Said it before: He likes to stir the shit.

I'm not apologizing for the products of science, many of them are abhorrent, many more are not. But the abhorrent shit isn't the fault of the method itself, but rather the intention of the shitheads who use it to those ends. Indeed, for good or ill, the scientific method bloody fucking delivers and very well to be sure. Just name me one instance when prayer did the same thing, and keep in mind that I will insist on your evidences. Please don't attempt an answer unless you've really got all your ducks in a row on this one.

It's real clear that I don't buy stanky's point here and he is either unwilling or unable to see mine. I've elaborated here as much as I'm going to on why science is not a religion. It's up to the individual to make up his or her mind on this one.

I wish you success.
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#8
A point of miscommunication here Sparky.

Quote: To assert that science is a religion is willful ignorance.

Can't speak for Stanky but that is not the assertion I made, nor how read Stanky on it.  The way that people view science approaches the way others view religion is what I thought was meant.

The original tenets behind religion were a set of fairly good rules and guidelines for living in a society. 
Others picked them up and wove woo around them.
That doesn't mean the original rules are trash.  

That young people in particular are bestowing science with a kind of reverence, and treating mouthier scientists like rock stars,  and excluding all other discussion that hasn't already been proven is going to lead to the same dead end that religion has.

So again.  No science itself isn't religion.  The way some view it though is.

Neither Stanky nor I are as stupid as you'd like to believe.  I think we know exactly where you're coming from and on material and technical terms you're 100% spot on.  
But why can't the 'unknown possibilities' be discussed without raising your ire??    That part I really don't quite understand, why does it upset you?   Is it just the words used that have other connotations for you? 
 Our flights of fancy are hardly going to drag science down and trash it are they?    We just foolin' round boss, honest.
 
Fear not, Stanky will not lead me into Pixiedom or Bambiism, I doubt he's trying to.  Why would he?

I've never been religious, even as a kid.   I have no belief in the  'spiritual' as it applies to woo. 
 Only as it applies to the mental processes of for better word, curiosity about the unknown.  
I fail to see how your scientists are going to research something about which no discussion may be permitted. 
Do you get what I mean there??  Probably not.  I'm rambling again.

  I'm okay that you don't want to wander into whimsy, that's how you're wired.  You deal in the material and the facts, my interest lies more in the way those facts are perceived and how science itself is perceived by people.

 That's where the fun lies in it to me.  I'm not a scientist, I'm a spectator, I like to watch the crowd, as well as the game. 
 
 We seem to be arguing apples and oranges and I think you're confusing "what ifs"  with with serious belief ... or something. ???
It's okay, it's a common skeptical misconception.  It gets tedious which is why I can't be bothered with ISF.
Skeptics seem to have traded their sense of humour, and of wonder,  for a set of figures.  Pity.

But you do take life a little too seriously sometimes I fear.   Not everything said that you don't approve of due to lack of factual rectitude is an attack on what is beyond scientific dispute.  You don't need to charge in to defend science you know.  We have nothing whatever against science.  Only with the veneration it has gained as something too 'sacred' to question.  That bothers me greatly.  That is where it comes into comparison with how religion is viewed.


Quote: Religion is not self correcting.

Well, yes, actually it is.  They tweak it every now and then to keep the crowd from walking out.
It was changed often and shamelessly when no one could read and write and the only ones who could were the priests and shamans.  They could preach a totally different message over  generations to suit the current politics of the times.   But then they got screwed.
The printing press was invented and they had to write the texts down as a Bible which couldn't be changed once it was in print.   They had to sell it as the 'word of God' but unlike previous times that word was now in hard copy and people didn't just have to take the word of the Priest for what 'God' said.

So no it can't change much now, ...   thanks to science!  [Image: anim_59.gif]


Have a laugh Sparky, and post something entertaining or positive now and then.   Seems we only hear from you when you find something to swat.   You have to be having more fun than we're hearing about, 'fess up.

Stanky makes me laugh, and makes me think, and I don't mind at all that he goes off at a tangent.  Tangents are good, they're new roads to travel.   Got any? [Image: tongue0017.gif] [Image: happy0045.gif]

 
Reply
#9
The religion is Mammonism. Science is just it's bitch.
"Nobody should pin their hopes on a miracle": Vladimir Putin
Reply
#10
(07-12-2017, 03:34 AM)Shiner Wrote:  The religion is Mammonism. Science is just it's bitch.

That is so fucking wrong mate!

Where the hell do you get these ideas??

How many fucking times do I have to tell you??















The apostrophe is not used for the possessive third person*, it's the contraction where the apostrophe is required.

Sheesh.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)