VectorLinux
September 30, 2014, 03:29:31 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Visit our home page for VL info. To search the old message board go to http://vectorlinux.com/forum1. The first VL forum is temporarily offline until we can find a host for it. Thanks for your patience.
 
Now powered by KnowledgeDex.
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Please support VectorLinux!
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Religious Flame War here..  (Read 10223 times)
Vanger
Packager
Vectorite
****
Posts: 118



WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 31, 2007, 06:53:00 am »

I don't think it's ok to use undefined variable "evil".

You should define it prior to use it, or compiler will pass you an error.
Logged

Running silent, running deep
GrannyGeek
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2567


« Reply #31 on: July 31, 2007, 01:59:18 pm »

What makes me believe in some kind of supernatural is that the explanation is no deeper. Mere chemistry doesn't explain how I feel when I listen to Kanda Bongo Man, or the feeling of a leaden pendant on my chest when I reflect on the past and what might have been. To me, some 'other' is the explanation.

If you didn't have a brain, you wouldn't feel anything. I don't think it's necessary to drag in an "other" for what are emotional or seemingly transcendent experiences. And I'm not downgrading emotional or transcendent experiences. We do have them, they're part of being human, but I don't think we have to look beyond our brains and nervous systems for an explanation.
--GrannyGeek
Logged

Registered Linux User #397786

Happily running VL 7 Gold on  a Sempron LE-1300 desktop (2.3 GHz), 4 G RAM,  GeForce 6150 SE onboard graphics and on an HP Pavilion dv7 i7, 6 gigs, Intel 2nd Generation Integrated Graphics Controller
Triarius Fidelis
Vecteloper
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2399


Domine, exaudi vocem meam


WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 31, 2007, 02:15:21 pm »

Mere chemistry doesn't explain how I feel when I listen to Kanda Bongo Man, or the feeling of a leaden pendant on my chest when I reflect on the past and what might have been.
Yes, it does. Sorry Wink . It tries to, at least, if the simulation is not exact enough.
Quote from: Futurama
Robot #2: With all your modern science are you any closer to understanding the mystery of how a robot walks or talks?
Farnsworth: Yes, you idiot. The circuit diagram is right here on the inside of your case.
Robot #2: I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe.

That's not the same. Apparently, no machine can think or feel.

The direct physical actions of the nervous system alone does not explain consciousness (i.e., sense of 'self').
Logged

"Leatherface, you BITCH! Ho Chi Minh, hah hah hah!"

Formerly known as "Epic Fail Guy" and "Döden" in recent months
tomh38
Vectorian
****
Posts: 913



« Reply #33 on: July 31, 2007, 02:20:36 pm »

Quote
If you didn't have a brain, you wouldn't feel anything. I don't think it's necessary to drag in an "other" for what are emotional or seemingly transcendent experiences. And I'm not downgrading emotional or transcendent experiences. We do have them, they're part of being human, but I don't think we have to look beyond our brains and nervous systems for an explanation.

Here's a link to a BBC article about recent research on this very subject:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml
Logged

"I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones." - Linus Torvalds, April 1991
Triarius Fidelis
Vecteloper
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2399


Domine, exaudi vocem meam


WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 31, 2007, 03:27:18 pm »

What makes me believe in some kind of supernatural is that the explanation is no deeper. Mere chemistry doesn't explain how I feel when I listen to Kanda Bongo Man, or the feeling of a leaden pendant on my chest when I reflect on the past and what might have been. To me, some 'other' is the explanation.

If you didn't have a brain, you wouldn't feel anything. I don't think it's necessary to drag in an "other" for what are emotional or seemingly transcendent experiences. And I'm not downgrading emotional or transcendent experiences. We do have them, they're part of being human, but I don't think we have to look beyond our brains and nervous systems for an explanation.
--GrannyGeek

There is no frame of reference for evaluating your own consciousness. To borrow from programming, let me put it this way: the environment around us is a piece of data. Our brains are a 'pointer' to that data, and the art of using that pointer is called science and mathematics. But there is no 'world ** self_ptr' that can genuinely verify the integrity of what we know. As such, part of it is left to religion and philosophy by definition; it is out of the bounds of science.
Logged

"Leatherface, you BITCH! Ho Chi Minh, hah hah hah!"

Formerly known as "Epic Fail Guy" and "Döden" in recent months
Triarius Fidelis
Vecteloper
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2399


Domine, exaudi vocem meam


WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 31, 2007, 03:28:09 pm »

I don't think it's ok to use undefined variable "evil".

You should define it prior to use it, or compiler will pass you an error.

Likewise: "God is real, unless declared integer."
Logged

"Leatherface, you BITCH! Ho Chi Minh, hah hah hah!"

Formerly known as "Epic Fail Guy" and "Döden" in recent months
Triarius Fidelis
Vecteloper
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2399


Domine, exaudi vocem meam


WWW
« Reply #36 on: July 31, 2007, 03:40:43 pm »

Back in high school i did a report on atheism based on George H. Smith's book Atheism: The Case Againt God. It's very well written; i highly recommend it. The teacher, however, was a southern-type religious black lady and she was not amused; in fact, she was upset! She found the whole paper offensive ( she stated it clearly in big red ink ) and i failed that report, and i failed the class.

That's weak. I rarely seek active help from the administration of anything (particularly high schools...) but I would have probably appealed to the school admin first and then the school board if necessary.
Logged

"Leatherface, you BITCH! Ho Chi Minh, hah hah hah!"

Formerly known as "Epic Fail Guy" and "Döden" in recent months
rbistolfi
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2284


« Reply #37 on: July 31, 2007, 04:34:44 pm »

I don't think it's OK to use undefined variable "evil".

You should define it prior to use it, or compiler will pass you an error.

Remember we are using a very weak language, the human one  Wink.

A few topics has been touched here, avoiding -with wisdom and justice- my suggestion to investigate how a discussion about religion should be. So, I will move on over the science vs religion topic, and then to the evil topic.

1. religion vs science. Hanu has a very good point. The very general and higher concepts used by science are not empirical, i.e. they are not scientific. The science delegates to philosophy the job of set and define those concepts. Ask to a scientific what is a thesis and you will find a poor answer. And is OK, because is not science job to define "thesis". What means "freedom"?, right and wrong?, justice? Science cant answer them, philosophy is giving try and religion did and does, but is not clear that those things should be defined by religion, though. But what about this: have we a fate?  or we are absolutely free? what happens when we die? Even philosophy has no advantage over religion here, and many thinkers said that philosophy should live those topics. Religion has no answer about those obscure topics neither. But the words are like lamps, and they drop light over the topics we point at. Religion, the religious words, are a light pointing over the darkest things concerning humans, and different religions drop different kinds of light and even some points to no place (like many oriental ones). As I said, there is no "true religion" but there is some trying to put light over important problems. I am not a *very* religious guy, but I wish to, and I am always paying attention...

2. evil. I think this topic is strongly related to our human condition of mortals, our finite being, and our poor ability for knowledge. We cant measure all the consecuences of our acts, to start. And sometimes we have no choice or no way to avoid to hurt someone (take a look to greeks tragedy for an ilustration about this). That said, is completely clear why religion should give an explanation about evil, since those topics are the essentia of religious thinking. I am not saying our human condition is the cause of evil. But it is the necessary condition for evil existence. Evil can be avoided and every noble person will work to accomplish that task. Our freedom is a task to be done, is not a gift. Here is the first polemic thing. My catholic education says "God made us free". I dont believe that is true. A lot of people has no choice. There is philosophycal reasons to affirm the opposite, and some evidence from sociology and psicology. We can be slaves of our passion, we can have social limitations, we can have not the enough education, we can have very bad luck, we can stay at the wrong place. The fate can put us in very weird situations. Freedom is not a gift, is a prize. A prize for our study, our patience, our prayers. And if there is God, I am sure is a duty.
Of course, this is not an excuse to do the wrong thing, we cant say "sorry, I didnt know about it, I was not free". But we must to know that there is a big job for us: a better world, one with more justice will bring more free people and less "bad perssons".

PS: Is The Headheacher´s eye like our little god, watching what we do?  Cheesy Please, keep looking, I dont want to see anybody offended here, thanks.
Logged

"There is a concept which corrupts and upsets all others. I refer not to Evil, whose limited realm is that of ethics; I refer to the infinite."
Jorge Luis Borges, Avatars of the Tortoise.

--
Jumalauta!!
wcs
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 1144


« Reply #38 on: July 31, 2007, 05:52:00 pm »

Quote
Apparently, no machine can think

Under certain accounts of what thinking is (e.g., thinking as symbol-manipulation) then (some) machines can think.
Logged
Triarius Fidelis
Vecteloper
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2399


Domine, exaudi vocem meam


WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 31, 2007, 06:05:12 pm »

Quote
Apparently, no machine can think

Under certain accounts of what thinking is (e.g., thinking as symbol-manipulation) then (some) machines can think.

But not independently can they 'think', and only on specific tasks...like chess. Everything they do is simply a better (or at least faster) way of us doing maths than pencil and paper, and otherwise not especially different.
Logged

"Leatherface, you BITCH! Ho Chi Minh, hah hah hah!"

Formerly known as "Epic Fail Guy" and "Döden" in recent months
gacl
Vectorite
***
Posts: 218



« Reply #40 on: July 31, 2007, 07:48:12 pm »

I'm convinced that HAL 9000 and Terminator scenarios will happen in the future ( maybe not as dramatic ) because i think that conciousness is a "sum of parts". Sort of like pointillism. One dot doesn't mean much, but as you add more dots a bigger picture starts to emerge. Likewise, an amoeba has a very limited level of conciousness, a slug is higher in the scale, then a dog, monkeys, and at the higher level, humans. There are more questions, though. Are there infinite levels of conciousness? Are there different types of conciousness? What if we could download ourselves to a machine and live forever? Would we go mad if we lived forever since we're adapted for a short life-span?
Logged

“Our very lives depend on the ethics of strangers, and most of us are always strangers to other people.” -- Bill Moyers
Vanger
Packager
Vectorite
****
Posts: 118



WWW
« Reply #41 on: August 01, 2007, 01:51:25 am »

That's not the same. Apparently, no machine can think or feel.
Yet.

Quote
The direct physical actions of the nervous system alone does not explain consciousness (i.e., sense of 'self').
Yet.


The very general and higher concepts used by science are not empirical, i.e. they are not scientific.
They are.

Quote
Ask to a scientific what is a thesis and you will find a poor answer.
Thesis is a verbose or written expression of an assumption or idea.

Quote
And is OK, because is not science job to define "thesis".
No, it is science's job to define all instruments it uses. Including meaning of words too.

Quote
What means "freedom"?, right and wrong?, justice?
"Freedom" is an illogical and purely subjective word, meaning the non-existance of barriers for one's deeds or self-improvement. Different people make different excemptions from this ultimate version, such as "as long as freedom doesn't hurt other's freedom", "as long as you respect copyright", "as long as you support bringing freedom to other countries", etc.

Quote
Science cant answer them, philosophy is giving try and religion did and does
What means WinAPI? Linux can't implement it, ReactOS is giving a try and Windows did and does implement it.

Quote
But what about this: have we a fate?  or we are absolutely free? what happens when we die?
Is BSOD a divine intervention? Viruses - are we doomed to suffer them? See, I can ask questions like this too.

Quote
Religion, the religious words, are a light pointing over the darkest things concerning humans, and different religions drop different kinds of light and even some points to no place (like many oriental ones).
No, they just simulate it. You can't be sure that this light shows real things, not simulated. And different "lights" show different things on the same place, you know.

Quote
As I said, there is no "true religion" but there is some trying to put light over important problems. I am not a *very* religious guy, but I wish to, and I am always paying attention...
They are trying, but the have no basis. Except of belief in some words.

Quote
Evil can be avoided and every noble person will work to accomplish that task.
What is evil to avoid to?
Logged

Running silent, running deep
Triarius Fidelis
Vecteloper
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2399


Domine, exaudi vocem meam


WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 01, 2007, 02:34:28 am »

The very general and higher concepts used by science are not empirical, i.e. they are not scientific.
They are.

rbistolfi and I probably have something like Tarski's indefinability theorem in mind, except applied to science. IOW, scientific truth cannot be defined in its own terms, though one can certainly use it to support assertions like 'gravity acts on bodies of mass' and 'nature lets certain species survive and others perish'.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2007, 02:37:32 am by hanumizzle » Logged

"Leatherface, you BITCH! Ho Chi Minh, hah hah hah!"

Formerly known as "Epic Fail Guy" and "Döden" in recent months
Triarius Fidelis
Vecteloper
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2399


Domine, exaudi vocem meam


WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 01, 2007, 02:54:17 am »

Quote
Evil can be avoided and every noble person will work to accomplish that task.
What is evil to avoid to?

Good point, Vanger. 'Good' and 'evil', as well as 'humanity' have become only vaguely meaningful terms to me. Generally, I only describe things as 'good' or 'bad' when they are objects of art or science. (e.g., "most Perl code looks terrible")
Logged

"Leatherface, you BITCH! Ho Chi Minh, hah hah hah!"

Formerly known as "Epic Fail Guy" and "Döden" in recent months
rbistolfi
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2284


« Reply #44 on: August 01, 2007, 06:59:15 am »

The very general and higher concepts used by science are not empirical, i.e. they are not scientific.
They are.

rbistolfi and I probably have something like Tarski's indefinability theorem in mind, except applied to science. IOW, scientific truth cannot be defined in its own terms, though one can certainly use it to support assertions like 'gravity acts on bodies of mass' and 'nature lets certain species survive and others perish'.

LOL, exactly. Vanger: They are not empirical, show me a photo of a inductive jump  Wink. And in a tarskian sense, they are not members of the scientific language, they are over it in a superior logical level, they are science´s meta-language.


Quote
Ask to a scientific what is a thesis and you will find a poor answer.
Thesis is a verbose or written expression of an assumption or idea.

You are right about the assumption, but generally speaking, scientifics known how to use those words, but they have no deep understanding about their conceptual tools. That is because they dont take the epistemological course at college, that is because they dont have to.

Quote
Quote
And is OK, because is not science job to define "thesis".
No, it is science's job to define all instruments it uses. Including meaning of words too.

That is an ideal. That task was proposed (to reduce every concept to an empirical one) but we never advance to the goal. That is because cant be done, but some analytics *Putnam* cant accept a defeat.

Quote
Quote
What means "freedom"?, right and wrong?, justice?
"Freedom" is an illogical and purely subjective word, meaning the non-existance of barriers for one's deeds or self-improvement. Different people make different excemptions from this ultimate version, such as "as long as freedom doesn't hurt other's freedom", "as long as you respect copyright", "as long as you support bringing freedom to other countries", etc.

There is no such thing like a subjective word. The language is public in essentia. This important: every word points to something and is for someone. There is nothing like a private language, the true about myself, etc. And if you were right about the word "freedom" that doesnt implies that that investigation should be droped. "Some things are subjectives" well, may be, that doesnt mean there is nothing to say about them. In your definition there is some non-scientific terms, and philosophy has the job to investigate them, i.e. "subject". The religion can jump in, because is a non empirical topic, with no definitive "truth" to close the speech about it. All we can do is make a speech to put some light over it. Religion is that kind of speech. I prefer philosophy almost all the time, but religion is a genuine approach to the question.

Quote
Quote
Science cant answer them, philosophy is giving try and religion did and does
What means WinAPI? Linux can't implement it, ReactOS is giving a try and Windows did and does implement it.

Sorry, I dont get it. What I was trying to say is this: there is some questions which -given the kind of the problem- cant be answered by science. This is because they are not empirical, but still a genuine problem. Another reason is they are in a field that has no "true" and "false" in a scientific sense. There is nothing to compare with, there is no possible contrast at all.
Philosophy, is trying, and always will be, because this discussion will be no closed because of the nature of the question, is open by essentia. There is no definitive truth about this.
Religion, mediated by faith, has closed the discussion, they have a "truth" (not in a scientific way, not in a philosophycal way) in which they believe.

Quote
Quote
But what about this: have we a fate?  or we are absolutely free? what happens when we die?
Is BSOD a divine intervention? Viruses - are we doomed to suffer them? See, I can ask questions like this too.

Sorry, you lost me again. May be you are right, we are doomed to viruses. Mines are more general and they implies an answer to your questions.

Quote
Quote
Religion, the religious words, are a light pointing over the darkest things concerning humans, and different religions drop different kinds of light and even some points to no place (like many oriental ones).
No, they just simulate it. You can't be sure that this light shows real things, not simulated. And different "lights" show different things on the same place, you know.

Taken. There is no other thing but that. But, Why you call it a simulation? If the only thing is the simulated one, we cant call it a simulation properly. Every language-game works in the same way, including the science one. The answer we obtain depends on the form of the question.

Quote
Quote
As I said, there is no "true religion" but there is some trying to put light over important problems. I am not a *very* religious guy, but I wish to, and I am always paying attention...
They are trying, but the have no basis. Except of belief in some words.

They dont need one. We do metaphysic because we do. We have no choice. We make an assumption about words just like the Scientific assume a ceteris paribus clause, or a inductive jump, or a logical structure which is based on an axiomatic system built over the assumption of mathematical induction. That would be an assumption2!!!

Quote
Quote
Evil can be avoided and every noble person will work to accomplish that task.
What is evil to avoid to?
[/quote]

That would be a freak killing 30.000 persons, myself talkin hard to my brother, a guy breaking a perfect vl install, etc. I have my doubts over the term too, as I said in my post, a lot of conditions work as an attenuation. That doesnt mean we cant agree in a few things to be avoided.
Sorry for the long post  Grin

PS: When I said this discussion could be productive, I was mwaning this, thanks Vanger Wink
« Last Edit: August 01, 2007, 07:07:10 am by rbistolfi » Logged

"There is a concept which corrupts and upsets all others. I refer not to Evil, whose limited realm is that of ethics; I refer to the infinite."
Jorge Luis Borges, Avatars of the Tortoise.

--
Jumalauta!!
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!