https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
Interviews;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN1vEfqHGro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU
Thursday, August 10, 2017
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Australia's Human Rights Abuse: Governments Legalise Human Consumption (prostitution and commercial objectification)
For we are young and... tolerant.
The following complaint was made to humanrights.gov.au. Now is the time to stand up for your freedom. What Australia is being offered is the protection of dehumanisation and the institutionalisation of the government's beliefs. This is a dangerous combination which historically has been restricted to totalitarian states.
Summary:
Failure of the Australian Government to protect the rights of its citizens - overseeing the legalisation of prostitution in Australian states and territories (e.g. Prostitution Act 1979). Failure to defend Australians against dehumanisation in the form of sexual objectification in the media.
Explain Violation:
The Australian Government has failed to protect the human rights of its citizens. Where other countries (e.g. Sweden) have recognised the vulnerability of its citizens to sexual exploitation and therefore banned the sexual consumption of its citizens (their purchase), Australia has done nothing while claiming it stands for Human Rights. The Australian government has acted in gross negligence. The Australian government has overseen the legalisation of prostitution in Australian states and territories (e.g. NSW Prostitution Act 1979). It has failed to provide alternate, humane solutions to identified problems facing marginalised members of its society (who have psychological and economic difficulties, often having suffered sexual abuse prior to having their bodies sold for the first time). There has also been a complete failure to defend Australians against dehumanisation in the form of sexual objectification in the media. The psychological effects of tolerating the presentation of humans (including Australian citizens) as sexual objects for consumption have not been properly investigated. Until this has been completed (and the scientific data is in order), all forms of media and performance promoting the sexual objectification of human beings in Australian society must be outlawed.
Recommended Actions:
The purchase of "sexual services" (prostitution) should be banned immediately across Australia in line with internationally recognised movements towards integrated human rights protection (Sweden should be taken as a case study). Sexual objectification in the media and performance should be outlawed until complete scientific studies have been conducted as to its effects on Australian citizens (on both those dehumanised, and those experiencing such dehumanisation).
Following this, there should be an immediate move to reevaluate Australia's interpretation of Human Rights, and its primacy over civil rights. The Australian Human Rights Commission should make an effort to study the Australian National Anthem (in particular the notion of being "free"), and find in it clues towards the importance of freedom over good intended regulation that does not concern human rights. The Australian Human Rights Commission should also study the Australian Constitution, in particular the preamble ("The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth..."), in order to rediscover the limitations and roles of the Australian Government. They should immediately recognise that its roles do not include the enforcement of belief systems on the Australian population (regarding the nature of sexuality, religion, politics, age, disability or otherwise), else we risk establishment of a totalitarian state. With the protections of our citizens against dehumanisation, it is proposed that the desired outcome of universal respect will come of its own accord.
Follow-up communication:
... It should be evident that human rights are intrinsic: they are both absolute and eternal. They are completely independent of what a people vote for or what a legal system upholds. Some of the greatest crimes in history are committed when we do nothing. I suggest that the Australian government (and their Human Rights commission) act of its own initiative to solve the problems I (and other nations) have identified, irrespective of their current legal status...
Statistics:
7.9% of men and 19.7% of women had suffered some form of sexual abuse prior to the age of 18.
The prevalence of child sexual abuse in community and student samples: A meta-analysis
Noemí Peredaa, Georgina Guilerab, Maria Fornsa, Juana Gómez-Benitob
Clinical Psychology Review, Volume 29, Issue 4, June 2009, Pages 328-338
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735809000245
33.6% of girls, 15.9% of boys had suffered some form of sexual abuse prior to the age of 16. (for extreme cases: 12% of women, 4% of men). There was a consistent 30% chance of child sexual abuse for females over 40 years (1960 to 2000)
Is child sexual abuse declining? Evidence from a population-based survey of men and women in Australia
Michael P. Dunnea, David M. Purdie b, Michelle D. Cooka, Frances M. Boyle c, Jake M. Najmand
Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (2003) 141-152
28% of girls and 9% of boys. Over 90% of abusers were men, the girls experiencing mainly heterosexual advances. 24% of abusers were strangers compared with 76% known to the children.
The prevalence and nature of child sexual abuse in Australia.
Goldman, Ronald J.; Goldman, Juliette D
Australian Journal of Sex, Marriage & Family, Vol 9(2), May 1988, 94-106.
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1989-19287-001
Which part of the Australian Human Rights Commission is dealing with these statistics? What commission has been established to resolve this problem?
Does the Australian Government think that their failure to protect Australian citizens against dehumanisation has not resulted in child abuse? What about all of the child abuse Australia has outsourced to the third world? What about all of the Australian Government employees who use young women and pay for their sexual objectification?
Get real. Take action. Deal with it.
The following complaint was made to humanrights.gov.au. Now is the time to stand up for your freedom. What Australia is being offered is the protection of dehumanisation and the institutionalisation of the government's beliefs. This is a dangerous combination which historically has been restricted to totalitarian states.
Summary:
Failure of the Australian Government to protect the rights of its citizens - overseeing the legalisation of prostitution in Australian states and territories (e.g. Prostitution Act 1979). Failure to defend Australians against dehumanisation in the form of sexual objectification in the media.
Explain Violation:
The Australian Government has failed to protect the human rights of its citizens. Where other countries (e.g. Sweden) have recognised the vulnerability of its citizens to sexual exploitation and therefore banned the sexual consumption of its citizens (their purchase), Australia has done nothing while claiming it stands for Human Rights. The Australian government has acted in gross negligence. The Australian government has overseen the legalisation of prostitution in Australian states and territories (e.g. NSW Prostitution Act 1979). It has failed to provide alternate, humane solutions to identified problems facing marginalised members of its society (who have psychological and economic difficulties, often having suffered sexual abuse prior to having their bodies sold for the first time). There has also been a complete failure to defend Australians against dehumanisation in the form of sexual objectification in the media. The psychological effects of tolerating the presentation of humans (including Australian citizens) as sexual objects for consumption have not been properly investigated. Until this has been completed (and the scientific data is in order), all forms of media and performance promoting the sexual objectification of human beings in Australian society must be outlawed.
Recommended Actions:
The purchase of "sexual services" (prostitution) should be banned immediately across Australia in line with internationally recognised movements towards integrated human rights protection (Sweden should be taken as a case study). Sexual objectification in the media and performance should be outlawed until complete scientific studies have been conducted as to its effects on Australian citizens (on both those dehumanised, and those experiencing such dehumanisation).
Following this, there should be an immediate move to reevaluate Australia's interpretation of Human Rights, and its primacy over civil rights. The Australian Human Rights Commission should make an effort to study the Australian National Anthem (in particular the notion of being "free"), and find in it clues towards the importance of freedom over good intended regulation that does not concern human rights. The Australian Human Rights Commission should also study the Australian Constitution, in particular the preamble ("The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth..."), in order to rediscover the limitations and roles of the Australian Government. They should immediately recognise that its roles do not include the enforcement of belief systems on the Australian population (regarding the nature of sexuality, religion, politics, age, disability or otherwise), else we risk establishment of a totalitarian state. With the protections of our citizens against dehumanisation, it is proposed that the desired outcome of universal respect will come of its own accord.
Follow-up communication:
... It should be evident that human rights are intrinsic: they are both absolute and eternal. They are completely independent of what a people vote for or what a legal system upholds. Some of the greatest crimes in history are committed when we do nothing. I suggest that the Australian government (and their Human Rights commission) act of its own initiative to solve the problems I (and other nations) have identified, irrespective of their current legal status...
Statistics:
7.9% of men and 19.7% of women had suffered some form of sexual abuse prior to the age of 18.
The prevalence of child sexual abuse in community and student samples: A meta-analysis
Noemí Peredaa, Georgina Guilerab, Maria Fornsa, Juana Gómez-Benitob
Clinical Psychology Review, Volume 29, Issue 4, June 2009, Pages 328-338
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735809000245
33.6% of girls, 15.9% of boys had suffered some form of sexual abuse prior to the age of 16. (for extreme cases: 12% of women, 4% of men). There was a consistent 30% chance of child sexual abuse for females over 40 years (1960 to 2000)
Is child sexual abuse declining? Evidence from a population-based survey of men and women in Australia
Michael P. Dunnea, David M. Purdie b, Michelle D. Cooka, Frances M. Boyle c, Jake M. Najmand
Child Abuse & Neglect 27 (2003) 141-152
28% of girls and 9% of boys. Over 90% of abusers were men, the girls experiencing mainly heterosexual advances. 24% of abusers were strangers compared with 76% known to the children.
The prevalence and nature of child sexual abuse in Australia.
Goldman, Ronald J.; Goldman, Juliette D
Australian Journal of Sex, Marriage & Family, Vol 9(2), May 1988, 94-106.
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1989-19287-001
Which part of the Australian Human Rights Commission is dealing with these statistics? What commission has been established to resolve this problem?
Does the Australian Government think that their failure to protect Australian citizens against dehumanisation has not resulted in child abuse? What about all of the child abuse Australia has outsourced to the third world? What about all of the Australian Government employees who use young women and pay for their sexual objectification?
Get real. Take action. Deal with it.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Lori Ann and Corey Cole: Rogue to Redemption
Lori Ann Cole and Corey Cole, the creators of the Quest for Glory series, a ground breaking adventure and RP game from the early 90s, are great supporters of critical analysis.
See some of my comments on their forums;
Global Energy (www.theschoolforheroes.com/questlog/784/global-warming-–-what-if-we’re-wrong/#comment-1298);
Our response here should be independent of the reality of climate change and its human influence.
The fossil fuel supply is limited. Currently, it is the only source which can fuel jet aircraft (based on its high chemical energy to mass ratio), meaning it will retain a high military value for some time. In a few hundred years fission fuels required for 20th century nuclear power plants will become rarer (uranium), meaning the only long term option is nuclear fusion (hydrogen/helium). Fortunately our supplies are plentiful. For early generation fusion, this will constitute Deuterium (extractable from sea water) and Tritium (breedable in fusion reactors), and then Helium 3 (requiring potentially moon harvesting – although providing an even cleaner alternative). It will be thousands of years until either sources are depleted.
With respect to environmental safety; in all designs, there is no probability of melt down (stopping the reaction basically involves switching off the power). The radioactive half lives of first generation fusion power by-products are orders of magnitude less than that used in fission power (they naturally decay x1000 faster, meaning they do not stay radioactive for thousands of years). Hydrogen bombs use the same process, which for reference are 1000 times as powerful as an atomic bomb (uranium/fission), like that which was dropped on Hiroshima. The main task of scientists today is to harness nuclear fusion in a controlled manner (effectively creating a star on earth). The two main projects working on this at the moment are ITER (based upon a Russion Tokamak design / magnetic confinement), and LIFE (laser inertial confinement, promoted by the US at the National Ignition Facility).
Atomic hydrogen constitutes 90% of the visible universe, and helium nearly 10%. Fusion is the primary source of energy in the universe. Massive stars are kept from internally imploding as a result of nuclear fusion: all stars 30% or greater than our own would collapse and become black holes [/neutron stars], instead of becoming shining power plants for billions of years. In the case of our sun, nearly 50% of the age of the universe. It heats the earth to provide wind and wave power, and of course feeds solar cells directly. Heavy elements including those used in fission power plants are known to be the by-products of supernovae, and therefore a result of nuclear fusion. Elements heavier than iron actually take energy to join, and give energy when split – the opposite of fusion. Perhaps tidal energy is an to the rule exception, but even that is affecting the moon’s orbit.
Right now, the world is governed by those who think the 1960s was the peak of human ingenuity and scientific progress. If human climate change is both real and negative, then I couldn’t imagine a worst state of public opinion (mass conformity to a futile ideology). Individual efforts in 1st world countries are not going to solve the problem (apart from making us feel good – hence the morality). Wind mills are not the solution. There is a reason people don’t use “renewable” energy – economics. One has to solve the economic problem; making it both viable and competitive. This means funding research and education.
Links:
http://www.iter.org/
https://lasers.llnl.gov/
Personal Freedom (www.theschoolforheroes.com/questlog/1583/debate-and-decide/#comment-1926);
Maybe this is why their games are so good- because they don’t always share the same concerns as each other and are able to represent/integrate their synthesis. The truth of any matter is able to address all concerns...
Regarding the classification of personal freedom. The fundamental issue is not abortion/birth control; it is both rape and why women are assumed the burden to control pregnancy themselves. Interestingly enough, there is a common basis – and it is not human nature, however suggestible the subconscious may prefer to remain. Rather it is artificial – a by-product of misrepresentation called objectification. It is not evolutionarily advantageous for a woman to admit failure in a man. Neither is it evolutionarily advantageous for a man to concede weakness or damage, and so women are left with the result. Hence the common conclusion that these issues (which represent the mitigation of the result) belong to women and are framed under such terms, despite the fact their implications obviously go beyond mature female organisms.
...continued (www.theschoolforheroes.com/questlog/1583/debate-and-decide/#comment-2210);
I didn't have any problems with the article as it was obviously bi-directionally biased. That is actually what I found so constructive about it.
Have people given up trying to articulate the division which besets them? Or perhaps they are such great believers in sexual equality (as long as they can retain their fantasies) that they have dismissed all purpose in a conversation that extends to the opposite gender.
To say that people are against women or exclusively homosexually orientated individuals is absurd, and am surprised anyone has fallen for that semantic trap. And this is exclusive homosexuality albeit whose representation in the animal kingdom has yet to discovered- if indeed it is a natural phenomenon. It is interesting that republicans have the dignity to take such nonsense in their stride - rather than declare an equally absurd war on baby girls. They just don't believe that truth is democratic.
Yet any discrepancies in conclusion (or vote as the case may be) signifies a real and present information gap. Why on earth have we failed to address this? What is causing people to feel threatened? Is it perhaps that they have failed to identify the basics- and they are trying to solve the inevitable consequences thereof without realising that their mission is impossible? That any human gain in one hand will result in the sacrifice of another? Is it not that in mutual error we have lost trust in the other? That is what happens when you start to tolerate dehumanisation.
It is fair to say that when a nation classifies the objectification of a human being as artistic freedom of expression they have given up on logic entirely.
They currently have a Kickstarter campaign going for game development on Hero-U(niversity): Rogue to Redemption.
See some of my comments on their forums;
Global Energy (www.theschoolforheroes.com/questlog/784/global-warming-–-what-if-we’re-wrong/#comment-1298);
Our response here should be independent of the reality of climate change and its human influence.
The fossil fuel supply is limited. Currently, it is the only source which can fuel jet aircraft (based on its high chemical energy to mass ratio), meaning it will retain a high military value for some time. In a few hundred years fission fuels required for 20th century nuclear power plants will become rarer (uranium), meaning the only long term option is nuclear fusion (hydrogen/helium). Fortunately our supplies are plentiful. For early generation fusion, this will constitute Deuterium (extractable from sea water) and Tritium (breedable in fusion reactors), and then Helium 3 (requiring potentially moon harvesting – although providing an even cleaner alternative). It will be thousands of years until either sources are depleted.
With respect to environmental safety; in all designs, there is no probability of melt down (stopping the reaction basically involves switching off the power). The radioactive half lives of first generation fusion power by-products are orders of magnitude less than that used in fission power (they naturally decay x1000 faster, meaning they do not stay radioactive for thousands of years). Hydrogen bombs use the same process, which for reference are 1000 times as powerful as an atomic bomb (uranium/fission), like that which was dropped on Hiroshima. The main task of scientists today is to harness nuclear fusion in a controlled manner (effectively creating a star on earth). The two main projects working on this at the moment are ITER (based upon a Russion Tokamak design / magnetic confinement), and LIFE (laser inertial confinement, promoted by the US at the National Ignition Facility).
Atomic hydrogen constitutes 90% of the visible universe, and helium nearly 10%. Fusion is the primary source of energy in the universe. Massive stars are kept from internally imploding as a result of nuclear fusion: all stars 30% or greater than our own would collapse and become black holes [/neutron stars], instead of becoming shining power plants for billions of years. In the case of our sun, nearly 50% of the age of the universe. It heats the earth to provide wind and wave power, and of course feeds solar cells directly. Heavy elements including those used in fission power plants are known to be the by-products of supernovae, and therefore a result of nuclear fusion. Elements heavier than iron actually take energy to join, and give energy when split – the opposite of fusion. Perhaps tidal energy is an to the rule exception, but even that is affecting the moon’s orbit.
Right now, the world is governed by those who think the 1960s was the peak of human ingenuity and scientific progress. If human climate change is both real and negative, then I couldn’t imagine a worst state of public opinion (mass conformity to a futile ideology). Individual efforts in 1st world countries are not going to solve the problem (apart from making us feel good – hence the morality). Wind mills are not the solution. There is a reason people don’t use “renewable” energy – economics. One has to solve the economic problem; making it both viable and competitive. This means funding research and education.
Links:
http://www.iter.org/
https://lasers.llnl.gov/
Personal Freedom (www.theschoolforheroes.com/questlog/1583/debate-and-decide/#comment-1926);
Maybe this is why their games are so good- because they don’t always share the same concerns as each other and are able to represent/integrate their synthesis. The truth of any matter is able to address all concerns...
Regarding the classification of personal freedom. The fundamental issue is not abortion/birth control; it is both rape and why women are assumed the burden to control pregnancy themselves. Interestingly enough, there is a common basis – and it is not human nature, however suggestible the subconscious may prefer to remain. Rather it is artificial – a by-product of misrepresentation called objectification. It is not evolutionarily advantageous for a woman to admit failure in a man. Neither is it evolutionarily advantageous for a man to concede weakness or damage, and so women are left with the result. Hence the common conclusion that these issues (which represent the mitigation of the result) belong to women and are framed under such terms, despite the fact their implications obviously go beyond mature female organisms.
...continued (www.theschoolforheroes.com/questlog/1583/debate-and-decide/#comment-2210);
I didn't have any problems with the article as it was obviously bi-directionally biased. That is actually what I found so constructive about it.
Have people given up trying to articulate the division which besets them? Or perhaps they are such great believers in sexual equality (as long as they can retain their fantasies) that they have dismissed all purpose in a conversation that extends to the opposite gender.
To say that people are against women or exclusively homosexually orientated individuals is absurd, and am surprised anyone has fallen for that semantic trap. And this is exclusive homosexuality albeit whose representation in the animal kingdom has yet to discovered- if indeed it is a natural phenomenon. It is interesting that republicans have the dignity to take such nonsense in their stride - rather than declare an equally absurd war on baby girls. They just don't believe that truth is democratic.
Yet any discrepancies in conclusion (or vote as the case may be) signifies a real and present information gap. Why on earth have we failed to address this? What is causing people to feel threatened? Is it perhaps that they have failed to identify the basics- and they are trying to solve the inevitable consequences thereof without realising that their mission is impossible? That any human gain in one hand will result in the sacrifice of another? Is it not that in mutual error we have lost trust in the other? That is what happens when you start to tolerate dehumanisation.
It is fair to say that when a nation classifies the objectification of a human being as artistic freedom of expression they have given up on logic entirely.
They currently have a Kickstarter campaign going for game development on Hero-U(niversity): Rogue to Redemption.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
War on women: the final solution
Surely there are better ways to solve problems than striving to terminate all inconvenient less-than-human life forms?
Yet what is anyone actually doing to solve anything? Republican or Democrat? These are serious problems in and of themselves;
a) psychological abuse
b) physical assault
c) unintentional relations
Outsourcing our financial and sexual problems to third world countries doesn't count.
As men and women's mutual liberation from labour is the result of technology, so is our freedom to choose our role in society.
Yet movement forward (however circumstantial the terminology) does not consist of mass dehumanisation*, and cannot come at the expense of this.
One cannot mentally write-off their opportunity of ever being respected out of free will. Are women still being paid to be silent?
*objectification
Yet what is anyone actually doing to solve anything? Republican or Democrat? These are serious problems in and of themselves;
a) psychological abuse
b) physical assault
c) unintentional relations
Outsourcing our financial and sexual problems to third world countries doesn't count.
As men and women's mutual liberation from labour is the result of technology, so is our freedom to choose our role in society.
Yet movement forward (however circumstantial the terminology) does not consist of mass dehumanisation*, and cannot come at the expense of this.
One cannot mentally write-off their opportunity of ever being respected out of free will. Are women still being paid to be silent?
*objectification
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
Natural Science and Philosophy
Some comments posted recently;
New Humanist (http://newhumanist.org.uk/2841/ending-the-wedge);
Agreed. But the problem is unfortunately on both sides. We need to separate philosophy from natural science.
Materialism is a philosophical position, and not a scientific one. Let's state our terms and run with them. Clearly.
Here are some starting points for those concerned;
- There is no empirical evidence for two universes, let alone an infinite number of them. Furthermore, if another universe is non-observable by definition, then it can and will never constitute a scientific hypothesis. There are thousand year old debates regarding first cause, predictive power, observed-to-predicted-number-of-elements-ratio; all far more advanced than your average "cosmology" pass off.
- don't down play zombie arguments. Just because we have no less reason to believe another person than ourselves on this matter, doesn't mean that the logical possibility is beyond rational thought. Find a monkey that doesn't believe in itself. An evolutionary by-product to benefit our survival perhaps - but we all believe in it - yes believe.
- observed probability in nature is not equivalent to "random chance" (this is a subtle but real philosophical position) - and we certainly don't have any "random chance" without law - we have zero chance
- we have no reason to accept the scientific method applied without first accepting non-physical abstract objects (logic included) - again this speaks against philosophical manipulation of scientific theory that claims to be able to prove otherwise (circles are real)
And for the people who probably won't read this blog;
- The book doesn't say it all happened at once
- and I would swear it mentions something about a light, and an alternative cosmological principle - the modern one
I like to think that if you didn't have philosophical absurdity paraded as science, then you wouldn't have "creationism".
The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/08/how-the-higgs-boson-posits-a-new-story-of-our-creation.html);
Science and Philosophy;
: Excuse us, but the author is quite mistaken. This is science not philosophy.
:: Philosophy is just science for people too lazy to do experiments and research.
::: No science relies upon philosophical presuppositions like causality, logic, and the empirical method (it cannot hypothesise regarding that which cannot at least in theory be disproved by observation).
Paranormal Activity;
If paranormal activity could be documented in a repeatable fashion, then it wouldn't be paranormal - it would constitute scientific data.
But you raise an interesting question regarding that which cannot be confirmed by empirical method. Is sense of self only physical (an evolved belief to benefit our survival), or does our brain's belief in itself as an observer correspond (map) to something else beyond neural activity? If you think this is a silly question, then add it to your presupposition list.
Mythology;
Monkeys don't wake up in the morning and decide to wear ties. Things take time. Generally the reason this has involved religious belief, is the same as that why we prefer not be monkeys. Even the Greeks came to their systems of values in this way. Mythology laid the groundwork for modern civilization. Yet even civilization is not everything it is cut out to be.
"God" as a definition;
"God" is generally defined as the cause of the universe, or the "first cause" as Aristotle put it. I believe he claimed an infinite regression of causes implies there is no cause.
"Why We Believe in Gods" - Andy Thomson - American Atheists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg);
The physical development of mind and its corresponding time scales, being viewed from a human perspective, are otherwise irrelevant and cannot be used to judge/negate intentionality in creation/evolution. The 'hijacking' of such evolutionary developments [by religion] is therefore quite possible. Yet human civilisation and culture (including the speaker's tie) are perhaps more profound examples of the hijacking of evolved cognitive processes, including in particular those related to our sense of self
New Humanist (http://newhumanist.org.uk/2841/ending-the-wedge);
Agreed. But the problem is unfortunately on both sides. We need to separate philosophy from natural science.
Materialism is a philosophical position, and not a scientific one. Let's state our terms and run with them. Clearly.
Here are some starting points for those concerned;
- There is no empirical evidence for two universes, let alone an infinite number of them. Furthermore, if another universe is non-observable by definition, then it can and will never constitute a scientific hypothesis. There are thousand year old debates regarding first cause, predictive power, observed-to-predicted-number-of-elements-ratio; all far more advanced than your average "cosmology" pass off.
- don't down play zombie arguments. Just because we have no less reason to believe another person than ourselves on this matter, doesn't mean that the logical possibility is beyond rational thought. Find a monkey that doesn't believe in itself. An evolutionary by-product to benefit our survival perhaps - but we all believe in it - yes believe.
- observed probability in nature is not equivalent to "random chance" (this is a subtle but real philosophical position) - and we certainly don't have any "random chance" without law - we have zero chance
- we have no reason to accept the scientific method applied without first accepting non-physical abstract objects (logic included) - again this speaks against philosophical manipulation of scientific theory that claims to be able to prove otherwise (circles are real)
And for the people who probably won't read this blog;
- The book doesn't say it all happened at once
- and I would swear it mentions something about a light, and an alternative cosmological principle - the modern one
I like to think that if you didn't have philosophical absurdity paraded as science, then you wouldn't have "creationism".
The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/08/how-the-higgs-boson-posits-a-new-story-of-our-creation.html);
Science and Philosophy;
: Excuse us, but the author is quite mistaken. This is science not philosophy.
:: Philosophy is just science for people too lazy to do experiments and research.
::: No science relies upon philosophical presuppositions like causality, logic, and the empirical method (it cannot hypothesise regarding that which cannot at least in theory be disproved by observation).
Paranormal Activity;
If paranormal activity could be documented in a repeatable fashion, then it wouldn't be paranormal - it would constitute scientific data.
But you raise an interesting question regarding that which cannot be confirmed by empirical method. Is sense of self only physical (an evolved belief to benefit our survival), or does our brain's belief in itself as an observer correspond (map) to something else beyond neural activity? If you think this is a silly question, then add it to your presupposition list.
Mythology;
Monkeys don't wake up in the morning and decide to wear ties. Things take time. Generally the reason this has involved religious belief, is the same as that why we prefer not be monkeys. Even the Greeks came to their systems of values in this way. Mythology laid the groundwork for modern civilization. Yet even civilization is not everything it is cut out to be.
"God" as a definition;
"God" is generally defined as the cause of the universe, or the "first cause" as Aristotle put it. I believe he claimed an infinite regression of causes implies there is no cause.
"Why We Believe in Gods" - Andy Thomson - American Atheists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg);
The physical development of mind and its corresponding time scales, being viewed from a human perspective, are otherwise irrelevant and cannot be used to judge/negate intentionality in creation/evolution. The 'hijacking' of such evolutionary developments [by religion] is therefore quite possible. Yet human civilisation and culture (including the speaker's tie) are perhaps more profound examples of the hijacking of evolved cognitive processes, including in particular those related to our sense of self
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)