9
   

Atheists, smarter than religious people

 
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 11:37 am
Ok, almost got it. I still don't quite understand what you mean by nesting being open or closed.

Intuitively I am inclined to say that open nesting is a case in which changes in a sub system reverberate into the "higher" and "lower" systems the sub system is a part of, and closed nesting is the opposite.

But also, intuitively, I believe that that is way wrong... Confused
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 12:14 pm
Okay....very simplistically.....it seems that at the extreme ends of nested systems (i.e. subatomic particles and cosmology) science is in the realm of conjecture based on mathematical speculation. We can now go at least 3 ways,

1. There is no limit to mathematical speculative models and the nesting could remain infinitely "open".

2. Mathematics is a product of "consciousness" as is "all reality" and consciousness may or not be "bounded". (an esoteric conclusion)

3. "Reality" whether it be contingent on mathematics or consciousness or otherwise is in the gift of "an absolute deity" thereby providing ultimate closure. (a theistic conclusion)

Von Foerster leaves the question of "closure" open ( Twisted Evil ) but some of his acolytes (e.g. Bernard Scott) are leaning towards theism in a move which brings to mind Bishop Berekeley's requirement for "God" as an "ultimate observer".
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 12:22 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I'm late to this thread but if atheists are so much smarter than religious folk then why don't the atheists have their own broadcast networks, books, tapes, why aren't they selling atheist icons, why aren't they fleecing the public out of their hard earned money right out in the open, getting away with it, and even getting tax exempt status to do it? Hmmmm?

Simple answer: in stark, core philosophic contrast to proselytizing theists, they're honest.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 12:41 pm
Fresco

This seems interesting. But I am not so familiar with the terms, so it is hard to relate to it straight off.

Though my initial response is to lean on option 1. Again, it is an intuitive "guess", but it seems to me that the nesting is indeed infinetly open, and that all systems together form a circular infinity, perhaps described as "the ultimate deity".

But again, this is a bit more technical that I am used to, so forgive me if I'm being dense.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 12:56 pm
Please do not let my last post...the last one on the previous page get lost.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 01:11 pm
You mean the one in which you wrote this?

Frank wrote:
Fresco, I think it only proper that I acknowledge I may not have the intellectual wherewithal to understand what you are trying to share here. I thought I could understand Cyracuz for a while...but he seems to be getting as obtuse as you and JL and either the explanation is way over my head…or you guys are using complicated phraseology to obfuscate proceedings. (Mild humor intended…but I sincerely mean the acknowledgement.)


I do not think the conflict is due to anybody's intellectual wherewithal or lack thereof. It is more about the direction we've steered our intellects.

While I think that JL and fresco are right in what they say, that doesn't mean I think you are wrong just because you object. If I were to spend as much time understanding your views as I have theirs I am sure that the world they paint wouldn't be one I'd find completely alien.

For the most part I consider your opinions reasonable, even though I tend to assume that there are aspect that we fail to illuminate (on both sides) that would be crucial to a common understanding. This would be because they are so basic and familiar to us that we take for granted that everyone shares them.

And I am not trying to blow smoke up yer ass. I just think that one acknowledgement deserves another.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 01:21 pm
I think you are suggesting "topological closure" or "circular closure" with "concsiousness" as the link but you cannot also assume the word "infinite" because this implies "open-ness". The question of "what if anything your ring is contained in" allows possible recourse to "the infinite".

Actually the definitions of "open" and "closed" differ between "mathematical" and "dynamic systems" usage, However since "dynamic systems" presuppose the (naive)reality of "matter" and "energy" we must assume Von Foerster (et al) are refering to mathematics in which
a "closed" set has a "fixed boundary" (eg even numbers between 1 and 11) as opposed to an "open" set (e.g. all multiples of 3)
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 01:24 pm
Cyracuz wrote:
You mean the one in which you wrote this?

Frank wrote:
Fresco, I think it only proper that I acknowledge I may not have the intellectual wherewithal to understand what you are trying to share here. I thought I could understand Cyracuz for a while...but he seems to be getting as obtuse as you and JL and either the explanation is way over my head…or you guys are using complicated phraseology to obfuscate proceedings. (Mild humor intended…but I sincerely mean the acknowledgement.)


I do not think the conflict is due to anybody's intellectual wherewithal or lack thereof. It is more about the direction we've steered our intellects.

While I think that JL and fresco are right in what they say, that doesn't mean I think you are wrong just because you object. If I were to spend as much time understanding your views as I have theirs I am sure that the world they paint wouldn't be one I'd find completely alien.

For the most part I consider your opinions reasonable, even though I tend to assume that there are aspect that we fail to illuminate (on both sides) that would be crucial to a common understanding. This would be because they are so basic and familiar to us that we take for granted that everyone shares them.

And I am not trying to blow smoke up yer ass. I just think that one acknowledgement deserves another.


No smoke...and thanks for the commens.

Actually, I was more interested in making sure any of the "lurkers" I mentioned did not miss the post...than anything else.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 03:29 pm
DrewDad wrote:
So, you close down debate by defining a term the way you choose to define it (close minded), and by asserting that others don't really believe what they state that they believe and then attacking the position you claim they hold (strawman).
This would make a humorous sig!
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 03:32 pm
fresco wrote:
Chumly,

....at that point you need to look at the word "know".... :wink:
Eeek!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 03:59 pm
Chumly wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
So, you close down debate by defining a term the way you choose to define it (close minded), and by asserting that others don't really believe what they state that they believe and then attacking the position you claim they hold (strawman).
This would make a humorous sig!


It might...but it most assuredly does not represent my postion.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 04:19 pm
Names withheld to protect the innocent.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 04:25 pm
OK, let's just say that you prefer to use the pre 1960 "traditional definition" because you are getting conservative. Twisted Evil

con·serv·a·tive
-adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 05:01 pm
By that definition, conservative viewpoints would actually suggest a strong bias for environmental protection (contrary to how the word is often meant).

Thus even by presumably conservative standards, it's clear words such as Atheism defy a simple unambiguous definition.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 06:12 pm
I find Fresco's contributions to be very stimulating. I do not have the mathematical preparation to really gain from all of his contributions. Nevertheless, the relativism underlying his epistemology is very liberating at the level of intuition. His view of the world (as I understand it) is one in which the unity of the Cosmos "lives" in terms of all the relationships (vertifcally and horizontally) within it (if I can say "within").

A bit more on my earlier comments on the opposites of dualism. We know that in our actual experience everything exists in terms of degrees* which is why the best descriptions of life are the most nuanced ones. Descriptions in terms of absolutes appear as intellectual cartoons. Opposites, as I said, do not exist in nature; they only exist as matters of logic and then are imposed for its organizational value on experience.
* e.g., degrees of duration, speed of motion, weight, age**

**and then there's the factor of comparison: I'm "tall" (actually there's no such absolute as tall, only taller) next to a dwarf, "old" (actually older) compared to a baby, "handsome" (etc.)next to Quasimoto, "smart" compared to Bush and "dumb" compared to Einstein (and many others).
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 06:12 pm
I find Fresco's contributions to be very stimulating. I do not have the mathematical preparation to really gain from all of his contributions. Nevertheless, the relativism underlying his epistemology is very liberating at the level of intuition. His view of the world (as I understand it) is one in which the unity of the Cosmos "lives" in terms of all the relationships (vertifcally and horizontally) within it (if I can say "within").

A bit more on my earlier comments on the opposites of dualism. We know that in our actual experience everything exists in terms of degrees* which is why the best descriptions of life are the most nuanced ones. Descriptions in terms of absolutes appear as intellectual cartoons. Opposites, as I said, do not exist in nature; they only exist as matters of logic and then are imposed for its organizational value on experience.
* e.g., degrees of duration, speed of motion, weight, age**

**and then there's the factor of comparison: I'm "tall" next to a dwarf, "old" compared to a baby, "handsome" next to Quasimoto, "smart" compared to Bush and "dumb" compared to Einstein (and many others).
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 06:47 pm
mesquite wrote:
OK, let's just say that you prefer to use the pre 1960 "traditional definition" because you are getting conservative. Twisted Evil

con·serv·a·tive
-adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.


That is even lower than I normally hit, Mesquite!

Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 06:57 pm
I am gratified that some of the more technical stuff has rung a few bells and apologise to those who find it opaque. I would just add that if Frank thinks it gets me "through the day" I have not noticed it !
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 07:26 pm
Fresco, I lost my post. Here's the gist.
I like Skobotta's (sp?) distinction between duality (observation of observation?) and dualism (observation of the world?). Assuming I recall it correctly, we can observe our dualities nondualistically. Right?

Frank asks if Skobotta's insights are not beliefs. That's fair. But we should make a distinction between insights and beliefs. To me a belief is an idea system that I've been taught and have adopted. An insight is the result of an intuitive revelation, sometimes sudden, sometimes gradual. I must grant to Frank that the perspective resulting from my modest intuitive revelations sometime find expression in dictums that amount to beliefs; but belief is not their foundation.
Attempts to formulate just the right words to bring another to an intuitive revelation can have success only when the other makes great and patient effort, never when he resists.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 08:53 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Fresco, I lost my post. Here's the gist.
I like Skobotta's (sp?) distinction between duality (observation of observation?) and dualism (observation of the world?). Assuming I recall it correctly, we can observe our dualities nondualistically. Right?

Frank asks if Skobotta's insights are not beliefs. That's fair. But we should make a distinction between insights and beliefs. To me a belief is an idea system that I've been taught and have adopted. An insight is the result of an intuitive revelation, sometimes sudden, sometimes gradual. I must grant to Frank that the perspective resulting from my modest intuitive revelations sometime find expression in dictums that amount to beliefs; but belief is not their foundation.
Attempts to formulate just the right words to bring another to an intuitive revelation can have success only when the other makes great and patient effort, never when he resists.


Yeah...the atheists have a tough time acknowledging their belief system to be a belief system also.

No problem.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/19/2025 at 08:55:00