Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Galvanized

[1] 2 ... 11
Metal / Re: Spotify available in U.S. but metal presence needs work
« on: August 02, 2011, 12:43:16 AM »
Haha hey dude, I love myself some Havohej and I love myself some Graveland but they are way too brutal and hateful for the average ear, better goad people in with some Morbid Angels Blessed are The Sick, maybe some Necrophobic or Hypocrisy. I notice they tend to be more palatable towards people just barely getting into the truly heavy shit.

There are some bands that are just too intense for most people to handle, even the intelligent, these include Blasphemy, Profanatica/Havohej and Mütiilation. The vast majority of people have never ventured into the parts of their brain where Blasphemy, Absurd and Mütiilation maintain residence.

These places are ventured into regularly by the devoted listener of Corelli, Locatelli, Buxtehude, and so on. Those bands all still have some degree of fun to them, and fun is not brutal. Turn back the clock a century or so and the concept of fun would be almost unheard of, at least in its current form.

Interzone / Re: Evolution, value, and 'intelligence'
« on: June 23, 2011, 12:05:15 AM »
How do we formulate a basis for action other than through representation? I'm playing devil's advocate now, and I'm also trying to see if you can help me refine my skills at asking questions.

Interzone / Re: Evolution, value, and 'intelligence'
« on: June 22, 2011, 11:33:20 PM »
Objective reality is that which the Subject is placed in.

If you mean that you do not denote a duality between the object and subject, I'm in. It makes a lot more sense then attempting to place subject in a vacuum that has no relation to reality, which I've heard some Enlightenment kooks attempt to do.

Is there any alternative to being a "dog chasing after cars"? We constantly strive for perfection, not so that we may reach it, but because the striving itself is of value. IMHO.

You kind of defeat your own idea when you carry out this process to its ultimate conclusion though, which I feel is eternal recurrence. Life as a means towards life is not a prodigious generation of new means, it has a consistent means, and that is life. Otherwise I think you run into the Heraclitus vs. Parmenides paradox, which is a problem of epistemology, really, as is this entire debate at its heart.

Interzone / Re: Evolution, value, and 'intelligence'
« on: June 22, 2011, 11:11:07 PM »
Isn't the claim that there is no objective measure of value an objective measurement of value?

No, it's an objective measure of reality, which is seperate from what one values.

In other words, you're attempting to make an objective measurement of value.

Isn't the claim that there is no objective measure of value an objective measurement of value?

Well, we would need to look very closely about what there being no values implies, and what it means to make a value judgment.

(possible answer) From the perspective of the Subject, there are two aspects of the world - the Subject itself, and that which lies outside of the Subject, with the interface between the two being the Subject's Representation of Objects (broadly speaking). I think the "no objective value" means that we can't point to something outside of the Subject, and say that this is where value lies - however there may well be something like value contained in the Subject. This is a similar idea I believe to that of "Maya" - there is an ultimate reality, but that which we think to be ultimate reality is not ultimate reality, and anything we think is it isn't really it because we are so tied into it that we are unable to separate it out, though we can somewhat infer that it exists based on our present conceptualisations.

I would say that the true measure of value is simply what the Will wills, which of course is only how I see it as current and is not truly an objective measure of value. From the Nietzschean perspective, that is good which increases Power, that is bad which decreases it, where Power is roughly the Will being able to make itself known. From this perspective, to attribute value to a concept in one's Representation is to deny the Will, and so our aim is to help remove these shackles of rule-based morality so that one can become better in touch with their True morality. This thread has suggested reducing morality back to what we innately, as biological organisms, feel to be valuable, but this is only an intermediate step. The idea is to get closer and closer to what we feel innately to be valuable beyond anything else.

No objective value, means that true value cannot be inferred through objects, however by the processes of our Will we may attempt to get closer and closer to what value truly is.

Nihilism is the name given to such a process. Parallelism and the like are the current answers we have obtained as to the furthest point in our understanding, but like science, this is not to be interpreted as truth but merely our best approximation of it. By the time it has been accepted as 'truth' we will have moved on to something else.

If you have an idea of the true measure of value, why even bother noting its subjectivity? If you're going to act on it, then for all intents and purposes your measurement of value is an objective reality for you, and will be for those that are affected by your actions; in light of this, your noting the subjectivity of your measure of value seems like a courtesy, and a hollow one at that. Also, your last paragraph interests me. Essentially you are a dog chasing after cars?

Interzone / Re: Evolution, value, and 'intelligence'
« on: June 22, 2011, 09:56:06 PM »
Isn't the claim that there is no objective measure of value an objective measurement of value?

Could care less about forums, troll bands, or being intimidated, infatuated, or whatever with any band or musician. However, talking about ideas is cool. Let's get back to that.

Interzone / [META] Problems with evolution?
« on: June 04, 2011, 03:33:44 PM »
This is an idea I've never encountered from any scientist.  I've heard certain ignorant lay people put forth ideas like this, but this is just a non-issue.  Are there credible people who actually make statements like this?  If there are, I have never heard of them.

I was referring to the ignorant lay people.

Interzone / Re: Problems with evolution?
« on: June 04, 2011, 09:55:20 AM »
I don't have a problem with evolution, or saying it happened, but I do think that the manner in which people interpret the significance of the idea is a bit convoluted. People tend to think they can wrap up complex ideas such as the one being discussed into simple observations that bear little to no practical value.

Interzone / [META] Problems with evolution?
« on: June 04, 2011, 09:27:09 AM »
Can I subtly insult anyone else for no reason?

It's par the course on these forums.

Interzone / Re: Problems with evolution?
« on: June 04, 2011, 08:23:17 AM »
I don't think that my statement was misleading at all, as made evident by the fact that I pointed out that I was talking about natural selection and not the theory of evolution, and that my understanding of natural selection was that it was an evolutionary progressivism. Do I think the theory of evolution is flawed? No. Do I think that people use their probably faulty understanding of the theory of evolution as the basis for misguided progressive conclusions? Totally.

Interzone / Re: Problems with evolution?
« on: June 04, 2011, 06:14:50 AM »
The creationism vs. evolution debate should be avoided. It's an utterly useless debate that does no good for scientific study and has absolutely nothing to do with theology.

Interzone / Re: Problems with evolution?
« on: June 04, 2011, 03:07:24 AM »

No I said it because it was entirely unrelated to your own claim that evolutionary science does not address a multitude of weakly-acting causal pathways that determine the success of a specific trait.

If you can show evidence of evolutionary theory disregarding certain variables that have a clear significance, then we will have made some progress.

You got me all wrong, I said natural selection disregards these variables, and to put it simply, I was saying that the idea that all living organisms get better with time is ridiculous. I'm not denying that organisms change as they adapt to their environment, but I don't think that necessarily means that they become absolutely superior. They certainly do in that they become better suited to the environment at hand, but obviously adaptation isn't a static process, and obviously that seemingly superior adaptation is going to become inferior at some point, making that seemingly superior adaptation not absolutely superior. Sorry for the convoluted language. I think you tagged me as a creationist before you even attempted to read into what I was saying, because I made this statement really clear with my first post. Maybe your perspective is the one that's colored?

Interzone / Re: Problems with evolution?
« on: June 04, 2011, 03:00:40 AM »
We're one and the same person, I just switched over to my laptop. I don't think there's anything unintelligible about my response. In fact, I think it's pretty simple. The organization of thought is the process of determining action; everyone does it, only some people do it on a more macro-cosmic scale (i.e. on a more long-term basis, in case you decide to nitpick) than others. I don't really want to imply that you're being an ideologue, but did you just say that my response is 'barely intelligible' because you feel you're on the defensive against everyone who doesn't outright agree with you?

As far as any sort of ideology coloring your perspective goes, I try to avoid that argument at all costs. The only reason I do so is because I don't like to assume that everyone who isn't 'on my side' willfully rejects what is proven to them to be irrefutably true with data, evidence, study, etc. Thing is, a lot of people like to accuse everyone who doesn't agree with them of doing this, and then attempting to gain support by implying that they do not do such a thing, which further implies that their conclusions must be infallible. I think this is a really subversive method of argument.

Metal / Re: New MORBID ANGEL Album to be Released on 6/2/11
« on: June 03, 2011, 10:13:55 PM »
I think that could be said for the entire heavy metal genre, and if that's going to start a "Yeah, metal is totally stupid but temporarily does good things,' debate then I'm just going to turn on some Beethoven and wash my hands of the issue.

Interzone / Re: Problems with evolution?
« on: June 03, 2011, 07:20:03 PM »
the only 'problem' I see with the idea of natural selection is that it sort of leaves out the infinite amount of variables that play into adaptation
Why do you think it leaves these out?

The actual nature of things, for one, but that's assuming that you interpret natural selection from a positivist perspective, and by that I mean (to use simple terms) progressivism.

I found an amusing quotation earlier that relates to a few of the posts earlier in this thread:

Quote from: Dr Stephen Jones
"Philosophy is to science as pornography is to sex: it is cheaper, easier and some people prefer it."

As was said earlier, this isn't informative in the least. I don't prefer philosophy, I use it for an entirely different goal than scientific research. Hell, not being a researcher, I don't really use scientific research, as in using the research directly. Philosophy is the organization of thought, for as a wise man once said in response to the superficial statement that all thought without action is wankery, 'All action without organized thought is disorganized, and thus wankery.'

[1] 2 ... 11