Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

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 - druidakoda

[1] 2 ... 4
1
Interzone / Re: Sadly, our science is bullshit
« on: March 25, 2012, 01:22:48 AM »
Infinitely random.

Sadly, our elitism is bullshit.

2
Interzone / Re: Some blue eyed dude stashed weed for 27 centuries
« on: October 03, 2010, 01:20:38 AM »
Anyway, I would argue that religious rites are, for the most part, are designed to produce the feeling of control over and communion with a greater reality. However, there is no such thing as a "greater reality," there is only "reality," and any attempt to reach the sacred, that which is beyond the world, is merely a sign of one's incapacity to understand that the world is all-encompassing.
The theory goes that our perception is limited to allow us to survive in everyday life, there is a lot of information that we simply don't process or else we'd be staring at the walls in a stupor. So perhaps, in some ways, there is a greater reality.

In fact, one of the first things LSD did for me was completely obliterate the largely pot influenced liberalism that had been clouding my mind.
I had this exact same realization, but with mescaline. I think It's a fairly common thing to happen on ones first psychedelic trip for those of a certain mind. I then had to wait to take salvia to get rid of psychedelics, and lets just say it wasn't in such a way as to develop a devotion to disassociatives. The innocence of youth. Social life is far better without drugs, the sooner one realizes this, the better.

To summarize, I'm fond of the story of the yogi who swallowed an enormous dose of lsd which reportedly gave him nothing but a bit of a headache.



3
Interzone / Re: Movies give you AIDS
« on: July 05, 2010, 08:33:36 PM »
I'll take the opportunity of this thread to ask you why do you think that the concept itself of the movie (and I think that you're not referring to the mainstream industry of movies) is so distasteful for you, and what would it make it different to theater.

I'm sure it may sound like superstition but here it is:

Movies are too close to how we dream and remember (moving visual images with sound).

Books, you must parse and translate into your own language, so they're resilient.

Movies are fragile, made of one image for every single person on earth, and that to me seems like mind control/soul stealing.

With a book or legend, it stirs my mind and I meet it halfway.

With a movie, my mind is programmed.

Death to all movies, death in the woodchipper!

Surely you could argue that the sentences in books are too close to our thoughts in the same manner as you argue that images in movies are too close to our dreams. A bit paranoid, no?

4
Anyway, if you're not from the UK you should know that the Daily Mail, being a newspaper, is to be avoided like the plague.

New edition.

Cheers boss.

5
Interzone / Re: Best metal band name ever
« on: June 19, 2010, 02:13:19 AM »
If you formicate on a regular basis consult your Doctor immediately, there are pills for this sort of thing.

6
Considering this guy seems to specialize in viruses, without strained humor about the humans being a virus, I would take this as quite a vacuous prediction. Anyway, if you're not from the UK you should know that the Daily Mail, being a tabloid, is to be avoided like the plague... (sorry.)

7
Interzone / Re: Europe and America
« on: May 11, 2010, 08:28:32 PM »
Britain now has a Conservative/Liberal coalition. How civilised can you get?!

8

What exactly would you say would be conclusive evidence of the existence of God?
Your question is not answerable.

This is all that was needed, the rest is "semantics and word games".


9
That's because the logical onus of proof isn't on non-existence.

What exactly would you say would be conclusive evidence of the existence of God?

10
If someone experiences God (or similar) there's no point in telling them that this is not enough to clarify that there is a God; it is to them. This is my point about needing to be transcendent to prove or disprove God, because you'd need to be able to experience someone else's experience. Yes there are some things that you can't hope to prove and it's not right to argue that this is a substanceless stance.

If nothing else this thread proves that there is such a thing as staunch agnosticism.

11

Quote
Yes, I think there is a problem in science whereby there are masses of people taught something at university who believe it staunchly to be true and when someone comes along with conflicting evidence or a seemingly mad idea they are at a risk of being drowned out and ignored. This is quite a hurdle for progress in understanding existence; these people do not realise that they are just as stubborn in their beliefs as a religious person; after all, they know the facts. They are not acting with the scientific method in mind and hence they are not speaking for science, but they believe the are. How many times are we given that old cliché "They used to believe the world was flat"?
Have you actually ever studied science at a tertiary institution? My experience has always been "The data suggests this, however there's so many competing theories". The scientific method only ever tends to be forgotten in the humanities courses.

Straight away you are checking for my credentials! There is a whiff of irony somewhere in this. I've studied astronomy, physics and maths at tertiary level; my point is that the people who practice the sciences are also prone to stubborn beliefs which can be a hindrance to progress. There is a risk to the people who suggest new/seemingly oddball ideas that they will be outcast from the scientific community and receive no funding to follow them up independently as a result. Money and status counts for everything, even in science. Fritz Zwicky is a good example of a maverick thinker who was correct on quite a few occasions (although fortunately well respected enough to not be outcast):

When researchers talk about neutron stars, dark matter, and gravitational lenses, they all start the same way: “Zwicky noticed this problem in the 1930s. Back then, nobody listened . . .”.
This is incredibly easy to say in retrospect, but with so many competing theories there is obviously going to be a delay in Scientific progress until further supporting evidence comes along. I could make a random prediction about the future "You watch, a Chinese woman is going to be President in 2145", write it down and in future be proven right. Does this mean I should have been listened to? Not really, unless I had overwhelmingly convincing evidence.

Zwicky's didn't have any competing theories, he just used the science he had to show these things were possible or were problems. It took a postgraduate student, Jocelyn Bell-Burnell, to accidentally discover pulsars (leading to neutron stars) during their project, which their advisor ruled out as an error until she fervently went after it.

Vetting processes are welcome; I never meant to imply someone coming up with a one sentence prediction out of thin air. In Ramanujan's case he had pages and pages of proofs and results etc, but written with his own symbols. He was very lucky for one of the professor's he sent them to to take them seriously at all, in fact all but one of them just threw his notes in the bin.

My fear is the larger the leap of understanding the greater the backlash against it.

12
God will never be proved/disproved scientifically, because surely you'd have to be transcendent to do so;  I think this plays to Godel's incompleteness theorems, or just a simple Catch 22. Somethings have an intrinsic value to the soul which I can't see being measured scientifically; you can measure the activity and the particles in the brain, but you can't measure the thoughts and the feelings that cause them or are caused by them.

13

Quote
Yes, I think there is a problem in science whereby there are masses of people taught something at university who believe it staunchly to be true and when someone comes along with conflicting evidence or a seemingly mad idea they are at a risk of being drowned out and ignored. This is quite a hurdle for progress in understanding existence; these people do not realise that they are just as stubborn in their beliefs as a religious person; after all, they know the facts. They are not acting with the scientific method in mind and hence they are not speaking for science, but they believe the are. How many times are we given that old cliché "They used to believe the world was flat"?
Have you actually ever studied science at a tertiary institution? My experience has always been "The data suggests this, however there's so many competing theories". The scientific method only ever tends to be forgotten in the humanities courses.

Straight away you are checking for my credentials! There is a whiff of irony somewhere in this. I've studied astronomy, physics and maths at tertiary level; my point is that the people who practice the sciences are also prone to stubborn beliefs which can be a hindrance to progress. There is a risk to the people who suggest new/seemingly oddball ideas that they will be outcast from the scientific community and receive no funding to follow them up independently as a result. Money and status counts for everything, even in science. Fritz Zwicky is a good example of a maverick thinker who was correct on quite a few occasions (although fortunately well respected enough to not be outcast):

When researchers talk about neutron stars, dark matter, and gravitational lenses, they all start the same way: “Zwicky noticed this problem in the 1930s. Back then, nobody listened . . .”.


anyway, it's far more satisfying for me to believe that the earth is billions of years old, life is even older, and that the event of life is an almost impossible coincidence in a universe too vast for me to understand.

The probability that you exist is so astronomically against you that you basically don't. Take that Descartes.

14
Interzone / Re: Learning to meditate
« on: May 02, 2010, 01:03:36 AM »
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8652837.stm

Thought this was relevant.

15
Yes, I think there is a problem in science whereby there are masses of people taught something at university who believe it staunchly to be true and when someone comes along with conflicting evidence or a seemingly mad idea they are at a risk of being drowned out and ignored. This is quite a hurdle for progress in understanding existence; these people do not realise that they are just as stubborn in their beliefs as a religious person; after all, they know the facts. They are not acting with the scientific method in mind and hence they are not speaking for science, but they believe the are. How many times are we given that old cliché "They used to believe the world was flat"?

[1] 2 ... 4