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 - Tralfamadorian

1 ... 7 [8] 9 ... 13
Interzone / Re: This guy is a 'traditionalist' and he is a wanker...
« on: November 06, 2012, 05:19:05 AM »
The majority of music critics in the West believe that Lady Gaga ought be an object of praise.  I don't agree with them - based on the same evidence (her music), I conclude that she's crap.
I knew I should have qualified that statement about the majority of scientists. Your comparison to Lady Gaga is inapt, and here's why: Scientists have attained higher education and exclusively occupy the right half of the bell curve. On the other hand, popular music critics are probably dead center in the bell curve.The consensus of one thousand average people is worthless (just look at the way the Western world is run), but could you say the same thing about the consensus of one thousand 115+ IQers? Surely the latter would warrant some consideration.

Even if we give popular music critics the benefit of the doubt and say they're above average intelligence, the comparison still falls apart. The fact of the matter is, popular music critiques are payed to to praise what's popular, not form their own opinions. And what's popular is dependent on the lowest common denominator tastes of the general public. Scientists, however, are a more principled bunch. Yes, there are those scientists who parrot popular opinion to get grant money or are just outright stupid. But in general, they do what they do because they are interested in discerning the nature of Reality, not in creating the next flavor-of-the-week.

If life appeared from non-life over a long period of favourable conditions in a perfectly apt environment, it need not have been this kind of life
What is that supposed to mean? That life would have been fundamentally different? It very well could have, but obviously natural selection weeded out all other "kinds of life". Or maybe there are other kinds of life -- what the fuck are viruses, anyway?

Furthermore, there need not necessarily have been only one kind of life - indeed, abiogenesis, as it is now, would suggest that multiple lifeforms would arise out of those conditions, leading to multiple evolutionary paths.  This is not the case - all organisms are similar to each other in their fundamental structure, being constructed from variations of a standard cell.  That there is only a single source of life better supports creationism than evolutionary theory, until evolutionary theory is fitted to the fact of the singular branch of life on this planet!
Perhaps a specific strain of microbe was spawned out of the primordial soup that had a genetic predisposition towards mutation, thus enabling it to evolve, survive, and eventually flourish into the diversity of living things we have today; while this strain's ancestrally disparate peers, who lacked this predisposition towards mutation, died off when the environment changed. Or perhaps it is as Francis Crick speculates: life originated somewhere other than earth and came here on an asteroid. But this is just me spitballing.

Common descent is widely supported by genetic, biochemical, and geographic evidence. You may want to look into something called endogenous retroviral insertions, whereby a retrovirus inserts its genome into the host's genome. which is then passed on in the progeny of the host (a gross oversimplification of the process). How do you explain finding this same retroviral DNA sequence across differentiated species, like chimps and humans?

Oh yeah, and I read the rebuttal to ERV insertions in that link you posted:

Again, it is an unprovable theological assertion that God would not place the same nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species.  He may have a purpose for doing so that is beyond our present understanding.  The objection that placing nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species would make God guilty of deception is ill founded.  God cannot be charged fairly with deception when we choose to draw conclusions from data that contradict what he has revealed in Scripture (see Gibson’s comments in the discussion of Prediction 19).

Once again, the creationists are ignoring Occam's Razor in favor of convoluted "God works in mysterious ways" arguments. 

That any challenge to the theoy is met with severe aggression should stand as testament to its makeshift foundations - it is precarious, and it is known to be such, and yet we still want to stick with it.
Perhaps that severe aggression comes from the frustration endemic to arguing with someone who closes his or her self off to reason. Not saying you're guilty of such a thing, but it's not uncommon in the creationist camp. Relevant.

I've provided a link which has, towards its end, details of the only experiments which have gone into "macro-evolution", which have all failed, though evolutionists claim cases of infertility born of over-specialisation as being cases of "new species" arising, even though these things are clearly still e. coli/fruit flies, regardless of their reproductive ability (which is known to be ruined by over-specialisation, anyway).  I honestly didn't think it'd be necessary to provide any further sources, because it's such a widely known fact.  That people here don't know it simply proves the common assertion that the users of this board are, in some ways at least, ignorant of the wider world.
Yes, I'm working through Ashby Camp's critique. These experiments are hardly the nails in evolution's coffin  that you made them out to be.

For one, the methodology of the fruit fly experiment is suspect. They blasted those damn flies with radiation! Common sense tells me that mutations resulting from x-rays will not be of the same nature as natural mutations. Google seems to confirm this: some nucleotides are more vulnerable to ultraviolet radiation than others. Thus, we can safely conclude that this experiment proves very little--it was probably done out of sheer curiosity without any expectation of great discovery. No wonder those flies were deformed and infertile -- they went through the fruit fly equivalent of Chernobyl!

And as for the e. coli (I assume you are referring to this experiment), OF COURSE you're not going to see e. coli evolve into something completely different. Macroevolution, by its very definition, occurs across geologic time scales, while this experiment has only been going on for twenty years! Furthermore, even the e. coli strain that evolved to metabolize citric acid seems to be healthy and in no way reaching a limit of variation.

given the limitations of genetic variance within any one species.
OK, you're going to have to find some new evidence for this claim, 'cause it seems pretty bunk.

The responses to those arguments were inadequate in missing the point that it was the nature of this "evidence" which was being questioned (it was a shock to find no adequate response to this criticism).
Could you elaborate on this? I assume you're saying that it is the logic behind evolution, not the science, that is flawed. As a retort, I offer some creationist logic:

A creationist would also expect many biochemical similarities in all living organisms.  We all drink the same water, breathe the same air, and eat the same food.  Supposing, on the other hand, God had made plants with a certain type of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; then made animals with a different type of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc.; and, finally, made man with a third type of amino acids, sugars, etc.  What could we eat?  We couldn’t eat plants; we couldn’t eat animals; all we could eat would be each other!  Obviously, that wouldn’t work.  All the key molecules in plants, animals, and man had to be the same.  The metabolism of plants, animals, and man, based on the same biochemical principles, had to be similar, and therefore key metabolic pathways would employ similar macromolecules, modified to fit the particular internal environment of the organism or cell in which it must function.  (Gish, 277.)
The anthropocentrism is killing me. "God created plants and animals for us to use!~" is the thought virus that is currently driving us to destroy our planet.

I will respond to the philosophical side of your post later.

Interzone / Re: Place for living
« on: November 02, 2012, 05:49:29 AM »
Crow, from what I gather you live pretty far off the grid. Where do you get internet?

Metal / Re: Death metal riff types
« on: November 02, 2012, 03:27:24 AM »
Thanks to Tralfamadorian for making this thread - I may be able to contribute in a while (much work for now), as I've also attempted to delineate different riffing styles of various bands.  Would you accept material off Blizzard Beasts as being "Death Metal", at least in terms of the majority of the riffs?
Any and all metal riffs are welcome. The thread is entitled "Death Metal riff types" because I'm not that familiar with black metal and wasn't sure if others would contribute.

Interzone / Re: This guy is a 'traditionalist' and he is a wanker...
« on: November 02, 2012, 03:08:01 AM »
Well, evolution hardly fits the bill of "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment".  Observation and experiment directed towards finding evolution have provided absolutely no body of facts upon which a well-substantiated explanation of the origin of life or species could be formed.
I admit abiogenesis remains hazy and will remain that way until we synthesize life in a lab environment, which might never happen.  However, you're venturing into the realm of opinion with your claim that evolution itself isn't well supported by the facts. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accept the evolutionary hypothesis as the best explanation we currently have regarding how speciation occurs. That's not to say evolutionary theory is flawless -- it isn't. But the kinks will be hammered out in time. 

I think you're cherry picking your sources and thus getting a warped perspective on the matter. I challenge you to find an irreligious scientist who supports creationism. Most of this "creation science" is obviously biased by the beliefs of its purveyors and arises not from the selfless pursuit of Truth, but from ego driven desire for self-validation.

On a related note, I'm calling bullshit on your idea of 'limited variance'. No where have you supported these claims with evidence, and when Bill gave you proof of speciation you simply tweaked your definition. Also, you claim that reaching the extremes of variance causes disease and weakening, which is nowhere to be found in Ensatina eschscholtzii.

I'm not trying to say that the species we identify as being species are, in fact, synonymous with the archetypes; all I am saying is that the archetypes exist, and all animals are spatio-temporal instances of those archetypes.  With a perfect taxonomy, each species would be linked to its archetype.
Well I'm glad we cleared that up.

I looked at the evidence and compared it to the theory.  The theory fits the evidence very nicely, and provides a logical account of the origin of life and the variety of species which posits exactly as many "new" entities as evolutionary theory (one).
Like I said earlier, I think you're cherry picking. Here's a challenge: take a biology class next semester. Grill the shit out of your professor. Ask him/her for reading material on evolution. Or maybe try this: pretend you believe in evolution and you're trying to prove a creationist wrong. Do some research from the opposite perspective to test your own beliefs.

  [Tradition] is not dogmatic, but experiential, and as such can be known by anyone to be real; luckily for me, I stumbled upon it.
Have you experienced the Forms? How do you know they're real and not just an abstraction for understanding reality? I'm not arguing for or against the existence of Forms, I merely want to know more about them. I was under the impression that the World of Forms is inaccessible to experience; we only know of the forms through our observation of patterns.

Yes, of course.  That's all we can do - we can't make a time machine to go back and observe the entire history of the planet, so we can't collect evidence as to how life originated or how life might have "evolved" (or been created).  We can try to collect evidence now to support the theory of evolution, by attempting to observe some instance of macro-evolution; at the point at which one is observed, the theory can be confirmed as being an accurate account of the origin of species, though certainly not of the origin of life, which will remain a mystery until one is sufficient in wisdom.
Evolution fits the idea to the facts, Creationism fits the facts to the idea -- that's what I meant by 'accommodating'.

Yes, I had this problem about five months ago.  I can't quite remember how many solutions there were, but there are many.  Bear in mind that things like theories of Forms, Archetypes, etc., are metaphors: they represent truths, but are not synonymous with them.  When dealing with the infinite, words are not adequate: they can point towards Truth, but cannot encapsulate it.
Then point me towards the truth. How does one identify a Form? If we can't identify a Form, then how do we know they exist?

Our bodies are made of matter.  We are most certainly not made of matter.  We are consciously experiencing.  Part of some experience includes perceiving a world from the perspectives of bipedal bodies.
I am apologetic to the idea that the mind may be immaterial; I just fail to see how it precludes the idea of evolution.

If you make a fishing rod, then I'm sorry to have to tell you that the fishing rod is an instantiation of an archetype before the rod is made.
By this logic, then why not say the form of Reptile existed before its physical manifestation evolved from Amphibians?

The archetypes exist outside of time and space - they are like algorithms or equations which map certain qualities shared by similar objects.
If they exist outside space and time, then how do they influence the physical world? (Apologies if you've already went over this with Bill)

Are the teachings of Siddhartha canon in Traditionalism? How do you reconcile an impermanent and ever-changing universe with something supposedly constant like a Form?

I was going to write a lot about how the Archetypes might work, when it comes to the variety of things and the question of what constitutes what kind of object, but I realised it would be far too long for this post - if you want, I'll PM you some ideas about such things.
Better yet, start a new thread about Forms so others can chime in. Or PM me if you prefer. Doesn't matter to me.

Still, nothing that I could say should be taken literally;
Kinda sounds like a cop out :)

I'll accept this, but I would subsequently caution that no man should take any theory as to such origins seriously, or as being terribly important, as we do nowadays; to do so is to place faith in fabrication, no matter how accurate a fabrication it might be.
Personally, I live a simple life and do not let such matters trouble me. However, I will say this this: If thoughts about the nature and origin of Life and the Cosmos had not given man many a sleepless night, then we wouldn't have half as much knowledge as we do today.

Interzone / Re: This guy is a 'traditionalist' and he is a wanker...
« on: October 31, 2012, 07:29:46 AM »

I don't really give a shit, to be honest.  There are a number of theories, the most prominent of which nowadays seems to be evolutionary theory; however, the explanatory power of this theory is as great as or lesser than that of any other theory, and it seems to be supported as well as or worse than other theories.
I think you misunderstand what a scientific theory is. According to the National Academy of Sciences, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." (taken from Wikipedo) The theory of evolution is the only real scientific theory that explains the orgin of species.

Of course the archetypes exist before human categorisation.  The scientist identifying a certain organism as being of a previously undiscovered species is simply the discovery in physicality of the manifestation of that archetype.  If a species is recategorised, it is because the taxonomists who first categorised the species are held to have been wrong in their classification of the organism.
Taxonomy is really just our best guess at how God organized living things. To assume that just because one supposed species cannot procreate with another supposed species means that it is an instantiation of a archetype is a bit of a stretch. Taxonomy is a HUMAN endeavor; to assume it aligns perfectly with how God structured the biosphere is to display tremendous hubris.

I don't explain the existence of different species: currently, the main contender seems to be creationism, which is heavily supported by the fossil record, as well as by various other aspects of genetics, microbiology, and, greatest of all, Tradition.  It doesn't particularly matter to me, where the shape of our bodies came from; we exist, and that's that.  I'm far more concerned with what we are and how we can be: these things will never change.
I am certain that any credible biologist would disagree that the fossil record, microbiology, genetic, etc. support creationism. How you came to this conclusion is beyond me.

 And about the Tradition part... I THOUGHT THIS WAS A NIHILIST FORUM! Do not a nihilist's beleifs arise from critical thinking and not blind dogmatism? You sound like a fundamentalist Christian... "SO IT IS WRITTEN BY THE GREAT PROPHET GUENON, AND SO I SHALL BELIEVE."

You're doing the exact same thing that link you provided accuses evolutionists of doing: Accommodating. You're accommodating the alleged facts into your position.

Tradition holds that everything is an imperfect instance of its perfection; that the imperfect physical is derived from the perfect metaphysic.  "Imperfect" and "perfect" are not used to refer to value, but to refer to states.  Any one chair is imperfect in its constant recombination; though it remains the same chair, its contents are never static.  Chairness itself is a constant, unchanging pattern to which all instances of chairness refer; this eternal quality is perfect.
Irrelevant. How does the idea of Perfect Forms contradict evolution? Could there not be a Form for every incremental evolutionary instantiation of a species? How do you delineate the forms, anyway? It seems utterly arbitrary. If there's a perfect form for Chair, whose to say there's not a perfect form for... Armchair? Wicker Chairs? Blue Chairs? Chairs for Kids? What about Chairs that look like Dinosaurs? What about benches? Stools? Do not they all exist in the mind of God, and therefore have perfect Forms? Is there a perfect form for Tralfamadorian? Or Cargest? Could there be only one Form: the Form of the Universe? Whose to say I'm wrong?

Clearly, from this understanding, an animal, itself an instance of a perfect form, could never have its progeny become instances of another perfect form, unless that perfect form were identical to the first; in that case, no new species has evolved, though there may be within the species the possibility of the appearence of distinct organisms lacking the ability to interbreed, being too disparate within the archetype for them to procreate.
How utterly arbitrary. We are made of Matter. We can take a Chair, disassemble it, and make it into... A fishing rod. Matter just changed Forms. Animals, likewise composed of matter, likewise do the same thing, although in a different fashion.

Edit: Occam's Razor always favours the position which posits a sole ontological entity over any other position.  Tradition posits the One; evolutionary theory posits a whole mess of things.
Why is evolution incompatible with the idea of Oneness?

To clarify: it is impossible to deduce from the lack of experience of a thing that it cannot exist.  In fact, it is irrational to do so, and yet the majority of atheists are guilty of falling into that trap.
Agreed. Magic might very well be real! ;)

May I also make the following bold statement: we will never "know", in a factual sense, of the origins of life, or of the mechanism of speciation, just as we will never "know" about the origin of the universe. 
Also agreed. However, that shouldn't prevent us from trying to figure it out, just because we can't know with 100% certainty.

Interzone / Re: This guy is a 'traditionalist' and he is a wanker...
« on: October 31, 2012, 05:20:03 AM »
On the contrary, for the traditionalist, every species is an emanation of a metaphysical archetype
This smacks of anthropocentrism. Was every scientist whose ever identified a species been divinely inspired? Species names are mutable and can be revised. Does that mean whenever a species is re-categorized the 'metaphysical archetype' change as well?

Cargest, how do you explain how different species came into being here on planet earth? Magic? Like, "POOF! And then there were Bonobos!" ? C'mon. If wolves would've died off if their 'variances' became too great, then how'd the domestic dog come about? Do you realize how irrational and conceited you're being?

 Look, the theory of evolution isn't perfect, but it's all we got. Occam's razor dictates evolution is a better explanation than magic.

Anyways, I don't see how evolution violates Traditionalist principles at all, save for when zealot atheists use it as a way to slander the profound implications of Life. I mean, the Catholic church is fine with evolution, how are ya'll supposed Perennialists not?

EDIT: I'd like Conservationist to weigh in here. That guy seems pretty keen on natural selection.

Metal / Re: Death metal riff types
« on: October 30, 2012, 06:59:45 PM »
Personally I find it hard to classify 'riffs' in theoretical terms as they already contain melody, harmony, rhythm as well as dynamics/technique. More often I think of them as shapes within a structure. Some build up, some are expository. And black metal is even harder to define. The Beherit song, Sadomatic Rites is basically 4-5 sets of riffs played one after the other with each part building into the next without repeating. Burzum's Jesu død sounds like one massive riff, though it is helped by and consists of many.
A better name for this thread would be 'Metal techniques'.

I agree that riffs, even those consisting of the same intervals and rhythms, can serve different ends depending on the context. However, just because penguins use their wings for swimming instead of flying, does that mean we shouldn't call them wings?

Black metal is interesting, because even though it has a smaller range of techniques, those techniques are used in structure with greater fluidity and convey a more significant spectrum of emotion.

This thread may be accused of missing the forest for the trees, but the inner sperg compels me.

Interzone / Re: This guy is a 'traditionalist' and he is a wanker...
« on: October 30, 2012, 02:00:19 AM »
Interesting. So Behe is full of shit... Good to know!

EDIT: Behe is full of shit insofar as he ignores evidence against his claims about the irreducible complexity of the flagellum. I cannot speak for his other ideas.

Interzone / Re: This guy is a 'traditionalist' and he is a wanker...
« on: October 30, 2012, 01:25:40 AM »
I'm mostly sold on evolution, but there is some empirical evidence to the contrary. Take for instance the flagellum, the 'tail' on certain kinds of bacteria that allows them to swim around. The flagellum is an irreducibly complex biological mechanism, which means that its parts, in and of themselves, are worthless.  Only when all parts are in place does it serve any function. All or nothing, in other words. Thus, it is unlikely that these parts of the flagellum could ever be evolved and compounded upon as they would provide no advantage in fitness by themselves. On the other hand, odds of evolving an entire flagellum in one mutation are extremely slim, due to genetic factors I don't fully understand. So, what accounts for these irreducibly complex systems if Darwinian evolution is supposed to be incremental? Archetypes would be a convenient explanation.

(see this article: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/001-science-and-design-10 )

If your a physicalist, you think experience only arrived on the scene after animals with a certain complexity evolved, so of course you're not going to think consciousness is a precondition for material existence! You're going to think your argument is purely epistemological and not metaphysical in the slightest, and you would be rationally justified in holding this.
Sorry to butt in guys.

Bill, it seems that Cargest is referring to consciousness as in the Godhead (in a prior post he mentions he refers to it as the monad), so you're kind of barking up the wrong tree here.

Carry on.

1. People probably thought the same about many biological phenomena. Even if they didn't the point is that things that were once inaccessible to 'mechanistic' knowledge become accessible. Imagine someone 'mechanistically' inclined, who didn't accept explanations in terms of the sun's agency, wondering how the sun worked 4000 years ago? Consider the gap between people wondering about the features of animals 2000 years ago and modern molecuar genetics. They would think molecular biology unfathomable, mystical, and downright impossible.
The problem is that the fusion in the sun and the replication of cells exist in the 'external' world, ie we can observe them. Consciousness, by its very nature, is unobservable in and of itself. (unless, of course, you believe in telepathy ;) )

2. The incapability of science to explain experience in a way we find satisfactory might be a purely epistemological issue, not a metaphysical one, as described in my last post.
I don't think I understand. How could the examination of being itself not be metaphysical?

EDIT: Ok, I get what you're saying. There's no reason to ascribe "magical" properties to something just because it cannot be explained. I agree. My reason for believing in the possibility of the 'immateriality' of consciousness is really just an intuition or feeling; it is ingrained into the way I look at the world. Cargest did a commendable job of arguing this viewpoint but it's clear he did not change your mind, as such I doubt any combination of words I could come up with will change your mind either.

Why is it that my toaster, which functions by means of an electrical current, not conscious; but when there is an electrical current that interacts with neurons, that translates to consciousness experience? Why are brains the only type of matter that can produce consciousness? What kind of interface exists that translates an electrical impulse or surge of serotonin in our neurons into a conscious thought or feeling? How does one will a thought into being? I really doubt neuroscience will ever be able to fully solve the mind body problem.

Interzone / Re: Being and staying healthy in modern times
« on: October 29, 2012, 03:50:18 AM »
stone lifting
Unfortunately my backyard lacks a pile of boulders. Think I'll stick with the gym.

or worse, for aesthetic body builders.
What's your beef with bodybuilding? I recently switched from strength  training (high weight low reps) to more of a bodybuilding routine (low weight high reps) and it's a nice change of pace. It's less stressful on your body, while at the same time requires more conditioning. It's a different but equally legitimate approach to working out. How is it any more vain than strength training? If anything it requires you to ignore your ego and its incessant desire to lift the most amount of weight possible.

Metal / Re: Death metal riff types
« on: October 29, 2012, 03:28:29 AM »
When I think Pedal tone I think of Demilich and this riff in particular :

Could you explain why you would consider that riff a pedal tone? I don't really hear it.

Added transmutation riff -- if you have better examples, please share.

Metal / Re: music is not beautiful
« on: October 27, 2012, 03:18:59 AM »
I'm not sure I follow. What is music describing? Something metaphysical, like Truth? Or perhaps an emotion? If a composition makes you feel beautiful feelings then why not call it beautiful? Why play with words like this?

1 ... 7 [8] 9 ... 13