User Controls
bias and magical beliefs
-
2017-07-07 at 9:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by greenplastic yea, i really meant technology
So did I. You know stuff like flint knives, spears, arrows, swords and clubs... that's all technology. Technology is a tool, how it is used is up to us. It can be used to save and it can be used to kill. What we do with technology says more about us than it does about the technology. -
2017-07-07 at 9:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind So did I. You know stuff like flint knives, spears, arrows, swords and clubs… that's all technology. Technology is a tool, how it is used is up to us. It can be used to save and it can be used to kill. What we do with technology says more about us than it does about the technology.
You used a lot of words saying nothing at all. -
2017-07-07 at 9:21 PM UTC
-
2017-07-07 at 9:29 PM UTCHow can you say science is a tool though? Science is the most objective reality we have. It isn't a tool any more than you would say oxygen is a tool for breathing. It's so inherent that to call it a tool implies its something to be manipulated. You can't manipulate objective reality.
-
2017-07-07 at 9:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by Bill Krozby we meet in the middle and i like how even though we ate both extremely different people how we are willing to accept each other for what we are.
I agree on the organized religion bit for the most part. I think it has brought about far more pain, suffering, ostrecism and negative on mankind than any good, even if there is a god or not. I do not believe in god's, more so as they're aliens/inter-demensional beings pretending and using us stupid hairless monkeys for their whims and bullshit... maybe even just entertainment, I could see that...
Now having said that, what really caught my eye about your post was what I quoted... I feel this way with quite a few different people in life, and I feel very fortunate to have intelligent enough friends and people I love and call family who is able to disagree with me, have far, far, far differing views of life, god, religion, politics, views on drugs, sex, whatever, you name it, but still, we can discuss it, debate it, learn from each other, see different view points, and still be friend's, partners, family at the end of the day despite us not agreeing on somethings, even being vehemently differing.
It' all rooted in love. Love is a truly powerful thing. Love can get people to do so many stupid, dumb, heroic, and courageous things. It's beautiful, and sometimes ugly... all depending on how it's used, applied, to whom, and for why, and what... but it's a really awesome thing that can bring so many differing opinions together, and lead to change, enlightenment, and something incredible. It's there, it's real, but Love also is one of this intangible things...
Look around you, look at all these people. Look at your own family, friends and relationships... all held together by a thing you cannot hold in your hand, cannot buy, sell, trade, or manufacture, but look what it does in this world... it perpetuates the most selfless acts of kindness, yet also does the same for the most selfish, petty acts of greed...
I don't think anyone can truly deny love, but again... it exists and operates on both sides, how it's used, applied from whom, to who it's given... but it is there... and has always been, and will always be... Love transcends all. That's the truth.
I love you, Piles of Crack, and you, you have my entire heart to share with my son. I love you, 1337. I love you, Malice... HTS, I got some love for you too, chick-a-dee with a dick-a-dee. HaitianSpaceAgency, I got some love here for you too, dude. Wish The Duke were still around, but I got some love for him too, despite the time... hope he's okay. Jason, where ever you maybe, whatever you maybe doing... hope you're safe... and I love you. fuck, I still have love in my heart for §m£ÂgØL, albeit, it has changed in terms of how I feel it, see it, and acknowledge it, but it's there, just not ho and where it was before. I've come to love a lot of you fuckers here, on the forum going back to the days of TOTSE. (Sorry, I can't give you loli lovin', Soph, but you got some degenerate, junkie friendly lovin's from me.)
I love most of you faggots, I have some bit of love in my heart for y'all, some having more love than others, but LOve is this magnificent powerful thing that impacts all our lives, a thing we need to live any quality of life, like we need air, water, food, and if we don't have it, eventually it kills us, but it's intangible to us... I care, care more than I probably should... but I do, and I'm not going to stop loving people just because some people have used that to hurt me before. I'm a mushy faggot but that's who I am, and I want to spread love around, because some people... some people desperately need it, yet don't have any... and they are good people... wonderful people... I wish I could give more to that, to them... just... I'm saying now... I have a lot of love for a good many people on here, and some of you are literally part of what I consider my family. Your love, kindness and care has literally saved my life so many times... and I am grateful for that, but never expected to find love here... not just that, but it's contributed to my quality of life, and having some measure of knowing and happiness from you guys that do reciprocate love to me- especially you, PoC. So much... I love you with all my heart, PoC.
I think I just lost my mind... it's okay though... 1337 will help me find it tonight, I hope... or maybe PoC if he can stand to talk to me anymore... God, I need help... -
2017-07-07 at 9:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind So did I. You know stuff like flint knives, spears, arrows, swords and clubs… that's all technology. Technology is a tool, how it is used is up to us. It can be used to save and it can be used to kill. What we do with technology says more about us than it does about the technology.
Yea...I know those statistics would be extremely difficult or impossible to get, I was just saying it would be interesting if we could hypothetically see them -
2017-07-07 at 9:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by greenplastic Yea…I know those statistics would be extremely difficult or impossible to get, I was just saying it would be interesting if we could hypothetically see them
It would be. What do you imagine the results would look like? I imagine it would pretty even, but slightly higher on the death toll. -
2017-07-07 at 9:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by 霍比特人 How can you say science is a tool though? Science is the most objective reality we have. It isn't a tool any more than you would say oxygen is a tool for breathing. It's so inherent that to call it a tool implies its something to be manipulated. You can't manipulate objective reality.
Science is a method or tool used for measuring objective reality. It is not reality itself, it is a method or tool of learning and discovery.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-07-07 at 9:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by 霍比特人 How can you say science is a tool though? Science is the most objective reality we have. It isn't a tool any more than you would say oxygen is a tool for breathing. It's so inherent that to call it a tool implies its something to be manipulated. You can't manipulate objective reality.
What's inherent about science? It didn't exist for most of the history of the world, of life, of our species. It doesn't seem to be any more natural than any other human invention. And in the fairly short time it's been with us it's changed internally and radically. The modern practice of science seems like whatever the opposite of "inherent" is to me.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-07-07 at 9:49 PM UTCScience is there whether you know its there or not. It is the objective reality of the universe. You can't manipulate science like you can manipulate a chainsaw to build a house, cut a tree, or sculpt ice. You have to follow the rules of science. There is literally no other option, no manipulation involved. You can choose which rules to follow but you can't manipulate the rules.
If you want to make this a semantics game you can fuck off. Call it reality or whatever. And if you don't believe in objective reality you can also fuck off. You guys know just as well as I do that science is more than just 'the study of.' I'd like to see you give more than a semantics argument on how it is a tool, if that's what you believe. -
2017-07-07 at 9:53 PM UTCThis is the same argument people use to rationalize creationism lol.
-
2017-07-07 at 9:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by 霍比特人 Science is there whether you know its there or not. It is the objective reality of the universe. You can't manipulate science like you can manipulate a chainsaw to build a house, cut a tree, or sculpt ice. You have to follow the rules of science. There is literally no other option, no manipulation involved. You can choose which rules to follow but you can't manipulate the rules.
If you want to make this a semantics game you can fuck off. Call it reality or whatever. And if you don't believe in objective reality you can also fuck off. You guys know just as well as I do that science is more than just 'the study of.' I'd like to see you give more than a semantics argument on how it is a tool, if that's what you believe.
:facepal: -
2017-07-07 at 9:57 PM UTC
-
2017-07-07 at 9:59 PM UTC
-
2017-07-07 at 9:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by 霍比特人 If you want to make this a semantics game you can fuck off. Call it reality or whatever. And if you don't believe in objective reality you can also fuck off. You guys know just as well as I do that science is more than just 'the study of.' I'd like to see you give more than a semantics argument on how it is a tool, if that's what you believe.
I mean it seems like it's already a semantic argument, I think what you are referring to when you say "science" is something very different than what the rest of us use the term to mean. The laws of physics are not science in the way we use the term in, say, the philosophy of science, although the process by which we discover the laws of physics probably is. Is it fair to say you would consider "laws of physics" to be an "example of science" per your usage so far ITT?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-07-07 at 10 PM UTC
-
2017-07-07 at 10:02 PM UTC
-
2017-07-07 at 10:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I mean it seems like it's already a semantic argument, I think what you are referring to when you say "science" is something very different than what the rest of us use the term to mean. The laws of physics are not science in the way we use the term in, say, the philosophy of science, although the process by which we discover the laws of physics probably are. Is it fair to say you would consider "laws of physics" to be an "example of science" per your usage so far ITT?
When I say science I mean 'true science' as in what is objectively real. Obviously science, being a human construct, doesn't know everything.
I see there being two sciences. Science as a study of reality, and science as the organization of reality.
I definitely consider the laws of physics to be an example of science/reality. It is (so far) an objective reality about the universe. You can't manipulate the noumenal world. If something is able to be manipulated/changed then it simply isn't true and is therefore no longer science. -
2017-07-07 at 10:11 PM UTC>objectively real
>I see there being two sciences. Science as a study of reality, and science as the organization of reality.
>I definitely consider the laws of physics to be an example of science
> You can't manipulate the noumenal world.
omfg
you're worse than Bill Krozby -
2017-07-07 at 10:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind What's wrong with that?
I think philosophy is mostly useless. The vocabulary and categorization aspect is pretty great for understanding yourself and the rest of the world, but largely its just masturbatory and inane to discuss. It feels incredibly juvenile to me. It's like the study for people who don't want to bother learning anything about the real world.
I don't get the point behind injecting philosophy into everything. It just deconstructs otherwise solid discussion. You spend less time trying to figure out how trees communicate through the use of pheromones and more time discussing if they're conscious or not, or whether or not they make noise when they fall while alone in the forest. I don't find it interesting at all. I like science.
