|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 09/18/2006 : 10:33:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by SeanSinjin
quote:
Seriously though SeanSinjin, the dodgy physics aside
Not everyone thinks it's dodgy:
link
You're actually making the claim that the appearance of your "theory" on a list whose only criteria for inclusion is that you assert that Betherdynamics is a Grand Unified Theory "by whatever description" within a Wiki whose audience is people who think that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply means that someone doesn't think your ideas are "dodgy?" I mean, Mills' nonsense tops that list. So sure, the people who put the list together might not think Betherdynamics is dodgy, but they also believe that Orgone energy exists and also uncritically repeat whacky claims from medical quacks, so the editors themselves are "dodgy."quote:
quote:
The terms aren't incorrect. What's incorrect is your assertion that the "bether" is scientific and not religious, when in fact you seem to have pointedly ignored my scientific questions about the bether.
I don't have all the answers to your questions about
bether, and I don't 'yet' have the mathematics, though I plan on
getting to them. I know I can produce something someday,
when I can liberate myself from my currently pressing
obligations, but until then, feel free to point out all the
things I haven't yet had the time to accomplish.
Therein lies the problem: you admit you don't have the time to actually produce the things that real scientific theories produce, but you want to call it a theory anyway. All based upon your faith that you can make a theory out of it if you only had the time.quote:
Forgive me my friend, but I'm going to pass over your
repeated and quite extensive 'theory' equals 'faith' diatribe.
Then you've missed the point, which is that you don't have a theory (and you admitted as much, above), you've only got faith.quote:
We've already covered this in great detail and we'll have
to agree to disagree.
Well, I can't stop you from abusing the term "theory" to meet your own personal agenda, now can I?quote:
quote:
What checks exist to mandate such conformity?
Again, I don't have all the answers myself. This is
something that takes many minds to develop and I believe with a
concerted effort, it could be realistically achieved.
That appears to be a statement of faith.quote:
Of
course, we won't know until we exercise this theory (not
faith).
Now you're conflating social theories with physics theories, which isn't particularly honest.quote:
quote:
Then what makes your system any better?
The weighted-vote system attempts to subdue tyranny
directly by imposing the empathy factor in the voting process.
I don't see how you can impose such a thing.quote:
Traditional democracy has no...
So what? The faults of democracy aren't evidence supporting your own ideas.quote:
It's a theory (not faith) that makes sense to me.
So the answer is "no, I do not have any evidence that leaders voted into office by allegtedly empathic voters will be less likely to abuse their power."quote:
An empathic leader by definition is not inclined to tyranny.
We're not talking about empathic leaders, we're talking about giving more votes to citizens who are empathic. Don't confuse the two. The idea that empathic voters can't be lied to by charismatic, non-empathic charlatans is, of course, monumentally naive. If you want to guarantee an empathic leadership, then you're going to have to do away with voting entirely, and simply develop some way to objectively measure the empathy of all candidates, and the most-empathic get into office.quote:
I look at it like
there's over 5 billion heroin addicts on the planet that are
wasting their lives in a deception when they are capable of
tremendous qualities of life that they forego in the mad
pursuit of the unattainable.
Then I submit that by your own definition, you are insane.quote:
quote:
Creating Thought Police, as you desire, gives up the
most essential liberty, as far as I'm concerned.
David, my friend, the 'Thought Police' are already alive
and well in the here and now. Why do you choose not to
acknowledge them? Everything from censorship, to speech
oppression, to propaganda, to tolerated hypocrisies (alcohol is
legal yet marijuana is illegal, religions professing
immortality legal yet fraud is illegal, etc.), and so forth. I
don't believe there's nary a free thought out there. We are
programmed to believe we aren't programmed.
How is |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
SeanSinjin
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 12:24:47 [Permalink]
|
Hi GeeMack, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. I'll address your relevant points but forgive me for skipping the bulk of what amounts to ire discharging. Unfortunately, I will not allow myself to be drawn into a character defamation exchange as it doesn't contribute to my purpose here. That's not to say your diminutives were invalid, just superfluous.
quote:
then in the next breath you make a gross generalization (about priests). And a blatantly false one for that matter.
Is it possible to state my opinion of priests as false, without necessarily imposing your own subjective and generalized opinion of priests?
Also (and this is important so please respond if you could), are you an atheist?
quote:
And again your comment is drawn from your clearly jaded opinion rather than developed using any sort of objective analysis of data.
I won't deny being nonplussed with priests in general, but that point is not instrumental to supporting my position. Allow me to elaborate: It's important to understand that I'm not trying to ‘compare' priests to drug dealers (as a form of insult), I'm saying they ‘are' drug dealers (as a fact), most deserving of the same stigma that you'd typically attach to people that unlawfully deal illicit chemicals. The disconnect between us here is your misperception that priests are something ‘other' than drug dealers. If you could begin to see the priesthood for what it truly is, it would become immediately and painfully obvious what those individuals' motivations are.
My ‘distaste' for priests is primarily driven by the plethora of empirical (and other) evidence that I've accumulated over the years while formulating my argument against religion. My disdain for them grew as a by-product of increasing understanding of their typical personas. The devastation caused by these ego-chasing ethereal-junkies is unparalleled, and they need to be educated about reality so they can see the full scope of destruction they are directly responsible for. I stand by my assertion with as much conviction as you would hold toward your opinion of drug dealers or pedophiles.
quote:
Even some of the most devout religious believers who drop in from time to time are vastly more clearly focused and consistent in their positions than you are, SeanSinjin.
Your perception of my inconsistencies stems largely from your incorrect assumptions. That being said, I would still be hesitant to compare the impossible fortitude of mind required to consistently flawlessly encapsulate a nebulous reality perspective, to the trivial simplistic renderings of a religious fantasy world.
quote:
Oh, and in the way of general criticism of your presentation style, since you seem to want to get your message across in a sincere and credible fashion, you might knock off all that sappy "my dear friend" stuff.
I'm afraid my sincere congeniality is a necessary part of my writing style, and it must remain. As much as it sets a tone for discussion, it also serves as a personal baseline that has great value to me, irrespective of others' interpretation of such. I assure you, however, tha |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 14:02:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by SeanSinjin
Ok David, I'll meet your 'faith' versus 'theory' challenge. Your original assertion was that my theory is more akin to a religion than a theory, in the attempt to make it appear that I am 'biting my own tail' with my anti-theology mantra.
No, I said that your statement "the bether exists" is exactly as religious as anyone else's statement "god exists."quote:
I must tell you that 'many' people have tried this exact argument on the BetterHuman.org weblog. It's nothing more than a clever game of 'mix the definitions'...
No, you're the one who comingled the terms "science" and "theory" with respect to your assertions about the bether, so it is clear that you expect people to consider it - now - to be an actual scientific theory, when at best it's just a hypothesis.quote:
As you can see, in no way whatsoever am I abusing a very common definition of the term, ‘theory'.
Once you applied the term "science" to it, you stopped using the common definition and began using the scientific definition.quote:
I don't see how this [s]theory is remotely being morphed into a physics [s]theory, or even a physics [d]theory. Can you explain what you mean here?
You're switching back and forth between two different meanings of "theory" freely and without notifying your readers. You seem skilled enough at it that it appears to be a purposeful attempt at obfuscation and confusion.quote:
quote:
So the answer is "no, I do not have any evidence that leaders voted into office by allegtedly empathic voters will be less likely to abuse their power."
Exactly.
Thank you.quote:
Forgive me my good friend David, for I don't want to stymie your generous and very informative feedback, but I get the impression that you don't want to even discuss any [s]theory prior to it being a [d]theory.
No, my point has been to eliminate confusion over what is speculative and what isn't. People here - including me - discuss speculative stuff all the time, we just first acknowledge that it is speculative. You've made many statements which appear to be assertions of fact, but which only now - thanks to your defining "theory" for us - turn out to just be speculative hopes and dreams. It clears up a lot of things.quote:
quote:
If you want to guarantee an empathic leadership, then you're going to have to do away with voting entirely, and simply develop some way to objectively measure the empathy of al |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 18:11:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How exactly is your pugilism towards me setting that
example?
I don't consider words to be violence in this context, and IMHO, the type of out-of-touch idiocy displayed on betterhuman is best mocked.
quote:
Again, my friend, you assumed quite incorrectly that I am
passive about my philosophies. I have spent years
researching and writing my book, and over a year filling out the
website. During this period, I have interacted with
'hundreds' of people, sold hundreds of books (which doesn't even
begin to cover my exorbitant out-of-pocket advertising costs),
and have made many friends and enemies along the way. The
changes that I cite are 1) providing a non-ethereal
alternative perspective for people to consider, and 2) liberating
'many' people from ethereal addiction. If you would take
the time to read the weblog, you'd see that I have helped a
considerable number of people.
You are cute. I want to just pat you on the head. I've been involved in the national secular movement for 9 years and I hadn't even heard of your non-profit until now. You are being viciously challenged and mocked by the skeptics here, who in my experience are a pretty sharp and diverse group and also good representatives of above-average freethinkers. Non-freethinkers will not take you seriously because they already have accepted some other philosophical/theological authority. And us nontheists are a minority – which makes you a mostly scorned, unknown, or ignored minority within a minority. When I did a google searches for “bether” and “meme” your project doesn't come up front, and when I did a search for "better human", meme, bether I only got two hits, and the first was this conversation! You don't even have a wikipedia entry (although I'm sure you could make one for yourself.) You're not even on the map for social change, and for good reasons. But good luck there, fella! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 18:26:24 [Permalink]
|
Sean I have read much of your weblog, and I fail to see how you are helping anyone. Seems to me you are mostly killing time on an activity you enjoy because it pumps up your own ego.
quote:
an atheist position 'demands' that the perspective of religious people is delusional (not to be confused with unintelligent, demented, or any other conceivable failure of mind performance). Atheism has to define a religious person as one that has failed to assimilate enough information in order to have the correct perspective of reality; therefore, hierarchy has been established. Even if this subtle hierarchy is not derogatory in nature, the religious person will still feel the full weight of the atheist's judgment.
I am an atheist, and I do not consider religious people to all be delusional, nor do I define religious people as those who have not assimilated enough info in order to have the correct perspective of reality. I do not claim to know the correct perspective of reality. While I do tend to think that there must be an ultimate truth regarding the whole of reality, I think it is the height of arrogance for any human being to claim to know that truth over others. Yes, I do establish a hierarchy when encountering people who deny scientific evidence because of their religious beliefs, but not all religious people do that. Nor do I think that I have assimilated enough info in order to have the correct perspective of reality. So indeed respect, not tolerance, is the word I would use to describe how I feel toward most religious people and their beliefs.
It is not your narrow-minded perspective which bothers me so much as your assumptions about the minds of other people.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
SeanSinjin
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2006 : 07:46:45 [Permalink]
|
Hello again my friends. Once again, please forgive me if I've stepped over portions that are irrelevant.
quote:
quote:
Your original assertion was that my theory is more akin to a religion than a theory, in the attempt to make it appear that I am 'biting my own tail' with my anti-theology mantra.
No, I said that your statement "the bether exists" is exactly as religious as anyone else's statement "god exists."
You are presenting this statement out of context, my friend. Our discussion was within the scope of my Bether theory, and my statement simply reiterates that the theory attempts to describe bether as something that exists. It was not meant as an assertion of fact.
quote:
You're switching back and forth between two different meanings of "theory" freely and without notifying your readers. You seem skilled enough at it that it appears to be a purposeful attempt at obfuscation and confusion.
It's unfortunate that you perceive deceit where there is none. I have only ever used the ‘hypothesis' definition of theory when referring to Bether, which is more than obvious when reading the body of the theory. You seem skilled enough to realize that I would not gain a single thing from performing the deception you accuse me of.
quote:
quote:
quote:
So the answer is "no, I do not have any evidence that leaders voted into office by allegtedly empathic voters will be less likely to abuse their power."
Exactly.
Thank you.
What have you demonstrated that wasn't already obvious?
quote:
That doesn't throw my argument back at me, since I specifically said "objectively," while you're still talking about a subjective analysis.
Apologies, I may have misunderstood. Even so, my rationale for precluding an empathic measurement of leadership candidates remains unchanged.
quote:
Now it's getting confusing again.
Exactly, and that's due to multiple definitions for the same terms; something that requires cooperation to persevere through.
quote:
Was "there's over 5 billion heroin addicts on the planet that are wasting their lives in a deception..." a [s]theory, an assertion of fact, or just an opinion?
It depends upon who you ask. Myself, I believe it to be a [s]fact that there are no gods, so, from my point of view, it is a verifiable |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2006 : 08:43:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Not to be confused with respecting the person, but it's my opinion that it's impossible for an atheist to respect another's religious beliefs, any more than you can respect another's heroin habit.
And you persist in your thick-headed refusal to see something from another person's point of view. *sigh* I do not just respect the persons. I do respect some belief systems other than atheistic humanism. For instance, I deeply respect agnosticism, and I often wonder if that isn't a more intelligent and honest view than my own positive atheism. Another example, I respect liberal Quakerism and their belief in a mysterious and transcendant God that is within everyone and everything in the form of an inner light. I have had long conversations with my cousin who is a type of Mormon. He's not the type you typically think of - he's part of a very small and more liberal branch of Mormons who don't even call themselves "Mormons" because they don't want to be associated with the mainstream type. As I've gotten to know him I've come to understand more of why he believes what he believes, and I realize that it isn't because he doesn't have certain information, but rather because he's thinking differently than I am. I can't approach seeking ultimate truth the way he does, but I truly do respect his personal conclusions. It isn't the kind of understanding that I can convey in a short response in a forum since it was an exchange that took place over years of open conversations between two people who were honestly trying to understand each other's point of view.
I don't expect you to even understand what I'm saying. You have established a very black and white, supernaturalism vs naturalism dichotomy. That is what I mean when I say your perspective in narrow minded. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/22/2006 08:44:01 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2006 : 08:47:28 [Permalink]
|
One of the problems with language is that when we are talking about very abstract concepts, such as supernatural, God, faith, sacredness, spirituality, a person who uses those words might actually accept the same concept as someone who reject using those words.
Semantics is a bitch. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2006 : 09:42:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
One of the problems with language is that when we are talking about very abstract concepts, such as supernatural, God, faith, sacredness, spirituality, a person who uses those words might actually accept the same concept as someone who reject using those words.
Semantics is a bitch.
That's why I'm anti-semantic...  |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2006 : 17:48:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by SeanSinjin
(this analogy is a lot more accurate than you may appreciate)
Ah, an insult.quote:
Many of today's real sciences started off as science fiction.
Yes, but that isn't predictive.quote:
quote:
Yes, you should tell us how the developers and maintainers of the software will be held accountable to the people for mistakes and/or outright fraud.
Neural nets work upon the same premise that the brain is theorized to work upon (hence the term ‘neural'). It is essentially a probability matrix...
What a horrible description of a neural net, as well as being unresponsive to my point, which you don't get to for a while:quote:
As to your ‘fraud' and ‘mistakes' comments, I believe it will be easier to prevent this kind of activity when compared to democracy. Again, testing the theory will flush this statistic out.
So you actually don't have any method in mind at all to hold people accountable for fraud or mistakes, yet. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
omar55
New Member
5 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 11:32:52 [Permalink]
|
COOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL
Removed "O"s and "L"s for readability -- Boron10 |
| Edited by - Boron10 on 10/28/2006 13:39:46 |
|
|
|
skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend
USA
77 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 19:17:25 [Permalink]
|
With Sean and Richard Dawkins ,I think that we need to show religion for the absurdity it is and not respect nonsense.I am a naturalist, a strong atheist.How can one call berth. a theory if there is nothing factual behind it? Quacks just love to show off! |
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic. |
|
|
|
SeanSinjin
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2006 : 18:30:51 [Permalink]
|
Hello once again my friends,
quote:
I don't expect you to even understand what I'm saying. You have established a very black and white, supernaturalism vs naturalism dichotomy. That is what I mean when I say your perspective in narrow minded.
My friend Marfknox, I am ‘very' educated in the religious mindset because I was raised in a typical religious upbringing, church on Sunday, praying at night, etc. Up until I was 12 years old I was probably one of the better examples of a religious ‘drone'. I can succinctly identify exactly what it was that made God real to me, and I was prepared to die to defend that belief. By 14, I told my parents that I'm never going to church again, that it was all fraud, and that I was atheist.
Please believe me when I say that I ‘completely' understand the religious mind, even better than those that are religious. There is no narrow-minded prejudice or ignorance on my part. Having been on both sides, I believe this aptly qualifies me to fairly judge the merits and validity of either perspective.
quote:
quote:
(this analogy is a lot more accurate than you may appreciate)
Ah, an insult.
Not at all; it was more of an exclamation point. I have nothing but respect for the caliber of your thoughts.
quote:
quote:
Many of today's real sciences started off as science fiction.
Yes, but that isn't predictive.
Nor does it remain dismissive as you had intended.
quote:
So you actually don't have any method in mind at all to hold people accountable for fraud or mistakes, yet.
Well then, allow me to explore that corner of our future-civilization Mandelbrot. How about we incorporate collusion strategies that employ a diversity of interests working in unison? This should render it nearly impossible for any one person to influence the net without needing other corrupt individuals, perhaps ‘many' others. Nothing's perfect, but this should seriously hamper any malicious attempt to control the net.
As for mistakes, a multi-tiered approach to deployment would allow for phased, and hence, tested changes to take place. Simply put, any changes made would be tested on increasingly larger and more significant scales such that when this change is actually introduced into the primary system, it will have endured sufficient exposure to real-world processing. Also, any changes made should be visible to the entire populace such that mistakes will be most likely identified. This may seem as a weakness in that it will expose potential exploitation weaknesses, but by the same virtue, this exposure will allow those flaws to be remedied.
I'm sure I could spend an hour detailing other strategies, but I think that's best left to the culture that embraces this model.
quote:
|
|
|
SeanSinjin
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2006 : 18:46:58 [Permalink]
|
Apologies, forgot to stamp the prior post
BetterHuman.org Authenticity Code:
2a67f7c4-c741-4e27-9dad-260e8f3f2232 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2006 : 22:14:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by SeanSinjin
Having been on both sides, I believe this aptly qualifies me to fairly judge the merits and validity of either perspective.
From my chair, it sounds like you've got a gigantic anti-religion chip on your shoulder due to a harsh awakening at an age when many are unable to cope with such stress. And it seems to me that your statements here make it clear that you are singularly unable to be rational about religion.
For example, when you said,If you believe it's perfectly ok to blunder through
life with the completely insane perspective of gods, and
giving money to churches in the pursuit of immortality, being
high as a kite on mythology, scaring kids with fantasy
stories of hell so they'll submit to mythology, etc., then I
suppose 'ruined' doesn't work for you. I look at it like
there's over 5 billion heroin addicts on the planet that are
wasting their lives in a deception when they are capable of
tremendous qualities of life that they forego in the mad
pursuit of the unattainable. I stand by my usage of
'ruined'. you made it sound like anyone who believes in some sort of god is a rabid fundamentalist nutjob. You completely ignore (for example) the scientist working to save human lives who happens to go to church once a week and say Grace when with her family. This woman doesn't "forego" anything but sleeping in on Sundays and "tsk-tsks" from her maiden aunt at Thanksgiving.
The way you "look at it" seems to obviously be an utter rejection of the realities of life for the vast majority of religious people. You've gone to once extreme of the religious spectrum, and so it looks - from your perspective - like everyone else is at the opposite extreme. But I probably spend more time every week commuting to and from work than the average religious person spends thinking about their god or doing things for their god.
And, you did bring up the analogy with drugs a while back, yes. I have little doubt that your proposed prohibition of religious teaching will be as successful as the 18th Amendment was in stopping alcohol consumption and the current "war on drugs" is at stopping controlled-substance abuse. You seem to be so unable to fairly judge the merits of your own position that you're being willfully ignorant of the history of failure when people have attempted to legislate away these sorts of behaviour. Look at Soviet Russia's attempts to eliminate religion from their society - a rather obvious failure from day one, with quite a backlash as soon as the Iron Curtain was drawn away.quote:
Not at all; it was more of an exclamation point. I have nothing but respect for the caliber of your thoughts.
Interesting, then, that you think I would fail to appreciate the ramifications of the "disease analogy" with limiting freedom of expression. I don't, I just disagree with at least one of the premises that make it an analogy in the first place. After all, the only limits placed on freedom of expression now have to do with some forms of expression causing immediate harm to other people. While you obviously think that any amount of religosity is as immediately harmful as a heroin addiction, your judgement on such matters has (also obviously) been clouded by some sort of childhood Christian trauma.
It's a good thing that you seek to protect everyone from experiencing the same trauma you went through, but your good intentions are not enough to justify such a radically extreme program being implemented. Your proposed solution, w |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
