And yet. all mathematics can spring forth from a simple non mystical, non enigmatic order and logic, such as 2+2.
Perhaps the entire universe is the outgrowth of those simple self evident rules. Your "higher order" is an illusion based simple rules building upward. And there, the whole universe, explained, Anton.
Art is full of LIES as Plato said. A distotion of reality. Also religion is so much embedded on human culture, that one needs huge Critical thinking skills in order to dismiss it. I am positive that if everyone could do EXTENSIVE research on reality, science and natural laws, he/she would have to dismiss religion as a way of thinking. It's not Dark ages anymore, we have so much information available.
There are actually people like that Prof. There are people with PhDs who are trying to figured out really specific specialised shit about micro or cell biology in terms of the Christian concept of "The Fall". It is too absurd. Michael Shermer has a discussion with one and she is taking about lipid rafts and shit and I was blown away, she is actually looking at this as if The Fall happened and these changes occurred because of that. The mind split cognitive dissonance is amazing.
why do you pose the sciences and art and the feeling of awe art can inspire as opposites?
the human mind is built to find meaning in nature. This seems to clash with some people's ambiguityintolerance which makes them susceptible to finding the wrong answers to existentialistic questions, because of the strong need for answers.
i m a psychologist, i ve done neuroscientific research, am an atheist and would ask different questions than yours and find yours hollow and meaningless ...
@ professoranton, science does not really get at "truth" persay, beyond the phenomenal pattersn we observe. all sceintific methodology gives you is pragmatic constructs (theories), that have predictive value.
I think the degree with which we measure the universe will always baffles us but will always intriegue us a will always have to be our drive... But I dunno, I'm drunk :)
Is the universe orderly or does it just appear orderly to us humans who have the need to have things orderly? While we sit here galaxies are crashing into each other, stars are exploding, planets are being bombarded by asteroids, etc. That doesn't seem too orderly to me. :)
Some people love to live on a bandwagon. They're not going to come off no matter what!
lots of scientists like myself have deep spiritual beliefs they appear to compliment each other. Science cannot explain what energy actually is for example. I believe that science never can answer the really big questions because this world is a test of our intent and if we could get an idea of what it is actually about the test would not be valid.
there is, atleast to me, some kind of peace that come´s from acknowledging that we´re here for reasons that simply are as they are with no way to affect them. we, life, language, beauty, everything is because everything that has happened has happened the way it has happened. we are because we are and if we werent then the whole guestion, why, would be obsolite.
science IS about "life's miraculous mystery" - that's EXACTLY what it's discovering - the difference is not being satisfied with an answer that could easily be completely wrong
so basically science doesn't give (or doesn't give yet) the answers you want (or even assume) that's why we need religion that gives answers that cannot know to be true ....
anyone can ask a question - but to give an answer you can either know something or give a total assumption -- and religion is ALL assumption, you can discuss it to death it remains only that ...
Beacuse of the issue of PR, these people who you think are bright will just stick to their arguments no matter what and no matter how much evidence is provided. There are few people willing to debate here, just people shouting at one another as if the other person cannot hear. It is one way broadcasting and not two way communication to the most part.
It's pretty obvious to me that the universe is self-organizing. Calling that a yearning is too anthropomorphic for my taste; on the other hand, what's more anthropomorphic than thinking beings rising from non-living matter?
It feels like life is absurd. Maybe it is.. or maybe we are. The effect is much the same, down here, and one day I, whatever I am, will choke and die like an animal. Was Monty Python right?
I think you are mis-characterizing science minded people just a little bit. Scientists do not say that questions of 'why' are irrelevant, or unimportant, but that they are not scientific. The value that one places on these questions is separate from our understanding of the pure mechanical processes. Have you heard of the symphony of science videos?
I guess we can say it's all "nothing" and there is no "why". Maybe we have applied our own "why" to this entire universe and we are trying to figure out our own made up question.
I wonder would we really find meaningful conversations more commonplace if more people were willing to explore reality tunnels less comfortable to their habitual ego. Or would we lose sight of what we consider meaningful in that hall of masks, and become entrenched in suspected misunderstanding.
I kind of judge hawking for even going into the science-religion discussion, especially the way he does. I think it's obviouse to begin with that one can imagine a scientific description of the world if you don't ask these questions (like "why is there something"). And the proposal he makes (zero total energy, quantum fluctuation ect.) are quite vague. It's like an idea for a play which isn't written down yet.
Also to your dog-question: I'd like to know if humor is "natural" or terrestial.
@Fensterplaetzchen Also, I'm not sure if I understand how you view things. Here it seems to me you describe all scientists as people who try to answer every question with science. But they (should) only answer the questions in the scope of science. If hawking breaks down to a broad audience in his late days, probably it doesn't make things better.
The other questions are still meaningful, but not part of the scope. Most don't feel that everything is computable (maybe Stephen Wolfram does).
Terence McKenna talks about Scientism, who I guess you're alluding to with the 'felt presence' thing. Here's my thoughts: Science deals with the percieved. However, perception is only a small portion of the unknown unseen (the 'other' that you talk about) and the known unseen (the point of self). These are 2 elements of the universe that we must constantly deal with in life.
The point of self is fundamentally imperceptible, so it can only be travelled towards by introspection, not science.
heh, it's funny you spoke about eating at the end...
because as much i sympathize with the "get off your agenda" sentiment i fear the answer about the dialogue is "NO". "will" has to go on... the stone fall in the gravity well and universe spend in its expansion... first thing scientist sent off to some "lonely" place would be some food and water to find. if only to keep his own company for a moment longer...
Even in the quantum mechanisms of photosynthesis, it now appears that the sun's energy is "computed" down all possible pathways before the efficient one is chosen...the leaf is the experience of the past of all pathways of the photon, and the reactions are made in the leaf's present to convert the sun to leaf,,,it's quite beautiful and to me, fundamentally sacred. To feel the questions first changes the quality of the plurality of answers. Ask AronRa why a Harley is more beautiful than a Honda?
I sympathize with the why question; it's simply intriguing to even ponder the countless possibilities. I'd love to know why but why's are usually trails of other why's which I learned that the more you know about why, the less you know about the greater why. It becomes a bottomless pit of "if then"'s for possible out comes, which ends there. I feel that I learn best with asking how.Learning the how knowledge is more applicable.But initially the question is always why so i feel like I can connect
I was thinking about the best way to respond to Gary's most recent 50 minute rant. I think you and I share some methodological and epistemological approaches to truth that he hasn't fully been exposed to. I was thinking about doing a three part video review of Heidegger's 'Age of the World Picture', if you would at all be interested in collaborating/contributing in some way. I think it allows us to see science in the light of its capacity to project as oppose to 'understand' reality.
@periurban : that's a cop out. of course it's possible and goes on every day... but if you complain about that but go back to those that are not up to what you expect, it's your fault. Prof Anton seems to want people to agree with him, given a challenge at the level at which his ideas are created does not inspire him to partake, but rather to flee.
Quality conversation has come to his doorstep and been turned away.
@pyrrho314 Well, I understand what ProfAnton is saying, and I agree with him. I also enjoy InMendham, and I enjoy the squabbling. But this is not a debating chamber, and it very, very seldom leads to anything except entrenchment of ideology.
@periurban : only among the direct participant who are in small minority compared to viewers and even commenters. What do you suppose is going on with the silent majority?
Your final appeal is heartfelt. But you are in the wrong place, using the wrong medium. There is too much time between the stages of conversation here for people to ignore what they don't want to address and to reinforce their own point of view with self referential egotism. It isn't "I think therefore I am" it's "I speak to camera, therefore I'm right". We are entranced by the glowing pixels, and believe in our own projections more than the projections of others.
@periurban : right, if you are seeking to convince, you are indeed probably on the wrong planet as well... but if you seek people that do not take these chances to ignore, they are here. Only blindness is responsible for the notion they are not. You are addicted to a type of conversation, perhaps, that you also criticise.
@pyrrho314 No, I told you what I thought of the general tone of the conversations here, and in particular how they apply to Prof Anton. I'm not saying intelligent speech and thought isn't possible, clearly it is on both sides. But conversation cannot THRIVE and mutate and change and develop in the way it does in the real world.
@periurban : fine, I accept your clarification, but for the record it is above, you said "There's no way for an intelligent conversation to thrive here. The mechanism simply doesn't exist. It's babble and noise and light and sound and ego."
"who i am" is all thats important. it can't be 'classified'. it's about liv'g your truth, liv'g the authenticity of U/self, experienc'g oneself fully w/out hold'g o/self back from see'g One's authenticity. it's the natural ability to answer U'r own questions & answer your own "why's", when we have the potential to transcend UNconsciousness. if anywhere we need "faith" it's in ourselves! anywhere else & it's misplaced! e/one is entitled to their views as long as you KNOW U'r own truths.
I really wish I could say that there is something "in the others camps" but I dont think so. My religious friends always have something interesting about them, something that made me want to be their friend but religion is not one of them. good luck I hope you find someone to grow your ideas with
- Accepting that there is more to the universe than what we know right now.
- That we have an innate desire for sense.
I might come up with more if I get the time.
BTW, what about setting up a YT discussion about this, or even a Stickam event. I myself do not have too much to contribute, but I would happily act as the appreciating but also critical thinking audience.
One more thing I would like to add is that you fully accept the designation "human" as a nested term within primates, within metazoa, within life, within nature. Many people feel that this is an unacceptable concept because it impacts their narrative. The truly religious will treat your interest in discussion as heretical. Whereas scientists will either be uninterested or feel that they are "not allowed" due in part to the religious attitudes, and belief in NOMA.
Corey give Aron some more time, he might still respond.
I'm under the impression that you guys have different approach to all this, while Aron presents us with biological facts established by science, you have more psychological and philosophical perspective. And i have total respect for philosophy since Dan Dennet explained it to me in some video ;)
Sometimes i wonder. If there was: pure supernatural magic and we put on it enough stickers, wouldn't it become natural and common science ? ;)
@grom64pl Yes, the supernatural is a subjective term that describes a phenomenon which is either poorly understood or poorly defined given a limited understanding of natural laws.
I have commented a lot on this stream of videos already; I don't know if I am wasting my time. However, I have been trying to frame the apparent conflict to be helpful.
I think it is interesting that you have independently hit upon the friction that creationism faces when dealing with a scientific approach to understanding nature. Your feeling of friction is more interesting to me: you don't accept creation stories as factual, but still recognize the human need for narrative and "why".
The approach you bring to this video is more useful. I think the human sense of wonder is an important topic, but people are not comfortable with scientists wieghing in on why things are here. The use fo science is that it can deepen our understanding of how nature works, showing that some of the why questions are meaningless. This realization that some of the questions cultures have formed around are now nonsensical in light of deeper knowledge is the issue you have hit upon.
@pyrrho314 I totally agree. Correy might want to ad some few lines to the description bar, so that people understand the historical cause for these vids.
The Absolute is unbecoming and sterile if unbelieved. What is Truth? This question implies colour-blindness; it is asked rather as if Truth were an unrelated fact, thing, or abstract, the reason being that we do not conceive of it as multiple, varied, universal, or complex, but always as abstract. For there are many kinds of truth and all our truths are arrived at through negatives—what has no beginning has no becoming; what is without form has no meaning.
@tranquil87 Truth is of all things past, actual and potential in the conceptive—therefore Truth is relative. What is true for me may not be so for you, and what is true now may not be so later, or at other times and places, hence truth has a chronology in space and 'time-space truth'. There are the truths we create from our 'as if' realities—environment, character, temperament, learning, etc.
@tranquil87 Truth is also born of our known and latent beliefs so that to the insincere truth is baffling. Truth may be induced by the obsessive, by faith, or by something committed: these are the 'personal truths', the 'as if truths'. I assert that all lies are true when accurately reorientated to time and place, and may be called 'sidereal truths'. 'Absolute truth', if any, is the immediate truth, the instant, already in yesterday, so never is.
@tranquil87 All reality, all life, all truths are of yesterday, and tomorrow is the beginning of another yesterday and gives 'commutative truth'… but I am sick of all categories, nominalism and all bloody science—so enough of Truth, and, like Pontius Pilate I wash my hands of it. Too much truth in me already… - Austin Osman Spare
Religion has been twisted, history of very early/prehistoric star gazing monolithic structure building people from 11000 or so, that's what religion is, staring up at the sky and trying to figure out that and making up stories about stars no god needed. Im an atheist and an artist and I don't need dogma or even mystery for inspiration, the world gives enough inspiration from the natural world, people, music, art , literature, thoughts, emotions and ideas, no need to muck it up with religion.
Ok here comes one of my spontanyous creative outbursts: If the universe would be deterministic and we would be able to build a computer who would be able to predict the future and also predicts his own "breakdown", would he be able to act upon it, and could the persons vieuwing the date change their lives or would it be determined they do not....
(got me going in circles for a few minutes before i saw the flaws)
its all a dream its all a fake reality that allow these tangeble quirks to fit together momentarily .call it science soup.or religious dessert! peace !
Science and religion make the same fallacy. It assumes that it can answer the ultimate truth. Unfortunately both results in trying to "bite your own teeth" because of the limits of human language.
@Gettinghitonattheban I am disagreeing about science. It does not look for the ultimate truth per se, only the truth that can be uncovered by the tools it uses.
I think Nietzsche's concept of truth out of error and logic out of irrationality fits perfectly here...when science art and religion are considered for what they are they become perspectives...yes interpretations of the world or reality...if one posits logic at an extreme reason is but a small part of the universe yet science rests its foundations upon it...when we take a look at history we can actually make the argument that religion is almost soley responsible for scientific reationary ideas.
I know who AronRa' audience is becasue I was just attacked by one of them....most of them I believe are dogmatic cartesian plaontists...seriously take into account Becker when dealing with these people they feel a need to belong to a label or a movement, which by virtue of its "certain truths" must attack the "other" in-order-to- feel ontologically secure in an ambigous universe.
Man this is such a great video, and applies not only to theism and atheism but also to politics.
natedaug1 7 months ago
Easy answer, Anton.
2 + 2 = what?
4. Is that mystical order?
No.
And yet. all mathematics can spring forth from a simple non mystical, non enigmatic order and logic, such as 2+2.
Perhaps the entire universe is the outgrowth of those simple self evident rules. Your "higher order" is an illusion based simple rules building upward. And there, the whole universe, explained, Anton.
jinitron 1 year ago
What.....?
Yony42 1 year ago
Art is full of LIES as Plato said. A distotion of reality. Also religion is so much embedded on human culture, that one needs huge Critical thinking skills in order to dismiss it. I am positive that if everyone could do EXTENSIVE research on reality, science and natural laws, he/she would have to dismiss religion as a way of thinking. It's not Dark ages anymore, we have so much information available.
Neueregel 1 year ago
There are actually people like that Prof. There are people with PhDs who are trying to figured out really specific specialised shit about micro or cell biology in terms of the Christian concept of "The Fall". It is too absurd. Michael Shermer has a discussion with one and she is taking about lipid rafts and shit and I was blown away, she is actually looking at this as if The Fall happened and these changes occurred because of that. The mind split cognitive dissonance is amazing.
AntiSisyphus 1 year ago
@AntiSisyphus indeed, very true. A Ph.D only makes you Expert at a specific realm/field. One needs more than that to be a complete thinker..
Neueregel 1 year ago
...albeit them being nicely phrased and your appeal to "us" looking sincere.
Lutzifer31337 1 year ago
why do you pose the sciences and art and the feeling of awe art can inspire as opposites?
the human mind is built to find meaning in nature. This seems to clash with some people's ambiguityintolerance which makes them susceptible to finding the wrong answers to existentialistic questions, because of the strong need for answers.
i m a psychologist, i ve done neuroscientific research, am an atheist and would ask different questions than yours and find yours hollow and meaningless ...
Lutzifer31337 1 year ago
@ professoranton, science does not really get at "truth" persay, beyond the phenomenal pattersn we observe. all sceintific methodology gives you is pragmatic constructs (theories), that have predictive value.
ex0gen 1 year ago
Anton, I would encourage you to watch this video on what physicists are saying about the universe's beginning (and the role of a creator):
watch?v=nb7LCau_Z_Y
PluripotentBrain 1 year ago
I think the degree with which we measure the universe will always baffles us but will always intriegue us a will always have to be our drive... But I dunno, I'm drunk :)
MrThompson626 1 year ago
Is the universe orderly or does it just appear orderly to us humans who have the need to have things orderly? While we sit here galaxies are crashing into each other, stars are exploding, planets are being bombarded by asteroids, etc. That doesn't seem too orderly to me. :)
Some people love to live on a bandwagon. They're not going to come off no matter what!
With great respect I wish you well!
rhocando 1 year ago
lots of scientists like myself have deep spiritual beliefs they appear to compliment each other. Science cannot explain what energy actually is for example. I believe that science never can answer the really big questions because this world is a test of our intent and if we could get an idea of what it is actually about the test would not be valid.
ste6666666 1 year ago
there is, atleast to me, some kind of peace that come´s from acknowledging that we´re here for reasons that simply are as they are with no way to affect them. we, life, language, beauty, everything is because everything that has happened has happened the way it has happened. we are because we are and if we werent then the whole guestion, why, would be obsolite.
TuplaPekka 1 year ago
Yeah, as an atheist I can sympathize with the pantheists and the physicalistic Monists, but that's about it.
niriop 1 year ago
thank you for making the videos, very very interesting
Romach33 1 year ago
As Aristotle pointed out, 'It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.'
Perhaps we need more entertainment.
invanorm 1 year ago
Very, very sharp thinking Prof. Thanks for another great video.
DanJXXX 1 year ago
science IS about "life's miraculous mystery" - that's EXACTLY what it's discovering - the difference is not being satisfied with an answer that could easily be completely wrong
symelian 1 year ago
so basically science doesn't give (or doesn't give yet) the answers you want (or even assume) that's why we need religion that gives answers that cannot know to be true ....
anyone can ask a question - but to give an answer you can either know something or give a total assumption -- and religion is ALL assumption, you can discuss it to death it remains only that ...
symelian 1 year ago
Beacuse of the issue of PR, these people who you think are bright will just stick to their arguments no matter what and no matter how much evidence is provided. There are few people willing to debate here, just people shouting at one another as if the other person cannot hear. It is one way broadcasting and not two way communication to the most part.
BespokeGroupUK 1 year ago
It's pretty obvious to me that the universe is self-organizing. Calling that a yearning is too anthropomorphic for my taste; on the other hand, what's more anthropomorphic than thinking beings rising from non-living matter?
It feels like life is absurd. Maybe it is.. or maybe we are. The effect is much the same, down here, and one day I, whatever I am, will choke and die like an animal. Was Monty Python right?
Gesmehod 1 year ago
I think you are mis-characterizing science minded people just a little bit. Scientists do not say that questions of 'why' are irrelevant, or unimportant, but that they are not scientific. The value that one places on these questions is separate from our understanding of the pure mechanical processes. Have you heard of the symphony of science videos?
Linedriven 1 year ago
Comment removed
TWITfromURANUS 1 year ago
I guess we can say it's all "nothing" and there is no "why". Maybe we have applied our own "why" to this entire universe and we are trying to figure out our own made up question.
01jerm10 1 year ago
Professor, this is off topic, but what is your opinion on postmodernism?
TaterTyphoon 1 year ago
I wonder would we really find meaningful conversations more commonplace if more people were willing to explore reality tunnels less comfortable to their habitual ego. Or would we lose sight of what we consider meaningful in that hall of masks, and become entrenched in suspected misunderstanding.
blaclive 1 year ago
I kind of judge hawking for even going into the science-religion discussion, especially the way he does. I think it's obviouse to begin with that one can imagine a scientific description of the world if you don't ask these questions (like "why is there something"). And the proposal he makes (zero total energy, quantum fluctuation ect.) are quite vague. It's like an idea for a play which isn't written down yet.
Also to your dog-question: I'd like to know if humor is "natural" or terrestial.
Fensterplaetzchen 1 year ago
@Fensterplaetzchen Also, I'm not sure if I understand how you view things. Here it seems to me you describe all scientists as people who try to answer every question with science. But they (should) only answer the questions in the scope of science. If hawking breaks down to a broad audience in his late days, probably it doesn't make things better.
The other questions are still meaningful, but not part of the scope. Most don't feel that everything is computable (maybe Stephen Wolfram does).
Fensterplaetzchen 1 year ago
Terence McKenna talks about Scientism, who I guess you're alluding to with the 'felt presence' thing. Here's my thoughts: Science deals with the percieved. However, perception is only a small portion of the unknown unseen (the 'other' that you talk about) and the known unseen (the point of self). These are 2 elements of the universe that we must constantly deal with in life.
The point of self is fundamentally imperceptible, so it can only be travelled towards by introspection, not science.
natmanprime 1 year ago
heh, it's funny you spoke about eating at the end...
because as much i sympathize with the "get off your agenda" sentiment i fear the answer about the dialogue is "NO". "will" has to go on... the stone fall in the gravity well and universe spend in its expansion... first thing scientist sent off to some "lonely" place would be some food and water to find. if only to keep his own company for a moment longer...
jogayot 1 year ago
Even in the quantum mechanisms of photosynthesis, it now appears that the sun's energy is "computed" down all possible pathways before the efficient one is chosen...the leaf is the experience of the past of all pathways of the photon, and the reactions are made in the leaf's present to convert the sun to leaf,,,it's quite beautiful and to me, fundamentally sacred. To feel the questions first changes the quality of the plurality of answers. Ask AronRa why a Harley is more beautiful than a Honda?
9macrina9 1 year ago
@9macrina9 :-).....thanks for this lovely thoughtful follow up. I will favorite it.
9macrina9 1 year ago
I sympathize with the why question; it's simply intriguing to even ponder the countless possibilities. I'd love to know why but why's are usually trails of other why's which I learned that the more you know about why, the less you know about the greater why. It becomes a bottomless pit of "if then"'s for possible out comes, which ends there. I feel that I learn best with asking how.Learning the how knowledge is more applicable.But initially the question is always why so i feel like I can connect
phoisgreat 1 year ago
I was thinking about the best way to respond to Gary's most recent 50 minute rant. I think you and I share some methodological and epistemological approaches to truth that he hasn't fully been exposed to. I was thinking about doing a three part video review of Heidegger's 'Age of the World Picture', if you would at all be interested in collaborating/contributing in some way. I think it allows us to see science in the light of its capacity to project as oppose to 'understand' reality.
AproposOfWetSnow 1 year ago
Comment removed
AproposOfWetSnow 1 year ago
I think you echo the sentiments of a recent video of mine. I will attach as response.
Hythloday71 1 year ago
no, thank you. it seems it's really hard to learn something these days. I appreciate your effort, there's a lot of my own ahead of me.
cuntsound 1 year ago
There's no way for an intelligent conversation to thrive here. The mechanism simply doesn't exist. It's babble and noise and light and sound and ego.
periurban 1 year ago
@periurban : that's a cop out. of course it's possible and goes on every day... but if you complain about that but go back to those that are not up to what you expect, it's your fault. Prof Anton seems to want people to agree with him, given a challenge at the level at which his ideas are created does not inspire him to partake, but rather to flee.
Quality conversation has come to his doorstep and been turned away.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 Well, I understand what ProfAnton is saying, and I agree with him. I also enjoy InMendham, and I enjoy the squabbling. But this is not a debating chamber, and it very, very seldom leads to anything except entrenchment of ideology.
periurban 1 year ago
@periurban : only among the direct participant who are in small minority compared to viewers and even commenters. What do you suppose is going on with the silent majority?
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 Good point. The listening is as important as the speaking.
periurban 1 year ago
Your final appeal is heartfelt. But you are in the wrong place, using the wrong medium. There is too much time between the stages of conversation here for people to ignore what they don't want to address and to reinforce their own point of view with self referential egotism. It isn't "I think therefore I am" it's "I speak to camera, therefore I'm right". We are entranced by the glowing pixels, and believe in our own projections more than the projections of others.
periurban 1 year ago
@periurban : right, if you are seeking to convince, you are indeed probably on the wrong planet as well... but if you seek people that do not take these chances to ignore, they are here. Only blindness is responsible for the notion they are not. You are addicted to a type of conversation, perhaps, that you also criticise.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 I don't think you know much about the kinds of conversations I've had here. I'm not blind.
periurban 1 year ago
@periurban : you have just told me the kind of conversation you have had, impossible ones, certainly not the kind that you said isn't possible.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 No, I told you what I thought of the general tone of the conversations here, and in particular how they apply to Prof Anton. I'm not saying intelligent speech and thought isn't possible, clearly it is on both sides. But conversation cannot THRIVE and mutate and change and develop in the way it does in the real world.
periurban 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@periurban : fine, I accept your clarification, but for the record it is above, you said "There's no way for an intelligent conversation to thrive here. The mechanism simply doesn't exist. It's babble and noise and light and sound and ego."
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@periurban maybe my friend maybe. That is too bad.
Professoranton 1 year ago
@periurban Great comment, and true I think.
natedaug1 7 months ago
The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.
The Master acts without doing anything and teaches without saying anything.
I just went to an exhibition and stood in the relative space where Vincent Van Gogh stood to paint. I had a tingle that science couldn't explain.
periurban 1 year ago
"who i am" is all thats important. it can't be 'classified'. it's about liv'g your truth, liv'g the authenticity of U/self, experienc'g oneself fully w/out hold'g o/self back from see'g One's authenticity. it's the natural ability to answer U'r own questions & answer your own "why's", when we have the potential to transcend UNconsciousness. if anywhere we need "faith" it's in ourselves! anywhere else & it's misplaced! e/one is entitled to their views as long as you KNOW U'r own truths.
folly4444 1 year ago
About how dumb creationist are, just type it in the search box and you'll see.
And why I'm concerned ? Being in Poland ~5k miles away ?
Because US is superpower-wannabe and It CAN NOT be led by religious fanatic waiting for Armageddon, Antichrist, Rapture and other BS.
grom64pl 1 year ago
I really wish I could say that there is something "in the others camps" but I dont think so. My religious friends always have something interesting about them, something that made me want to be their friend but religion is not one of them. good luck I hope you find someone to grow your ideas with
Thunderharald 1 year ago
Sympathies I have:
- Experience of the numinous (awe, ...).
- Accepting that there is more to the universe than what we know right now.
- That we have an innate desire for sense.
I might come up with more if I get the time.
BTW, what about setting up a YT discussion about this, or even a Stickam event. I myself do not have too much to contribute, but I would happily act as the appreciating but also critical thinking audience.
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
One more thing I would like to add is that you fully accept the designation "human" as a nested term within primates, within metazoa, within life, within nature. Many people feel that this is an unacceptable concept because it impacts their narrative. The truly religious will treat your interest in discussion as heretical. Whereas scientists will either be uninterested or feel that they are "not allowed" due in part to the religious attitudes, and belief in NOMA.
stefanlittle 1 year ago
Corey give Aron some more time, he might still respond.
I'm under the impression that you guys have different approach to all this, while Aron presents us with biological facts established by science, you have more psychological and philosophical perspective. And i have total respect for philosophy since Dan Dennet explained it to me in some video ;)
Sometimes i wonder. If there was: pure supernatural magic and we put on it enough stickers, wouldn't it become natural and common science ? ;)
grom64pl 1 year ago
@grom64pl Yes, the supernatural is a subjective term that describes a phenomenon which is either poorly understood or poorly defined given a limited understanding of natural laws.
tex959 1 year ago
I have commented a lot on this stream of videos already; I don't know if I am wasting my time. However, I have been trying to frame the apparent conflict to be helpful.
I think it is interesting that you have independently hit upon the friction that creationism faces when dealing with a scientific approach to understanding nature. Your feeling of friction is more interesting to me: you don't accept creation stories as factual, but still recognize the human need for narrative and "why".
stefanlittle 1 year ago 2
@stefanlittle
The approach you bring to this video is more useful. I think the human sense of wonder is an important topic, but people are not comfortable with scientists wieghing in on why things are here. The use fo science is that it can deepen our understanding of how nature works, showing that some of the why questions are meaningless. This realization that some of the questions cultures have formed around are now nonsensical in light of deeper knowledge is the issue you have hit upon.
stefanlittle 1 year ago
please leave the videos up.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@pyrrho314 I totally agree. Correy might want to ad some few lines to the description bar, so that people understand the historical cause for these vids.
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
Great question at the end. Comparing religion and science to art has got me thinking, thanks.
AnneOnAMoose 1 year ago
The Absolute is unbecoming and sterile if unbelieved. What is Truth? This question implies colour-blindness; it is asked rather as if Truth were an unrelated fact, thing, or abstract, the reason being that we do not conceive of it as multiple, varied, universal, or complex, but always as abstract. For there are many kinds of truth and all our truths are arrived at through negatives—what has no beginning has no becoming; what is without form has no meaning.
tranquil87 1 year ago
@tranquil87 Truth is of all things past, actual and potential in the conceptive—therefore Truth is relative. What is true for me may not be so for you, and what is true now may not be so later, or at other times and places, hence truth has a chronology in space and 'time-space truth'. There are the truths we create from our 'as if' realities—environment, character, temperament, learning, etc.
tranquil87 1 year ago
@tranquil87 Truth is also born of our known and latent beliefs so that to the insincere truth is baffling. Truth may be induced by the obsessive, by faith, or by something committed: these are the 'personal truths', the 'as if truths'. I assert that all lies are true when accurately reorientated to time and place, and may be called 'sidereal truths'. 'Absolute truth', if any, is the immediate truth, the instant, already in yesterday, so never is.
tranquil87 1 year ago
@tranquil87 All reality, all life, all truths are of yesterday, and tomorrow is the beginning of another yesterday and gives 'commutative truth'… but I am sick of all categories, nominalism and all bloody science—so enough of Truth, and, like Pontius Pilate I wash my hands of it. Too much truth in me already… - Austin Osman Spare
tranquil87 1 year ago
@tranquil87
So is what you just said true? Or just true for you? If the latter why are you leaving messages?
95TurboSol 1 year ago
@95TurboSol you must've missed that I was quoting someone (a mystic)
tranquil87 1 year ago
Religion has been twisted, history of very early/prehistoric star gazing monolithic structure building people from 11000 or so, that's what religion is, staring up at the sky and trying to figure out that and making up stories about stars no god needed. Im an atheist and an artist and I don't need dogma or even mystery for inspiration, the world gives enough inspiration from the natural world, people, music, art , literature, thoughts, emotions and ideas, no need to muck it up with religion.
DJBerber 1 year ago
To be created in God's image is to have the compacity to use words and form complexe thoughts.
Boethius3007 1 year ago
Can't we read a fiction book and enjoy it as art without believing it for fact?
The real problem I have with religion isn't the art you can find in it, it's people attempting to state it as objective facts of the universe.
Art is about feeling and emotion. Science is about finding out what is true and what is not.
fractal420 1 year ago
Ok here comes one of my spontanyous creative outbursts: If the universe would be deterministic and we would be able to build a computer who would be able to predict the future and also predicts his own "breakdown", would he be able to act upon it, and could the persons vieuwing the date change their lives or would it be determined they do not....
(got me going in circles for a few minutes before i saw the flaws)
Geertpieter 1 year ago
its all a dream its all a fake reality that allow these tangeble quirks to fit together momentarily .call it science soup.or religious dessert! peace !
thesunshon 1 year ago
Science and religion make the same fallacy. It assumes that it can answer the ultimate truth. Unfortunately both results in trying to "bite your own teeth" because of the limits of human language.
Gettinghitonattheban 1 year ago
@Gettinghitonattheban What is ultimate truth?
fractal420 1 year ago
@fractal420
Who am I? What is reality? etc. etc.
Gettinghitonattheban 1 year ago
@Gettinghitonattheban I am disagreeing about science. It does not look for the ultimate truth per se, only the truth that can be uncovered by the tools it uses.
timeofwonder2009 1 year ago
brilliant, dont leave dude
aerobique 1 year ago
I KNOW if I could see through the eyes of a cephalopod, my understanding of the world would be more clear.
lucerfarul 1 year ago
Im still with ya Prof.
f1ghtclub2k3 1 year ago
I think Nietzsche's concept of truth out of error and logic out of irrationality fits perfectly here...when science art and religion are considered for what they are they become perspectives...yes interpretations of the world or reality...if one posits logic at an extreme reason is but a small part of the universe yet science rests its foundations upon it...when we take a look at history we can actually make the argument that religion is almost soley responsible for scientific reationary ideas.
f1ghtclub2k3 1 year ago
I know who AronRa' audience is becasue I was just attacked by one of them....most of them I believe are dogmatic cartesian plaontists...seriously take into account Becker when dealing with these people they feel a need to belong to a label or a movement, which by virtue of its "certain truths" must attack the "other" in-order-to- feel ontologically secure in an ambigous universe.
f1ghtclub2k3 1 year ago 2