RE: Shape up and revamp your thoughts.
September 5, 2011 at 7:22 pm
(This post was last modified: September 5, 2011 at 7:52 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Firstly, what is it in string theory, or the idea of holographs that to you, argues against materialism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Theory That Ken Wilber?
Indian philosophy is not only that stuff, I also mentioned Cavarka. That being said, Indian philosophy IS made up of "that stuff". It isn't any more difficult for me to reduce the vedas to the absurd than any other religious text. If you want to cherry pick, go ahead. I'll call you on it though. The account of vedic genesis that I provided doesn't exactly square with biblical genesis, does it? They were speculative stabs, in both cases. They were, in both cases, incorrect. This in the first chapter of either. You posted a quote chiding "just-so" stories, well, these are "just-so" stories. If you want more about ants I'm game, if it was too thin. I didn't address birds or fish because they do not exhibit a "hive mind" as do ants ( I also know more about ants than birds or fish). They group together for survival, not exactly a melding of thoughts. I'm at a loss again here to understand why a school of fish to you implies a "greater something".
That materialism rests upon the observable world, and suggests to us that we should avoid making claims to knowledge that we cannot show anything for is not a weakness. To suggest otherwise is indeed to argue for "flying Zuesian teapots". Whether you are comfortable with it or not. You keep asking this question in every thread as though it hasn't been answered in every thread. What do you feel are the implications? That materialism can only make statements upon which evidence can be leveraged? How is this a problem? What scientific discovery has been made which cannot be quantified, tested, reproduced etc. Should there be different rules for what you believe in? Should scientific endeavors alter the principles that have been shown to work these passed few hundred years because your philosophy doesn't mesh? I hardly think so. If you want to claim knowledge, show something for it. How you plan to provide evidence for the existence of something immaterial is not my responsibility. It's your baby, you raise it.
"The scientific method — the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Wait wait wait, are you trying to ask me to disprove the immaterial? Tell you what, you define "the immaterial". So I know exactly what it is we're set to falsify.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Theory That Ken Wilber?
Indian philosophy is not only that stuff, I also mentioned Cavarka. That being said, Indian philosophy IS made up of "that stuff". It isn't any more difficult for me to reduce the vedas to the absurd than any other religious text. If you want to cherry pick, go ahead. I'll call you on it though. The account of vedic genesis that I provided doesn't exactly square with biblical genesis, does it? They were speculative stabs, in both cases. They were, in both cases, incorrect. This in the first chapter of either. You posted a quote chiding "just-so" stories, well, these are "just-so" stories. If you want more about ants I'm game, if it was too thin. I didn't address birds or fish because they do not exhibit a "hive mind" as do ants ( I also know more about ants than birds or fish). They group together for survival, not exactly a melding of thoughts. I'm at a loss again here to understand why a school of fish to you implies a "greater something".
That materialism rests upon the observable world, and suggests to us that we should avoid making claims to knowledge that we cannot show anything for is not a weakness. To suggest otherwise is indeed to argue for "flying Zuesian teapots". Whether you are comfortable with it or not. You keep asking this question in every thread as though it hasn't been answered in every thread. What do you feel are the implications? That materialism can only make statements upon which evidence can be leveraged? How is this a problem? What scientific discovery has been made which cannot be quantified, tested, reproduced etc. Should there be different rules for what you believe in? Should scientific endeavors alter the principles that have been shown to work these passed few hundred years because your philosophy doesn't mesh? I hardly think so. If you want to claim knowledge, show something for it. How you plan to provide evidence for the existence of something immaterial is not my responsibility. It's your baby, you raise it.
"The scientific method — the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Wait wait wait, are you trying to ask me to disprove the immaterial? Tell you what, you define "the immaterial". So I know exactly what it is we're set to falsify.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
