I know I'm three weeks late, but this is the funniest thing I've ever read on IIN.
Pseudointellectuals are the best. I read as far as "We are humans. Or are we?" before I had to stop laughing, catch my breath and get some popcorn.
Let me break it down for you. Basically, this college freshman has finally discovered that there is an overarching structure to most religious mythologies, and in diluting their content to the point of complete insubstantiality they claim that it cannot be disputed.
It's analogous to a psychic telling you, "I bet I can describe your entire life. It starts with birth and ends with death. Sometimes, things happen in between." Except with far more imprecise quasi-mystical terms thrown in. Hold for applause. As you can very well see, people eat it up because people love bullshit.
Don't waste your time with this stuff - learn to discern. I've seen more interesting musings from first-year philosophy students. But my favorite part is when they put the Big Bang theory in quotation marks.
Congratulations, you made a funny. Now, since I see this..."flutterhigh", has actually posted to a thread without the respect of replying to the actual poster, they indeed have no respect.
So I will reply akin.
First off, never even finished the thread, this is not even half of the picture I was painting, so your grossly oversimplifying the book you haven't read completely yet. Neuroneptunian wanted me to explain the entire question I had in this first thread, and I simply couldn't do that it for the simple fact my fingers would fall off and it would be too long. So I broke it to a simple statement as you can see with her and my continued conversation, I said the very same thing you said (She wrote me off after that because I didn't explain it all, even though I told everyone explicitly that it was Part I). Yes, it is all a scam made of money, fear and guilt. Figures. Second, yes when you grow up in a Pentecostal religion that suffocated you from birth, you see life differently. No thanks to your obvious scoffing and arrogance of me and people who go through the deep moral guilt and fear of blasphemy from youth, thank you for noticing I escaped luckily enough from it. Third, FYI I put the word "theory" in quotation marks you human orifice, not BIG, and not BANG. Get it straight. Finally, I do have more "philosophical musings" that you probably would have a hard time disputing, and since your so high on your pedestal, why don't you come down and teach me a lesson. I'm always eager to learn, especially from someone who replies with such callousness.
Listen dude, this religion thing was one of the first things I came upon, so stuff it just because you've been on something that I just came too. Your arrogance can and will be your downfall if you let it. Someone is always better than you, and I know your not challenging me, but don't encourage me, because I will soak you up like a Brawny Paper Towel Commercial. Aha. Ha.
Oh btw, I do understand the analogy. So in saying my "Holy Grail" as you bastardized my...yes naive position on subsidizing the principles of religion into a prism...I understand....doesn't need anymore pursuing. If only everyone believed that. I believe I just wish I could get even Islamic extremists, and closed off Amish to agree to something. I guess I should leave that to the diplomats of peace in the Middle East I guess....
Oh and if we are all atoms vibrating constantly at the molecular level, and by quantum theory no atom is in one place at one time what does that mean? If we see, but don't "actually" see with the retina simply because the brain only interprets through fragmentation and then reorganization of what is reflected through from the pupils, then what is this reality we are perceiving? Also if this was the only reality then why do we have lucid dreams? Ever had one? By saying are we humans I meant what truly is this existence? Is this are only form? Are we human? I think no...It's only what we give ourselves as a name but it is directly compatible to bacteria giving themselves a name when they were created in a lab and already given a name, but they are not conscious of it because they cannot perceive the bigger reality. Or existing while not existing is even bigger...Schrodinger's Cat is one example. Just musings Flutter.
Haha, you're so angry! This is more than I could have asked for.
I didn't reply to you because I had little interest in engaging in an inane month-old discussion (or more accurately, vague diatribe with the occasional poster chiming in with "hmm interesting" or "what the fuck?"). You should be glad, I've given you the first substantial feedback here - I think you're at least clever enough to see that nobody can decipher your drunken ramblings. You remind me of my grandfather at Christmas, but with better bladder control. And clearly you aren't drinking eggnog - rubbing alcohol, I presume?
With regards to your first "point": I'm grossly oversimplifying the unfinished book of your gross oversimplification of dozens of books you've skimmed? This isn't a scam for money or fear, it's a scam for self-esteem. Here's how I can tell. At this point, you're throwing around terms you are clearly only tangentially aware of with the hopes of scaring me into submission. Schrodinger's cat, for example, does not merely "exist while nor existing" - the point of the thought experiment was to question the validity of the quantum mechanics you're pretending to understand by arguing that if a wavefunction collapse is dependent upon observation, then the logical extrapolations of that become nonsensical. It was more of a refutation of quantum principles than sense itself - Schrodinger was arguing that it made no sense. God forbid he ever posthumously comes across your posts.
With regards to your second "point": Eh, pass.
With regards to your third "point": I know, and that's what I was referring to. This brings me back to your Wikipedia-level understanding of the terms you're using, because I'm not sure you realize that the word "theory" means something very different in the field of science. It does not mean speculation. It refers to an empirically corroborated set of descriptions of patterns. Gravity is a theory too. But it's ok, many high-functioning preschoolers make this mistake.
With regards to your final (?) "point": I'm sure your diary is absolutely riveting, but I'm not interested in spellchecking it.
With regards to your post-final "point": Maybe they'd agree if you reduced your claims even just a little further. Tell them "YOU ALL BELIEVE THINGS" and then no one person in the entire world could disagree! Isn't that what you want? For everyone to agree with you?
With regards to your wince-inducing adulteration of quantum physics: You're either referring to the concept of a superposition of eigenstates (it does eventually collapse, you know), or Heisenberg's uncertainty. Either way it's nonsense. Yes, you're very clever to have figured out that our senses are fallible channels through which we interact with reality, it's not as though that question hasn't been debated for millennia in the form of empiricism vs. rationalism. The point about humans you clearly stole from a fourteen year old's poetry chapbook does not effectively question reality - we are human solely because that's what the word means. Language is tautological like that. Read Wittgenstein if you haven't already (haha, who am I kidding. You haven't).
Anyway, thanks. This has been hugely enjoyable. Let me preempt you by taking a note from the troll's elementary handbook: this will be my last response. I will not respond further. And to preempt your ego: yes, it's totally because I'm stupid and I just can't comprehend the magnitude of what you're saying. Sleep well.
Thank you. Let me tell you I am far from angry, as I must laugh at loud at that statement and this conversing. I give acquiesence to someone who can explain some things to me on here. I am again going to point out that religion is a scam of, and here using your logic of "self-esteem" FOR MONEY. For if it was just for self-esteem then they wouldn't need the talents of silver and gold in the outcome would they? The end goal IS money. A scam of self-esteem FOR money. We are both right. Also, naturally as your callous behavior suggests, I knew you couldn't say more than "meh" on the fact that some people die believing in something that grips more than a billion people today. I escaped the vortex of thought. Thank me and me myself.
Wow Grampa? Am I really that bad? whew that's harsh. I must admit you sound like you pulled out your dark socks and arm warmers for this one. Sweatband included no punches PULLED.
Gross oversimplification of books I've skimmed? I read btw, magazines are for skimming and I read those. College reading level by 7th grade but wasted it on science fiction novels. Bit of a procrastinator so take your pick on how far behind I may be...but time waits for no man and I understand life more than ever to take advantage of it. No, the gross oversimplification of a mind you have no idea of how much potential exists in it. Gross oversimplification by disregarding anything more I am saying by arrogantly stating that the "presiding" paragraphs (yes they were heavy heavy)you just wrote will be your last. I will not have the last laugh I humbly give admission to, but I am sure you may read this; so know you are making me stronger and I thank you for it.
There is no diary my guy. Little bit to masculine for that. Dreams of lucidity is as far as that goes. Be not the hypocrite either.
I do NOT pretend to understand quantum theory, mechanics or any of the kind. I have simply read up on some of the points it consists of. I take no credit or say I am anywhere near proficient at it's principles. I do know what a thought experiment is and a famous example: Throw a Spear into Space
You can use them in philosophy too. I am not a scientist, just a beginning philosopher on cognitive theory. Never read Wittgenstein, but have you ever read Stephen Laberge? You might find it interesting, for you never answered one of my questions by the way.
So what happens when the states of measured position do actually collapse?
Now you touched upon what I am directly focusing on for my studies. P.S I am not in college at this point have no philisophical training whatsoever except my own beginning musings. This is my alpha stage and I would like to say I am going to be focused on Epistemology and Ontology. Empiricism vs Rationalism being a study from epistemology I would also like to say I would be more inclined toward rationalism. Cognitive sourcing for reason and what we sense is directly the reason why we sense. Without the conscious there would be no senses to describe. I believe animals pin their cognitive solutions more deeply from the unconscious state of mind i.e reflexes, instinct and so on. We humans have a much larger battery of recognition of self, identity and that alone gives us the solutions to create a more expressive view of who we are.
Then I am sorry, for it seems if only at this moment that you look at pride more than reason as a means to communicate with for before "We" comes "Part I". It means the question will be answered in due time, please allow patience to be your virtue as Rome was not built in one day.
Of course. As you can see every religion has a set of values. A mode of principles. A program of thoughts. Call it a doctrine or a series of epiphany's all have a dogma, and if you are offended by such words then flexibility in religion towards free thinking is a highly accepted art form. If that takes the edge off then as I state there is a strict regulation and scrutiny towards what ideas are acceptable and those that are not. All have their separate belief system and they adhere to it faithfully.
I have figured a format of thought patterns that "all" religions identify with, no matter how different their worship or acknowledgement of "what is"....is.
Further, those thought patterns I have taken and put together into a organized chaos (more on that later) that subsequently illuminates every thought pattern that identifies over and through the stigmas that hold an idea that they all are different. Not by any means grossly stating that all religions are the same through and through, but all hold a certain "code" that resonates throughout every one of their respective existences in human life.
IIN That I break religion down to make "everyone" agree with me?
← View full post
...I read it but you did not explain the question.
--
flutterhigh
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Immune2BS&way2Illuminated
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
I know I'm three weeks late, but this is the funniest thing I've ever read on IIN.
Pseudointellectuals are the best. I read as far as "We are humans. Or are we?" before I had to stop laughing, catch my breath and get some popcorn.
Let me break it down for you. Basically, this college freshman has finally discovered that there is an overarching structure to most religious mythologies, and in diluting their content to the point of complete insubstantiality they claim that it cannot be disputed.
It's analogous to a psychic telling you, "I bet I can describe your entire life. It starts with birth and ends with death. Sometimes, things happen in between." Except with far more imprecise quasi-mystical terms thrown in. Hold for applause. As you can very well see, people eat it up because people love bullshit.
Don't waste your time with this stuff - learn to discern. I've seen more interesting musings from first-year philosophy students. But my favorite part is when they put the Big Bang theory in quotation marks.
--
Immune2BS&way2Illuminated
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-2
-2
*Applauds*
Congratulations, you made a funny. Now, since I see this..."flutterhigh", has actually posted to a thread without the respect of replying to the actual poster, they indeed have no respect.
So I will reply akin.
First off, never even finished the thread, this is not even half of the picture I was painting, so your grossly oversimplifying the book you haven't read completely yet. Neuroneptunian wanted me to explain the entire question I had in this first thread, and I simply couldn't do that it for the simple fact my fingers would fall off and it would be too long. So I broke it to a simple statement as you can see with her and my continued conversation, I said the very same thing you said (She wrote me off after that because I didn't explain it all, even though I told everyone explicitly that it was Part I). Yes, it is all a scam made of money, fear and guilt. Figures. Second, yes when you grow up in a Pentecostal religion that suffocated you from birth, you see life differently. No thanks to your obvious scoffing and arrogance of me and people who go through the deep moral guilt and fear of blasphemy from youth, thank you for noticing I escaped luckily enough from it. Third, FYI I put the word "theory" in quotation marks you human orifice, not BIG, and not BANG. Get it straight. Finally, I do have more "philosophical musings" that you probably would have a hard time disputing, and since your so high on your pedestal, why don't you come down and teach me a lesson. I'm always eager to learn, especially from someone who replies with such callousness.
Listen dude, this religion thing was one of the first things I came upon, so stuff it just because you've been on something that I just came too. Your arrogance can and will be your downfall if you let it. Someone is always better than you, and I know your not challenging me, but don't encourage me, because I will soak you up like a Brawny Paper Towel Commercial. Aha. Ha.
--
Immune2BS&way2Illuminated
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-2
-2
Oh btw, I do understand the analogy. So in saying my "Holy Grail" as you bastardized my...yes naive position on subsidizing the principles of religion into a prism...I understand....doesn't need anymore pursuing. If only everyone believed that. I believe I just wish I could get even Islamic extremists, and closed off Amish to agree to something. I guess I should leave that to the diplomats of peace in the Middle East I guess....
Oh and if we are all atoms vibrating constantly at the molecular level, and by quantum theory no atom is in one place at one time what does that mean? If we see, but don't "actually" see with the retina simply because the brain only interprets through fragmentation and then reorganization of what is reflected through from the pupils, then what is this reality we are perceiving? Also if this was the only reality then why do we have lucid dreams? Ever had one? By saying are we humans I meant what truly is this existence? Is this are only form? Are we human? I think no...It's only what we give ourselves as a name but it is directly compatible to bacteria giving themselves a name when they were created in a lab and already given a name, but they are not conscious of it because they cannot perceive the bigger reality. Or existing while not existing is even bigger...Schrodinger's Cat is one example. Just musings Flutter.
--
flutterhigh
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Haha, you're so angry! This is more than I could have asked for.
I didn't reply to you because I had little interest in engaging in an inane month-old discussion (or more accurately, vague diatribe with the occasional poster chiming in with "hmm interesting" or "what the fuck?"). You should be glad, I've given you the first substantial feedback here - I think you're at least clever enough to see that nobody can decipher your drunken ramblings. You remind me of my grandfather at Christmas, but with better bladder control. And clearly you aren't drinking eggnog - rubbing alcohol, I presume?
With regards to your first "point": I'm grossly oversimplifying the unfinished book of your gross oversimplification of dozens of books you've skimmed? This isn't a scam for money or fear, it's a scam for self-esteem. Here's how I can tell. At this point, you're throwing around terms you are clearly only tangentially aware of with the hopes of scaring me into submission. Schrodinger's cat, for example, does not merely "exist while nor existing" - the point of the thought experiment was to question the validity of the quantum mechanics you're pretending to understand by arguing that if a wavefunction collapse is dependent upon observation, then the logical extrapolations of that become nonsensical. It was more of a refutation of quantum principles than sense itself - Schrodinger was arguing that it made no sense. God forbid he ever posthumously comes across your posts.
With regards to your second "point": Eh, pass.
With regards to your third "point": I know, and that's what I was referring to. This brings me back to your Wikipedia-level understanding of the terms you're using, because I'm not sure you realize that the word "theory" means something very different in the field of science. It does not mean speculation. It refers to an empirically corroborated set of descriptions of patterns. Gravity is a theory too. But it's ok, many high-functioning preschoolers make this mistake.
With regards to your final (?) "point": I'm sure your diary is absolutely riveting, but I'm not interested in spellchecking it.
With regards to your post-final "point": Maybe they'd agree if you reduced your claims even just a little further. Tell them "YOU ALL BELIEVE THINGS" and then no one person in the entire world could disagree! Isn't that what you want? For everyone to agree with you?
With regards to your wince-inducing adulteration of quantum physics: You're either referring to the concept of a superposition of eigenstates (it does eventually collapse, you know), or Heisenberg's uncertainty. Either way it's nonsense. Yes, you're very clever to have figured out that our senses are fallible channels through which we interact with reality, it's not as though that question hasn't been debated for millennia in the form of empiricism vs. rationalism. The point about humans you clearly stole from a fourteen year old's poetry chapbook does not effectively question reality - we are human solely because that's what the word means. Language is tautological like that. Read Wittgenstein if you haven't already (haha, who am I kidding. You haven't).
Anyway, thanks. This has been hugely enjoyable. Let me preempt you by taking a note from the troll's elementary handbook: this will be my last response. I will not respond further. And to preempt your ego: yes, it's totally because I'm stupid and I just can't comprehend the magnitude of what you're saying. Sleep well.
U >:( B?
--
Immune2BS&way2Illuminated
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Immune2BS&way2Illuminated
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Thank you. Let me tell you I am far from angry, as I must laugh at loud at that statement and this conversing. I give acquiesence to someone who can explain some things to me on here. I am again going to point out that religion is a scam of, and here using your logic of "self-esteem" FOR MONEY. For if it was just for self-esteem then they wouldn't need the talents of silver and gold in the outcome would they? The end goal IS money. A scam of self-esteem FOR money. We are both right. Also, naturally as your callous behavior suggests, I knew you couldn't say more than "meh" on the fact that some people die believing in something that grips more than a billion people today. I escaped the vortex of thought. Thank me and me myself.
Wow Grampa? Am I really that bad? whew that's harsh. I must admit you sound like you pulled out your dark socks and arm warmers for this one. Sweatband included no punches PULLED.
Gross oversimplification of books I've skimmed? I read btw, magazines are for skimming and I read those. College reading level by 7th grade but wasted it on science fiction novels. Bit of a procrastinator so take your pick on how far behind I may be...but time waits for no man and I understand life more than ever to take advantage of it. No, the gross oversimplification of a mind you have no idea of how much potential exists in it. Gross oversimplification by disregarding anything more I am saying by arrogantly stating that the "presiding" paragraphs (yes they were heavy heavy)you just wrote will be your last. I will not have the last laugh I humbly give admission to, but I am sure you may read this; so know you are making me stronger and I thank you for it.
There is no diary my guy. Little bit to masculine for that. Dreams of lucidity is as far as that goes. Be not the hypocrite either.
I do NOT pretend to understand quantum theory, mechanics or any of the kind. I have simply read up on some of the points it consists of. I take no credit or say I am anywhere near proficient at it's principles. I do know what a thought experiment is and a famous example: Throw a Spear into Space
You can use them in philosophy too. I am not a scientist, just a beginning philosopher on cognitive theory. Never read Wittgenstein, but have you ever read Stephen Laberge? You might find it interesting, for you never answered one of my questions by the way.
So what happens when the states of measured position do actually collapse?
Now you touched upon what I am directly focusing on for my studies. P.S I am not in college at this point have no philisophical training whatsoever except my own beginning musings. This is my alpha stage and I would like to say I am going to be focused on Epistemology and Ontology. Empiricism vs Rationalism being a study from epistemology I would also like to say I would be more inclined toward rationalism. Cognitive sourcing for reason and what we sense is directly the reason why we sense. Without the conscious there would be no senses to describe. I believe animals pin their cognitive solutions more deeply from the unconscious state of mind i.e reflexes, instinct and so on. We humans have a much larger battery of recognition of self, identity and that alone gives us the solutions to create a more expressive view of who we are.
I spell pretty good dude lol
Look at the first word I put before the "We"....that might explain partially I do hope.
--
NeuroNeptunian
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No. It doesn't.
--
Immune2BS&way2Illuminated
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Then I am sorry, for it seems if only at this moment that you look at pride more than reason as a means to communicate with for before "We" comes "Part I". It means the question will be answered in due time, please allow patience to be your virtue as Rome was not built in one day.
--
NeuroNeptunian
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No, I mean I don't understand your question, could you restate it?
--
Immune2BS&way2Illuminated
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Of course. As you can see every religion has a set of values. A mode of principles. A program of thoughts. Call it a doctrine or a series of epiphany's all have a dogma, and if you are offended by such words then flexibility in religion towards free thinking is a highly accepted art form. If that takes the edge off then as I state there is a strict regulation and scrutiny towards what ideas are acceptable and those that are not. All have their separate belief system and they adhere to it faithfully.
I have figured a format of thought patterns that "all" religions identify with, no matter how different their worship or acknowledgement of "what is"....is.
Further, those thought patterns I have taken and put together into a organized chaos (more on that later) that subsequently illuminates every thought pattern that identifies over and through the stigmas that hold an idea that they all are different. Not by any means grossly stating that all religions are the same through and through, but all hold a certain "code" that resonates throughout every one of their respective existences in human life.
--
NeuroNeptunian
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
Yes, that's fine, but what's the question?