Re: Mind's Eye Re: Science and religion in modernity

People are expected to change and grow. the errors of the past are
meant to be out grown and evolved into a life that is kinder and
gentler with others coming to the forefront leaving the self centered
being behind,, As I look around I am left wondering if this is what
is occurring,, I see wealth being more and more concentrated in the
greedy few.. I see the traditional higher power being replaced by a
god of gold and wealth, that is worshiped with immense intensity..
an intensity that if applied to eliminating poverty ,, poverty would
be eliminated world wide within a few short years.

I have not forgotten anything to my knowledge Neil I can remember my
childhood to date in great detail recall is not the problem and fear
well that is more to keep me from getting killed.. I tend to like
invisibility good idea
Allan

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:36 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
> With memories as bad as mine and yours Allan we have to invent for
> fear of remembering we have forgotten everything.
>
> On 21 Oct, 19:00, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What happens when your whole concepts begin changing.. strange
>> things like the entire universe becomes small and you have to go out
>> side its bounds.. Being a soul being what happens if the creation
>> soul is earlier than than the creation of the universe?
>> Allan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:09 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Science doesn't fascinate me in the way some literature and people can
>> > generally - I suspect the 'enthusiasm' of the popularisation of the
>> > subjects. I concur on the predicament element rigs - insightive. It
>> > seems a mistake to me to try and place god in some scientific-
>> > dimensional space (though I miss Pat) and I wonder instead whether the
>> > god-positions people hack out are as baseless as, say, phlogiston - we
>> > need some new thinking.
>>
>> > Science and critical history have demonstrated much religious text is
>> > fable. We repeatedly see that image management hides much that is
>> > foul under 'preaching' - here our current examples would be Jimmy
>> > Saville, Baby P, priestly paedophiles and Hillsborough (scouting in
>> > the US etc.) - but I'd say we may be on the brink of realising
>> > economics is equally vile.
>>
>> > I can imagine spending a few weeks with a group living human-
>> > constrained lives in a collective of the future. A woman kisses me
>> > goodbye. She will not see me again because I'm off to a near-space
>> > terminal built off Alpha Proxima. From there I'm relativity
>> > travelling to the edge of this universe to undertake genetic
>> > transformation beyond the gene-splicing that has allowed me to travel
>> > in space. I see in 16 colours thanks to a shrimp and can enter
>> > cryostasis thanks to genes from Arctic fish. I interface with
>> > machines and their learning directly. I can no longer replicate as a
>> > human - etc. Now I'm off to meet and form a collective with beings
>> > who perceive much of the world we can only postulate. In traditional
>> > science fiction these 'dark beings' would be bastards intent on taking
>> > over the human world. What I don't see is any focus on a future in
>> > which the rather soppy human-emotional ties are broken - a future in
>> > which ...
>>
>> > One might ask how the creature I have become would get his jollies.
>> > One can go the other way in history and ask what religion has actually
>> > done. We are not inventive enough about god.
>>
>> > On 21 Oct, 14:50, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> And some feel science is boring unless it can be translated into
>> >> everyday life in meaningful ways.
>>
>> >> On Oct 20, 3:50 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > We travel at 60k plus miles an hour in the solar system and 500K
>> >> > through the galaxy in our system. I tend to believe we can measure
>> >> > this kind of thing and that we are always left with questions like
>> >> > Allan's about before after and beyond. Hitch-hikers' Guide probably
>> >> > gets to the irony. Quite a few of us discount priests and text-
>> >> > authority without giving up on spirit. Spinoza remains the clearest
>> >> > example.
>>
>> >> > Creation stories end up in infinite regress - scientific and otherwise
>> >> > - and beg the question of 'what came before that' by positing a
>> >> > fiction of something that needs no creator or origin. I don't believe
>> >> > god whipped up the Grand Canyon, but in the limits of our thinking
>> >> > something whipped up something that led to the evolution of our planet
>> >> > etc. I tend to think science rather than literature may lead to a
>> >> > different way of seeing this and surviving until this is possible.
>> >> > Literature is generally bland and lacks depth - though there are great
>> >> > moments. I suspect one of the key issues is raised by Gabby a lot of
>> >> > the time - we need to replace current authority and know the irony is
>> >> > such attempts just produce the same old business as usual (WB Yeates
>> >> > was good on this).
>>
>> >> > The stuff on thermodynamics above is very similar in method to
>> >> > Einstein and what we might now term Wittgensteinian deconstruction -
>> >> > trying to find the common elements and mistakes in various competing
>> >> > arguments and readdress the apparent conflict. Molly has some words
>> >> > on this too.
>>
>> >> > On 20 Oct, 20:37, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > google books had a copy up online, it may still be there. Used book
>> >> > > outlets like Alibris will allow you to put in the book you are searching
>> >> > > for and notify you when a copy becomes available for sale by a store that
>> >> > > uses their service. Other than that, you may find some good articles about
>> >> > > it with excerpts online. for Einstein fans, it is a favorite.
>>
>> >> > > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 10:14:03 AM UTC-4, Allan Heretic wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > how does a person get a hold of the original text..??
>> >> > > > Allan
>>
>> >> > > > On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Molly <moll...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >> The Einstein "The World As I See It," originally began as his ponderance
>> >> > > >> of something greater than science, and acknowledgement of spirit in action.
>> >> > > >> The original edition is the best, as his editors put together texts with
>> >> > > >> lectures for him under the same name, and those books have an entirely
>> >> > > >> different flavor.
>>
>> >> > > >> From my view, "knowing" is not the end of it, but the beginning.
>>
>> >> > > >> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 8:09:19 AM UTC-4, gabbydott wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >>> Honestly, Vam, I don't think that it was Einstein's lack of knowledge
>> >> > > >>> that made him pose such a daft (in the sense of limited) question. I read
>> >> > > >>> this as a description of the state of occidental science at his time - the
>> >> > > >>> conflict between the ontological and the constructivist explanatory models
>> >> > > >>> of the nature of knowledge.
>>
>> >> > > >>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Vam <atewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >>>> You spoke of Einstein, about his " only " interest being whether God<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God> had
>> >> > > >>>> any choice in manifesting the universe and this observed creation.
>>
>> >> > > >>>> My own suggestion is that if we do not know enough we will always think
>> >> > > >>>> along those lines.
>>
>> >> > > >>>> To the uninitiate, the desktops of today would seem to be thinking
>> >> > > >>>> entities ...
>>
>> >> > > >>>> *So, do we know enough ?*
>>
>> >> > > >>>> <https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-EBJSz8MhWQU/UIJGzwpvR3I/AAAAAAAAB0...>
>>
>> >> > > >>>> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 6:36:45 AM UTC+5:30, rigsy03 wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >>>>> I took a course on the Snow-Leavis(1959-1962) controversy in the
>> >> > > >>>>> mid-'70's. Perhaps we should then conclude scientists do not
>> >> > > >>>>> understand humanism? Other works involved included various essays and
>> >> > > >>>>> books by Aldous Huxley ("Literature and Science") and Bronowski
>> >> > > >>>>> ("Science and Human Values"). Not sure that "incomprehension and
>> >> > > >>>>> dislike"(Snow) between the two groups has changed at all when
>> >> > > >>>>> considering the gap between rich and poor nations, smart weapons, etc.
>> >> > > >>>>> as science and militarism promote the self-interest of various
>> >> > > >>>>> nations/
>> >> > > >>>>> political theories and practices. Should we quibble that Nazi
>> >> > > >>>>> scientists propelled the USA moon landing? At least the moon survived.
>>
>> >> > > >>>>> On Oct 19, 1:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >>>>> > The below is rather long, but physics is returning to some of the
>> >> > > >>>>> > ideas of James Maxwell. My dog is named after him. Years ago, we
>> >> > > >>>>> > were told their were two cultures ( CP Snow) - one knew the 2nd law
>> >> > > >>>>> of
>> >> > > >>>>> > thermodynamics and the other did not (literary types). The 2nd law
>> >> > > >>>>> > involved was a straw man. The following, as Max needs his walk, is
>> >> > > >>>>> > paraphrased from last week's New Scientist.
>>
>> >> > > >>>>> > A few decades after Carnot, the German physicist Rudolph Clausius
>> >> > > >>>>> > explained such phenomena in terms of a quantity characterising
>> >> > > >>>>> > disorder that he called entropy. In this picture, the universe works
>> >> > > >>>>> > on the back of processes that increase entropy - for example
>> >> > > >>>>> > dissipating heat from places where it is concentrated, and therefore
>> >> > > >>>>> > more ordered, to cooler areas, where it is not. That predicts a
>> >> > > >>>>> grim
>> >> > > >>>>> > fate for the universe itself. Once all heat is maximally dissipated,
>> >> > > >>>>> > no useful process can happen in it any more: it dies a "heat death".
>> >> > > >>>>> A
>> >> > > >>>>> > perplexing question is raised at the other end of cosmic history,
>> >> > > >>>>> too.
>> >> > > >>>>> > If nature always favours states of high entropy, how and why did the
>> >> > > >>>>> > universe start in a state that seems to have been of comparatively
>> >> > > >>>>> low
>> >> > > >>>>> > entropy? At present we have no answer, and there is an intriguing
>> >> > > >>>>> > alternative view.
>>
>> >> > > >>>>> > Perhaps because of such undesirable consequences, the legitimacy of
>> >> > > >>>>> > the second law was for a long time questioned. The charge was
>> >> > > >>>>> > formulated with the most striking clarity by the Scottish physicist
>> >> > > >>>>> > James Clerk Maxwell in 1867. He was satisfied that inanimate matter
>> >> > > >>>>> > presented no difficulty for the second law. In an isolated system,
>> >> > > >>>>> > heat always passes from the hotter to the cooler, and a neat clump
>> >> > > >>>>> of
>> >> > > >>>>> > dye molecules readily dissolves in water and disperses randomly,
>> >> > > >>>>> never
>> >> > > >>>>> > the other way round. Disorder as embodied by entropy does always
>> >> > > >>>>> > increase. Maxwell's problem was with life. Living things have
>> >> > > >>>>> > "intentionality": they deliberately do things to other things to
>> >> > > >>>>> make
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »
>
> --
>
>
>



--
(
)
|_D Allan

Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.


I am a Natural Airgunner -

Full of Hot Air & Ready To Expel It Quickly.

--