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

I have real problems remembering where I left my glasses (though not
the ones with beer in) - even the IMF are considering the old Chicago
Plan (1936) for fairer money. We live as paupers in the land of
plenty in my view.http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/
wp12202.pdf

It's long and boring, but the gist is in the short conclusion. It
lacks your insight into what we are worshipping Al.

On 22 Oct, 07:27, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <nwte...@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
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--