Page 9 |
BetterHuman.org Weblog |
Welcome to the BetterHuman.org Weblog. Please read this very important excerpt from my book, Meme, as it also applies to the contents of this weblog. If you'd like to be notified of weblog updates, or wish to contact us directly with compliments, criticisms, or especially corrections, please visit our Contact Us page, where you'll also see a list of frequently-asked questions. If you are looking for specific keywords in this weblog, be sure to use your browser's 'find' function. Also, I'll apologize in advance if some weblog entries seem abrupt, but in the interest of conciseness I've often been forced to remove large portions of submitter's emails, and this will occasionally make my response appear inordinately potent.
© BetterHuman.org.
No part of this writing may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the express written
permission of BetterHuman.org. All submitted emails become the sole property of BetterHuman.org. All submitter names are altered in order to protect identities.
Topics on this page:
#120 - New BetterHuman.org friends - Jan 08, 2006, 04:22 PM
#121 - Strength of conviction - Jan 08, 2006, 04:26 PM
#122 - More friends - Jan 08, 2006, 04:37 PM
#123 - Building blocks of the universe - Jan 08, 2006, 04:44 PM
#124 - God yes, Tooth Fairy no? - Jan 08, 2006, 05:06 PM
#125 - Will BetterHuman.org make a difference? - Jan 08, 2006, 05:19 PM
#126 - Ego, the Destroyer - Jan 14, 2006, 01:22 PM
#127 - Controlling our tails - Jan 14, 2006, 01:47 PM
#128 - More on randomness - Jan 14, 2006, 01:51 PM
#129 - Are prophecies evidence of the ethereal? - Jan 14, 2006, 02:24 PM
#130 - Mutual denial? - Jan 14, 2006, 03:08 PM
#131 - Are we alone in the universe? - Jan 22, 2006, 08:55 AM
#132 - The vulgar nature of fear - Jan 22, 2006, 09:16 AM
#133 - The threat of eternal damnation - Jan 22, 2006, 09:28 AM
#134 - Does BetterHuman.org affiliate with other groups? - Jan 22, 2006, 09:38 AM
#135 - Translating the supernatural into reality - Jan 22, 2006, 09:46 AM
Click here to see next weblog page...
#119 - Is your god different? - January 08, 2006, 04:14 PM |
Mr. Blarenet wrote back:
> as a scientist (pHYSICIST) and an engineer I like to advise you ( if you really want to reach the ultimate reality) to study the science and QURAN fron informative islamic sites such as whyislam.org and hope you will find that islam is not a mythology that you fear to believe.
My kind friend, can you demonstrate how your religion differs from the obvious mythological elements of other religions? Is your Allah not exactly the same 'notion' as Christianity's God, or ancient Greek mythology's Zeus, or ancient Egypt's Ra? How would you describe the difference?
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 8.104, 9.119, 11.154, 12.170}
#120 - New BetterHuman.org friends - January 08, 2006, 04:22 PM
Mr. Yardwent wrote:
> As an atheists myself, I'm just beginning to find out that there are others with the courage to take a stand against the devastating effects of religion. I was once a "born again" evangelical christian--until I began to think for myself and question all the BS that had been presented to me for years.
My friend, I hope you find it valuable to share with us your experiences about the significant points in your journey out of ethereal addiction, and what triggered these events. You are in a unique position to help others that haven't yet taken those steps.
I look forward to your future contributions,
Sean Sinjin
#121 - Strength of conviction - January 08, 2006, 04:26 PM
Mr. Helpland wrote:
> If you think about it why couldn't there be more universes?
Agreed, anything is possible, but the scientific method demands that there be a 'reason' or 'evidence' for something to exist, in order to justify theorizing its presence. The 'only' reason why I endeavored to introduce multiple universes was to give what I believe is plausible causation to the Big Bang.
> I really like the idea of a movie. If there is one way to reach the masses it would be a good flick.
Agreed.
> I think the smallest scale is binary.
Please forgive my presumption if incorrect, but I'm going to assume that your 'binary' reference supports the notion of an ultimate 'digital' resolution to the universe, and is counter to an analog perception of bether's 'smallest' scale. I believe that you are extrapolating this binarism from the 'state-like' nature of quantum physics, which often uses 'quanta' to describe energy states. For example, electrons are usually found in discrete orbitals about an atom, not just at any random location about the atom. This makes it easy to fall into a quanta perception of reality (that being everything is in one state or another, but not inbetween), but even in quantum physics, particles do move 'between' energy states, so for relatively short periods of time, even an electron can be located between atomic shells, meaning that the electron's position cannot be quantified with a whole number.
> I question something you recently did. You went to your nephew's baptism out of love for your sister. I don't think you were true to yourself, but the reason I mention it is that the hook that made you go is the same hook that is implanted in so many people. A great many people would rather to just not think about their religion but to just live it because it is easier. They don't want to hurt their parents, their children are exposed to values in the same way they were, they don't risk ridicule in their community or at their job.
I'll argue a couple points, the first one being about being 'true' to myself. I don't feel like I violated my principles in any way, any more than if I went to a crack-house with a heroin junkie friend and watched a bunch of people get high. I simply observed, not partook. In this analogy, my friend already knows that I'm not partaking in the drug, but it was important to them for me to attend. As much as their habit would challenge me, and as much as I wish they wouldn't do it, nothing would change if I had decided not to attend the crack-house ceremony, except that my friend wouldn't like me any more. Some might say get a new friend, but that's where the analogy breaks down; I can't get a new sister.
The second point I'll argue against is your suggestion that I was 'hooked' into it because it's easier just to go with the flow. Now I know that fundamentally it's the same thing, but the difference becomes clear when you look at the net 'fallout' of this passivity. In my lifetime, I've wasted more time looking for my keys than I have in the two hours of my life at my sister's religious event, so I don't consider that much of a loss. It's when people 'pretend' to willingly partake in a what becomes a religion routine that those hours and money resources start to add up into something significant and damaging. That's the difference, routine and motivation.
> If you really think that people are better off without the Crutch, then you should convince your sister that she is wrong.
Surely you must believe that I have repeatedly exercised the fullest extent of my persuasion and education skills towards the benefit of my sister, and yet have failed miserably. Such is the nature of faith, immovable, illogical, and impenetrable. My sister has taught me more about the dangers of religion than anybody you'll read about in the BetterHuman.org weblog.
> I was just thinking about your policy with regard to voting and I don't think it is realistic.
A weighted voting structure is definitely a challenging stage for humankind to evolve to, though I think once its potential merits have become more obvious through experimentation, there will be much more willingness to pursue it. I believe it is quite realistic.
> A better solution which could actually happen before the next presidential election is much simpler and the news media could impose it by popular demand. Everyone who wishes to run for President must take an examination. All candidates would take exactly the same test at the same time and then it would be graded and evaluated and published.
Not a bad idea moving forward. Might shake out a few stragglers that shouldn't be in the running.
Thanks for the feedback,
Sean Sinjin
#122 - More friends - January 08, 2006, 04:37 PM
Ms. Mailpalm wrote back:
> You have the rare gift of communication. So many are academic but fail to inform as clearly.
There are many voices behind the words you read. I can only hope to do them justice.
> Other past thinkers that where so able (and there haven't been many), have been extinguished. I think most of our world has been exposed to (via big / small screen) and understands now the destructiveness of oppressive dictatorial regimes and is ready for a revelation.
Let's hope that the inevitable transition isn't too damaging or drawn out, though (as pessimistic as this may sound) I have a feeling it will get a lot worse before it gets better.
Be safe,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 8.107, 8.114, 9.122, 9.135, 10.145, 16.217}
#123 - Building blocks of the universe - January 08, 2006, 04:44 PM
Mr. Leafstand wrote back:
> What I am not aware of is the presence of an "ultimate scale". I've never come across mention or evidence of that, and I'd be grateful if you could point me to it so I can do some reading on the subject.
I don't believe it's a bona-fide concept in that there probably wouldn't be much official study afforded it. I mention it as a logical extrapolation of my bether theory, which has the property of infinite density but also exists in various states of compression. The 'ultimate scale' I mention can best be analogized with a thick rope. If you had a significant length of this rope, it would be quite easy to create yourself a loop with it. However, if you were to cut a very short stub off the end, it would be impossible to put a knot in the stub. I believe that bether has this 'ultimate scale' quality in order to explain the consistent size of all 'like' particles in the universe. Without this primary resolution, scale would have no meaning and an electron, for example, could be literally any size it wants to be. Witnessing the universal consistency of particle sizes leads me to suspect that there's an ultimately small 'scale' upon which they are defined.
> As you may (or may not) have gathered from my submission, my belief in free will is based on my belief that there is no "ultimately small scale". Similarly, I don't think there's any "ultimately big scale".
To pursue this then, how would a lack of an ultimate scale introduce randomness, for without randomness, we cannot have free will. At which scale would randomness occur?
> Even so, mathematics does not perfectly model nature (I know you think mathematics IS nature, but I have a different view on that too), it's still a human conceptual framework with limitations.
My opinion is that the inevitable failings of our currently limited mathematical ability to entirely encapsulate observations, should not be suggestive that some things in nature are outside the capacity of more advanced mathematics to describe. Math is still an evolving science. 'Nature' itself is what drives the science of mathematics, thereby forging an intrinsic relationship that will force mathematics to evolve to where it 'does' eventually entirely encapsulate nature, at which point they will become synonymous; 'nature' and its language, 'mathematics'.
> I think our differences in opinion, though minor, stem from one fundamental difference: that you believe in absolutes and I don't. As I've said before, I think the only thing that's certain is that nothing can be certain.
I'll agree in philosophical spirit, but I'm attempting to lay out a plausible path that may later lend itself more credibility as more evidence surfaces to support it. I like to pursue what I perceive as absolutes when they fit intuitively (at least in my head) but I wouldn't go so far as to say that I 'only' believe in absolutes.
> Whatever you think you're certain of, it's possible to conceive of circumstances under which you might be wrong.
Always a healthy pursuit
> When you are refining your knowledge by examining things on smaller and smaller scales, the analog nature of the universe means that there are an infinite number of scales to examine things on - even if there IS an ultimately small scale there are an infinite number of scales between that scale and the human one.
I agree there probably is an infinite number of scales 'above' the ultimate scale, and 'below' the macro-scale of the universe, but again, this does not implicitly introduce true randomness, just human-perceived unpredictability.
> Even one apple contains an infinite amount of information. This means that nothing can ever be known with absolute certainty, including the existance of an ultimately small scale.
I'll disagree here because I believe that an apple, isolated into its own universe (to avoid the influence of environmental gravity, magnetism, etc.) can be fully described with a finite list of parameters, though your hypothesis is somewhat redeemed because those parameters themselves will be of infinite resolution. I'll explain further down.
> I think the notion that any knowledge is other than an approximation is the real illusion.
Agreed. Everything we know is an 'approximation' and it is the very fact that it 'is' an approximation that makes it subject to error, and hence will appear to exhibit 'randomness' when those errors surface. This apparent randomness, however, is solely an indication that not all the parameters were accounted for, and not truly 'random'.
> I don't believe I claimed that "random" and "unpredictable" were the same thing.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand your writing to indicate that our inability to have 100% accurate predictions due to the infinite amount of information in a true measurement, lends itself to the 'pure' notion of free will (which requires 'real' randomness); almost suggesting that there is some 'randomness' introduced due to the fact that there's an infinite amount of data. However, all that the infinite amount of data imposes is that we cannot ever be 100% accurate in predictions, rather than introducing true randomness. It only 'appears' random because we don't have the ability to process an infinite amount of data.
> One of the prerequisites I gave for free will was unpredictablility, not randomness.
I don't see how unpredictability facilitates the notion of free will, any more than not knowing how a movie will end, in any way changes the outcome of the movie. Forgive me for conjecturing but perhaps you are extrapolating from the unavoidable 'absence' of some the variables that define a scenario, into the idea that someone making a decision is necessarily plugging 'random' values in those holes in order to complete the decision process, and this is your source of randomness. This fails in that the person is not truly adding random values; they are simply approximating those values based upon the myriad of indicators that they can draw upon (experience, pressure, ego, etc.) and is not remotely random in origin.
> The main point of my submission was that, even if free will is an illusion at an ultimately small scale, it still exists as a practical reality on a human scale.
I must disagree. I believe you cannot ever remove the 'illusion' from free will no matter what scale you are talking about. Now, from a psychological context, our egos lead us to 'believe' we have free will, but I was trying to stay within a scientific perspective, not a human-interpretive one.
In regard to my prior statement:
"This is the same 'inverted-logic' approach that religious people enact to allow the notion of ethereal entities to persist. It's important not to unnecessarily introduce concepts (gods, free will) without concrete evidence, rather than introduce them and then defy science to disprove them."
You wrote:
> I'm going to look for the concrete evidence upon which you base your statement that there is an ultimately small, analog scale. I'm sure you won't be guilty of practicing "inverted logic" too, so any help you can give me in finding it will me much appreciated.
Touché, my friend, and my sincerest apologies for introducing a religious context to describe your logic, a very unfounded simile. I do hope I didn't offend you.
I'll now try to justify my introduction of the 'ultimately small scale', though up to this point, I'll admit that I haven't done so in text. First, I would like to volunteer that you also subscribe to an analog resolution based upon your infinite depths of resolution perception, otherwise, I couldn't see how it would be justified to claim infinite resolution even between scales, for even between scales, the resolution should still max out at your proposed 'digital' resolution, thereby defining a maximum number of scales between any two given scales (not infinite). I personally don't subscribe to a 'digital' ultimate resolution of our universe because that reduces it to that of tiny 'cubes', which in no way is evidentially supported other than through the mathematical conclusion to the assumption of 'quanta' being the foundation of the universe.
Using the word 'analog' almost implies infinite resolution, leading one down a path of micro and macro-universes, but what prevents these micro/macro manifestations in my model is the very nature of bether itself. Bether will only bend so far before it collapses into its super-particle form. For example, a particle is a loop in bether. To analogize, a loop in a rope can only be so small before the rope cannot bend any further. The same holds true for bether; all constructs in bether have a minimum size, therefore, the 'arcs' of bether that compose the loop are the components of this ultimate scale I propose. Assuming you could isolate this section of bether from external influence (gravity, magnetism, light, etc.), then no information beyond the degree and length of this arc is contained in this section of bether. It is impossible for there to be any constructs below this arc level so the notion of micro-universes becomes meaningless.
As well with macro-universes, my design for bether implies that the universe is not infinite in size, and therefore there's not enough room in the universe for it to embody a macro-scale construct of any significance. Also necessary to my model, other universes that float around in my theory of 'Infinity' (the emptiness outside our universe) are not in any way connected, and therefore could not meaningfully contribute to the structure of a macro construct.
As a sidenote, the varying physics of bether at different scales is also why I submit that human-traversable 'wormholes' will be impossible to construct, because it would be the equivalent of trying to build a 100-mile high brick building. The macro physics of bether are not the same as the micro physics due to different collapsibility angles.
> It seems to me that information is fundamentally digital, and the universe is made of energy and information. I don't see how, if a fundamental scale exists, it can be analog - and if it is analog, how it can be fundamental? They seem to me to be mutually exclusive.
The minimum possible radius of these arcs represents the fundamental size scale I speak of (not to be confused with minimum measuring scale, which is infinite resolution), but because these arcs are sinusoidal, their properties (location, trajectory, curve radius, length, etc.) cannot be encapsulated by whole numbers and hence still require analog measurements for a completely accurate description. Because of the limited range of arc that bether can tolerate before collapsing, this has defined the ultimate scale, below which, nothing can be formed.
Fantastic workout,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 1.5, 8.115, 9.123, 9.128, 10.138, 11.156}
#124 - God yes, Tooth Fairy no? - January 08, 2006, 05:06 PM
Mr. Loophost wrote back:
> This is clearly a mistake on your behalf, if you looked at this picture of ego which you present. You would realize how wrong it is. The early christians that followed Jesus were humble, the Bible states how some sold all their possesions that none would miss out.
I believe you are confusing the 'ego' instinct for the 'greed' instinct. I would argue that the sole motivation of these people to sell their possessions is 'not' to prove their humble nature, but instead it's to effectively 'purchase' favoritism with their perceived god in order to more likely secure their desired immortality. How is trading your assets for the ultimate prize not greed?
To explain the difference between the two instincts, the greed instinct simply wants power, while the ego instinct wants 'attention' from a respected source, kind of how you vie for attention from your parents, or teachers, or the masses etc. You can easily see how trying to gain the favor of your god is ego-motivated as well as greed-motivated.
> Jesus shows us that we are to be servants just as Jesus washed His diciples feet we are to go and serve like wize. Jesus to states that followers of Him are like lambs that are being lead to the slaughter. being a Christian has nothing to do with ego a life of service cant have any ego as we are to put are selves before others and their needs.
Incorrect, my friend. 'All' of the above actions feed the ego instinct because these actions you describe are supposed to 'please' your gods, thereby gaining their positive favor towards you. You are getting 'attention' from them by being a willful dedicated servant. This is the 'direct' pursuit of ego placation. What greater feeling of self-fulfillment and ego-placation can you possibly receive than to be in the affirming eye of the most powerful entity you know of?
> Some more promanant T.V. type evangals may be out their for there own egos but this is clearly wrong and does not represent what Jesus taught.
Forgive me, but your purported polarity against 'greed' is inaccurate, in fact, forgoing the pursuit of Earthly wealth only demonstrates a far 'greater' commitment to the greedy pursuit of 'divine' wealth (immortality); a fantastic demonstration of greed. Coincidentally, it seems by definition that in order to become a better servant to your faith, the greater your sacrifice of Earthly wealth should be. Can you not see religion's ulterior agenda in that?
> lets say if all your knowledge adds up to say 10% of all the possible knowledge. That would leave 90% of knowledge still unknown ready to be discovered at some point. That would suggest that the evidence for God exsisting hasnt been found yet.
Excellent. I don't believe I've once had any religious person tell me that there 'isn't' evidence for their god. So then, are you willing to more accurately describe your god as a 'theory'?
> You mention the tooth fairy ect to prove or disprove God. Looking at actual evidence for the tooth fairy there is none. there is no bodies, no skeletons, no ancient fossils, no documented historical records, so the conclusion is there aint no tooth fairy isnt real.
What about your missing tooth under the pillow, and the prize that's left behind? That's not evidence? Perhaps evidence for the Tooth Fairy lies hidden in the as yet unrevealed 90% knowledge you specified above?
> Evidence for their being a God, lets just look at one evidence being the Bible.
Can you justify how a human-authored book is considered 'evidence' for an ethereal creature? There's plenty of books about the Tooth Fairy, but that doesn't prove there's a Tooth Fairy.
> The Bible you may not like to hear has been proven historically correct in many areas.
My friend, I can also write a book that is completely historically accurate, and then as the last sentence write, "The Tooth Fairy exists". Does the simple fact that the book is historically accurate throughout, in any way add credibility to the Tooth Fairy's existence?
> One particular point are the written prophecies which have been recorded in the Bible. There are aprox 2000 in total, there are a large amount of these have been fulfilled.
Please, can you demonstrate an example of this?
> What other secular book can match the Bible.
Any book that purports mythology as fact.
It seems a common strategy of religious people to attempt to 'extend' credibility across information, as if the simple act of combining credible information with false information and then binding them together into a single book, somehow 'smears' the credibility evenly across all the information. Please understand my friend, that this is 'precisely' the strategy being employed by the authors of your beloved text, and that is to 'obscure', 'confuse', and 'overwhelm' your understanding of reality in order for them to be able to successfully 'plant' the religious fantasy meme-virus in your head.
I'm the first to recognize how impossible it seems that there can't be any gods, myself being previously deeply immersed in the same ethereal addiction that you now suffer. I mean, with so much investment by so many people, so much ritual, so much history, so much power...how can it all be false? But that's exactly what it is; it's nothing more than a global smoke and mirrors show that has been taking people's resources in exchange for false 'hope' for eons. Why would they do this? Power. The unstoppable human ego has manifested these massive social power structures (perceptions), and these structures allow those with the greatest thirst for ego and greed placation, to surface to the top of the most prolific pyramid scheme in all of history, religion.
If you can't see this, my brother, it's because religion has successfully closed your eyes, and you will forever be enslaved to your false 'hopes' of immortality. A sincere shame too because you seem to have a strong mind, as demonstrated by your ability to exercise pseudo-logic. Unfortunately though, you have bought into the wrong root meme (the existence of ethereal entities), and your fear of death, and the phenomenal investment in your ethereally-charged ego won't allow you to even attempt to prove yourself wrong. I know that I'll never be able to prove you wrong, or others like you, and that is a very sad fact.
With respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 6.73, 6.80, 7.86, 7.94, 8.103, 8.116, 9.124, 9.129, 10.139, 11.148, 11.157, 12.168, 13.172, 14.188, 15.192, 20.288}
#125 - Will BetterHuman.org make a difference? - January 08, 2006, 05:19 PM
Mr. Gladyoke wrote:
> sean, i read the website...it didn't work for marx and his girlfriends...it wont work.
I hope you'll forgive me if I go ahead and try anyway.
> the irony of all this is the very sapping of energies that might be put to use HUMBLY in the service of what is, not what will never be.
You don't quite understand our philosophy, my friend. We don't try to rechannel human energies into the pursuit of 'nothing', we channel these energies inwards, into ourselves, for the purpose of self-betterment, instead of maniacal servitude to a mythological entity.
> you said, "god's existence cannot be proven, etc., so why are you trying to reinvent god with a non-god.
I do appreciate how difficult it is to define purpose in life outside of a religious manifold, for all ethereal addicts are 'given' purpose and as such they are led to believe that there can be no other purpose. Your description of 'non-god' suggests that you believe we are just looking to refocus our 'worshipping' energies, and to some degree you are correct, but it's more than that, we are changing the nature of this 'projective worshipping' and reformulating it into 'self-betterment ambition'. It's the same energy, but with a reality-based utilization.
> pope, the real sin jin's good friend, said, "a little learning is a dangerous thing."
How shamefully intellectually stunting the above is. How can any morally-professing religion shun education? Thank you for that example of blatant mental-coercion employed by religions to keep their followers 'simple-minded' and 'submissive'.
> all of this technical mumbo jumbo that this website contains can never equal the petals of a flower, or savoring every flower that the world holds.
Agreed, the beauty of nature is unparalleled.
> i hope you will someday find peace since you're bending over backwards by pretending to have already found it.
Interesting observation, and yes, I have to work to achieve my inner peace. I wish I could describe to you what it means to have to personally define and accomplish this inner peace but this notion is undefined in your perspective. Instead, your religion compels you to rely upon the opiate of your 'faith' narcotic to artificially subdue your reality so that your 'high' effortlessly achieves an 'illusion' of inner peace for you.
My friend, you many never know what it means to be 'alive', with all the fears, pains, and rewards, that an unanaesthetized existence can offer.
Much respect,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 9.125, 9.130, 10.140, 10.146, 11.149, 11.151}
#126 - Ego, the Destroyer - January 14, 2006, 01:22 PM
Mr. Upnumber wrote:
> I came across your website and I agree with most of the things you have to say. Where I disagree is with statements like "We are all equally worthless in the big picture of the universe".
I know how diminutive this sounds, my friend, but as stated above, from the context of the universe's agenda, we 'are' absolutely worthless. The universe may one day randomly throw an Earth-killer asteroid our way with nary a pause to the consequences. It fails to intervene while we continue to defraud each other with a myriad of lies and false hopes. It couldn't care less if we had world war III tomorrow. The universe will continue about its business no matter what unfolds in the human saga, and it will remain completely oblivious to our existence, therefore, we are worthless to it.
It seems a cold, heartless conclusion, but as this prior posting (6.85) stresses, this is reality, and no matter how much our feeble human egos want to have intrinsic worth and divine purpose, wanting it alone will not make it so. Accepting this universal worthlessness is what I volunteer is the most important primary step one can take out of ethereal addiction, for it releases one from their religiously-implanted ego-'debt' that demands fulfilling a perceived 'divine' intrinsic value that has no justification in the true reality.
I'm certain that people of the future will laugh at our comical pursuits of 'worshipping' gods in the sky, with all the pomp, ceremony, conviction, and waste that goes with it. Come to think of it, pretty much everyone does that already when we think of those primitive cultures that worshipped Zeus on Mt. Olympus, or the sun-god, Ra, or even tree and rock gods (now that's just crazy...). Future people will also find it hysterical that we thought we were more than biological machines; something 'magical'. How desperately pathetic our egos are.
The human ego is 'the' most destructive force on Earth, for it forms the very root of all ills that humankind perpetuates. All wars, tyranny, slavery, religions, suffering, can almost always be traced back to someone's egomaniacal pursuits, and it is this highest level of 'root causes' that I am trying to address in the attempt to not only expose the mighty ego's destructive capacity, but also to snap it back into reality, and that is, worthlessness. The only worth one should have should be founded upon dignity and altruism; anything more is just flatulent and selfish ego-feeding that cannot help but prey upon others for placation. Please trust in that we don't need to feel 'special' in order to be happy.
Now, I'm kind of playing dumb here because I know your usage of 'worth' is meant to appease 'self-esteem', but your definition of 'worth' is from a 'self-love' context, not the 'intrinsic worth' context that I'm speaking from, and I think you'll find that I am in absolute agreement with you within your definition. You will find a great number of self-affirming postulates in our list of tenets, so please believe that we have incredible value for self-esteem. I just want to be sure there's a clear distinction between the worthless 'ego', and the only thing I would consider on par with the religiously-endeared concept of 'spirituality', and that is the value of our self-esteem.
> to quote Stuart Kaufman "at home in the universe". The big, cold, dark universe is only one view of science. The universe is alive with meaning, complexity and energy (not the flaky kind of energy either, the kind you can measure).
As grandiose and majestic as all that sounds, it still does not justify granting an intrinsic value to humanity. Human value is 'only' determined within a human-defined 'category' (wealth, strength, intelligence, etc.), but that does not extend to having value in the context of the universe. We are merely bacteria plaguing our rock in some insignificant corner of the universe. I make this point largely to address the illogical ego-based need for people to seek greater purpose, for which there is none (other than our biological impetus to reproduce). We must define purpose for ourselves.
> I think religious faith has not declined more quickly, in part, because atheists have historically accepted some of the ground rules defined by religion.
If you are referring to the moral tenets professed by most religions, they were never 'defined' by religion; instead, these morals had their origins hijacked from their rightful owners, our instincts, and now religions profess to have 'invented' these concepts. I assure you, that morality is 'built into' our psyches through millions of years of evolution.
> We have fallen into a traps set by religion, false dichotomies. This has prevented a-religious memes from catering certain universal human needs.
What prevents religion from being ubiquitously useful is the underlying tyrannical motivation of its design. It is simply a power structure that leverages the instinctual cues of morality that we all have, and also the weaknesses in people's understanding of reality, in order to manipulate the masses. Religion's core purpose is not to cater to our needs, it's to 'trick' us into believing it caters to our needs so that we empower its leaders with our money and servitude.
> One of these false dichotomies is that meaning has to be supplied by either science, or religion. Science is a particular way of looking at the world that is very useful (I am a neuroscientist). But it is largely removed from everyday memes that people live by. Even old, well-accepted science, like Newtonian optics, does not impact the meaning of people's everyday lives in an obvious way.
My friend, what about the sciences of psychology, psychiatry, philosophy, sociology, theology (that being the study of religion, not participating in religion itself), or anthropology? Science is not limited to mathematics, physics, and chemistry alone. The very nature of 'science' is to address all aspects of nature, of which we are a subset and are wholly encompassed on all conceivable scales by a myriad of scientific disciplines.
> Other forms of knowing have to be accepted as being just as legitimate as scientific knowledge, and in many cases, more legitimate for everyday purposes than scientific 'facts'. There are many useful, beautiful memes that are neither scientific nor religious.
I doubt there is anything that we can observe that falls outside the full spectrum of disciplines of science; even religion falls under its cloak of examination and quantification. This tends to be a common misassumption of the extent of science, that it precludes the human factor.
> Part of the fight against religion is to reclaim goodness and meaning back from religion. These have been stolen from humans and projected onto mythical beings. But they won't be supplied by science for the most part.
I disagree. A logical pursuit of biochemistry and psychology can easily explain our drive to achieve goodness, and a healthy scientific understanding of our biological instincts can help to personally define a meaningful pursuit of purpose. I will agree though, that science is often devoid of appealing to the human ego element, but when science is combined with the philosophies of BetterHuman.org, these sciences can help us to build the foundation for all we hope to accomplish.
> The good news is the memes are already around us, many already without religious trappings. If people feel goodness and meaning in their lives, without having to imbibe gods to get it, then no-one's belief systems will have to be "severely oppressed" in order for humanity to move on from religion.
You leave too much faith in the hands of the potential victims to be able to decide for themselves. To make an analogy, imagine if you lived next to a stream in which fantastic tasting water flowed, at least as fantastic as what your grandfather told you it was. A salesperson comes to your door with bottles of water that are supposed to be even 'better' than your fantastic water. How do you decide if you should buy the bottled water or not? Assuming that you can't have anything but the best water, you will have no choice but to purchase the bottled version. Little do you know that the salesperson was filling these bottles earlier from the very same stream.
The moral of the story is, if someone isn't constantly telling you how good the water is in your back yard, you'll buy someone else's simply because some shyster told you it's better.
People are gullible, and nothing's going to change that. So do we allow them to fall into these one-way traps of mythology, or do we go right to the source and prevent religions in the first place? Would you let your child join the Earians if they wanted to? Or even more perverse: would you let your child experiment with illicit drugs? (religion is a drug) Of course not, so instead of pursuing the epic belief that we 'have no right to interfere', let's instead extend our p/maternal instincts to our human brothers and sisters in order to look out for them when they can't look out for themselves. Our motivation isn't to oppress, but to protect.
(In my version of the story, the salesperson is legally punished for attempting to fraudulently sell his 'better' water.)
> Not wanting to put forward a false dichotomy myself, I accept that many of these themes are present in your views. But for me the battleground is not in rejecting religion, per se, but in reacquiring the memes it has stolen and distorted.
That can only happen if religions' ability to steal those memes has been removed through oppression. I'm sure if you speak with any seriously religious person, you will understand that they are absolutely unwilling to relinquish their belief in the teaching of their faith, simply because of the denial (faith) tools that have been programmed into their heads. People lose the ability to 'choose' logic once they have been indoctrinated into religion and even if the logical choice of reality is painfully clear, there will always be those innocent people that fall victim to the false allures of religion because the rewards of reality cannot compete with the manufactured false rewards of fantasy. We can't get them back. We need to help 'all' people avoid the trap of tyrannized mythology, and the only solution is that religion needs to be silenced, and stamped with 'mythology'.
Great letter,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 9.126, 9.131}
#127 - Controlling our tails - January 14, 2006, 01:47 PM
Mr. Wireran wrote back:
> you are still full of {censored} anyway you look at it you stupid monkey people.. do you still pick fleas off each other? is it a problem to keep your tail in your pants?
My dear frustrated friend, why is it you feel so threatened by us that you need to respond with such disgust and vulgarity? How is it that we are deserving of such disrespect? How have we offended you? Can you communicate your thoughts rationally with us, or do you just needlessly 'hate' us so much that you will be unable to grant us respect?
Kind regards,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor: 8.117, 9.127, 9.132, 10.142}
#128 - More on randomness - January 14, 2006, 01:51 PM
Mr. Leafstand wrote back:
> I think that "inverted logic" is analogous to "deduction" which is a powerful scientific tool, and just because religous groups use it inappropriately doesn't mean that it's inherently a "bad" thing.
Ok, I'll relax on my position about this in order to pursue the root of my disdain towards what I perceive as 'inverted-logic' and that is how 'theory' (as in theorizing the existence of an ethereal creature) can lead to the perception of 'fact' (as in firmly believing in their existence). It is the inability of the human ego to accept non-absolutes that drives fantasy into fact and that's where I see 'inverted-logic' empowering this transition. I volunteer that my definition of inverted-logic (that being starting with a theory and treating it as fact) is different from your definition (deduction).
> If we accept the Bether theory of particle formation as fact, then yes I can see where your ultimately small analog scale lies. But I don't think there's enough evidence to accept it as fact.
I wouldn't pretend that it is anything more than a theory.
> If there is an ultimate scale, then by definition we have reached the point at which distances can no longer be divided, and if so then the universe is digital.
The size of the my proposed ultimate unit 'only' limits the arc-radius of bether, not where that arc is located, which can be in an infinite number of positions.
> You can't have a minimum distance in one direction but not in others, it has to be a cube.
Cubes don't really make sense. What if you have to measure at a 45 degree angle between two points? You'll be forced to use fractions because those two points can't each be exactly contained in your cubes. Even if you modified your model into nested spheres in order to accommodate this shortcoming, there's still an infinite number of locations for that center sphere to reside, returning you once again to an analog reality.
> If that cube can no longer be divided, then the universe can be expressed digitally. In order for that cube to be analog, it has to be divisible.
Not necessarily; the fact that we have defined the smallest object possible does not mean it is forced to sit in an X-Y grid. This object can exist in any location. You need to recognize the difference between the minimum of an object's size, and the infinite resolution that can describe its location.
> Maybe I have a different concept of randomness from you. I would submit that if there are an infinite number of possibilities to choose from, a random choice is inevitable. Randomness doesn't occur on a given scale, it's a function of the whole universe - it increases as the scale diminishes. There is always a degree of randomness on any scale, it's just the degree that varies.
If a rabbit running at 1 meter/second runs for one meter, it has to get halfway at some point. From there it has to again go half the remaining distance. From that point it will again have to go half the remaining distance, on into infinity. Does the prospect of it covering an infinite number of halfway points introduce any randomness into how long it will take to cross the 1 meter distance?
> again, I'd be glad to be learn how making a choice from an infinite selection can be anything other than purely random. Chaos is randomness, and order emerges from chaos. The macroscopic order doesn't make it any less random at small scales.
Unpredictability is not randomness. Not knowing all the factors, even if they are infinite, does not in any way imply randomness. Also, choice is an 'illusion'.
> You can predict how a movie will end, or where a river will end up if you look at them on a macro scale and using limited parameters. You're making a prediction based on an approximation, which will work most of the time on that scale. But if the filament in the projector burns out or an earthquake changes the landscape, your prediction is wrong. You can keep fine-tuning your model, but because there are infinite scales to introduce parameters on the number of possible parameters that may influence the outcome on some level is infinite.
All you've done is expose that nothing is 100% predictable, but again, this is not the same as randomness.
> When you're talking about free will, you have to account for every possible variable on every possible scale in order to eliminate it, and if there are infinite number of variables then free will exists. It's deduction, sure, but more plausible than the inverse.
This goes back to my limited parameter set for your apple. I believe the universe can be fully described with a finite number of parameters and truly is not infinite in information. The current decimal nature of our measurements leads one to believe that inaccuracy will always be intrinsic to our measurements but I believe a re-engineering of mathematics to speak in terms of arcs, instead of decimal approximations, will give us the ability to measure with absolutes at the ultimate scale, thereby giving us finite information out of an infinite number of possibilities. My belief is that with the proper mathematical tools, the universe can be fully described without error, and hence it is predictable and not random.
> Yeah, but if you subscribe to an ultimately small scale then the cubes are inevitable. My point exactly. There can't be a minimum scale if the universe is analog.
My minimum-scale universe is composed of conjoined arcs (much like a handful of cooked macaroni noodles), so you can see how un'cubical' the result is and how it would be impossible to describe the parameters of all these arcs in your cube matrix, even if the arcs were approximately the same size as your cubes.
> "Collapsibility angles" is a new term to me. Is it in Meme? If so, I missed it.
I lightly introduced it above, when the ultimate-scale arcs are bent too far, they 'collapse' into super-particle material. These 'collapsibility angles' are far greater at the ultimate resolution scale than at any other scale, best understood by comparing a rigid 100 foot brick building to the much greater flexibility granted a 100-mile high brick building. The same materials cannot be used to infinitely scale up a given structure without the varying physics of the scales playing a vital role in viability.
Phew! Winded,
Sean Sinjin
{All letters from this contributor:
{All letters from this contributor: 8.107, 8.114, 9.122, 9.135, 10.145, 16.217}
{All letters from this contributor: 1.5, 8.115, 9.123, 9.128, 10.138, 11.156}
{All letters from this contributor: 6.73, 6.80, 7.86, 7.94, 8.103, 8.116, 9.124, 9.129, 10.139, 11.148, 11.157, 12.168, 13.172, 14.188, 15.192, 20.288}
{All letters from this contributor: 9.125, 9.130, 10.140, 10.146, 11.149, 11.151}
{All letters from this contributor: 9.126, 9.131}
{All letters from this contributor: 8.117, 9.127, 9.132, 10.142}
{All letters from this contributor: 1.5, 8.115, 9.123, 9.128, 10.138, 11.156}