Returning to the Father
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-10-2012, 11:51 AM
RE: Returning to the Father
(29-10-2012 08:20 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Egor ain't as crazy as he seems, I just don't think he has sufficient training in Philosophy to know when his thoughts and ideas are neither novel nor unique. I give him kudos for trying to blaze these trails himself by cutting through the thick underbrush, just dunno why he'd be doing that when there's a niced paved highway right next to him. He's standing right next to it, if he would just step onto it he'd make faster progress.

Egor's latest thoughts remind me of those of Schopenhauer, Dyson, Hoyle, and Schrödinger, with Dyson's being the closest I think.

The philosopher Daniel Kolak coined the term Open Individualism which to me seems close to what Egor is saying only more eloquent and succinct.

N.B. I don't "buy into" any particular metaphysics but I do think it's important to be aware of as many different ones as possible while continually formulating and reformulating my own.

I'd recommend Karl Popper followed by years of studying advanced mathematical theory. That's what my new crush over in the Oxford math department suggested to me anyway...

Join the Logic Speaks Community

I am the unconverted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2012, 12:42 PM
RE: Returning to the Father
(29-10-2012 11:51 AM)lightninlives Wrote:  
(29-10-2012 08:20 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Egor ain't as crazy as he seems, I just don't think he has sufficient training in Philosophy to know when his thoughts and ideas are neither novel nor unique. I give him kudos for trying to blaze these trails himself by cutting through the thick underbrush, just dunno why he'd be doing that when there's a niced paved highway right next to him. He's standing right next to it, if he would just step onto it he'd make faster progress.

Egor's latest thoughts remind me of those of Schopenhauer, Dyson, Hoyle, and Schrödinger, with Dyson's being the closest I think.

The philosopher Daniel Kolak coined the term Open Individualism which to me seems close to what Egor is saying only more eloquent and succinct.

N.B. I don't "buy into" any particular metaphysics but I do think it's important to be aware of as many different ones as possible while continually formulating and reformulating my own.

I'd recommend Karl Popper followed by years of studying advanced mathematical theory. That's what my new crush over in the Oxford math department suggested to me anyway...

Popper I agree with, years of studying advanced mathematical theory I don't. A certain level of mathematical sophistication is required but it's a matter of diminishing returns. After a certain point living inside formal models becomes distractive and even masturbatory. I work with several world class mathematicians who have all of the metaphysics of a Catholic schoolgirl.

Breathing - it's more art than science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
29-10-2012, 07:15 PM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2012 07:19 PM by lightninlives.)
RE: Returning to the Father
(29-10-2012 12:42 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(29-10-2012 11:51 AM)lightninlives Wrote:  I'd recommend Karl Popper followed by years of studying advanced mathematical theory. That's what my new crush over in the Oxford math department suggested to me anyway...

Popper I agree with, years of studying advanced mathematical theory I don't. A certain level of mathematical sophistication is required but it's a matter of diminishing returns. After a certain point living inside formal models becomes distractive and even masturbatory. I work with several world class mathematicians who have all of the metaphysics of a Catholic schoolgirl.

I couldn't disagree more, though admittedly, the way in which I made my original statement might have led to a misunderstanding on your part. I'm not really referring to mathematical theory. I'm referring to applied mathematics (e.g. actually using advanced math and applying it to a real-world scenario and/or data set).

Math has many more "real world" applications than metaphysics have or ever will, none the least of which is, well, physics.

But hey, to each his own I guess.

P.S. working with world class mathematicians (whatever that means) is no substitute for actually understanding and working on advanced mathematical concepts and applications (e.g. statistics, economy, quantitative analysis, data science, information retrieval, anthropology, biology, genetics, physics, astronomy, cosmology, etc. and so forth).

Join the Logic Speaks Community

I am the unconverted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes lightninlives's post
29-10-2012, 09:00 PM
RE: Returning to the Father
(29-10-2012 07:15 PM)lightninlives Wrote:  P.S. working with world class mathematicians (whatever that means) is no substitute for actually understanding and working on advanced mathematical concepts and applications (e.g. statistics, economy, quantitative analysis, data science, information retrieval, anthropology, biology, genetics, physics, astronomy, cosmology, etc. and so forth).

Yeah, Girly don't substitute shit. ... fuckers.

Breathing - it's more art than science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
29-10-2012, 09:03 PM
RE: Returning to the Father
(29-10-2012 07:15 PM)lightninlives Wrote:  
(29-10-2012 12:42 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Popper I agree with, years of studying advanced mathematical theory I don't. A certain level of mathematical sophistication is required but it's a matter of diminishing returns. After a certain point living inside formal models becomes distractive and even masturbatory. I work with several world class mathematicians who have all of the metaphysics of a Catholic schoolgirl.

I couldn't disagree more, though admittedly, the way in which I made my original statement might have led to a misunderstanding on your part. I'm not really referring to mathematical theory. I'm referring to applied mathematics (e.g. actually using advanced math and applying it to a real-world scenario and/or data set).

Math has many more "real world" applications than metaphysics have or ever will, none the least of which is, well, physics.

But hey, to each his own I guess.

P.S. working with world class mathematicians (whatever that means) is no substitute for actually understanding and working on advanced mathematical concepts and applications (e.g. statistics, economy, quantitative analysis, data science, information retrieval, anthropology, biology, genetics, physics, astronomy, cosmology, etc. and so forth).

Breathing - it's more art than science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2012, 01:03 AM
 
RE: Returning to the Father
(29-10-2012 08:20 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Egor ain't as crazy as he seems, I just don't think he has sufficient training in Philosophy to know when his thoughts and ideas are neither novel nor unique. I give him kudos for trying to blaze these trails himself by cutting through the thick underbrush, just dunno why he'd be doing that when there's a niced paved highway right next to him. He's standing right next to it, if he would just step onto it he'd make faster progress.

Egor's latest thoughts remind me of those of Schopenhauer, Dyson, Hoyle, and Schrödinger, with Dyson's being the closest I think.

The philosopher Daniel Kolak coined the term Open Individualism which to me seems close to what Egor is saying only more eloquent and succinct.

N.B. I don't "buy into" any particular metaphysics but I do think it's important to be aware of as many different ones as possible while continually formulating and reformulating my own.

Thanks, GirlyMan. Shy
Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2012, 01:08 AM
 
RE: Returning to the Father
(29-10-2012 10:23 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  Will there be a feast with the slaughtered fattened calf upon your return to the father? I'm a bit jealous. Well, not jealous so much as hungry.

Slaughtered lamb, I think. Evil_monster



Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2012, 01:21 AM
RE: Returning to the Father
Ed, you're a good guy, and it's been interesting to read your posts and see the changes you've made and the discussions you've had. I find the provocative nature of the posts great, because it really is great to prod people and jab them in the ribs now and then to see how they respond... because that's the difference between being able to call yourself a free thinker, but being narrow minded... or actually being a free thinker and being willing to look at yourself and your position and adapt and make changes. Although, as we always say, "Let's not be so open minded that our brains fallout" since some people tend to allow themselves to wander off into the blue yonder at times (not talking about you btw).

I am always open to evidence. But I try to make the least amount of assumptions as possible.

I used to be insanely concerned about evidence and whether or not there was a creator or not. Or a god or not. Or gods or not... some might even find it odd that I'd say I don't care so much anymore. I suppose I look at it this way:

- So far... I don't see anything compelling I'd regard as evidence of a creator. I see things that are intriguing, such as our stumbling onto some interesting stuff in neuroscience, and the continued exponential gains of cosmology. However... I must be patient, as the immediate discoveries that we've made in these can LOOK like one thing, and end up being another. I can ASSUME, make gaps... etc etc.. or I can wait for the evidence to unfold to explain things and make up my mind one way or another.
- Thus far, I have no religious outlook on things as well. I used to before I became an atheist, but I really haven't found anything in any religions except some interesting philosophy in things such as taoism or buddhism, and even then, they are more or less things that anyone could really go by without a doctrine to explain things.
- Since religion doesn't seem to have any point to me, and I don't see anything convincing in terms of evidence of such a thing, the likelihood that such evidence may be found in my lifetime (if such a thing even exists) may be nil, it may not happen. This means me, and everyone before me who looked for such answers, may not find them. So I don't feel it is an important aspect because my life is functioning fine without it, I feel fantastic the way I am, and I see no reward or punishment in knowing either way...
- The better question would be - if I found any such thing... how would my life change?

I'm open to the idea of it, and I'm always open to evidence. I suppose I'm a bit of an empirical tightass though, because I hate assumptions. I can only go off of my own senses, my own perception of reality, and therefore have every justification in being skeptical of others who may be biased in their "findings" or "research" or otherwise.

So I still lack belief in a god or gods in this sense. The universe is amazing as it is, the way it is, in the way I understand it. Philosophical "evidence" to me generally seems to be emotional appeal, purposeful appeal, or coping mechanism appeal to me for other people. I see a lot of people in my life that use the idea of a creator as coping mechanism, to give themselves purpose, for emotional comfort... I don't feel a need for those things since I can find them on my own without that.

I'm fine with that. So I don't feel that a god or creator would change that. I might find it "interesting" and I might be curious as to why the universe would be explained the way it is, but why said whatever it is did things the way "it" did it.

Anyway.. that's how I feel about it. I suppose that's as explanatory as I can get really. I don't think it means that I find no interest in seeking answers, because I do seek knowledge of how things work. But I think if a person truly wants to understand things, or see if such a thing ever existed... instead of searching for said thing, one must seek out the way things work, and perhaps that might actually in itself explain things - if it ever existed. If that makes sense.....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2012, 08:33 PM
RE: Returning to the Father
(26-10-2012 11:29 AM)Egor Wrote:  I don’t think I can maintain my current position regarding God. I have tried to say that God is the monistic fundamental consciousness, and that therefore, everything is of His substance, just like every part of a dream is of the substance of the dreamer’s mind. But the more solidly I hold onto that notion, the more in focus “The Father” becomes.

Because even if I am a dream image, and even if my mind is really just a modality of the mind of the monistic fundamental consciousness, I am still not the entirety of that consciousness. I am still a creation of it, which means that it is my creator—my Father. Consider

Moreover, if I take the dream analogy a bit further, I would have to say that given a dream where I could stay in it, I would want nothing more than to make one of my dream characters come alive and be able to recognize me from a viewpoint that is wholly other than me—like Pinocchio. So, why shouldn’t I suspect that the entire reason I was created was for that purpose. Not to realize I am God—but to realize I am not God.

It’s too easy to become insane with atheism. That is, it’s too easy to ignore all the evidence to the contrary so that we can just exist without any expectations placed upon us. But I don’t want to live in that insanity. No

I don't see atheism as a crecursor to insanity.
We cannot categorically dispove some form of events beyond the grave involving some aspect of our present psyche. I personally belive that extinction is the case but I cannot prove it.
If people believe in some form of afterlife the nature of such, hypothetically speaking,could be varying degrees of good, bad, or neutral.
Where some Christian types feel assured to ongoing life, on the basis of one grab at the apple I feel they are egotisstically delusioned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: