Retribution

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]I'll be the first to say that Occam's Razor isn't proof, but it is a valid scientific principle. It's also somewhat subjective, as opinions on what "simple" is can vary, so it's tricky. However, when trying to decide among two equally plausible hypotheses (in this case, random chance versus planned), it's currently the best way of deciding which one is true. I must also point out that a solution isn't necessarily true just because there's a great deal of evidence pointing to it, or because there's a consensus among scientists or whatnot. Everything we know could be completely off base, but that's neither here nore there.[/color][/QUOTE] [size=1]On Occam's Razor: I don't deny its use or validity, I'm just not sure if it's applicable in this debate. I feel like it's being used as a crutch to explain that which we do not currently understand. Again, I point to a caveman's perception of lightening as "Created by a higher power" versus our modern understanding of the very complex back story that plays into it. Occam's Razor would have us believe that lightening is created by Zeus, when this is not true. And yes, you're absolutely right about how a great deal of evidence supporting something not making it a fact. However, it lends more credence to it than an idea based totally upon speculation. [QUOTE][color=deeppink]There's a few others. The one most rooted in science is the argument from precision (for lack of knowledge of it's real name), stating that life could not come about unless there were [i]exact[/i] conditions, which happened. There are a few more, but they're less scientific and more heavily philosophical and I'd rather not become known as "The new Mitch." Leave that role to Fasterik. : P[/color][/QUOTE] I ask the question rhetorically, really, only to point out that intelligent really fails to deliver on a concrete level. It's an untestable theory. We will never be able to confirm nor deny it, simply because it's entirely speculative. Again, I will concede that "pure science" has yet to yield a better explanation for the creation of the universe. However, "pure science" has put forward some very reliable explanations on how our world is structured. This "pure science" is directly responsible for profound steps forward (modern medicine for example). I cannot say with certainty what intelligent design has yielded. Maybe we're not understanding one another because I'm interpreting intelligent design to be a continuous process that guides all our actions/developments and you're using it as a term to define the initial creation of the universe? [QUOTE][color=deeppink]And you're going to accept that without any evidence? That's not very scientific of you, Retri. ; )[/color][/QUOTE] Divinity and science are more or less diametrically opposed by nature. The general idea is that humans have limited knowledge because we are so small compared to the higher power(s), and nothing we can do will ever begin to scratch the surface of this greater reality. :p[/size]

[size=1]Really quick; it's always a pleasure debating you, Nerdsy. Now onward! [quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]Let me put it this way; if you were to run into the statues on Easter Island, without any prior knowledge of them, would you simply assume that they came about by random chance? Or would you assume they were built by something? I imagine you would think the latter. You would recognize that such a pattern would not "naturally" come about, due to the complexities involved. I would agree that the simplest hyptohesis isn't "God did it!", but then again, a deity isn't the only possibility.[/color][/QUOTE] Fair enough, but I think it's also important to take into account that the simplest solution isn't necessarily the most valid. Just as it is simpler to say "lightening is created by god" rather than take into account the vast and complicated dynamics that go into creating a bolt... it doesn't make the simpler solution true simply because it is simpler. Then again, I haven't researched Occam's Razor, I admit. [QUOTE][color=deeppink]It's not 100% reliable, nor does it absolutely prove the case, but like I said, neither is the observational data regarding the big bang.[/color][/QUOTE] Alright, I admit the big bang isn't solid in any respect. However if we forsake that and observe the rest of creation in search of an intelligent designer, where is your proof? There simply is nothing to back the notion aside from the idea that something this complex must have come from a higher power. [QUOTE][color=deeppink]I don't see anything as outside the comprehension of science. I look at something uknown, and I refuse to say "that's unkowable!" We just need time to perfect our techniques. This includes deities.[/color][/QUOTE] I thought that most, if not all religion was engineered around the premise that a follower has to have faith because the higher power is unable to be seen. If this is true, science cannot touch it.[/size]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]But in this case, there [i]is[/i] some evidence in favor of some higher power.[/color][/QUOTE] [size=1]Not really, unless you are to take gravity for being a higher power. There’s no way to know, much like evolution. It’s entirely possible for evolution to have been guided by some higher power, but it’s also possible that it was a biological process that occurred outside of a higher power. Like I said previously, there’s no evidence for or against the intelligent designer. All we have is what we can see. [QUOTE][color=deeppink]Further, life is physical phenomena, so using the intricacies still counts. Hell, I'd even say that intelligent design better satisfies Occam's Razor; what's simpler, something this complex happening by accident, or by design?[/color][/QUOTE] This is entirely subjective and totally reliant upon one’s perspective of a higher power. Evolution happening without the added complication of god is simpler than evolution happening with the added complication of god. But if you alter your opinion on how all this happened (none of which is cast in stone) then you’ll reach a different conclusion. Occam’s Razor is void here, imho. [QUOTE][color=deeppink]If we were indeed to "call it a day," then I'd agree with you. However, I'm not saying that we should just say "God did it, true story." We should present it as it stands; a somewhat plausible theory supported by basic evidence. [/color][/QUOTE] What evidence is intelligent design supported by? At this moment, you’re right; we have no bulletproof theory of how the universe was created. We have to settle for what the majority of the scientific community puts their weight behind, not any and every theory of creation (which would all have equal validity). If that happens, it’ll be impossible to cover the topic in a science (or religion) class. [QUOTE][color=deeppink]I also don't see this as above research; I certainly agree that there is an explicable cause for everything (for the most part), I just don't see intelligent design as being inexplicable. We may not understand it now, but after applying science to it, then perhaps we will.[/color][/QUOTE] Isn’t intelligent design by its very nature outside the comprehension of science? I don’t get this point at all.[/size]

[quote name='The Blue Jihad']Sorry, but I just had to point out the hilarity of "cant send [B]pms[/B] to my account." Cause most of my female friends would love to not get pms so frequently. Zing.[/QUOTE] [size=1]Damn, you beat me to it. :

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]How many people believe that, though? There's a sizable difference between an extreme (and unlikely) example that never actually comes up and an actual conflict of belief.[/color][/QUOTE] [size=1]The example was anecdotal and in my opinion, is an adequate analogy for the debate. Let me explain what I mean. You have two opposing forces vying for our belief ? gravity and god?s pull. Science would tell us that gravity is what pulls us to the earth, while a proponent of intelligent design would say that god is ultimately the force that pulls us to the earth (and that this dynamic is manifested in what we understand as gravity). Now, it?s possible that god does indeed pull us to the earth, but we have no evidence. We have nothing to support nor refute the claim. The extent of our knowledge is that what we know as gravity pulls us to due to the earth?s immense mass. [QUOTE][color=deeppink]Something else. The theory of the Big Bang is based largely upon an assumption; the Copernican principle, which has not been proven. Meaning, it is [i]based on faith[/i] with little testable evidence. Should we not teach the Big Bang because it is also based on unsupported speculation?[/color][/QUOTE] It its supported by our observational evidence that the universe is still expanding. We can infer from data to reach a vague conclusion that is logically supported by the physical evidence. But what?s more, the explanation still relies on physical phenomena rather than a mystical creator. The idea of a creator introduces an entirely new set of ?rules? by which we are governed, none of which have root in science or [veritable] observational evidence. [QUOTE][color=deeppink]People observe the intricacies of life, how complicated and convenient the interactions are, and draw the conclusion that there must be some higher mind at work here.[/color][/QUOTE] See, that?s the thing. People often assume there is a creator because everything is so intricate. But this is equivalent to assuming lightening is magic, attributing it to a higher power, and calling it a day. We must assume that there is an explicable cause for everything.[/size]

[quote name='Sara'][color=#db2007]Based on my own experiences, I think Intelligent Design ought to be taught in schools. [b]Not in the sense of [i]this is true[/i] but in the sense of [i]some people believe this, so let's make you a well-informed individual[/i]. [/b] I feel the same way about the world's major religions?I think very few people would suffer from learning [i]about[/i] the history and tenets of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha'i... or, to come right down to it, a philosophical discussion about agnosticism or atheism.[/color][/QUOTE] [size=1]I absolutely agree. Personally, I think a world religions class should be mandatory in public school. It?s undeniable that religion has profoundly impacted history, and continues to play a key role in modern events, therefore knowledge of what?s driving these events is essential. [QUOTE][color=#db2007]I was raised Lutheran, and I spent most of my life (age eight to age eighteen) attending Lutheran schools. The result of this? I was [i]never[/i] taught about evolution (save a brief discussion in the sixth grade?I knew that Darwin went to the Galopagos and that he had something to do with finch beaks) or the Big Bang Theory. We literally skipped those chapters in our textbooks. If something didn't make sense in (senior year) Physics class, a completely valid response to "Why does this happen?" was "Because God said so."[/color][/QUOTE] And that?s what I?m talking about. We need to be extremely careful while mentioning intelligent design in classes ? never should it be a cornerstone in science. But I think it has a place in a history or world religion course, where it could be adequately contextualized and explained as ?Some people believe that ____?.[/size]

[size=1]This is hands down your most interesting RPG. I’ve always wanted to RP a zombie outbreak. [b]Character Name:[/b] Alexander Gamil [b]Age:[/b] 17 [b]Gender:[/b] Male [b]Physical Description:[/b] [url=http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y170/retri_trib/n504015549_74017_2519.jpg][ link1 ][/url] [url=http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y170/retri_trib/n504015549_26499_4255.jpg][ link2 ][/url] 5’8” and 130lbs, athletic and slender build. And rather handsome, might I add? [b]Location:[/b] Washington, D.C. [b]Living Style:[/b] A slowly gentrifying middle-class neighborhood. Densely populated area, outlying suburbs experiencing a population explosion. DC has an airport, extensive public transportation, frequent trains to-and-from the Northeast, and is the seat of the US Federal Government. Lives with mother and father, grandfather, and four younger brothers. One Crown Victoria luxury sedan, one 15 passenger van, one Volvo station wagon, one Volkswagen convertible. [b]Notable Possessions:[/b] Government Security Clearance (Level 2), extensive family network in DC and NYC (mostly political). [b]Special Skills:[/b] Physical stamina/endurance, general intelligence, can drive a manual car. [b]Diary Entry:[/b] [b][size=2]July 12, 2007[/size] [i]7:35 PM EST[/i][/b] Work was boring as usual today. When the directors are out of the building, we stop filing the invoices/SEs, and instead play poker or just surf the internet. Hell yeah, America, that’s what your tax dollars are going towards. Paying for our bandwidth consumption. It’s great to be single again. It’s tough when you look 13 years old, but once girls get past that I’m in the clear, so I’ll probably have more luck this fall. Speaking of which, can’t wait for NYC, the nightlife, the free time – wait, no, I’ll be toiling away behind the gates of Columbia. College is supposedly the “best time” of ones life, so the work can’t be [i]that bad[/i], can it? I’m suffering through Plato’s Republic now, I wonder how I’ll manage to digest The Illiad in a week while I’m there. Aside from that, more deaths in the nation’s Murder Capital. Except instead of guns, people are biting one another to death. I’ll at least give them credit for persistence, that’s a pretty tough way to kill (hah). Perhaps next time they’ll stab with spoons? [b][size=2]July 13, 2007[/size] [i]3:19 PM EST[/i][/b] Work again. I went to TJs for lunch, and the Korean lady working the register started giving me shit about my academic achievements. We talked before, you know, bullshitting about how her daughter was working at the US Treasury (and is a year younger than me). But today, she asked me out of the clear blue “Are you going to college next year?” Yes, bitch. “Columbia in NYC.” And then she looked impressed, but didn’t hesitate to inquire what my SAT score was. “1970.” Again, she was impressed. And once more, her curiosity bests her. “What was your GPA?” Higher than your daughter’s. Now ring me up and let me leave. But no, I’m a polite fellow so I settled for being pretentious. “4.17 cumulative. I bet your daughter’s is higher,” I sounded embarrassed. “Nah it’s not. I can’t say nothing to that, wow.” I know us black folk bitch and moan about people being racist to the point where no one wants to hear it anymore. But this woman assumed that because I was black, I didn’t get into college on merit. I couldn’t get back to the office. A three-block section just north of the Senate was barricaded and shut down by some government guys in black. They didn’t offer any information aside from they were “quarantining and securing the premises”. No news about it. I know the PATRIOT Act had us headed towards a police state but damn, people.[/size]

[quote name='Jeremiah']I view science and scientific explanations as complementary to the Bible, and it is not necessarily against the word of God. I think of examples like the big bang theory. It works with the creationist account of a creator speaking into his creation, and BANG, there is light...[/QUOTE] [size=1]There’s always that possibility, but as it stands, “Intelligent Design” is a theory that attempts to explain the inexplicable. I mean, a few thousand years ago people idolized lightening and fire because ultimately, they could not understand its nature. Therefore labeling what we cannot grasp at the moment as evidence of “intelligent design” is imprudent to say the least, and moreover discourages scientific inquiry. When you say that “God did it” you are outright rejecting additional examination via scientific method. Once you say “God did it,” it becomes an untouchable statement… sort of like when a parent tells their child “Because I said so”. [QUOTE]I believe that Dinsoaurs are recorded as creatures in the bible, but given names such as "Leviathan" and "Dragon," both of which are used to describe large lizards and sea monsters. Dinosaur is such a modern word, isn't it feasable that the dragons of old could be the dinosaurs we hear about today?[/QUOTE] Or it could be a mythological tale. And if you want to base things off of fossil record, then no, humans and dinosaurs never existed concurrently. To support that argument that the authors of the Bible knew of Dinosaurs, you would have take one of two stances. 1) Dinosaurs existed concurrently with humans, or 2) these humans had divine knowledge of the past. Considering the first is almost entirely debunked by modern science, I’ll assume you mean #2. And that is a leap of faith I’m unwilling to take, that ancient humans had divine knowledge, and for some unknown reason, we don’t have that anymore. [QUOTE]Then I look at the fact that there is multiple accounts of a world wide flood (Gilgamesh Epic, Noah's Ark) not as "zomg plagiarism," but evidence that such a worldwide flood could have occured. Did you know the Australian Aboriginal culture also has a flood story? All the way over the other side of the world. It speaks volumes.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. A regional flood of Mesopotamia is possible, which to Noah would be his entire known world. And a regional flood of parts of Australia I probably doubt, but again, it could be fiction. [QUOTE]I do think both should be taught in schools , and taught as theories. Creationism may be fish-out-of-water in the science lab, but it would go quite well in a social studies enviornment, given that a religion of some sort is the foundation stone of many nations around the world.[/QUOTE] Taught as a theory? Evolution is a theory that has been supported by overwhelming evidence (fossil records, carbon dating, observation of microevolution), and has been crosschecked by countless controlled experiments. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is entirely based on intuition and speculation, and remains dubious at best in terms of support. Teach intelligent design in a world religions class, or in the context of history, but not anywhere else. [QUOTE]Teach them both, give the kids some credit and room to make their own minds.[/QUOTE] Is it valid to teach a child that gravity is a constant (i.e. it ‘exists’) and also teach him that [i]others believe[/i] that god is pulling him to the earth, and that this is a possibility as well? Absolutely not. The job of public education is to teach what we know as scientific fact, not hearsay or unsupported speculation. [quote name='liamc2'][FONT="Trebuchet MS"][SIZE="1"]It's always important to hear both sides of a topical issue and allow people to make up their own minds. It's what freedom is about, right?[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE] Not if one has little to no support and the other have volumes of it. Rarely is there two sides to an issue concerning science, and evolution isn’t really one of them. Of course our knowledge is finite, but to the best of that, everything points to evolution, while the notion of an intelligent designer is unsupported. [QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"][SIZE="1"]The Evolution vs Intelligent Design argument can be compared to the Climate change argument that plagued the news recently. "Opinion+hard facts" Science vs "Opinion+ hard facts" Science always means the argument will go around and around...[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE] Please point me to some hard facts that support intelligent design. I mean things that have been heavily scrutinized, tested, and after the scientific process, have results that now bolster intelligent design. As for climate change, the vast majority of the scientific community says that global warming is happening. Not too many people are debating that at this point. Sorry if that was ranty/preachy at any point. I'm bored at work. :p[/size]

[size=1]Connection: Statue [url=http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y170/retri_trib/?action=view¤t=CIMG0917.jpg][b]This one[/b][/url] is at the entrance of Central Park (it's northern end) in Manhattan.[/size]

[size=1]If 7 is average, I'd say I'm a 7.5 at this moment. I'm tired of working and sorta just holding out until the end of this month for release from it. But the weekends are generally fun, my job isn't terrible, and my life at the moment is nothing to complain about. My co-workers make things bearable. And I'm looking forward to the future for once. Starting college, meeting new people, moving to NYC... I can barely wait.[/size]

[size=1]This thread is becoming depressingly pseudointellectual (DB, Prem I'm looking at you). Starwind, no one likes it when you bash on their beliefs. Not only do you polarize the debate, you look like a jerk by doing so. Lose-lose situation. I am personally opposed to the idea of intelligent design. It seems to me that evolution has all the evidence on its side, and intelligent design is standing on the leg of "You gotta believe!". I'm heavily opposed to the idea of teaching it in [public] schools. America's already far behind her European and East Asian counterparts, we need to pick up the slack... and teaching a totally unsupported theory isn't getting us there.[/size]

[size=1]Perhaps Stevie Wonder said it best. [i]When you believe in things that you don't understand Then you suffer Superstition ain't the way[/i][/size]

[quote name='Raiyuu']... and then I remembered that people actually do that in America. :animeswea[/QUOTE] [size=1]Yeah, it really is unfortunate. Can you believe that people are pushing for concealed weapons to be legal?[/size]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]Also. "She?" "Her?"[/color][/QUOTE] [size=1]I mean... not many guys type in deep pink on OB. Can't really blame him. I live four minutes outside DC proper (driving), maybe twenty minutes if you walk. People are generally accommodating and understanding, due to the fact we have so much practice dealing with you pesky tourists (WOW LETS GO SEE THE MONUMENTS LOL!!). But don't get me wrong, we sneer and jeer at you behind your back. If you're from out of town, the city is an amazing place. It's the city from which the federal government runs, which is extremely impressive in and of itself, not to mention all the historical monuments and [free!] museums you can enjoy. If you're from the city, all those things lose their appeal pretty quickly, and you end up just going to the movies, going to parties, or hanging out with friends at their house. Typical. Oh, and Dagger lives on the other side of the city. You and I will meet one day, mark my words.[/size]

[quote name='2007DigitalBoy'][COLOR="DarkOrange"]Is it bad that your posts make me [i]really[/i] want some weed?[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [size=1]...I absolutely second your sentiment. I think White's got magical powers that are drawing us [b][i]TO TEH DARKSIDE!!1[/i][/b][/size]

[size=1]I wear a suit jacket to work, so describing it is a bit complicated. Whenever I'm not going to work, I have my camera on me as well. [b][I]Within my suit jacket:[/I] Inner upper-left-hand pocket[/b] - Cash (I forget how much I have right now) [b]Inner lower-left-hand pocket[/b] - Metro Smartcard - Congressional Federal Credit Union check card [b]Inner right-hand pocket[/b] - Comb [b]Outer right-hand pocket[/b] - Cellphone [b]Outer left-hand pocket[/b] - iPod[/size]

[quote name='White'][FONT="Tahoma"][COLOR="DimGray"]Some of you guys are so funny, lol. If you smoke pot you won't lose your personality, or forget to care for things. It doesn't strip you of your will to move. You can still do all the normal things you do when you aren't like that. It just makes what you normally would be doing more of an adventure. :)[/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE] [size=1]Haha, well said. I have yet to hear any valid arguments against marijuana (and its legalization), so I don't really care about people doing that. But as for the harder stuff, well, fear for the physical repercussions would be my anti-drug. I don't feel like dealing with LSD flashbacks or heroin/crystal meth addiction.[/size]

[quote name='Copycatalyst']Yeah, Dag, you're teh desireables, and I don't mean that in some OMG I WANTS TO FUXES HERS. I value intellect and more than mere face value.[/QUOTE] [size=1]Keep telling yourself that. ;D[/size]

[quote name='DeadSeraphim'][FONT="Arial"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="Indigo"]Yeah. 'Look'. :rolleyes:[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE] [size=1]Love you too, Dead.[/size]

[quote name='Copycatalyst']Well, I understand the implication of the need for mods. In my opinion though there's too many mods at OB. When mods are deleting my posts whom are meant to mod a differing forum this is quite obvious lol. Further it seems to me that now the rules are lessening. . .yet magically. For example there was the recent Fish thread where Tony and I brought to question why it hadn't been closed. . .yet many threads before had been deleted that were "intro threads." James magically said it was okay to have intro threads, apparently.[/QUOTE] [size=1]Each forum has a certain number of mods that's more or less proportionate to its activity. I agree that we probably have too many in that some don't do anything. As for the rule thing, I really don't know. I'm having growing pains trying to learn the new system and accommodate James' vision. [QUOTE]...or I post, and it's apparently of too high writing quality to be read[/QUOTE] Don't flatter yourself, friend. :p [QUOTE]I'm not calling for a forum like that again; it's just interesting to me that in general, the level of quality at OB is, in my opinion, dropping, for various reasons.[/QUOTE] I find it ironic you were ardently supporting Charles' RPG if you are of this opinion. [QUOTE]I feel like I'm being watched by a mother. . .and everyone accepts this, at a messageboard of mostly 20-somethings or younger? Everyone respects her because she posts wisely; well I think if I was forty I would too, and in fact I think I post intelligently already but it's usually over most peoples' heads, which is fine by me (all the more fun for me).[/QUOTE] If you want to challenge her, feel free. But she's not some Big Brother figure either, heh. [QUOTE]I think we need to reevaluate what OB is, and especially, slacken on the rules a bit, and actually actively explicate just [i]what[/i] the rules are any more. Also the modship needs to lessen; it's just teeming with superfluousome persons currently, because you just don't need that many mods when it's not that hard to mod a forum since in the first place you're a mod here because you're here often, so you don't need so many mods to do the work of what half or a quarter of the amount there is now could do. Also I think we need to learn to treat our members nicer. . .there was this thread where Shy basically told a member off. . .and at times we're quite mean to less-known members. For example, in my position, I am never too harsh on newer members. . .older ones, of course, and more well-known ones, of course--because they deserve it. . .:p[/QUOTE] I agree with you more or less. I think OB is going through a transition period from one version to the next, modification of rules, rearranging of forums, etc. You have to understand that during these times, things aren't going to move like clockwork and we need membership feedback to make this place better. Don't worry, most of the kinks will be ironed out in a bit.[/size]

[size=1]OB is a social community with it's own set of networks and interpersonal relationships amongst the members. But the matter is far different from a normal group of people because there is censorship, a police force (staff), and no physical world. I think the lack of physical accountability is what compells us to have a staff, if that makes any sense.[/size]

[size=1]It may sound crazy, perhaps even suicidal, but I really want to meet [strike]Mitch[/strike] Copycatalyst. I think we'd end up being decent friends after we put aside our philosophical clashings. I don't have any friends who like having extended conversations about anything really deep, and I want one. Just... none of that singing/poetry-reading you do, alright fellow?[/size]

[size=1]Alright, this is my last post on the topic. [quote name='Copycatalyst']The greatest scientists know science is not even about the facts.[/QUOTE] Science isn't about the facts, but painting a more accurate picture of the universe and its nature. [QUOTE]Also, the human mind and all its fruits? I think you have this presumption. [i]We are born into the world.[/i] Consider this--[b]we are born from the world[/b]. We are extensions of itself, not strangers that find ourselves "alive." There is nothing mysterious or ethereal about this at all.[/QUOTE] You've totally misunderstood what I meant. By "all its fruits" I mean capacity for discourse, free will, invention, problem solving, absolutely unfathomable achievements. All of these are the power of the mind. [QUOTE]If you are going to not back down from your scientific ideals. . .Well, let me tell you one thing. The reason why science will continue to thrive is because [i]it is up for constant revision and even its so-called "laws" are theoretical[/i]. Science does not have facts; it merely is the West's Buddhism. It is best for its [i]utility[/i], its [i]use[/i], but when we are discussing its methods, and not its means, we are discussing how it obtains what it obtains and we are not discussing the implications of what it gives via its use.[/QUOTE] You're right in that everything isn't cast in stone. However, it is a constant search for truth that will [probably] never be complete. This quest for the truth is meticulous and methodical, exacting and strenuous. This quest has yielded us great things -- the computer you type on alone is the compound product of centuries, perhaps millenniums of work. The means by which this occurs is truly a gemstone of human ability... and I'm not entirely sure philosophy surpasses it. [QUOTE]...delves into the mind itself, at its very core, and [i]objectively[/i] finds what is within. [/QUOTE] I'm not sure how you support that aside from saying "it is so." I'm not certain there's a methodical, quantitative way to delve into one's mind. I personally doubt it. [QUOTE]But what is within and without--what is the difference?[/QUOTE] I know the difference, but I don't think there is an objective way of assessing "the core" of your mind. I think it's a very personal process. Objectivity suggests that there is some sort of right/wrongness to what you see at the core of your mind, and I don't think it is so. [QUOTE]...but you must also realize it is just as fallible as any human creation which has come before.[/QUOTE] Yes, it is fallible, but it is the best we have in terms of understanding the world around us. One can meditate and metacognate for eternity, but they will never understand what enables them to physically see (in the most literal sense). And if they cannot do that, how could they fix impaired vision? Yes, a scientist's understanding of the eyes/brain has the possibility of being erroneous, but they will have the greater power over someone who shuns science. [QUOTE]In essence how is what science does necessarily any different, other than that it is the use of reason, the use of rationality, and the ability to withhold things until they are revealed to us via our senses.[/QUOTE] It is different because there is not a pantheon directing natural occurrences. We strive to ask [i]why?[/i] rather than label it [i]I am that am[/i]. [QUOTE]However, are not these all merely human creations? All [i]creations of the human faculties[/i] even as much as you may presume science is somehow above them? It is above them, as I said, and it's for this reason--[i]it revises its finds, as our appartus grows or we augment it with the aid of technology[/i].[/QUOTE] The fundamental difference is that our knowledge of the universe via science can be amended. Scientists do not see something and label it "God," a scientist sees something and further investigates. Yes, it is flawed as are all human creations, but it is also superior to it in that it is closer to the true nature of the universe. It's understanding is greater, if only marginally. [QUOTE]Newton laid down so-called absolute laws. . .yet these have been quite destroyed by Einstein's theories, and now physics is at a point where it is [i]mostly theoretical[/i] and trying to consider what could actually be scientifically. . .a law of physics.[/QUOTE] No, Newton's Laws haven't been destroyed by Einstein's theories. If so, you wouldn't be able to walk. However, they have been amended in that they are no longer absolute. Our knowledge has expanded, but do not think this was through vague positing by Einstein -- the man did an impressive amount of mathematics to back his claims. It resulted in nuclear technology. Even theoretics must be backed by logic. [QUOTE]I'm saying for you to loosen your relationship with it and realize its problems.[/QUOTE] I'm actually not all that wed to science explaining everything. Debate, especially passionate ones, are naturally polarizing and so I have taken an extreme position. I am generally conceptual, but when we're talking about bodily facility (brain/mind/beauty) I don't bend much. [QUOTE]As far as means, science is, like [i]anything which is of value[/i], a means of progression and a means of understanding. But so, too, is philosophy.[/QUOTE] I could not agree more. [QUOTE]As is religion. Religion is of the blood of philosophy too, but it is not as reasoned as science is. Faith is by what it is the very subvertion of the meanings of reason itself, a casting-aside of it which is as ignorant as it is beautiful.[/QUOTE] I will not deny that religion is heavily linked with philosophy, but to say it is the blood of it is insulting. [QUOTE]Currently the theory of mind is mostly a functionalist one. This is the way you are viewing beauty; you are saying the man is a machine and it has a processor, which allows its hardware of mind to run, and this is where beauty comes to be.[/QUOTE] Contrary to my preaching, I think there is something beyond my mind. I'm still searching for it, and until it is found, there is only my humanity. But perhaps that is enough. It's been fun, Mitch. See you in another philosophical debate. Hopefully I can say more interesting things than I already have.[/size]

[size=1]Ugh, my post just got lost in cyberspace. Let's try again. [quote name='Sesshomarufan']that' the x factor in this debate. human emotions. how can people justify their emotions scientifically. i can't say it's a horomonal imbalance that causes me to laugh when something is funny and be striken with grief when tragedy strikes. it just don't work that way.[/QUOTE] Emotions [i]are[/i] scientific. Emotions arise from the infinitely complex operations of your brain, they don't spontaneously generate at will from an ether. If you're debating this, I have nothing else to say because you're arguing against the entire scientific community. Just because we cannot easily quantify emotions or fully comprehend them doesn't mean they have no base in science. Just because we can't understand what exactly drives emotion does not mean you can say "it doesn't work that way". I mean, MRIs have shown certain regions of the brain are associated with certain emotions. [QUOTE]but how does the mind know what beauty is?[/QUOTE] Again, you do it here. You assume that because we do not currently have comprehensive knowledge on the mind, there must be some higher order to it. This is not necessarily the case, and has often been proved wrong in various instances. Most notably is the use of religion to explain natural phenomena such as lightening or earthquakes or plagues. People back then didn't know what was going on, but their lack of knowledge does not give validity to the idea that the gods were smiting them. [QUOTE]so while the process make take place within the mind, it is there because of outside stimuli that make it percieve things that way.[/QUOTE] No, there is nothing about a stimuli that forces you to encode it that way. Your brain encodes the information, which is influenced by your previous experiences, culture, and social norms. Again, this is supported by the scientific community. I'm not really sure what else to say. [quote name='Copycatalyst']Science is merely the philosophic stance of empiricism, taken further and it has become our own philosophical method of inquiry in the West, by in large.[/QUOTE] So? What you are describing (your position on beauty) is based off of anecdotal evidence (at best), and you expect me to swallow it. What I'm describing more or less debunks yours because it is supported by extensive and repeated observations. I'll go with the people who give me more concrete support. [QUOTE]You cannot necessarily apply empircism to what I was saying. . .my post in essence discredits your. . .almost Humeian use of reason[/QUOTE] I don't understand, because science has studied a fair deal of what we're talking about. On that front, you're not discrediting me. [QUOTE]It is really [i]quantum[/i]--what is going on when we say something is "beautiful." All things have an awareness, even those things which are not human. A rock is aware in a sense that maybe many humans wish they could be--plants and trees and the like are endlessly aware and wise, otherwise how could they have survived so long alongside such predatorial animals as ourselves? When there is a "beauty event" it is not just the subject, the ego, you, the person looking, that is undergoing the event. It is a large amount of [i]quantum[/i] data being perceived and somewhat, though not too terribly, distorted in the mind.[/QUOTE] See, you expect me to believe this because you're saying it. I mean, I understand what you're saying on a philosophical level, but even there I disagree. The closest I can get to you in terms of common ground is absolute awe of how interconnected all life is. [QUOTE]And anyway, distorted is kind of an incorrect word, or anyway its connotation is tainted with negativity. I do not mean we destroy the beauty there. What I do mean, however, is that our sensual appartus, as a whole thing, is built to only detect certain aspects of objects and it has done so for, from a scientific perspective, adaptive purposes; and in another perspective, and a greater one, it is because this allows us to have a certain "piece of reality" which we call our lives, and to experience, have, and know it together. Whether this involves a God's creation of this or such is of course an entirely different matter so we'll stave that off for now. But any beauty event is not merely just a fashioning of the human mind. . .here is what I thought of last night that best explains what I am saying. [i]Beauty is experienced from a subjective level, but it is the allotment of the objectivities of an object and an event and therefore it is not merely in the eye of the beholder whatsoever[/i].[/QUOTE] This is probably the best you've put it the entire time. And really, I absolutely understand what you're saying about us being a sensual apparatus, that our eyes and brain are fashioned only to be conduits of that beauty and that we have no power over it, but you and I fundamentally disagree over this. The human mind and all its fruits is as close to a god as we'll ever have. By the way, this is pretty fun, but our points are getting stale. How about a "What is Justice?" topic or something like that?[/size]

[quote name='Fasteriskhead']Good point, that's very possible. I'm still inclined to think that the experience would really change somehow - it would become bittersweet, maybe? or something even milder? - but I also think the sense of delight would continue over in large part. That means that the presence of a reason doesn't totally break down an experience of beauty, it just "dilutes" it somehow. I'm not sure what that means. Give me awhile to think about it, and maybe I'll have a good reply later on?[/QUOTE] [size=1]Perhaps. But imagine you are at a funeral where someone's brother died and the family is absolutely grief stricken. Telling them "You're only sad because of an evolutionary device to keep the family unit together, and sudden loss is painful for humans" [i]will not[/i] allay their extreme sadness in the least. The emotion is still raw and uncontrolled by your logic. It's the same thing with an optical illusion (although on a more literal level) -- you can [i]know[/i] you're being fooled and that what you're seeing isn't true, but you cannot "turn off" what you are seeing. If that makes any sense. Mitch -- for clarity, my position is that beauty does not exist in the world, but in our minds. I think it's a calculated and profoundly complicated process, but a technical one nonetheless. Just because we can't easily perceive it at this moment doesn't give us the right to relegate the mind's perception of beauty as something deeper than chem/bio processes.[/size]