[Arm-netbook] Totally derailed topic

[d***@mail.com]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

I apologize for DOS'ing the list, I can only get online about once a week.

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:27:00 +0000

@ Lyberta -- I'll just say that I don't think it's any healthier to be
wanting to kill other people than it is to be wanting to kill
yourself. Somehow that doesn't fit my definition of 'normal'. But
that's me -- and I don't want to, you know, tell you how to think.
Not my job. So I'll drop this for now, except to say that pills can
do you a world of good if you let them.

This is a humane execution. They turn you into a vegetable and other
people think you are awake, but you are asleep, you have no coherent
thoughts. I have gained 40 kgs under antipsychotics and now I have
problems standing up and sitting down, I have low blood pressure, my
knees hurt a lot, I can barely walk anymore. I'm just a lump of fat now.
Lump of fat that waits for the world to kill it.

@ Lyberta,
I've been thinking a lot about what you wrote, what I'm about to write
could be totally wrong, but if I'm right it would lead to a cure for you.
I'm not a psychiatrist, but I do know what a request for help from anyone,
anyone at all, looks like.
I suspect that you might be more intelligent than people give you credit
for. I suspect that you're caught in the ultimate trap, weather you
realize it consciously it or not. You see, when philosophers first
removed God from their philosophies they are tasked then with trying to
find a purpose to life. As others on this list pointed out becoming a
homicidal maniac is pointless, but as the aforementioned philosophers
found, the universe will eventually end and all that is, or was, or could
be, or could have been will cease to exist. They were thus confounded in
the question that never has been answered by atheists. That would be,
"When should I die." and more generally, "What is the point of it
all."
I've seen many people caught in this trap, perhaps without knowing it.
They start off as fun people capable of much, as they age they realize
what they have not done, and what they are not and probably will never
be. They then try things like suicide, or boasting, and thus they loose
those qualities which draw others to them if not their life as well.

I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own
potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of
an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.

You see, Killing others would be something (you describe laughing at
them and being rid of them), and killing yourself would cause you to no
longer think about your problems. So my theory would at least satisfy
both of your, ahem, ravings, in as much as it would point to a root cause
of both.

I said above that "I suspect that you might be more intelligent than
people give you credit for," and here is what I mean. If you can reason
that far, even subconsciously, then you have gotten farther then most in
as much as you realize the lack of adequate solutions. Put another way,
you are way up there with the very best Atheistic minds.
Now I could easily go on, but I think that I'll leave you with a
hopefully clearer understanding of what is bothering you. As Mr. Havel
pointed out, I don't intend to tell you how to think, and ultimately, more
people are cured everyday of mentally related problems by their own minds
then drugs, or what others tell them. Think about it, panic, too much and
a person can't function, too little and they are lackadaisical. Or fear,
or pain, or love (I'm talking emotional attraction), or well, anything.

In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening,
insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as
opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view. This would at least
give you lots of interesting and worthwhile things to think about IMHO
and it would be something that even a vegetable could do :)
I'd suggest "The Chronicles of Narnia" by C.S. Lewis and "The phantom
Toll Both" by Norton Juster.
It is from "The Chronicles of Narnia" that we get the quote "Oh my
mistress do not by any means destroy yourself, for if you live you may yet
have good fortune, but all the dead are dead alike!"

The very best,
David
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=BlCA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attach

[Christopher Havel]

I very strongly second both suggested readings, if only because I have both
(including the complete set of Narnia books), have read both, and find them
to be examples of some of the best fiction writing known to mankind. I
would be somewhat less of a person if I had not read those, I think. With
regard to the Narnia series -- the books were written and published out of
order. See here -->
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia#Reading_order (I
recommend the "Harper Collins order" of reading the books, as referred to
in the linked article.)

*The Phantom Tollbooth*, I will warn you, is a "Young Adult" novel -- read
it anyways, it's a wonderful story and a wonderful book.

I can also recommend some of Brian Jacques' earlier works (the *Redwall*
series of novels) -- I should warn you that the later ones get *very*
predictable -- my favorite from his would have to be *The Bellmaker*. By
the way -- if you're into sci-fi -- I could do far, far worse than to
recommend *Coyote* by Alan Steele and *Eternity Road* by Jack McDevitt.
*Coyote* is about colonizing another world -- but it's far more (pardon me)
"down to earth" in how things work out, both in terms of character
development and technology, than, say, *Star Trek*. *Eternity Road* is a
post-apocalyptic book -- one of only two, honestly, I've really met that
I've enjoyed (the other is called *The Rock* -- referring to Ayers Rock in
Austraila, which is all I'll say about the plot) -- although I have to say
I can't really recommend any of Jack McDevitt's other works. They... I
dunno, they just don't 'click' for me, you know? If fantasy is more your
thing, there's Anne McCaffrey's *Pern* series -- I loved those books when I
was in high school. Absolutely ate them up. It's sort of a sci-fi/fantasy
fusion sort of a setting, but it works quite nicely... I'll not explain
what I mean by that, though, because that spoils major parts of the plot in
one of the books...

Of course, I would also be quite remiss in failing to recommend the first
three books in what Wiki wants me to believe is in fact a quintet --
Madeleine L'Engle's *A Wrinkle In Time*, followed by *A Wind in the Door*
and *A Swiftly Tilting Planet*. (I have neither read nor even heard of, the
two books that are supposed to go after those three, titled *Many Waters*
and *An Acceptable Time* -- so I can't speak to those. Sorry.)

...you can probably tell already, but books and reading are valued things
in my family... books are amazing things. They can -- if you let them --
take you all sorts of wonderful and strange places... I'm happy to
recommend even more if you're interested -- shoot me an email with a topic
or fiction genre and I'll gladly see what I can recommend. (I should note
that I habitually stay away from horror and similar material at all cost,
though, so if that's your thing, I can't really help.)

[Bill Kontos]

I chuckled when reading your message doark. This is pretty much the story
of my life and my greatest fear, that is my mind degrading for whatever
reason and become unable to understand or interact with the world
intelligently ans have no way to defend myself against this degration. Im
in my 20s and I already think of what I'll probalby never do in my life
that I really want to do( such as programming and going to space to satisfy
my curiosity). I have come to the same conclusions as you said about the
logic gap of atheism and the meaning of life is the one question that I
prefer to give the simplest answer to: just live to learn. I have read The
Chronicles of Narnia when I was a little kid( all 7 of them) and I read
them again a couple years ago for nostalgia reasons and wow are these books
deeper than they look like.

Post by d***@mail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
I apologize for DOS'ing the list, I can only get online about once a week.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 14:27:00 +0000

@ Lyberta -- I'll just say that I don't think it's any healthier to be
wanting to kill other people than it is to be wanting to kill
yourself. Somehow that doesn't fit my definition of 'normal'. But
that's me -- and I don't want to, you know, tell you how to think.
Not my job. So I'll drop this for now, except to say that pills can
do you a world of good if you let them.

This is a humane execution. They turn you into a vegetable and other
people think you are awake, but you are asleep, you have no coherent
thoughts. I have gained 40 kgs under antipsychotics and now I have
problems standing up and sitting down, I have low blood pressure, my
knees hurt a lot, I can barely walk anymore. I'm just a lump of fat now.
Lump of fat that waits for the world to kill it.

@ Lyberta,
I've been thinking a lot about what you wrote, what I'm about to write
could be totally wrong, but if I'm right it would lead to a cure for you.
I'm not a psychiatrist, but I do know what a request for help from anyone,
anyone at all, looks like.
I suspect that you might be more intelligent than people give you credit
for. I suspect that you're caught in the ultimate trap, weather you
realize it consciously it or not. You see, when philosophers first
removed God from their philosophies they are tasked then with trying to
find a purpose to life. As others on this list pointed out becoming a
homicidal maniac is pointless, but as the aforementioned philosophers
found, the universe will eventually end and all that is, or was, or could
be, or could have been will cease to exist. They were thus confounded in
the question that never has been answered by atheists. That would be,
"When should I die." and more generally, "What is the point of it
all."
I've seen many people caught in this trap, perhaps without knowing it.
They start off as fun people capable of much, as they age they realize
what they have not done, and what they are not and probably will never
be. They then try things like suicide, or boasting, and thus they loose
those qualities which draw others to them if not their life as well.
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own
potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of
an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.
You see, Killing others would be something (you describe laughing at
them and being rid of them), and killing yourself would cause you to no
longer think about your problems. So my theory would at least satisfy
both of your, ahem, ravings, in as much as it would point to a root cause
of both.
I said above that "I suspect that you might be more intelligent than
people give you credit for," and here is what I mean. If you can reason
that far, even subconsciously, then you have gotten farther then most in
as much as you realize the lack of adequate solutions. Put another way,
you are way up there with the very best Atheistic minds.
Now I could easily go on, but I think that I'll leave you with a
hopefully clearer understanding of what is bothering you. As Mr. Havel
pointed out, I don't intend to tell you how to think, and ultimately, more
people are cured everyday of mentally related problems by their own minds
then drugs, or what others tell them. Think about it, panic, too much and
a person can't function, too little and they are lackadaisical. Or fear,
or pain, or love (I'm talking emotional attraction), or well, anything.
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening,
insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as
opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view. This would at least
give you lots of interesting and worthwhile things to think about IMHO
and it would be something that even a vegetable could do :)
I'd suggest "The Chronicles of Narnia" by C.S. Lewis and "The phantom
Toll Both" by Norton Juster.
It is from "The Chronicles of Narnia" that we get the quote "Oh my
mistress do not by any means destroy yourself, for if you live you may yet
have good fortune, but all the dead are dead alike!"
The very best,
David
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=BlCA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[Lyberta]

Post by d***@mail.com
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own
potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of
an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.

When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever
believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for
truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had
time to investigate.

And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is
relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if
I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.

The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't
know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact,
I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape
it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?

Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also
don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the
next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I
understand that I understand nothing.

Post by d***@mail.com
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening,
insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as
opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.

I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for
them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric
hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put
it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Lyberta

Post by d***@mail.com
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own
potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of
an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.

When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever
believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for
truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had
time to investigate.
And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is
relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if
I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.

There are many truths but non come close to reality.

Post by Lyberta
The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't
know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact,
I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape
it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also
don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the
next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I
understand that I understand nothing.

Believe that you are here. Your time here is brief. Enjoy it while you can.

Post by Lyberta

Post by d***@mail.com
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening,
insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as
opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.

I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for
them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric
hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put
it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.

You can't control anything but a small part of yourself.

You do however have a choice. Not making a choice is a choice itself.

The're is no thing in this world that you must but one thing: Undergo the
results of your choice.

Getting enraged by books is a choice.

Don't get overwhelmed. When that happens you'll panic and reason will
vacate your mind.

You are allowed to believe in things that are not real.

Science is not a fixed thing. It's an ever changing truth towards reality.
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Religions mostly advocate absolute truth. There is no absolute truth.

Sience is knowing that your viewing the universe through a keyhole and you
are probably be wrong in your assessment of what you see.

Accept that you'll need to base your choices on what you know now. You
cannot make choices based on things you might come to know.

Relax and live. It is worth your time. Don't anger yourself on ignorance of
others. But don't think you are above another. We're all different. Be
proud of it.

This life might just be a test for the next. And the more/fuller you live
the bigger your obstacles you must overcome. At least that's how I see it.

Post by Lyberta
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Science is not a fixed thing. It's an ever changing truth towards reality.

there is one thing that i can caution against: permitting the
victorian-era foundations on which science is based: the total and
absolute rejection of "that which may be experienced" as being
legitimate criteria for scientific enquiry and reasoning.

the victorians championed "total objectivity" and it's caused an...
unbelievable amount of damage to the western psyche, as the success of
science in expanding the british empire (and others) was correlated
with supporting the "objective methodology".

if that isn't clear: try writing and submitting a paper to a
peer-reviewed journal about the topic of consciousness in the human
mind, and see how far it gets.

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Lyberta

Post by d***@mail.com
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own
potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of
an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.

When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever
believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for
truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had
time to investigate.
And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is
relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if
I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.

There are many truths but non come close to reality.

Post by Lyberta
The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't
know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact,
I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape
it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also
don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the
next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I
understand that I understand nothing.

Believe that you are here. Your time here is brief. Enjoy it while you can.

Post by Lyberta

Post by d***@mail.com
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening,
insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as
opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.

I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for
them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric
hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put
it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.

You can't control anything but a small part of yourself.
You do however have a choice. Not making a choice is a choice itself.
The're is no thing in this world that you must but one thing: Undergo the
results of your choice.
Getting enraged by books is a choice.
Don't get overwhelmed. When that happens you'll panic and reason will
vacate your mind.
You are allowed to believe in things that are not real.
Science is not a fixed thing. It's an ever changing truth towards reality.
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

Found a more complete one:
http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html

Post by m***@gmail.com
Religions mostly advocate absolute truth. There is no absolute truth.
Sience is knowing that your viewing the universe through a keyhole and you
are probably be wrong in your assessment of what you see.
Accept that you'll need to base your choices on what you know now. You
cannot make choices based on things you might come to know.
Relax and live. It is worth your time. Don't anger yourself on ignorance
of others. But don't think you are above another. We're all different. Be
proud of it.
This life might just be a test for the next. And the more/fuller you live
the bigger your obstacles you must overcome. At least that's how I see it.

Post by Lyberta
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[zap]

Post by d***@mail.com

Post by d***@mail.com
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize

your own

Post by d***@mail.com
potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a

result of

Post by d***@mail.com
an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless

existence.
When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever
believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for
truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had
time to investigate.
And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is
relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if
I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.
There are many truths but non come close to reality.
The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't
know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact,
I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape
it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also
don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the
next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I
understand that I understand nothing.
Believe that you are here. Your time here is brief. Enjoy it while you can.

Post by d***@mail.com
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is

eyeopening,

Post by d***@mail.com
insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around

you, as

Post by d***@mail.com
opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.

I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for
them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric
hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put
it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.
You can't control anything but a small part of yourself.
You do however have a choice. Not making a choice is a choice itself.
Undergo the results of your choice.
Getting enraged by books is a choice.
Don't get overwhelmed. When that happens you'll panic and reason
will vacate your mind.
You are allowed to believe in things that are not real.
Science is not a fixed thing. It's an ever changing truth towards reality.
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
<http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm>
http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html
Religions mostly advocate absolute truth. There is no absolute truth.

That I believe is an opinion, but the advice below is excellent.

Post by d***@mail.com
Sience is knowing that your viewing the universe through a keyhole
and you are probably be wrong in your assessment of what you see.

Except you spelled science wrong ;P

just pointing out for fun. ;)

Post by d***@mail.com
Accept that you'll need to base your choices on what you know now.
You cannot make choices based on things you might come to know.
Relax and live. It is worth your time. Don't anger yourself on
ignorance of others. But don't think you are above another. We're
all different. Be proud of it.
This life might just be a test for the next. And the more/fuller
you live the bigger your obstacles you must overcome. At least
that's how I see it.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
<http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook>
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[Bill Kontos]

Post by Lyberta
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also
don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the
next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I
understand that I understand nothing.

Nobody "believes" in science. The entire point of logically describing and
explaining the world via the means of science is to get as close to "the
truth" as you can. Accepting the results of scientists is unlike religion
not a matter of absolute truth. It is a matter of realizing that for every
given time the scientific answer accepted by the community is the closest
one to "the truth" that we have. Understanding this is key to having a
stable worldview while still being open-minded. The entire point of science
is to constantly question the validity of your theories.

Post by Lyberta
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening,

Post by d***@mail.com
insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as
opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.

I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for
them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric
hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put
it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.
Not liking reading books means locking yourself out of all information on
the world. Since you seem like a smart person not having something to
occupy your brain with will make you suffer. So honestly you should get
over it for your own shake.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

Post by Bill Kontos
Nobody "believes" in science.

sadly, they do. they're usually the ones who tell you that the
climate's absolutely fine.

Post by Bill Kontos
The entire point of logically describing and
explaining the world via the means of science is to get as close to "the
truth" as you can. Accepting the results of scientists is unlike religion
not a matter of absolute truth. It is a matter of realizing that for every
given time the scientific answer accepted by the community is the closest
one to "the truth" that we have. Understanding this is key to having a
stable worldview while still being open-minded. The entire point of science
is to constantly question the validity of your theories.

ah. i'm glad you qualified this finally in the last sentence. the
prior paragraphs give the impression that there *is* some form of
"absolute certainty" that can be reached / experienced / perceived.

whereas what is *actually* the case is that most of our lives -
science or not - are an "approximation that seems to do the job for
most use-cases".

if we used the *actual* formula which *was* dead-accurate we'd go
completely insane... or all be total geniuses. i'm reminded of a
story that a friend told me, about an eminent scientist and
mathematician friend. he told him the joke, "a bird flies between two
trains that are on a collision course, at 60mph which start 120 miles
apart. the bird turns around each time it reaches a train until
finally it's squashed. how long does the bird fly for?"

and after a couple of seconds his friend answered, "one hour!"

so he asked, "you spotted that the time of the flight of the bird
isn't relevant, you can just use the trains to work out that they'll
meet in the middle, each travelling 60 miles, right?"

and he replied, "oh no! i just did the sum of an infinite series in
my head on the bird's travel flight between the trains".

the usual example is the one about KE= 1/2 mv^2 being an
approximation when v <<< c but i thought the above true story would be
funnier.

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachm

[Bill Kontos]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Bill Kontos
Nobody "believes" in science.

sadly, they do. they're usually the ones who tell you that the
climate's absolutely fine.

This contradicts itself. Science never said the climate was fine, it said
we don't know if it's fine and then it said that it's not fine. Therefore
those who claim that the climate is fine are neither believers nor
supporters of science.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Bill Kontos
The entire point of logically describing and
explaining the world via the means of science is to get as close to "the
truth" as you can. Accepting the results of scientists is unlike religion
not a matter of absolute truth. It is a matter of realizing that for

every

Post by Bill Kontos
given time the scientific answer accepted by the community is the closest
one to "the truth" that we have. Understanding this is key to having a
stable worldview while still being open-minded. The entire point of

science

Post by Bill Kontos
is to constantly question the validity of your theories.

ah. i'm glad you qualified this finally in the last sentence. the
prior paragraphs give the impression that there *is* some form of
"absolute certainty" that can be reached / experienced / perceived.
whereas what is *actually* the case is that most of our lives -
science or not - are an "approximation that seems to do the job for
most use-cases".
if we used the *actual* formula which *was* dead-accurate we'd go
completely insane... or all be total geniuses. i'm reminded of a
story that a friend told me, about an eminent scientist and
mathematician friend. he told him the joke, "a bird flies between two
trains that are on a collision course, at 60mph which start 120 miles
apart. the bird turns around each time it reaches a train until
finally it's squashed. how long does the bird fly for?"
and after a couple of seconds his friend answered, "one hour!"
so he asked, "you spotted that the time of the flight of the bird
isn't relevant, you can just use the trains to work out that they'll
meet in the middle, each travelling 60 miles, right?"
and he replied, "oh no! i just did the sum of an infinite series in
my head on the bird's travel flight between the trains".
the usual example is the one about KE= 1/2 mv^2 being an
approximation when v <<< c but i thought the above true story would be
funnier.
l.

I tend to think of" the truth" as something that exists and is like a
mathematical lim(x). All we can do is calculate closer and closer to it.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[zap]

Post by Lyberta

Post by d***@mail.com
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own
potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of
an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.

When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever
believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for
truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had
time to investigate.
And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is
relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if
I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.
The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't
know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact,
I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape
it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also
don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the
next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I
understand that I understand nothing.

Your suffering needn't be endless. I don't normally say this especially
on the internet, but God does love you and he only wants the best for
you. He doesn't judge or condemn people will they live but he will try
to convict us to rise higher.

I don't know if your religious or not, but I am, and being truly
religious means putting away worries and doing your best at living an
abundant life of freedom and happiness.

A good lesson I found was in this

But I suggest watching most of it,

I say this because, you seem to be worrying too much. that isn't healthy
whether you believe in religion or not.

I used to live ln constant worry even as a Christian, but I had a false
idea of religion and reason as well as certain people in the world.

If you have no religious background and this annoys you, at least
understand I am just trying to help.

I once thought about doing myself in too. But I realize now that, it
would have hurt many, many people in my life.

As Bill said though, reason is important, but I will also add, God wants
us to have reason as well.

Anyways, seek help if needed, I hate to hear people suffer especially
those who are good inside.

Post by Lyberta

Post by d***@mail.com
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening,
insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as
opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.

I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for
them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric
hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put
it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.

I am not too fond of fiction books myself nowadays although my reasons
were that there was so much treachery between relationships of romance...

Post by Lyberta
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[Lyberta]

Post by zap
I don't know if your religious or not,

I'm agnostic and I have extreme anti-religion views:
https://lyberta.net/articles/social/anti_religion.html

Post by zap

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Bill Kontos
Nobody "believes" in science.

sadly, they do. they're usually the ones who tell you that the
climate's absolutely fine.

Most of people usually predict the future using whatever science they
know and most of them usually don't factor that they may be absolutely
wrong.

[Hendrik Boom]

Post by Lyberta

Post by zap
I don't know if your religious or not,

https://lyberta.net/articles/social/anti_religion.html

I'm an atheist whose basic emotional attitude is anger against God for
not existing.

But i have noticed that, true or false, a lot of people are helped by
belief in God. So the scientific question becomes, what is it that
actually helps them if God does not exist??

And can that, whatever it is, be replicated without belief in God?

-- hendrik

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send la

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

Post by Hendrik Boom
I'm an atheist whose basic emotional attitude is anger against God for
not existing.

hendrik, i have to be honest: don't take it the wrong way ok, but i
found this very very funny. windmills?? chearrrrge!! :) it's like,
if you _did_ believe in god you'd be castigated and Sent to Helllll
for having a negatve emotion called "anger", but *come on* man: if you
believe *god doesn't exist* what the heck are you doing damaging your
psyche by bothering to be angry! about something that in your mind
*doesn't exist*!

beautifully ironic :)

Post by Hendrik Boom
But i have noticed that, true or false, a lot of people are helped by
belief in God.

eexactly. it's not "hedging bets": who cares what happens when we
die, but if we *felt better about ourselves* does it actually really
matter? no, of course not.

Post by Hendrik Boom
So the scientific question becomes, what is it that
actually helps them if God does not exist??

their own belief helps them. it gives them a sense of stability and
purpose in their own minds, which would otherwise not be there, and
there's a good chance that the exact same person would be a menace to
themselves and to the people around them if their "belief" was not
there.

Post by Hendrik Boom
And can that, whatever it is, be replicated without belief in God?

hmmm that's a really _really_ good question.

now that i think about it, i believe i heard of something about 20
years ago called the humanist society (or something like that).
apparently they live their lives according to a really quite [humane]
wonderful "code"... just without the bits about "god" attached.

so i'd say definitively yes, you can... it's just that you'd have to
choose to do so, and that can be really tough, to research, assess and
then make the decision to adhere to a particular code. it means
making changes in your life which might cost you friends, your job
(because the company asks you to do something that is against your
newly-chosen "code")...

now, what wasn't clear in your question was whether you were asking
about the *internal dialogue* that one might have with oneself to
replicate the same *effects* as "belief in code" or whether you could
have meant specifically the *external appearance* i.e. the
improvements in *other people's* lives that your new [atheist but
humane] "code" has.

very cool question, hendrik.

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send

[Bill Kontos]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
now that i think about it, i believe i heard of something about 20
years ago called the humanist society (or something like that).
apparently they live their lives according to a really quite [humane]
wonderful "code"... just without the bits about "god" attached.
so i'd say definitively yes, you can... it's just that you'd have to
choose to do so, and that can be really tough, to research, assess and
then make the decision to adhere to a particular code. it means
making changes in your life which might cost you friends, your job
(because the company asks you to do something that is against your
newly-chosen "code")...

Exactly this. I always prefer to do something by choice. Being manipulated
is the one thing that I hate the most in life. But this takes time, and I
have come to a very similar conclusion to this society you are talking
about, that following 95% of the Christian ethics is a good idea because it
makes for the most benefit for the society as a total. But I find having to
believe that god exists and he will punish me for not following these
ethics in order to be able follow them utterly pointless.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[zap]

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
now that i think about it, i believe i heard of something about 20
years ago called the humanist society (or something like that).
apparently they live their lives according to a really quite [humane]
wonderful "code"... just without the bits about "god" attached.
so i'd say definitively yes, you can... it's just that you'd have to
choose to do so, and that can be really tough, to research, assess and
then make the decision to adhere to a particular code. it means
making changes in your life which might cost you friends, your job
(because the company asks you to do something that is against your
newly-chosen "code")...
Exactly this. I always prefer to do something by choice. Being
manipulated is the one thing that I hate the most in life. But this
takes time, and I have come to a very similar conclusion to this
society you are talking about, that following 95% of the Christian
ethics is a good idea because it makes for the most benefit for the
society as a total. But I find having to believe that god exists and
he will punish me for not following these ethics in order to be able
follow them utterly pointless.

Well, I would say its not about, following these ethics perfectly, it is
impossible to do so.

I would say the act of trying to be a good person and being faithful to
him for the goodness he gives you is more important than always obeying
especially if your heart is far from him. That's just my thought.

Punishment in particular though is something he gives to arrogant people
who defy him while pretending to obey.

the current conservative party in America is an example of the pharisees
from the bible.

They have nothing to look forward to that's a fact. Though they reject
such possibilities in their heart bitterly and cling to their evil thoughts.

To be honest, even atheists have a better chance of getting into heaven
than those false teachers.

Though both sides if they don't repent at some point, are lost.

This is my understanding of what hell is for. Not for the average
person, but for those who pretend they are good and really are the
opposite. to sum it up, hypocrisy.

Life is a challenge but hypocrisy is unneeded.

_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
<http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook>
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

To be honest, even atheists have a better chance of getting into heaven than
those false teachers.

*cackle* :)

Life is a challenge but hypocrisy is unneeded.

it always makes me wonder, what do people get out of being
hypocritical (on a regular and deliberate basis? making mistakes,
sure, i can understand, but deliberately and consistently remaining
cognitively dissonant? i don't get it. *why* would someone choose
that? what are they "getting out of it"? what "reward" are they
getting from continuing to persistently and consistently be
hypocritical?

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-***@files.phcomp

[zap]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

To be honest, even atheists have a better chance of getting into heaven than
those false teachers.

*cackle* :)

I thought someone would enjoy that sad irony. but yeah if you want to
know why I say that is sad, it is this:

it is sad because they think they will be rewarded at the end. But they
already have their temporary very short term reward. Though they deserve
it, I feel a mixture of pity and anger towards them.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Life is a challenge but hypocrisy is unneeded.

it always makes me wonder, what do people get out of being
hypocritical (on a regular and deliberate basis? making mistakes,
sure, i can understand, but deliberately and consistently remaining
cognitively dissonant? i don't get it. *why* would someone choose
that? what are they "getting out of it"? what "reward" are they
getting from continuing to persistently and consistently be
hypocritical?

The only thing they will get long term is to grovel in the dust for
their arrogance and boastful ways.

I used to be like that in my mind to some extent, but out of mostly
ignorance, I suffered greatly for it, but I cannot imagine what happens
to people who consistently are hypocrites.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
l.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-***@files.phcomp.co

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

Post by zap
it is sad because they think they will be rewarded at the end. But they
already have their temporary very short term reward. Though they deserve
it, I feel a mixture of pity and anger towards them.

steady, zap: i struggle with anger towards people who've betrayed me
(etc.) - so i'm not the person to say "don't do that"... even though i
know it's doing *me* harm to be so angry i can't even sleep at night,
sometimes. what i would like to say is: f you manage to get your
anger under control, do tell me how you managed it, ok? :)

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments

[zap]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by zap
it is sad because they think they will be rewarded at the end. But they
already have their temporary very short term reward. Though they deserve
it, I feel a mixture of pity and anger towards them.

steady, zap: i struggle with anger towards people who've betrayed me
(etc.) - so i'm not the person to say "don't do that"... even though i
know it's doing *me* harm to be so angry i can't even sleep at night,
sometimes. what i would like to say is: f you manage to get your
anger under control, do tell me how you managed it, ok? :)

Like all things, it is a work in progress, but I try to humble myself
and accept the reality that though I can become something very great,
boasting of my accomplishments does nothing but cause me to get buried.

The more I boast the deeper the hole. That isn't the only thing that
digs a hole of course, but it is the first step to becoming something
vile. so yeah...

My fuse has greatly lengthened in many ways before I do something foolish.

All in all, it takes time, learning to humble ones self, and controlling
my ego/pride. Pride is the first step before most evil actions at least
that is why I think.

That's my thoughts on this. ;)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
l.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-***@f

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by zap
it is sad because they think they will be rewarded at the end. But they
already have their temporary very short term reward. Though they deserve
it, I feel a mixture of pity and anger towards them.

steady, zap: i struggle with anger towards people who've betrayed me
(etc.) - so i'm not the person to say "don't do that"... even though i
know it's doing *me* harm to be so angry i can't even sleep at night,
sometimes. what i would like to say is: f you manage to get your
anger under control, do tell me how you managed it, ok? :)

If the effect is not immediate we have the tendency to ignore. "I'm driving
200Km/h on the high way without crashing for four days so what's the
problem? Let's up it another 10"

When other people do things that "hurt" you the first reaction might be
anger. We immediately think that they hurt us on purpose. But in fact
70-90% time they are just doing what suits them. Not on purpose to you and
blissfully unaware of the effects it has on you. You vent you anger and
hurt them back. Only to be repaid with more hurting and anger. So anger
might not be your best response. It is however a natural one. Just like
tensing on impact while release might be a better one.

But beware of the trap that you disallow yourself to feel hurt because they
didn't do it on purpose. They did hurt you and they need to stop their
behavior even though it might be even unconsciously.

With hurt I mean it in a widest sense every form of mental of physical pain
on any level from touch to damage, from discomfort to inability.

The mental pain is a perceived one and with change of perception you can
alleviate the pain.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
l.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[Tor, the Marqueteur]

Post by m***@gmail.com
But beware of the trap that you disallow yourself to feel hurt because
they didn't do it on purpose. They did hurt you and they need to stop
their behavior even though it might be even unconsciously.

Yes and no. If they didn't do it on purpose, and didn't mean to hurt,
you might as well let the hurt go and forgive them. That doesn't mean it
isn't a good idea to let them know that it does hurt, so they can be
aware of it in the future.

Post by m***@gmail.com
With hurt I mean it in a widest sense every form of mental of physical
pain on any level from touch to damage, from discomfort to inability.

The gradations of hurt you mention here are very real, and at the same
time, for many it may be that they might be similarly hurt in a different
way by trying to avoid hurting you. Others you mention are facts of life
for some people, and the only option left in their case is to try to move
on and find ways around it.

I think there is a lot to the old definition that it is physical harm
that is unquestionably actionable. When you get to the realm of words,
the very restraint against offending another person is itself an offense.
Nevertheless, you still own your words, and are responsible for them, so
although a restraint punishing you merely for having said them is wrong,
the consequences of saying them may not be worthwhile.

Consider the classic free speech case of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded
theatre. Per free speech you certainly have the right to say it, but
chances are high that if you are believed someone will be trampled in the
stampede. Should someone be trampled to death in such a case, murder
charges would be appropriate. Even if you get lucky and no one is hurt,
billing you for a free ticket to another show for all the people who had
their show disrupted might be in order.

Post by m***@gmail.com
The mental pain is a perceived one and with change of perception you can
alleviate the pain.

This is true... and easier said than done.

Well, it seems I may have further derailed the topic, but since I'm not
sure how to title it so it will be easier to find in the future, and the
title covers random wanderings through the weeds, I'll let it pass. :)

Tor

[fuumind]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 23:44:29 +0100

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by zap
it is sad because they think they will be rewarded at the end. But they
already have their temporary very short term reward. Though they deserve
it, I feel a mixture of pity and anger towards them.

steady, zap: i struggle with anger towards people who've betrayed me
(etc.) - so i'm not the person to say "don't do that"... even though i
know it's doing *me* harm to be so angry i can't even sleep at night,
sometimes. what i would like to say is: f you manage to get your
anger under control, do tell me how you managed it, ok? :)
l.

I've struggled with anger in the past as well and have tried to read up on the subject in order to get it under control. What I've learned so far and what has helped me is the understanding that anger is like a notificatin from within yourself that you or someone around you is not getting his or her needs met properly. Maybe you or someone else is getting bullied och treated badly at work, then the need for respect is not being met. Our job is to try to figure out what unmet needs are hidden behind the feeling of anger. When you look at anger this way it becomes a tool rather than a burden. This applies to other emotions as well, such as guilt and shame.

If I remember correctly these thoughts have their roots in Nonviolent Communication.

/fuumind

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Sen

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

Post by Bill Kontos
Exactly this. I always prefer to do something by choice. Being manipulated
is the one thing that I hate the most in life. But this takes time, and I
have come to a very similar conclusion to this society you are talking
about, that following 95% of the Christian ethics is a good idea because it
makes for the most benefit for the society as a total.

f***'n-A :)

Post by Bill Kontos
But I find having to
believe that god exists and he will punish me for not following these ethics
in order to be able follow them utterly pointless.

yyeah no i can definitely say that (in an indirect and
complex-to-explain way) i'm what some people would define as "a
christian" and (again in an indirect and
comprehensive-and-complex-to-explain way) also definitely believe in
what some people would define as "god", the "personal punishment"
thing which characterised much of the past two thousand years is a
total fucking load of horse-shit, plain and simple.

change of direction-of-topic (slightly): there's an insight that
occurred to me after entering an essay contest about whether
intelligence is an emergent property or not. i basically said "yes it
is", and then began describing how.

if you take the classic "maxwell's demon" but modify it so that:

* the demon can move at a rate that's proportional to its size
* its survival is dependent on "eating" the gas at a rate again
that's proportional to its size
* the "gas" is initially uniformly and infinitely distributed
throughout the demon's "universe"
* there are lots of "demons" that have to compete for their "food" (gas).
* the "gas" can, in large enough concentrations, be toxic.
* the distribution of the "gas" can locally change (like high and low
pressures on a planet's weather)

now run that as a universe for a bit. what you find is that there
will be emergent intelligent behaviour - entropy *will* be beaten -
*not* because it was *deliberately designed in* but because of the
*evolutionary process*.

to whit: any of the demons that do *not* evolve to have intelligent
behaviour will *die* - plain and simple.

one very important thing which emerges from this is that entropy gets
beaten in the medium known as "gas" because the demons will end up
collaborating to *REMOVE* (reduce) the concentration of gas from their
environment.

the next logical step in the chain was to analyse this emergent
evolutionary process "in general", and to conclude that the
intelligence is *NOT* a "birthright of humanity" as humans like to
arrogantly believe, but is instead an *inherent property of the
underlying fabric of the universe itself*.

*intelligence* is an inherent property of the fabric of the universe,
and we (and all intelligent beings) simply "borrow" that capacity by
being *in* the universe. which is something that never really
occurred to me before and i find to be utterly, utterly cool.

now, if you want to throw "god" in there in some fashion that's
entirely up to you, but in doing so it really doesn't have very much
to do with the logic or the conclusion.

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments

[Louis Pearson]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
the next logical step in the chain was to analyse this emergent
evolutionary process "in general", and to conclude that the
intelligence is *NOT* a "birthright of humanity" as humans like to
arrogantly believe, but is instead an *inherent property of the
underlying fabric of the universe itself*.
*intelligence* is an inherent property of the fabric of the universe,
and we (and all intelligent beings) simply "borrow" that capacity by
being *in* the universe. which is something that never really
occurred to me before and i find to be utterly, utterly cool.
now, if you want to throw "god" in there in some fashion that's
entirely up to you, but in doing so it really doesn't have very much
to do with the logic or the conclusion.

I'm usually too shy and unsure of myself to actually talk about religion,
but what you are saying here resonants with my beliefs.

I was raised LDS/Mormon, though I've never been a particularly
good example of piety. Personal experience tells me that at least
some of the doctrine is true. Right now I'd rather look at the theology
(or my interpretation of it), and not about it's truth.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
intelligence is *NOT* a "birthright of humanity" as humans like to
arrogantly believe, but is instead an *inherent property of the
underlying fabric of the universe itself*.

This is my belief. Intelligence IS a fundamental part of the universe.
Humans have a great deal more of it than most things, however. The
story behind this takes some exposition. God, to a member of the LDS
church is not the intelligence as you said, but *a* intelligence. We are
also intelligences, or spirits. We are, spiritually speaking, children of
God - he created us out of intelligence, creation meaning to organize.
Spirit/intelligence is also a type of matter, but finer than anything we
have made as a species can detect.

So humans have spirits, created by God out of intelligence. So does
everything, in fact, but only humans are like God.

There's a whole lot more that I could go into, but it's rather late. I don't
know how all of you will receive this, but I thought it was important to
say something :)

Just be gentle ripping this apart, ok?

[John Luke Gibson]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
*intelligence* is an inherent property of the fabric of the universe,
and we (and all intelligent beings) simply "borrow" that capacity by
being *in* the universe. which is something that never really
occurred to me before and i find to be utterly, utterly cool.

That resonates a bit with what I said earlier.
For conflict to exist their must be aims.

I believe their to be a strange element to the underlining universe
which "sifts the sands" so-to-speak to spontaneously generate material
"loops" and then again "sifts the sands" so-to-speak to spontaneously
generate incremental degrees of awareness.

One could argue intelligence is just to be an evolution of approach
towards one's aims.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
now, if you want to throw "god" in there in some fashion that's
entirely up to you, but in doing so it really doesn't have very much
to do with the logic or the conclusion.
l.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to

[Hendrik Boom]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Hendrik Boom
I'm an atheist whose basic emotional attitude is anger against God for
not existing.

hendrik, i have to be honest: don't take it the wrong way ok, but i
found this very very funny. windmills?? chearrrrge!! :) it's like,
if you _did_ believe in god you'd be castigated and Sent to Helllll
for having a negatve emotion called "anger", but *come on* man: if you
believe *god doesn't exist* what the heck are you doing damaging your
psyche by bothering to be angry! about something that in your mind
*doesn't exist*!
beautifully ironic :)

Exactly. You get it.

Intellectual understanding and emotions can be in conflict. It's the
way we are built.

I recognise the resulting contradictions, accept them, recognise I'm not
perfect, and get along the best I can, using emotions and intellect as
guides.

-- hendrik

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to

[fuumind]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 17:46:23 +0100

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
now that i think about it, i believe i heard of something about 20
years ago called the humanist society (or something like that).
apparently they live their lives according to a really quite [humane]

... [humane] ...

Another wordplay Luke? I can see two levels of p(h)un. :)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wonderful "code"... just without the bits about "god" attached.
so i'd say definitively yes, you can... it's just that you'd have to
choose to do so, and that can be really tough, to research, assess and
then make the decision to adhere to a particular code. it means
making changes in your life which might cost you friends, your job
(because the company asks you to do something that is against your
newly-chosen "code")...
now, what wasn't clear in your question was whether you were asking
about the *internal dialogue* that one might have with oneself to
replicate the same *effects* as "belief in code" or whether you could
have meant specifically the *external appearance* i.e. the
improvements in *other people's* lives that your new [atheist but
humane] "code" has.

For me as a christian the very essence of my faith is my relationship with God. It's like having a parent that you'd trust with your life and a friend that you hang out with all the time and share *everything* with and so much more I can't describe. Trying to replace that with a sense of moral obligation towards your fellow human beings (which in itself is a good thing) is, well, futile. That's the way I see it.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
very cool question, hendrik.
l.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

/fuumind

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large

[fuumind]

On Thu, 11 May 2017 09:57:04 +0200

Post by fuumind
On Wed, 10 May 2017 17:46:23 +0100

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
now that i think about it, i believe i heard of something about 20
years ago called the humanist society (or something like that).
apparently they live their lives according to a really quite [humane]

... [humane] ...
Another wordplay Luke? I can see two levels of p(h)un. :)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wonderful "code"... just without the bits about "god" attached.
so i'd say definitively yes, you can... it's just that you'd have to
choose to do so, and that can be really tough, to research, assess and
then make the decision to adhere to a particular code. it means
making changes in your life which might cost you friends, your job
(because the company asks you to do something that is against your
newly-chosen "code")...
now, what wasn't clear in your question was whether you were asking
about the *internal dialogue* that one might have with oneself to
replicate the same *effects* as "belief in code" or whether you could
have meant specifically the *external appearance* i.e. the
improvements in *other people's* lives that your new [atheist but
humane] "code" has.

For me as a christian the very essence of my faith is my relationship with God. It's like having a parent that you'd trust with your life and a friend that you hang out with all the time and share *everything* with and so much more I can't describe. Trying to replace that with a sense of moral obligation towards your fellow human beings (which in itself is a good thing) is, well, futile. That's the way I see it.

It seems I came on too strong when I wrote this. I do apologize!

/fuumind

Post by fuumind

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
very cool question, hendrik.
l.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

/fuumind
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

Post by fuumind
It seems I came on too strong when I wrote this. I do apologize!

that's ok. these discussions had taken up quite a lot of time, so
although it was fascinating to delve into i decided not to encourage
the (long) side-track by participating.

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to ar

[Lyberta]

Post by Hendrik Boom
But i have noticed that, true or false, a lot of people are helped by
belief in God. So the scientific question becomes, what is it that
actually helps them if God does not exist??

Well, I have found that critical thinking is the most important thing
for consciousness. If you start intentionally limiting your thoughts,
you lose the freedom of mind.

Believing in religion is like buying Apple's iPhone. Sure, it's shiny,
it has apps, you may feel good about yourself. But most people don't
understand how much they sacrifice by using it. Like downloading apps
not from Apple Store or not be constantly surveilled.

Post by Hendrik Boom
So you don't know if he exists, but you hate the idea of religion.

Religion is the cause of most homophobia and transphobia in the world.
LGBT people get executed by ISIS, get imprisoned by Chechens and get
discriminated in most of the world.

Trump has said that he considers passing a "religious freedom" law that
will allow businesses to discriminate against people based on their
sexual orientation or gender identity.

I don't care what mad thoughts religious people have in their minds but
when they open their mouth and let these thoughts outside, they become
my enemies.

Post by Hendrik Boom
I would say the act of trying to be a good person and being faithful to
him for the goodness he gives you is more important than always obeying
especially if your heart is far from him. That's just my thought.

So God is a he? Why not she? Why do you think God has gender at all?
Being a transgender woman really made me understand how men get so much
for free and are treated as superior gender. This made me a radical
feminist.

Post by Hendrik Boom
now run that as a universe for a bit. what you find is that there
will be emergent intelligent behaviour - entropy *will* be beaten -
*not* because it was *deliberately designed in* but because of the
*evolutionary process*.

Exactly. I've been making bots for Team Fortress 2 and after stopping
development I wanted to take reusable code into separate library. So
I've started thinking what code is useful for a general purpose AI and
after several years of brainstorming the most fundamental learning
algorithm I have come to the conclusion that it is random mutations and
natural selection.

If we make our AI explore randomly in algorithmic space, given enough
time, it will solve any solvable problem. Sure, this is the most
inefficient algorithm, but it is universal.

[Elena ``of Valhalla'']

Post by Lyberta
Believing in religion is like buying Apple's iPhone. Sure, it's shiny,
it has apps, you may feel good about yourself. But most people don't
understand how much they sacrifice by using it. Like downloading apps
not from Apple Store or not be constantly surveilled.

Well, some people have faith, and they don't have a choice in having it
or not. Personally I feel it's like having another sense like smell:
imprecise, prone to misunderstanding, but it's there and those who have
it cannot deny that they feel something.

Did I mention "imprecise"? Understanding *what* that something is is a
whole different matter, and historically lots of people who claimed who
know have been proved (or strongly suspected) to lie for their own
advantage.

Post by Lyberta
Religion is the cause of most homophobia and transphobia in the world.
LGBT people get executed by ISIS, get imprisoned by Chechens and get
discriminated in most of the world.

well, not really. power and lust for it is the cause of most *phobia in
the world; homosexual and trans people are among the minorities that are
currently used as an easy target to turn people's insatisfaction with
the current situation on, like in the past it was the jews (and
homosexuals, and jehowa's witnesses, etc) in germany, the japanese in
the US during the war and the communists afterwards, etc.

Some of it uses the excuse of religion, some of race, some of politics,
but the shared factor is that they are all minorities that are big
enough to be visible, but small enough that the people in power (or who
want to get in power) don't feel them as a danger.

[Lyberta]

Post by Elena ``of Valhalla''
Well, some people have faith, and they don't have a choice in having it
imprecise, prone to misunderstanding, but it's there and those who have
it cannot deny that they feel something.

Well, I had faith when I was a kid. When I grew up, I understood that it
only does harm and consciously removed it from myself. It's possible. It
is a choice.

Post by Elena ``of Valhalla''
well, not really. power and lust for it is the cause of most *phobia in
the world; homosexual and trans people are among the minorities that are
currently used as an easy target to turn people's insatisfaction with
the current situation on, like in the past it was the jews (and
homosexuals, and jehowa's witnesses, etc) in germany, the japanese in
the US during the war and the communists afterwards, etc.

Yes, but religious people are so stupid that they accept it. People who
fall into religion are usually weak-minded and prone to exploitation.
That is why we must actively combat the spread of religion. We must ban
all public religious practices, ban all religious holidays, we must
destroy churches. While I'm usually for freedom of thought, the spread
of religious thought does extreme harm to society. That's why we have
prisons in even most democratic countries. Because some people pose
enough harm to deny them freedom. Religious people are exactly like that.

[zap]

Post by Lyberta

Post by Elena ``of Valhalla''
Well, some people have faith, and they don't have a choice in having it
imprecise, prone to misunderstanding, but it's there and those who have
it cannot deny that they feel something.

Well, I had faith when I was a kid. When I grew up, I understood that it
only does harm and consciously removed it from myself. It's possible. It
is a choice.

I am sorry that you suffered because of having faith, I wish it didn't
go down like that.

Post by Lyberta

Post by Elena ``of Valhalla''
well, not really. power and lust for it is the cause of most *phobia in
the world; homosexual and trans people are among the minorities that are
currently used as an easy target to turn people's insatisfaction with
the current situation on, like in the past it was the jews (and
homosexuals, and jehowa's witnesses, etc) in germany, the japanese in
the US during the war and the communists afterwards, etc.

Yes, but religious people are so stupid that they accept it. People who
fall into religion are usually weak-minded and prone to exploitation.
That is why we must actively combat the spread of religion. We must ban
all public religious practices, ban all religious holidays, we must
destroy churches. While I'm usually for freedom of thought, the spread
of religious thought does extreme harm to society. That's why we have
prisons in even most democratic countries. Because some people pose
enough harm to deny them freedom. Religious people are exactly like that.

I should probably tell you that I am a liberal and a socialist. I do
not support judging others especially minorities. If being gay is a sin,
then that's gods job to punish not mine.

There are greater threats regardless of if gay is a sin or not, I do not
personally like the idea, but its not my place to judge. So yeah...

Post by Lyberta
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[Hendrik Boom]

Post by Elena ``of Valhalla''
well, not really. power and lust for it is the cause of most *phobia in
the world; homosexual and trans people are among the minorities that are
currently used as an easy target to turn people's insatisfaction with
the current situation on, like in the past it was the jews (and
homosexuals, and jehowa's witnesses, etc) in germany, the japanese in
the US during the war and the communists afterwards, etc.
Some of it uses the excuse of religion, some of race, some of politics,
but the shared factor is that they are all minorities that are big
enough to be visible, but small enough that the people in power (or who
want to get in power) don't feel them as a danger.

The japanese in the US during the war were imprisoned because the
people
in power *did* feel them as a danger. There might be Japan-sympathisers
among that minority who could sabotage the war effort, especially on the
est coast.

There was at least some plausibility in that fear. But the measures
taken were out of proportion to the threat.

-- hendrik

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachment

[zap]

Post by Lyberta

Post by zap
I don't know if your religious or not,

https://lyberta.net/articles/social/anti_religion.html

Hmm that is rare, at least for me to hear,

So you don't know if he exists, but you hate the idea of religion. That
saddens me, but then again everyone has their path to follow. although,
you choose your own path contrary to what some preachers preach. Our
choices ultimately decide our path in the long run. Continual rejection
of life itself leads to nothing good though.

Post by Lyberta

Post by zap

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Bill Kontos
Nobody "believes" in science.

sadly, they do. they're usually the ones who tell you that the
climate's absolutely fine.

Most of people usually predict the future using whatever science they
know and most of them usually don't factor that they may be absolutely
wrong.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[John Luke Gibson]

Post by Lyberta

Post by d***@mail.com
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own
potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of
an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.

When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever
believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for
truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had
time to investigate.
And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is
relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if
I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.
The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't
know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact,
I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape
it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also
don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the
next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I
understand that I understand nothing.

Post by d***@mail.com
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening,
insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as
opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.

I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for
them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric
hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put
it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.

The mountains of religious thought pumped into this thread has it
visibly oozing (I mean no offense). Firstly, the speaker in that video
linked @zap I'm familiar with and is very unreliable when their claims
are checked or researched. Secondly, Nietzsche explores that so-called
"trap". The thing is that religion presents the concept of morality
which fills the space created by ennui and lack of obstacles to
self-preservation. Noam Chomsky popularized abit the thought that the
consistent trend in nature is more intelligent species tend to go
extinct after a shorter period than obviously less intelligent ones
(i.e. beetles), this is due to genetic drift and inbred weaknesses due
to a lack of obstacles to their survival. Ethics is an artificial
obstacle we present ourselves in order to keep us strong (Nietzsche
referred to the model used by Christianity as Slave Morality,
suggesting that the ethics therein enslave the subscriber to the whims
and desires of the less fortunate, and thusly purporting the existence
of less fortunate as ENDEMICALLY NECESSARY because without less
fortunate people then there would be point to the ethics of
christianity and therefore there would be no obstacle to occupy
ourselves with and therefore genetic drift would set in and we would
die as a species. In other words, Nietzsche considered christianity so
obsessed with compassion, that in a world without suffering it would
utterly and completely fall apart.).

Nietzsche's life's work was dedicated to attempting to create a
well-developed replacement to both religion and "Slave Morality".

I don't know if I support Nietzsche's alternative of "Master Morality"
(where the obstacle is to become the best human possible, the
so-called "ubermensch"), but I do say that "trap" is hardly a "trap"
rather it's just a human need for an obstacle or conflict, and by
rejecting religion all one is doing is rejecting the type of conflict
which that religion endorses.
Thirdly,
______

.................| -> vvvvvvvv
______

On the subject of Relativity:
______

.................| -> ^^^^^^^^^
______

"The only rule is everything changes, even this rule." is the best
misquoting of Heraclitus I've heard and has rather impacted my view of
"Relativity". Ultimately building off of the concept that the meaning
of life is just any arbitrary form of conflict, then sometimes
constant values contribute to having an increased selection of types
of conflict. Technology of modern day allows us to have simulated
battles over the net, and, without a whole slew of discovered
constants (such as ways of making the voltage across a wire consistent
with what is intended to deliver a message), then that would not be
possible. I believe the universe only stays as consistent as it needs
to be for every life to have a potentially unique purpose given work
to discover new constant attributes to apply to a new purpose to
assume. I believe it is quite possible high-fantasy magic might have
existed at one point and that it was merely purged by the work devoted
to the infinitely more rigorous "science". That's just my perspective,
and it is also my perspective that science could be replaced with
high-enough degree of arbitrary work dedicated to discovering
attributes of the universe incompatible with modern science. This
would require a large influx of unfulfilled persons highly motivated
to transform the status quo and contradict conventional wisdom.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send

[Peter Carlson]

That was fun

Post by John Luke Gibson

Post by Lyberta

Post by d***@mail.com
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own
potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of
an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.

When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever
believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for
truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had
time to investigate.
And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is
relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if
I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.
The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't
know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact,
I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape
it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also
don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the
next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I
understand that I understand nothing.

Post by d***@mail.com
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening,
insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as
opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.

I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for
them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric
hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put
it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.

The mountains of religious thought pumped into this thread has it
visibly oozing (I mean no offense). Firstly, the speaker in that video
are checked or researched. Secondly, Nietzsche explores that so-called
"trap". The thing is that religion presents the concept of morality
which fills the space created by ennui and lack of obstacles to
self-preservation. Noam Chomsky popularized abit the thought that the
consistent trend in nature is more intelligent species tend to go
extinct after a shorter period than obviously less intelligent ones
(i.e. beetles), this is due to genetic drift and inbred weaknesses due
to a lack of obstacles to their survival. Ethics is an artificial
obstacle we present ourselves in order to keep us strong (Nietzsche
referred to the model used by Christianity as Slave Morality,
suggesting that the ethics therein enslave the subscriber to the whims
and desires of the less fortunate, and thusly purporting the existence
of less fortunate as ENDEMICALLY NECESSARY because without less
fortunate people then there would be point to the ethics of
christianity and therefore there would be no obstacle to occupy
ourselves with and therefore genetic drift would set in and we would
die as a species. In other words, Nietzsche considered christianity so
obsessed with compassion, that in a world without suffering it would
utterly and completely fall apart.).
Nietzsche's life's work was dedicated to attempting to create a
well-developed replacement to both religion and "Slave Morality".
I don't know if I support Nietzsche's alternative of "Master Morality"
(where the obstacle is to become the best human possible, the
so-called "ubermensch"), but I do say that "trap" is hardly a "trap"
rather it's just a human need for an obstacle or conflict, and by
rejecting religion all one is doing is rejecting the type of conflict
which that religion endorses.
Thirdly,
______
.................| -> vvvvvvvv
______
______
.................| -> ^^^^^^^^^
______
"The only rule is everything changes, even this rule." is the best
misquoting of Heraclitus I've heard and has rather impacted my view of
"Relativity". Ultimately building off of the concept that the meaning
of life is just any arbitrary form of conflict, then sometimes
constant values contribute to having an increased selection of types
of conflict. Technology of modern day allows us to have simulated
battles over the net, and, without a whole slew of discovered
constants (such as ways of making the voltage across a wire consistent
with what is intended to deliver a message), then that would not be
possible. I believe the universe only stays as consistent as it needs
to be for every life to have a potentially unique purpose given work
to discover new constant attributes to apply to a new purpose to
assume. I believe it is quite possible high-fantasy magic might have
existed at one point and that it was merely purged by the work devoted
to the infinitely more rigorous "science". That's just my perspective,
and it is also my perspective that science could be replaced with
high-enough degree of arbitrary work dedicated to discovering
attributes of the universe incompatible with modern science. This
would require a large influx of unfulfilled persons highly motivated
to transform the status quo and contradict conventional wisdom.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[zap]

Post by John Luke Gibson

Post by Lyberta

Post by d***@mail.com
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own
potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of
an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.

When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever
believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for
truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had
time to investigate.
And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is
relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if
I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.
The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't
know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact,
I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape
it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also
don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the
next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I
understand that I understand nothing.

Post by d***@mail.com
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening,
insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as
opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.

I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for
them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric
hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put
it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.

The mountains of religious thought pumped into this thread has it
visibly oozing (I mean no offense). Firstly, the speaker in that video
are checked or researched. Secondly, Nietzsche explores that so-called
"trap". The thing is that religion presents the concept of morality
which fills the space created by ennui and lack of obstacles to
self-preservation. Noam Chomsky popularized abit the thought that the
consistent trend in nature is more intelligent species tend to go
extinct after a shorter period than obviously less intelligent ones
(i.e. beetles), this is due to genetic drift and inbred weaknesses due
to a lack of obstacles to their survival. Ethics is an artificial
obstacle we present ourselves in order to keep us strong (Nietzsche
referred to the model used by Christianity as Slave Morality,
suggesting that the ethics therein enslave the subscriber to the whims
and desires of the less fortunate, and thusly purporting the existence
of less fortunate as ENDEMICALLY NECESSARY because without less
fortunate people then there would be point to the ethics of
christianity and therefore there would be no obstacle to occupy
ourselves with and therefore genetic drift would set in and we would
die as a species. In other words, Nietzsche considered christianity so
obsessed with compassion, that in a world without suffering it would
utterly and completely fall apart.).

You can choose to think what you want, but for me it as relieved my
suffering long term.

I feel peace more than I ever used to, as a child I was an athiest. as a
teenager I was agonstic and four years ago I was in fact the kind of
christian you think all christians are...


The fact of the matter is you have black and white thinking

Saying all religion is conflict is to me like all science is good.

Science after all is directly responsible for why climate change is
happening.

I know you may mean well, but please try reading the gospels of jesus'
ministry before you claim to understand what is true and false. IF it
helps to motivate you do it for a laugh, not that I agree with that, but
he spoke out against the very things you are saying he supports. He
wants nothing to do with conflict other than to heal the hurts of those
who are suffering.

By the way, I do not think I am unreliable. I think we just have a
difference of opinion.

I don't think all atheists are bad heck, who knows what will happen at
the end of ones life, they could turn to christ.

Hard to say,

conversely, not all christians are good, mostly because some lie about
who they are.

You can find examples of both sides in all humanity I am sure but you
have to seek it out and alas that is something I fear you will not do.

Post by John Luke Gibson
Nietzsche's life's work was dedicated to attempting to create a
well-developed replacement to both religion and "Slave Morality".
I don't know if I support Nietzsche's alternative of "Master Morality"
(where the obstacle is to become the best human possible, the
so-called "ubermensch"), but I do say that "trap" is hardly a "trap"
rather it's just a human need for an obstacle or conflict, and by
rejecting religion all one is doing is rejecting the type of conflict
which that religion endorses.
Thirdly,
______
.................| -> vvvvvvvv
______
______
.................| -> ^^^^^^^^^
______
"The only rule is everything changes, even this rule." is the best
misquoting of Heraclitus I've heard and has rather impacted my view of
"Relativity". Ultimately building off of the concept that the meaning
of life is just any arbitrary form of conflict, then sometimes
constant values contribute to having an increased selection of types
of conflict. Technology of modern day allows us to have simulated
battles over the net, and, without a whole slew of discovered
constants (such as ways of making the voltage across a wire consistent
with what is intended to deliver a message), then that would not be
possible. I believe the universe only stays as consistent as it needs
to be for every life to have a potentially unique purpose given work
to discover new constant attributes to apply to a new purpose to
assume. I believe it is quite possible high-fantasy magic might have
existed at one point and that it was merely purged by the work devoted
to the infinitely more rigorous "science". That's just my perspective,
and it is also my perspective that science could be replaced with
high-enough degree of arbitrary work dedicated to discovering
attributes of the universe incompatible with modern science. This
would require a large influx of unfulfilled persons highly motivated
to transform the status quo and contradict conventional wisdom.

I will also add that I haven't read what you speak of, but I do know the
concept of blind chance...

and it makes me think that someone who doesn't want to accept the truth
or the truth is too hard to bear came up with it.

Not saying that you feel that way even secretly, but I do think that
such talk takes far more faith in science than it takes me to believe in
God.

That's my perception though. Again it is my opinion. So try to chill.

Post by John Luke Gibson
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-***@fi

[John Luke Gibson]

Post by zap

Post by John Luke Gibson

Post by Lyberta

Post by d***@mail.com
I think you're caught in the same trap, unable to realize your own
potential for lack of a moral standard (it also suffers as a result of
an Atheistic philosophy), and unable to accept a pointless existence.

When I was 19, I was in a very bad situation. Everything I've ever
believed in was false. So I've spent the next 6 months looking for
truth. Thankfully, I have dropped out of college by this time so I had
time to investigate.
And in one moment it dawned upon me. There is no truth. Everything is
relative. People invent their own truth and start believing in it. So if
I want to stay unshackled I must not believe in anything.
The next thing was supposed to be suicide but I couldn't do it. I don't
know the future and I don't know what will happen when I die. In fact,
I'm trapped inside my own consciousness and by definition can't escape
it and see the truth. Remember Plato's allegory of the cave?
Another thing that bugs me is, since I don't believe in anything, I also
don't believe in science. I can't predict what's gonna happen in the
next moment. Every once in a while I get in this state of mind where I
understand that I understand nothing.

Post by d***@mail.com
In any and all cases I think you might enjoy a book that is eyeopening,
insightful and uplifting, with respect to the world around you, as
opposed to your more dreary, despairing, world view.

I was forced to read books at school and this gave a huge hatred for
them. I remember I've tried to read a fiction book at psychiatric
hospital and after the 1st paragraph I was so enraged that I quickly put
it away. Though this mostly applies to fiction.

The mountains of religious thought pumped into this thread has it
visibly oozing (I mean no offense). Firstly, the speaker in that video
are checked or researched. Secondly, Nietzsche explores that so-called
"trap". The thing is that religion presents the concept of morality
which fills the space created by ennui and lack of obstacles to
self-preservation. Noam Chomsky popularized abit the thought that the
consistent trend in nature is more intelligent species tend to go
extinct after a shorter period than obviously less intelligent ones
(i.e. beetles), this is due to genetic drift and inbred weaknesses due
to a lack of obstacles to their survival. Ethics is an artificial
obstacle we present ourselves in order to keep us strong (Nietzsche
referred to the model used by Christianity as Slave Morality,
suggesting that the ethics therein enslave the subscriber to the whims
and desires of the less fortunate, and thusly purporting the existence
of less fortunate as ENDEMICALLY NECESSARY because without less
fortunate people then there would be point to the ethics of
christianity and therefore there would be no obstacle to occupy
ourselves with and therefore genetic drift would set in and we would
die as a species. In other words, Nietzsche considered christianity so
obsessed with compassion, that in a world without suffering it would
utterly and completely fall apart.).

You can choose to think what you want, but for me it as relieved my
suffering long term.
I feel peace more than I ever used to, as a child I was an athiest. as a
teenager I was agonstic and four years ago I was in fact the kind of
christian you think all christians are...
The fact of the matter is you have black and white thinking
Saying all religion is conflict is to me like all science is good.
Science after all is directly responsible for why climate change is
happening.
I know you may mean well, but please try reading the gospels of jesus'
ministry before you claim to understand what is true and false. IF it
helps to motivate you do it for a laugh, not that I agree with that, but
he spoke out against the very things you are saying he supports. He
wants nothing to do with conflict other than to heal the hurts of those
who are suffering.
By the way, I do not think I am unreliable. I think we just have a
difference of opinion.
I don't think all atheists are bad heck, who knows what will happen at
the end of ones life, they could turn to christ.
Hard to say,
conversely, not all christians are good, mostly because some lie about
who they are.
You can find examples of both sides in all humanity I am sure but you
have to seek it out and alas that is something I fear you will not do.

Post by John Luke Gibson
Nietzsche's life's work was dedicated to attempting to create a
well-developed replacement to both religion and "Slave Morality".
I don't know if I support Nietzsche's alternative of "Master Morality"
(where the obstacle is to become the best human possible, the
so-called "ubermensch"), but I do say that "trap" is hardly a "trap"
rather it's just a human need for an obstacle or conflict, and by
rejecting religion all one is doing is rejecting the type of conflict
which that religion endorses.
Thirdly,
______
.................| -> vvvvvvvv
______
______
.................| -> ^^^^^^^^^
______
"The only rule is everything changes, even this rule." is the best
misquoting of Heraclitus I've heard and has rather impacted my view of
"Relativity". Ultimately building off of the concept that the meaning
of life is just any arbitrary form of conflict, then sometimes
constant values contribute to having an increased selection of types
of conflict. Technology of modern day allows us to have simulated
battles over the net, and, without a whole slew of discovered
constants (such as ways of making the voltage across a wire consistent
with what is intended to deliver a message), then that would not be
possible. I believe the universe only stays as consistent as it needs
to be for every life to have a potentially unique purpose given work
to discover new constant attributes to apply to a new purpose to
assume. I believe it is quite possible high-fantasy magic might have
existed at one point and that it was merely purged by the work devoted
to the infinitely more rigorous "science". That's just my perspective,
and it is also my perspective that science could be replaced with
high-enough degree of arbitrary work dedicated to discovering
attributes of the universe incompatible with modern science. This
would require a large influx of unfulfilled persons highly motivated
to transform the status quo and contradict conventional wisdom.

I will also add that I haven't read what you speak of, but I do know the
concept of blind chance...
and it makes me think that someone who doesn't want to accept the truth
or the truth is too hard to bear came up with it.
Not saying that you feel that way even secretly, but I do think that
such talk takes far more faith in science than it takes me to believe in
God.
That's my perception though. Again it is my opinion. So try to chill.

Post by John Luke Gibson
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

I think you heavily misinterpreted most of what I said, mostly because
the first "thing" was more a side comment. I didn't watch the video,
because I find the speaker seems willfully unreliable. I've listened
to their lectures before. Everything else was more pointed at what
doark had said.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments t

[Bill Kontos]

Post by John Luke Gibson
The mountains of religious thought pumped into this thread has it
visibly oozing (I mean no offense). Firstly, the speaker in that video
are checked or researched. Secondly, Nietzsche explores that so-called
"trap". The thing is that religion presents the concept of morality
which fills the space created by ennui and lack of obstacles to
self-preservation. Noam Chomsky popularized abit the thought that the
consistent trend in nature is more intelligent species tend to go
extinct after a shorter period than obviously less intelligent ones
(i.e. beetles), this is due to genetic drift and inbred weaknesses due
to a lack of obstacles to their survival. Ethics is an artificial
obstacle we present ourselves in order to keep us strong (Nietzsche
referred to the model used by Christianity as Slave Morality,
suggesting that the ethics therein enslave the subscriber to the whims
and desires of the less fortunate, and thusly purporting the existence
of less fortunate as ENDEMICALLY NECESSARY because without less
fortunate people then there would be point to the ethics of
christianity and therefore there would be no obstacle to occupy
ourselves with and therefore genetic drift would set in and we would
die as a species. In other words, Nietzsche considered christianity so
obsessed with compassion, that in a world without suffering it would
utterly and completely fall apart.).
Nietzsche's life's work was dedicated to attempting to create a
well-developed replacement to both religion and "Slave Morality".
I don't know if I support Nietzsche's alternative of "Master Morality"
(where the obstacle is to become the best human possible, the
so-called "ubermensch"), but I do say that "trap" is hardly a "trap"
rather it's just a human need for an obstacle or conflict, and by
rejecting religion all one is doing is rejecting the type of conflict
which that religion endorses.

Well said. I read on a neurology book that the human brain is made in such
a way that if we pumped ourselves with dopamine and endorphin all day we
would end up committing suicide. We are designed to need both pain and
happiness in our lives to keep ourselves balanced. If you think about it it
makes sense: pain does exist in the world and we are bound to feel it at
some point, we might as well design ourselves in such a way that we
actually need it. A bit of evolution 101 there. Also I like to think of
ethics as the way that we prefer to make society work. As someone who bases
his world view on logic, I prefer a set of ethical rules that benefit
society as a whole the most. Others prefer ethics deriving from religions.

Post by John Luke Gibson
Thirdly,
______
.................| -> vvvvvvvv
______
______
.................| -> ^^^^^^^^^
______
"The only rule is everything changes, even this rule." is the best
misquoting of Heraclitus I've heard and has rather impacted my view of
"Relativity". Ultimately building off of the concept that the meaning
of life is just any arbitrary form of conflict, then sometimes
constant values contribute to having an increased selection of types
of conflict. Technology of modern day allows us to have simulated
battles over the net, and, without a whole slew of discovered
constants (such as ways of making the voltage across a wire consistent
with what is intended to deliver a message), then that would not be
possible. I believe the universe only stays as consistent as it needs
to be for every life to have a potentially unique purpose given work
to discover new constant attributes to apply to a new purpose to
assume. I believe it is quite possible high-fantasy magic might have
existed at one point and that it was merely purged by the work devoted
to the infinitely more rigorous "science". That's just my perspective,
and it is also my perspective that science could be replaced with
high-enough degree of arbitrary work dedicated to discovering
attributes of the universe incompatible with modern science. This
would require a large influx of unfulfilled persons highly motivated
to transform the status quo and contradict conventional wisdom.

Maybe. But As Arthur C. Clarke said, Any sufficiently advanced technology
is indistinguishable from magic. At that point I don't care if it's magic
or god or too advanced technology, it's just way beyond my
reach and that's what matters the most.

Post by John Luke Gibson
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

Well said. I read on a neurology book that the human brain is made in such a
way that if we pumped ourselves with dopamine and endorphin all day we would
end up committing suicide. We are designed to need both pain and happiness
in our lives to keep ourselves balanced.

y'know... even Maharishi Mahesh Yogi said that "total bliss" can get
a bit boring after a few decades. the "Wheel of Time" series by
robert jordan - the ending is just stunningly unexpected but
reinforces the same theme.

If you think about it it makes
sense: pain does exist in the world and we are bound to feel it at some
point, we might as well design ourselves in such a way that we actually need
it. A bit of evolution 101 there. Also I like to think of ethics as the way
that we prefer to make society work. As someone who bases his world view on
logic, I prefer a set of ethical rules that benefit society as a whole the
most.

can i say: do take care with that perspective. it's only been a
quite recent discovery, for myself, that i realise quite how
brain-washed all of us are to believe that western society's "benefit"
is fast becoming tyranny and fascism. asian and indian society,
that's a different matter: at least in both those societies there
seems to be a strong foundation, but in the west? pfffh. all i can
say is: no wonder religious extremists are prepared even to sacrifice
their lives to make a point about how corrupt and corrupting western
society really is.

Others prefer ethics deriving from religions.

everyone does what is most useful to them. such a strange phrase
that: everyone does what is *most useful* to them.

the discussion on "codes of conduct" was a challenge that made me
think, and i realised that people set themselves criteria which fall
into the same type of categories as 2nd, 3rd and 4th normalised form,
for databases.

most religions have "rules" which fall into either 2nd or 3rd
normalised form. in fact: most atheists do, too. very *very* few
people operate by a set of ethical decision-making evaluation criteria
that fit into 4th normalised form: a "compact" way to ASSESS whether a
particular RULE may be DERIVED against which a situation may be
evaluated.

why do people not do that? because it takes too long, that's why.
some decisions - particularly those involving safety - have to be
split-second. but even when it's not it can simply take too long or
can be too complex / involved.

anyway.... :)

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Se