Manchester Passion

[elaine]

yes, i'm terrible at summarising books. please read it though, becuase it is really very good. it didnt say ALL scientists, just those who DO put their faith in all things material/physical/observable.

i thought you were an idealist? what does scant mean...? no i dont think heaven is at all suppposed to be like that. christians believe it to be completely physical and tangible... not that airy ethereal stuff thats in popular culture.

i'm not sure nietzsche has the same concept of "real" as we do... but then i havent really read enough. from what i have read, he seems to see contemporary society as "holding back our transcendence to the overman"... we should ignore social morals, laws that have been made for us, christian morals etc.. all that stuff, becuase it hinders the will to power. But, that, for me, isnt necessarily engaging with "real" life. thats a bit debatable. isnt social order "real"? surely it is. im not sure what nietzsche would have said about maths, probably not much, but maybe i could cross the line and say that, since maths is a contemporary subject, manmade and constructed by society, he might want to go beyond that...

im not sure, becuase maths might constitute part of the will to power, but its an idea.

i might go to the protest, but if i dont, i'll start looking into the help that europe gives israel. did you know that all the handcuffs and barbed wire are made in UK factories?

i was sitting on the floor on monday, very uncomfortable but at least i saw all the subtitles. maybe i'll look out for you next time, and vice versa. um, i'm chinese and i'm short.


with regard to consciousness. what are your thoughts on it?
Many neuroscientists now are trying to explicate parts of the brain in order to explain consciousness, but none with any success. to clarify, i take consciousness to mean the individual, unique experience that one has, when they perceive the world. when i taste peanut butter, how do i know that its the same as when anyone else tastes it? i can describe it but its a unique, personal experience that only i can emulate. how can scientists explain that? since it isnt even measurable by OURSELVES, how can it be measured by someone else?

this is one of the points in that book (shumacher), which tries to combine the idea of consciousness (that us and animals have), and self-awareness (that only humans have) - its debatable but lets just say its true for a second. Then, he goes onto ask,"where did this things come from?" but that it is impossible for us to answer this question with only our outer physical senses, becuease of the very nature of the answer we search for.

my point is, that the very nature of science cannot ever hope to answer these questions, and it is the CONSIDERATION of a different kind of knowledge (not necessarily through religion) that may provide clues.

[Ben]

if Heaven is tangible and in the clouds, it must be bloody noisy with air pollution.
plus, who the hell would want to live in the jetstream? it'd be so cold!

anyway, seriously, i think without mathematics one cannot have a will to power at all. Mathematics is the only order in the universe that cannot or does not influence people to separate into class. All other man-made constructs (if maths really is, i'll give you the benefit for the purposes of this point) dictate that people should be classed into castes, effectively. Even capitalism puts the rich over the poor, whereas all are meant to have the same social rights, capitalism shows this isn't the case (bribes, anyone?).

Mathematics should be the only way to establish some sort of order; everybody should be classed according to as many different criteria.

THEN WE TAKE THE INTERSECTION AND YOU ALL DISAPPEAR MWAHAHAHA.

[indie_schmindie]

i'd say i'm more of a realist when it comes to spirituality, perhaps edging to idealist in terms of political ideas... i'm not sure why i wrote "scant" - it means "not very many", eg "scant reward" - i should've said "avid realist"....

i wouldn't want to block off spirituality, or indeed science, for people to use as means of somehow understanding things like consciousness, it is the idea of religion that i see as a restriction on the thought processes of people who won't think outside the box of religious rulings...

i may have mentioned this before, but everyone's favourite american president/world dictator and his moves to argue against biological advances that could help us live longer really pisses me off - he justifies his position by saying that we should live only in the time that god grants us... even if he does believe in a divinity, does he not think that maybe this divinity would agree with scientific advances? why should he choose? what a fooking moron

[elaine]

I think you guys should really read this book, i dont agree with all of it, but its very good at putting difficult questions to maths and logic, and things like that. It sees them as only one type of problem, ie, a solvable one. there are many other types of problems in the world which dont converge on one and only answer eg. should education be about freedom or discipline? (that is, should it be about teachers teaching, or people learning for themselves in a conducive environment) - theres two answers that are essentially opposites, but none can claim superiority over the other.

anyway, i wont reproduce the book, becuase thats stupid. but i will say, that maths/logic/sciences can only take you up to a point, and that point is finite, by the very nature of these disciplines. yes, we havent reached the point yet, becuase we are still "discovering" stuff, and we may NEVER even reach it. the nature of these things is to OBSERVE and measure things that are physicla and objective. but what about those experiences that are non-physical and subjective. maths/logic could never be able to answer questions about such things.

the best thing about this book is that it distinguishes between the brain and the mind. the brain has thoughts, and the mind has "something else"... I think its quite true. have you ever been able to stop thinking, and be aware of yourself still?

thoughts are like another sense. they are and can be stopped, if you try hard enough (eg meditation).. so when you say religion restricts thought processes, i suppose yes it does, if you go to extreme efforts of continual prayer/meditation.

I am begining to distrust thoughts more and more, like i sometimes distrust my eyes/ears.. other senses. is too much emphasis placed upon thinking? isnt thinking just a process that abides by the principles of the brain,just an automatic reaction, isnt there something else, that is NOT this?

an animal thinks. it has a brain, but does it have anything more than that? i think humans do, which is what separates us. and it doesnt come with language, or a bigger brain; it comes with something else.... self-awareness. But if we go around thinking that we ARE thinking free, (ie believing that our thoughts are free from rules/principles, the same kind that govern how we receive other sensory input), then we are really not engaging with our self-awareness.


i think theres a difference between religion and what i have described. because i dont think one necessitates the other. but i DO think, that to not think within the box of religious rulings as well as outside it, is just as limiting as just thinking inside it.

[Ben]

oh come on, everybody knows that mathematics never claims that everything is solvable.
There's an important proof that says that certain things cannot be proven under any set of axioms simply because the proof or negation of them are both equally valid.
The most famous of this is the Continuum hypothesis, which can not be proven either way.

also, whilst i'm being pedantic...

"but i will say, that maths/logic/sciences can only take you up to a point, and that point is finite, by the very nature of these disciplines. yes, we havent reached the point yet, becuase we are still "discovering" stuff, and we may NEVER even reach it."

if you never reach it then that pretty much is the definition of infinite. For every step there is another step to take. It's how infinity is defined in the Hyperreals.
infinity is a number which is bigger than 1+1+...+1+....
hence if every discovery is a step, and we never reach the final step, maths and logic take you an infinite number of steps.

[elaine]

What I'm trying to get at, is the mindset that religion is bunk BECAUSE it's unprovable... if maths/logic only take you so far, then couldnt you get past it, go beyond it and start thinking about things which are only provable by your own experience?

i dont like the infinity thing, becuase i only said "we MAY never reach it"... i dont know what the future holds, ... it was pure speculation. and i dont like talking about infinity in general, becuase it doesnt make sense to me.

but then, it doesnt make sense, but i still accept it as some sort of a theory, or concept.

im not saying that mathematicians dont have spirituality (if i can use that vague term to any benefit here), but i think that its a totally different mindset sometimes, and maybe you could try the other one.

[Ben]

i don't suppose you've ever read one of Scott Adam's books, called God's Debris have you?
It's a very compelling read about how God could exist, and Mathematics is actually simply Probability. Particles have no laws, but they have 3 probabilistic axioms (IIRC), and almost everything we experience can follow from that.
I could try and find it if you like.

One point though; just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it has to be relegated to 'concept'. I suppose as long as one person in the world (universe?) understands a concept, it must be true.

Perhaps the only being capable of that is God, who knows? (sorry, i'm sort of rambling with an idea here). But if God is the only one to know everything, why would he bother? Why continue existence? Existence would be dull to him, and we have to assume that God has some sort of mental capacity. And thus it's natural to assume that God also has some characteristics of logic and intelligence. Indeed, one may assume infinite logic and intelligence are necessary to know everything. Hence, if you think that the smarter you are the easier you become bored (an empirical assumption, but reasonable), God would be bored infinitely often.

So what would God do to relieve his boredom? Everything. Everything possible, and impossible. Hence anything could be true. But God could accomplish that in a heartbeat. So then what?

Boredom leads to misery. But there is one challenge that God cannot know the answer to; his own death. Destruction of God is the only thing that he can do to entertain himself. So it's reasonable to assume God doesn't exist simply because he's bored.

[Arron]

I translated what Ben said using Babelfish. First into Italian then to French and back to English. I don't know why. The last sentence is funny however:

"Thus it is reasonable to presuppose that the god does not exist simply because is annoyed."

[elaine]

I have, many a time, put this sort of picture of God to Christians but I am always gently let down from my excitement by a simple "we don't know, and we cannot fully know"... how can we ever comprehend what its like to know everyhting? how can we comprehend a NON-HUMAN? all we have ever experienced is human, so, i dont think we can speculate about how God deals with boredom etc.

so, yes, it's possible if you don't "know" God, to believe that he could be bored, and able to do everything. i used to think he could also contradict logic, by sending down jesus, revealing himself to Mohammed, embodying the Buddha. etc.etc and the fact that we see these as contradicting, different religions doesnt matter in the Truth of God, becuase he can do what he likes.

but theres no real point in pursuing that line, becuase it is pure speculation, like your theory.

i havent read the book, but it does sound interesting. though i dont understnad a lot beyond a-level maths so it might trouble me a bit.

back to the point about concepts, doesnt that apply to spiritual concepts too? if one person understands it, (on an individually based experience), could it not also be true?
thus, couldnt the concept of "enlightenment" (to abuse this over-used senseless word) be true? the same for the holy spirit?

[indie_schmindie]

"What I'm trying to get at, is the mindset that religion is bunk BECAUSE it's unprovable..."

this is exactly what i don't understand about religion's enormous emphasis on the lives of so many people --> the concept of a god is based around pure speculation, it is unproven that this being could ever exist and i believe that it is for that reason that; 1. people go the oppsite way to scepticism on the subject and show a devotion to this unknown, 2. leaders find themselves with a hugely powerful device to use as a medium for justification of their own rulings... (yes, everything else in the world might be essentially speculation as well, but this doesn't repreive religious abuse in my eyes)... for me maths/logic/science is somehow more fathomable, probably because much of it can be humanly defined and understood, but this is a different point...

[Ben]

it's clear that religion is divisive and abused, but we've had this argument, since elaine argued that science was abused, and i argued that scientists were swayed rather than science.

[elaine]

I don't think you can say religion is "pure speculation". thats just your opinion.
Aren't you amazed at how powerful religion has become? and just how many people "submit" to it? that, of course, doesn't prove a thing. but it doesn't disprove a thing either.

its not provable either way. but that doesn't mean your position is any more legitimate than another position. what if you suddenly had a personal experience of God? wouldn't you change your mind and opinions?

i think its something that we can never know for sure (about other people) and can not always accept in our own personal consciousness. its important to remain open to it though.
in a non-thinking sense... ie, a spiritual sense.
i have come to realise that religion cannot be understand/experienced truly/KNOWN through intellectual exercise, but through something different, something that most of us aren't even aware of, let alone access.

waking life points a little towards it - the idea of consciousness and control. that we can manipulate certain perceptions of "reality" and "dream".

all great thinkers allude to this, though obviously not necessarily through religion. nietzsche for example wants us to go beyond society, transgress its impositions and limitations, find something beyond language/feelings of guilt/other social constructs that impede the will to power.
i see this as the same thing as spirituality. it is something beyond those manmade things like logic and science... hard to explain from our perspective but idealised from a instinctive internal conceptualisation

[indie_schmindie]

what's the verdict on this da vinci code malarky....?

i found it quite funny today that some religious bod wrote into my free copy of the MEN saying that he thought it was ridiculous how the book n film were playing around with changing "facts" into fiction and passing his new modifications off as fact.... found it completely ironic but this geezer obviously can't see it like that.... somebody (dan brown) has merely created his own theory of history - which nobody can ever know to be true outside of experiencing first hand - and this religious bod seems deeply concerned that his own (fallible) interpretation of events has been superceded in people's minds

there is no FACT involved here... these so called events supposedly took place many years ago, in a time when none of us was alive, so how can either thoery be called FACT???

and, elaine, i don't think it is merely a personal response of religion to call it "speculation".... it is based on ideas that nobody on this world can prove as certain so that surely means it is speculation.... if a scientist came out and said he knew how the world began wouldn't you call that speculation.... may seem sceptical but everything about the unknown is speculation

[elaine]

so, if an event took place before your very eyes, you can call it FACT? even if you were mislead/ under the influence of drugs and hallucinating.. various other less-sinister factors that led you to misinterpret it: i point to the presence of miracle healing especially in the states. you dont take that as fact do you, even if you were there?

what is FACT? what makes things more true, more closer to objective knowledge than other things? and more importantly, who decides this?

plenty of people agree that the earth is a sphere, that orbits the earth. just as plenty of people agree that God created this earth and all the things in it.

the da vinci code is sneaky. you cant possibly say that dan brown innocently wrote a fictitious novel without anticipating the controversy. have you read it? it does say things as though they were fact. but then people who take it as such, are a little ignorant. i think thats where christians have objected. because especially in america, where everything is OTT, some people have deconverted becuase of taking it too seriously.

looking at history, academic historians KNOW that they do not ever try to re-assert fact. history is discourse... it is the textual evidence of what happened many years ago. its all a case of using all this evidence to draw the most conclusive picture based on the most reliable sources. I would say that Dan Brown's evidence is the least reliable, based on what most historians would say. but then again, i dont know that much.

back to "speculation"... maybe i took the word in a too -negative way. i guess if a scientist came out and said he knew how the world began (hasnt that happened incidentally with the Big Bang theory?) i would listen to what he had to say, and base my opinion of him on the evidence he gave. i wouldnt just dismiss his claim straight away as "speculation". same goes for christianity. they say they do have a lot of evidence, and i respect that. they can prove it TO AN EXTENT.

but all things can only be proved to an extent. and its that extent which dictates who and when accepts it... this extent is obviously different in science etc. it is a totally different meaning of the word "proof" when you are talking about a human-construct of science that describes and explains the world we see around us. but wouldnt you say, as i have said earlier about a general spirituality that goes beyond our common everyday thinking and logic, that personal experience with religion is enough proof? if only to that individual... but it is proof to a satisfactory extent.

[Ben]

fact must not be observable with the senses. it must exist outside of any kind of input, output or process.
much less is fact if you use that strict definition..

[elaine]

hmm, is that just another way of saying we dont know anything?

anyway, last documentary on monday!
its about student protests during vietnam war.
uncanny how similar the media coverage about iraq is like that of the 70s....

[Ben]

that's cause wars don't change, only the way the killing is done
Anyway, Iraq and Vietnam have so many similarites; overwhelming force fighting not only an enemy army, but the people, who they cannot win over with Hearts & Minds. Losses of troops daily to ambushes and guerilla warfare, an unpopular president who can only commit more to the war, causing internal trouble back home, images of brutal torture (remember the vietnam execution photo?)...
I could go on, but it's no surprise the coverage is the same. The media aren't original anyway..

[elaine]

I have a question:
Suicide bombers and their similarity to kamikaze pilots. Discuss.

[Ben]

Sorry, where's the question?
Well, there are obviously similarities, but there is a huge difference; Kamikazi pilots fought for the ideology of the emperor and their country, whereas suicide bombers are not affiliated to any country usually: they follow an ideology of religion or a terrorist group, which is completely different, since it is never to do with the defence of a state, but to incite other parties to cooperate. (I reject the Israel-Palestine thing as a counter-example, simply because the palestinians don't blow themselves up as a rule, the people are generally terrorist cells who are trying to derail the peace process).

I'm a bit zoned out at the moment so I can't really think of anything else..

[elaine]

The Israel-Palestine example (contentious as it is) can never be generalised. I think the similiarities are much more scarce than the differences.

I see kamikaze pilots as just following orders that they are bound by duty to do - they are soldiers in an army that has decided to go to war. They didn't decide to go to war, they accepted the possibility when joining the army. The hierarchy of the nationalist agenda is skewed dramatically - the ideology is completely created by the powers at the top, who organise everything, sending their men out to enact tactically manoeuvred strategies.

Suicide bombers, yes i know we shouldn't generalise, but are under an occupation, are in the middle of a "war" that affects their daily lives. They are basically imprisoned in their own homes, and constantly threatened with daily violence. They don't sign up to an army, they experience the oppression and want to fight back. It is not always the case that these martyrs are manipulated by the powers-that-be at the top of the resistance organisation.

Don't you think that suicide bombers sometimes actaully dont have an ideology? Sometimes they literally cant think of life getting better than it is..? There is a religion thing, but not all are fanaticists - they literally are systematically oppressed on an everyday basis.

I do think that terrorist cells come into it - i think some bombers are promised heaven and eternal peace, and emotionally blackmailed by loyalty to their families/community. but equally, i think theres that other side.

What is peace anyway? is it fairness? or is it just "no fighting".. the point is, palestinians are getting incredibly impatient with israel, who seems to be putting an appearance of "peace" by making completely unfair proposals and then blaming palestinians when they dont agree to them.

Fair enough, suicide bombers give israel more ammunition to keep plying occupied terrotories with armies. but i think they arent just following orders, or trying to get revenge etc.

That is the difference, which seems to imply that no comparison can be made. Kamikazi pilots are fighting for an ideology that is given to them in military command. Suicide bombers have to weigh up much more than that.

[Ben]

well most suicide bombers are usually given a healthy dose of pills before blowing it up, to make sure they do it and to make them feel elated at the thought. That's probably the most direct mind-control i've ever seen.
And generally, if somebody wants to commit a terrorist act, where are they going to get their bomb equipment from? They have to get it from the organised cells, and then they're almost always part of that cell simply by association.
i suppose you're right about it, but at the same time, kamikazi pilots were never forced to (from what I know). They did offer to do so, so they weren't following commands, they were making the decision to strike at what they saw was the enemy, same as bombers.

[indie_schmindie]

elaine said:

What is peace anyway? is it fairness? or is it just "no fighting".. the point is, palestinians are getting incredibly impatient with israel, who seems to be putting an appearance of "peace" by making completely unfair proposals and then blaming palestinians when they dont agree to them.

i don't know if this is just linguistic ambiguity here, but it seems to me that peace has a straightforward meaning; yes no fighting, but also, no oppression or ill-feeling.... my idea of peace, then, seems impossible in this world...

[Ben]

maybe the matrix was right. Humans do seem to judge their reality by how miserable they are. Struggle leads to people accepting their lot in life.
I think that if pax omnia was acheived, it would quickly fail, since people has different desires. What makes one person happy annoys another. Caesar said "in war, magnificent events come from trivial circumstances". It's true; Road rage is a good example. I can imagine that were the crazy frog ringtone ever to prevail it would instantly cause a nuclear war.

[elaine]

ANYWAY... documentary NEXT monday - gonna be ace.

the peace thing isn't so straightforward because everyone has different ideas of justice (and therefore oppression or ill-feeling)... the israelis may think it is "just" to take back the occupied terrorities from the palestinians - but the rest of the world doesn't.

[elaine]

ben said:

well most suicide bombers are usually given a healthy dose of pills before blowing it up, to make sure they do it and to make them feel elated at the thought. That's probably the most direct mind-control i've ever seen.
And generally, if somebody wants to commit a terrorist act, where are they going to get their bomb equipment from? They have to get it from the organised cells, and then they're almost always part of that cell simply by association.
i suppose you're right about it, but at the same time, kamikazi pilots were never forced to (from what I know). They did offer to do so, so they weren't following commands, they were making the decision to strike at what they saw was the enemy, same as bombers.

ummm... the pill thing? is that "generally"? i dont think that applies to every suicide bomber and probably not even "most".
the organised cells are so easy to contact its ridiculous. i think you could find a belt dead easily, all you needed to do was ask. im not sure the cell has so much power to control those who seek them.