Re: Feeling Blue

Justin wrote:
Mark Goldberg <msgoldberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

: I think you're making a semantic dodge.

I honestly don't intend to. I interpret "meaning of life" so say that life has a reason, as if life (and the universe) must exist for some purpose.

Well, I tell you this. I have no need to impress upon you anything.
And I'll bet....I'll bet you have every need to impress upon me that there isn't any 'meaning'.
Do you think that means 'anything'?


This is a very deep philosophical issue of course but I tend to
feel that it does not need to have a meaning at all.

And that is your pleasure. Go in peace.
I tend to feel differently.

By the evidence.

Evolution on the
other hand is an explanation of what happens and what makes it happen on a scientific level.

And that is perfectly fine by me. That you think so.
For me....I find discussing Especially about what can't be explained... on a scientific level.

An analogy to the way I see it: I throw a brick off a house and it hits the ground. Gravity explains how it falls, it does not impart any meaning. Meaning would be why I threw the brick.

Maybe, you were trying to hit a nun, or an mma artist, or a squirrel, or had rocks in your head, or were cleaning up after a storm.... is it important for us to guess what you do with your day.

I liked that classic thought experiment the physics guys use. I read about it just recently. 'Schroedinger's cat'? There's a cat in a box, a container, and the observer has to determine if the cat is alive or dead. Quantum mechanics says that it is actually both alive and dead at the same time?!?
Only by opening the box does the observer force it into two possible state, and that observation is what creates the 'real' world. The phenomenon it said, could be observed at the microscopic level.

Fascinating. And disturbing. They said, even Einstein was disturbed by the bizarre way the physical world operates. Defying simple logic and all.

Meaning is a fascinating arena. Tell me, why do you think the Prof had to try to get laid at his advanced age, by enticing young women at a tavern. Throwing bricks off a roof, perhaps, rocks in his head, or maybe just rocks in his pants...?

Meaning is a fascinating arena, don't you think?

Perhaps we have different uses of the word "meaning" here.

Yes... perhaps we do. No need to quibble, demur, or censor. Just hold each other accountable on each others meanings.... and that's where life gets meaningful....oops :^)

: I said, something like, 'I meant evolutionary development' and he : interrupted and said, .... then don't use terms like 'GENESIS' because : it has the wrong connotations.

He sounded a little overzealous in his reaction, yes, but I think he was simply trying to make the points that the biblical reference he thought you were making did not belong in science class.

Truth be told, it wasn't even in my mind. I was merely using it to discuss evolution. He was overzealous. I didn't make any such inference, any such implication and I just looked at him blankly. He had something of a holier than thou look and I was too slow to pick up on why he was entertaining the idea. Then I kind of figured it out. Who cared. I got my grade and that was that. I like the study of biological evolutuon.
I liked getting my grade.... someone wanted it for me to work.

: You want to put on the tie, and jacket and parse the words and play : professor. It won't work Dr.

I read what I read, I apologize if it's not what you intend, or what Palin intends, or what anyone intends. I have a very structured way of reading which comes from writing mathematics and I don't think I intentionally try to bend the truth at all.

Fair enough. I think saying 'vile commentary' and such is neither evidenced, accurate, scientific in the broad sense, nor meaningful... well it is, but that's from where I sit :^)

: I can, and I can also refer you to Dawkins absurd call for censorship : and prevention of teaching anything about God until children are 18 and : capable of refuting the notion effectively. But that's a long story and : I'm not even remotely interested. But you can look that one up.

Sure, I know that one.

: I don't have to educate you. You can do it on your dime.

Trust me, I do. All I'm saying is not to bring forth arguments and claims and then refuse to provide evidence.

If I say there's such a thing as TV, and you say, 'please provide evidence' your doing in on my dime, not yours, and you've missed the point.

The point is... you said, > I don't have any despair, I'm just a little worried that we're going to
have a woman in the VP slot who supports the teaching of intelligent design, doesn't think global warming is man-made, flip-flips left and right (earmarks, bridges, ...) while she paints herself as some sort of rebel, has barely traveled in her life, thinks the war is desired by her own personal god and gets enjoyment out of spouting vile commentary.

Well, I just worry about people who claim they only teach scientific principles and then goes out and surmises 'ala vile commentary' from an acceptance speech that only the derfus tried to pile on with the looney crowd of the neurotic tribe of the lost as their soul mates.

As for worry, I don't fear someone who supports the teaching of intelligent design or doesn't... I do fear people who don't know that it is THEIR obligation to actually delineate what 'spouting vile commentary is, and getting personal enjoyment out of it... especially when they got it from an acceptance speech that drew raves even from those who don't support her ideas.

Yes... peddling science and precision and using it to exclude what they want which is entirely subject scares the *** out of me. It's been done, is being done throughout history and always with bad results.

But why quibble.
After all. You've got hal the marxist ideologue giving you full support.
You can rest easy now :^)


: Nor I. I just think your assessment of Palin was vastly premature, based : upon her actions. You based it upon a bias against 'fundies' without : checking. That's not good science. Mind you... if it turned out she's : erratic in that regard then so be it. But I don't see it and you : invented that out of cloth.

I disagree. I think I've seen enough of her to judge adequately that she's over the top as far as I'm concerned.

Well, that's certainly south of 'scientific' and way north of 'subjective', which is fine.
Except please don't peddle scientific precision with what your opining.
Because... it has nothing to do with 'science'

Look, we all have our limits. By that I mean that when presented with certain irrational views of another person we will all reach a point where we start to wonder what effects this might have on the person in their job and daily life.

Yes... I feel similarly. Like when someone listens to a vice presidential acceptance speech and says it's vile commenary, which she enjoys, after her political opponents opine as to how much they actually admired and were forced to consider her speech... yes, I too think of certain 'irrational' views.

My word... it's so prevalent out there. But don't worry, you've got hal saying how completely rational your statement was.... now that's the kind of vote of confidence that a man can really rest assured, shows exactly what it's worth.

I have seen enough data about Palin that I am sincerely worried about her ability to run a country.

Well...I was looking for you, to provide more than utterly subjective assessments, about what constitutes 'enjoying vile commentary'

: You took it out of context of the question and the rest of the : statement. Read the rest please, and post it.

The question was about her son, I read it. I can't quite see that she meant otherwise. What did she imply was god's plan if not the war? If I do not understand what she meant then please enlighten me.

No.... post the entire comment and in it's context then it will be apparent what she meant, didn't mean and what it was worth or not.... and some of that goes for you too.

: No, you're glossing over the fact that calling her a 'fundie' because : she might believe in 'Intelligent design' and worthy thought discussion : for students in high school made you the censor of ideas and thinking.

My understanding is that she wants it taught alongside evolution. To quote "Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both". This implicitly implies that they are somehow equally valid in her eyes and that somehow there is "debate" about the validity of evolution. This is factually and logically false. There are gaps in the theory of course but overall it's been a major success in explaining the development of life.

I think evolution... will never be threatened by such as her... or your fallacious assessment of what she did, or what you think she wants to do.

She didn't impose anything while she was in government. And I don't see her beliefs allowing her to transpose that into forcing that upon a teaching system. Her opinion is, however she said it... neither vile, nor inspiring, nor threatening. And she has a political record to back that up. Now...if she wants to be so inspired why she can be my guest.
In her house, it's fine by me.

: Yes... and I can assure you you will call those people who told you that : there was a big bang 4000 yrs before you ever dreamed it possible that : they are 'fundies' and it's their job to prove otherwise.

The main problem with re-re-re-translated and re-re-re-modified documents from thousands of years ago is that they can be interpreted in many ways.


Sure... and the Torah, is what it was for 3300 yrs. Sorry, the documentary hypothesis was essentially proven false, long ago. But those who need to believe it... will never let it go.

That's what belief can do... it's not all good :^)
And those physicists who were proven utterly incorrect...?
Hey, no problem.... it's all about study, and effort, patience, etc etc etc.
If a document says "The universe came from nothing" we ought not to jump up and say "They must have known the truth!" since in reality they could have just been postulating from ignorance.

They... didn't have any tools too postulate from, remember?
So, it wasn't their ignorance that put it there- they didn't even have the tools.
.... but the physicists were most definitiely without a doubt, wrong.....

: It bothered Einstein, a great deal, and it bothered Hoyle a great deal, : and others, many many others a great deal.

The possibilities don't mathematically bother me. The ramifications for a real-world universe certainly can.

Yes... me too. Like those who claim their subjective (utterly) assessments about an acceptance speech are the scientic example about 'enjoying vile commentary'and all.

I find sifting and winnowing thru reality requires way more work than those hand waving's and stump speeching.

IMO

Mark
.

Loading