naitche Posted April 15, 2019 Posted April 15, 2019 The body was characterised by its limitations. Not direction or possibility, which is now seen to be inherent to the conditions.
Strange Posted April 15, 2019 Posted April 15, 2019 4 hours ago, naitche said: From my perspective here, This seems to be supported by physics I have absolutely no idea what this post is all about. It is utterly incoherent. But if you think it is supported by physics, then you should be able to describe what measurements can be made to provide evidence for what you are saying. But I don't see any way in which physical measurements can quantify or model "faith".
naitche Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 So faith does not exist? White Nationalism? How would you measure that? The condition is data. Blocking its signal doesn't remove the condition. You just don't get it. I'm saying Faith blocks the signal of data. Nothing can be brought to Faith. Including measurement. Thats value. You want a measure of absence. I'm saying Faith is Absolute. Truth. Nihilism. Unsustainabillity. The opposite of measurement. An absence of possibility or direction. A lack of diversity and the blocking of any value that does not support that condition alone. To the exclusion of all other. It excludes value, in false 'support' of a condition, as a value in its own right.. Look to the lack of diversity in a Pedigree Dog. Or their breeders. Whats missing is an ability to respond. To anything but the validity of a Pedigree. The value of the dog is in its Pedigree. Never mind that it can't breathe. With out the validation of a pedigree a Pug is not recognisable as a Pug, to those who believe a validated pedigree standard is the 'true' manifestation of the dogs value. Faith is exclusive by nature. Those who value a Dog for other values, beyond that standard state and seek to achieve those are discredited, as are the resultant dogs.The message and data from environment are blocked. 'Improvement' of that state can only come through elimination to an optimal state. The measure of a space by an absolute condition, not its direction. Not by the data it might provide, but by conditions, that are not constant. Its reductionist of values.
FreeWill Posted April 16, 2019 Posted April 16, 2019 On 4/29/2018 at 2:39 PM, DrmDoc said: what is faith and why do you have it? Faith is sensing and believing in something, that is yet not possible to prove, but the currently observable and available information for us suggest its existence. I have the faith in a God Eise just called: "When you ask him, he explains that all the laws of nature he calls 'God' (So God for him is not the 'historical' Yahweh or Shiva, it is an abstract concept.)" It is my free will to let evidence-based faith evolve in me. It is part of the way how I exist.
naitche Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 There is no value in a condition. Biological response-ability is to find value to self in varied conditions, seek it and manipulate it. Its subjective. To respond to conditions in way to maximise their own potential there. Its demonstration is copied.To measure the value of a space/identity by conditions, which are not stable, requires the organism to restrict environmental conditions to those that support the condition. Not recognise an ability to respond to potential of those in conflict... You don't measure a space by its condition, but by its direction. The evolutionary direction of an entity is decided and finished, when its condition is decided. The direction of an entity is decided by its content.
Intrigued Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 On 8/8/2018 at 2:19 PM, Moontanman said: Name a particular subject that a new discovery has led us to question everything we've ever known. Plate tectonics. Hot Jupiters. There's two.
Eric H Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 On 4/15/2019 at 8:59 AM, Strange said: But I don't see any way in which physical measurements can quantify or model "faith". Faith can have positive and profound benefits, whether you can quantify them or not.
Intrigued Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 On 4/16/2019 at 5:50 AM, naitche said: So faith does not exist? White Nationalism? How would you measure that? The condition is data. Blocking its signal doesn't remove the condition. You just don't get it. I'm saying Faith blocks the signal of data. Nothing can be brought to Faith. Including measurement. Thats value. You want a measure of absence. I'm saying Faith is Absolute. Truth. Nihilism. Unsustainabillity. The opposite of measurement. An absence of possibility or direction. A lack of diversity and the blocking of any value that does not support that condition alone. To the exclusion of all other. It excludes value, in false 'support' of a condition, as a value in its own right.. Look to the lack of diversity in a Pedigree Dog. Or their breeders. Whats missing is an ability to respond. To anything but the validity of a Pedigree. The value of the dog is in its Pedigree. Never mind that it can't breathe. With out the validation of a pedigree a Pug is not recognisable as a Pug, to those who believe a validated pedigree standard is the 'true' manifestation of the dogs value. Faith is exclusive by nature. Those who value a Dog for other values, beyond that standard state and seek to achieve those are discredited, as are the resultant dogs.The message and data from environment are blocked. 'Improvement' of that state can only come through elimination to an optimal state. The measure of a space by an absolute condition, not its direction. Not by the data it might provide, but by conditions, that are not constant. Its reductionist of values. This appears to contradict itself. In your analogy of the Pedigree Dog, the pedigree particulars are specific and quantifiable. The breeders focus on these quantities, rather than, as you claim, blocking all others. Indeed, they have to "measure" non-pedigree features in order to determine that they are non-pedigree. How to measure White Nationalism? For example, determine preferred reactions to hypothetical situations. Or, measure the degree of acceptance of negative stereotypes of non-whites. It should not be too difficult for a comeptent sociologist to come up with several protocols that would ahndle this. 1
Strange Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Eric H said: Faith can have positive and profound benefits, whether you can quantify them or not. I agree. But naitche was trying to say that faith is "supported by physics". If that were so, then it would be possible to measure and model faith, make predictions, etc. On 8/8/2018 at 2:19 PM, Moontanman said: Name a particular subject that a new discovery has led us to question everything we've ever known. Name something recent, not something that was discovered several hundred years ago, accuracy goes up and gaps get smaller. In my lifetime: plate tectonics, confirmation of the Big Bang model, gene sequencing In the last century or so: quantum theory, relativity, and so many others one could write a book...
Intrigued Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 3 hours ago, Eric H said: Faith can have positive and profound benefits, whether you can quantify them or not. Would you agree it can also have negative and profound detriments?
Strange Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 57 minutes ago, Intrigued said: Would you agree it can also have negative and profound detriments? Yes. But also irrelevant to the point being made. (I tend to think the positives outweigh the negatives, but I don't have any evidence for that!)
Intrigued Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, Strange said: Yes. But also irrelevant to the point being made. It is, however, relevant to the thread topic. The nature of faith, as perceived by those who make extensive use of it, usefully informs DrmDoc's questions in the OP.
dimreepr Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 2 hours ago, Intrigued said: Would you agree it can also have negative and profound detriments? 1 hour ago, Intrigued said: It is, however, relevant to the thread topic. The nature of faith, as perceived by those who make extensive use of it, usefully informs DrmDoc's questions in the OP. how?
naitche Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) Say Identity is a space. If you measure a space by a characterisation of its condition , or data, you are not reading it correctly. You are not putting value on what it says .in the moment. You are depending on past perceptions. The values of space and condition cancel each other out. No signal. Biological selection reflects this. 6 hours ago, Intrigued said: This appears to contradict itself. In your analogy of the Pedigree Dog, the pedigree particulars are specific and quantifiable. The breeders focus on these quantities, rather than, as you claim, blocking all others. Indeed, they have to "measure" non-pedigree features in order to determine that they are non-pedigree. How to measure White Nationalism? For example, determine preferred reactions to hypothetical situations. Or, measure the degree of acceptance of negative stereotypes of non-whites. It should not be too difficult for a comeptent sociologist to come up with several protocols that would ahndle this. Yes. They are specific and quantifiable conditions. There are directions to meet or ensure them. But those conditions are characterised, by what doesn't belong. Not just for what those conditions could provide. Not for the value that could be found in them. They can't be anything that isn't already there. They are measured in the show ring. Not against unverified mutts. There is no measure of non Pedigree features. They are non -pedigree if they have no certificate of pedigree to say they are. The pedigree is the value. The conditions set out in the statement and constitution are just that. conditions. So why are they measured in opposition to what would have been beyond them anyway? Then measured the space their members, as an identity would occupy. Those conditions are now to a defined space. 5 hours ago, Strange said: I agree. But naitche was trying to say that faith is "supported by physics". If that were so, then it would be possible to measure and model faith, make predictions, etc. Measure no. Except by loss. Thats a prediction. As is discrediting environment when the identity formed is unable to meet demands of environment.. I've provided a classic model in the reduction of Dogs for any who want to look at that. Language comes into the signals or data we receive. The direction we get is corrupted. Edited April 17, 2019 by naitche
Strange Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, naitche said: Say Identity is a space. In what sense? Do you mean some sort of abstract mathematical space characterised by various dimensions that make up "personality"? Or what? 4 minutes ago, naitche said: If you measure a space by a characterisation of its condition , or data, you are not reading it correctly. You are not putting value on what it says .in the moment. You are depending on past perceptions. I have no idea what that means. 5 minutes ago, naitche said: The values of space and condition cancel each other out. No signal. Biological selection reflects this. How do you define and measure the "value of space"? How do you define and measure the "value of condition"? Can you show that these values are always equal and opposite? What is the connection to biological selection? 7 minutes ago, naitche said: Measure no. If it isn't measurable, then it isn't physics. (Which is what I expected.) 7 minutes ago, naitche said: Except by loss. Thats a prediction. What are you predicting? How do we test it quantitatively? 8 minutes ago, naitche said: Language comes into the signals or data we receive. I have no idea what those words mean when put together in that order. Which is kind of ironic. 1
Intrigued Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 1 hour ago, dimreepr said: how? I found my question relevant to almost every point and question in DrmDoc's OP, but I'll just select one example. DrmDoc said this: "What have you observed, experienced, or accomplished that supports your faith?" If an individual believes that faith has predominantly, or even exclusively positive and profound benefits this will provide a justification for their faith. If they do not hold such a view, then we must look elsewhere for the source of their belief. Consequently I was interested to learn what EricH's position was on this. (And still am!)
Strange Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, Intrigued said: If an individual believes that faith has predominantly, or even exclusively positive and profound benefits this will provide a justification for their faith. I suspect that any negative effects of faith are only perceived by other people. For example, someone might consider it to be a negative effect of faith that a Jehovah's Witness can't have a life-saving blood transfusion. But the JW would not see this as negative, just a "fact of life". And, I suppose, a person of faith might go further and say that the negative effects only exist in the perception of the outsider.
Intrigued Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Strange said: I suspect that any negative effects of faith are only perceived by other people. For example, someone might consider it to be a negative effect of faith that a Jehovah's Witness can't have a life-saving blood transfusion. But the JW would not see this as negative, just a "fact of life". And, I suppose, a person of faith might go further and say that the negative effects only exist in the perception of the outsider. Exactly so, and thus having faith, would become a self-reinforcing, positive-feeback, unchallengable position. "Faith consistently supplies positive profound benefits, therefore faith is a good thing and since it visibly does this it is obviously something to accept and believe in unreservedly." 26 minutes ago, naitche said: Yes. They are specific and quantifiable conditions. There are directions to meet or ensure them. But those conditions are characterised, by what doesn't belong. Not just for what those conditions could provide. Not for the value that could be found in them. They can't be anything that isn't already there. They are measured in the show ring. Not against unverified mutts. There is no measure of non Pedigree features. They are non -pedigree if they have no certificate of pedigree to say they are. The pedigree is the value. The conditions set out in the statement and constitution are just that. conditions. So why are they measured in opposition to what would have been beyond them anyway? Then measured the space their members, as an identity would occupy. Those conditions are now to a defined space. Thank you for your detailed response. If I understood what you meant by it I would be happy to reply, either agreeing, disagreeing, or questioning. Unfortunately, while I understood all the words and the superficial meaning of each sentence, I was unable to assemble the whole into a coherent point of view. I've struggled with several of your earlier posts. Please attribute this to my poor English comprehension* if it makes you more comfortable, but also consider the possibility that you are not as clear in your exposition as you imagine. *As a native English speaker and occassional teacher of communication skills, I'm usually quite good at distilling meaning from word salad. 1
naitche Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Strange said: Yes. But also irrelevant to the point being made. (I tend to think the positives outweigh the negatives, but I don't have any evidence for that!) I think it can too, for those who follow its direction rather than trying to decide its condition. When its directions don't insist they are the same thing. The un-corrupted or characterised message of religion could be to take responsibility for some thing greater than ourselves, for 'eternal' life. Continued evolution.Just not our own. The K.C identity is an extreme example. Their ability to recognise environment is Nil. Edited April 17, 2019 by naitche
Strange Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 11 minutes ago, naitche said: I think it can too, for those who follow its direction rather than trying to decide its condition. What do you mean by "its direction"? What do you mean by "its condition"? What is "it" in the above? Do you actually write this stuff in English, or use some sort of automated translation?
naitche Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Intrigued said: Exactly so, and thus having faith, would become a self-reinforcing, positive-feeback, unchallengable position. "Faith consistently supplies positive profound benefits, therefore faith is a good thing and since it visibly does this it is obviously something to accept and believe in unreservedly." Thank you for your detailed response. If I understood what you meant by it I would be happy to reply, either agreeing, disagreeing, or questioning. Unfortunately, while I understood all the words and the superficial meaning of each sentence, I was unable to assemble the whole into a coherent point of view. I've struggled with several of your earlier posts. Please attribute this to my poor English comprehension* if it makes you more comfortable, but also consider the possibility that you are not as clear in your exposition as you imagine. *As a native English speaker and occassional teacher of communication skills, I'm usually quite good at distilling meaning from word salad. Sorry. I know I am not doing this effectively. I try to give too much information at once among ( lots of ) other things. I will try to do better. Its been a very long day and I'm not fit for it now.
Intrigued Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, naitche said: Sorry. I know I am not doing this effectively. I try to give too much information at once among ( lots of ) other things. I will try to do better. Its been a very long day and I'm not fit for it now. Take your time. I'm in no hurry. Just make sure your terms are defined and that there are no ambiguous pronouns. 1
Strange Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 3 hours ago, naitche said: The un-corrupted or characterised message of religion could be to take responsibility for some thing greater than ourselves, for 'eternal' life What does "characterised message" mean? Who or what is supposed to "taking responsibility"? Can a message take responsibility? (I don't think so) 3 hours ago, naitche said: Continued evolution.Just not our own. "Continued evolution" is not a sentence so it makes no sense. But if your are not talking about "our" (human?) evolution, whose evolution are you talking about? 3 hours ago, naitche said: The K.C identity is an extreme example. Their ability to recognise environment is Nil. What is the "KC identity"? And how do you know they are unable to recognise an environment?
Intrigued Posted April 17, 2019 Posted April 17, 2019 17 minutes ago, Strange said: Who or what is supposed to "taking responsibility"? His post likely should read " The un-corrupted or characterised message of religion could be that we should all take responsibility for some thing greater than ourselves, in order to attain 'eternal' life." However, like you, I have no idea what a "characterised message" is. 20 minutes ago, Strange said: What is the "KC identity"? Their ability to recognise environment is Nil. Given his analogy of pedigree dogs and their breeders K.C. may be The Kennel Club. The second sentence would then be "The breeders, who focus exclusively on the definition of a breed, are blind to the existence or role of the environment." I think, until he can express himself with clarity, it is likely that we will find ourselves arguing with a strawman, of his creation, not our devising. 1
Moontanman Posted April 18, 2019 Posted April 18, 2019 18 hours ago, Intrigued said: Plate tectonics. Hot Jupiters. There's two. 16 hours ago, Strange said: I agree. But naitche was trying to say that faith is "supported by physics". If that were so, then it would be possible to measure and model faith, make predictions, etc. In my lifetime: plate tectonics, confirmation of the Big Bang model, gene sequencing In the last century or so: quantum theory, relativity, and so many others one could write a book... Quote mine much? You guys left out the qualifier of faith I used... Not to mention I was answering someone who stated what we think of as woo will be science... Quote Name a particular subject that a new discovery has led us to question everything we've ever known. Name something recent, not something that was discovered several hundred years ago, accuracy goes up and gaps get smaller. So far in no way has a new discovery led to anything supernatural, not being able to explain something straight away doesn't mean the supernatural is the cause... You guys also left out the rest of the conversation I was replying to where it was said woo will become science.
Recommended Posts