About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 12:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Matthew, you're position seems to be typical of most people who question the authenticity of the mystical. The best advice I can give you is to pick up books that counter the anti-man, anti-reality arguments you'll encounter in any debate with mystics.

Obfuscation is the key to their rants. They'll attempt to ask leading questions--that lead in the wrong direction. They have moved away from "do this or go to hell" and into "look at all this 'scientific data'...you can't deny this, or you're irrational!"

Just remember, since the beginning of human history mystics haven't even attempted to prove ~anything~ through science, let alone their gods. They didn't have to--they could kill and maim in the name of God without fear of it being on CNN or Yahoo News. Now, confronted by the advancement of humanity--because of science and reason--they slip into their last bunker and start shooting away with laughable statistics concerning "embedded codes" and mystical genetic theory--which really amounts to a few almost-notable minds selling out to their fear of death.

But you seem to be on the right track, Matthew.
Keep questioning.

J

Post 21

Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 1:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Jeremy...I actually used to be a Christian until I read Atlas Shrugged and the stuff I mentioned in my last post about the so-called "mystery cults". Now I'm pretty well an Objectivist, though with a few minor reservations, which doesn't seem to be unusual for SOLO...

Matthew

Post 22

Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 11:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh Bill...

For your own sake, I hope you don't travel too much further down that path. Like Matt above, I used to be religious too, and so I know that when you are religious, it's amazing how it seems everything can be rationalized so it “makes sense” in the erroneous ideology of mysticism – whether it is Christianity, Islam, Ba’hai, whatever your ideology happens to be. Unfortunately, it is not rational philosophy. Bill, let your mind fly rather than be crippled. Trust me, if you really want the world make sense, look deeper into Objectivism.

Post 23

Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 1:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill

You said:
"The the mechanisms of evolution - random mutation and natural selection - are not capable of producing or increasing the complex information found in living systems."

Stephan Wolfram published a book entiled A New Kind of Science in which he uses a simple computer programming method to demonstrate that the complexity we see in nature can, in fact, arise from very very basic processes (without any divine intervention). Instead of attacking your religious foundations, I will recomend the title as something that may help you discover a more rational approach to understanding reality. I doubt you could make your above statement in light of the evidence* presented in this book.

Dave

*evidence: something that furnishes proof**
**proof: something that induces certainty

Special thanks to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Post 24

Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 4:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ryan, I was making sense of the world through Objectivism, until I interpreted certain facts in a new light. You may call the premises of my new worldview irrational, but I don't believe it has internal contradictions, or cripples my reasoning or the way I deal with the wolrd.

Dave, I discovered that Wolfram has a website for his book where he provides a fair idea of what it's all about, and where images of 65 pages have been reproduced. I hope my survey of this material gives me grounds enough to comment.

There's no question about it, complex patterns can result from simple processes, as Wolfram amply demonstrates, and I concede that his mathematical models could be applied to explain certain natural processes. When it comes to living systems, however, I think the application is limited to how external environmental factors determine complexity in such things as population dynamics, patterns of mould growth, or sizes and shapes of individual plants and animals.

What is the information content in these complex patterns, or any pattern generated by Wolfram's methods? Surely little more than you could derive from any collection of fine particles I might scatter - no more than is contained in the initial conditions and the simple rules followed. Contrast this with DNA which is not just complex in pattern, but rich in information.

I agree with Wolfram when he says on p. 1027, "If the whole history of our universe can be obtained by following definite simple rules, then … it makes no more or less sense to talk about the meaning of phenomena in our universe as it does to talk about the meaning of phenomena in the digit sequence of pi". He would include our lives in these phenomena, which are more meaningful than he suggests, I hope, and therefore his hypothesis is false.

Regarding proof and evidence, I indicated in my early posts that any evidence I might offer was of a circumstantial (indicatory) type. Wolfram's evidence is also of this type - it goes to support a hypothesis, not prove it conclusively.

evidence: 1 a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

Wider context thanks to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Post 25

Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 7:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,
You said:
"What is the information content in these complex patterns, or any pattern generated by Wolfram's methods? Surely little more than you could derive from any collection of fine particles I might scatter - no more than is contained in the initial conditions and the simple rules followed."

You have made the assumption that forms the conceptual basis for the chaos theory which prompted Wolfram to write the book in the first place. His whole purpose in presenting the information is to demonstrate that seemingly simple initial conditions very readily present complexity rivaling the most developed biological mechanisms, even DNA and its information. The book provides more in depth presentation of this data than the website.

Yes, these implications are perhaps discomforting to someone rellying on the concept of a benevolent creator who constructed the universe around man. A computer program performing very simple computations demonstrates behavior once thought far beyond the capabilities of man to comprehend. It is a testimony that the universe around us is intelligable. Man has the rational capacity to discover the underlying processes of the world around us. Humanity has demonstrated that ability throughout the course of history, as Wolfram has done here, gradually distancing the mystic realm of faith in divine intervention farther from relevance.

Dave

Post 26

Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 8:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I apologize for moving the discussion away from near death experience. The principles underlying man's exploration of the unknown, and the use of reason to provide answers, are the basis of the Wolfram book and these principles apply equally to near death experience.

Intelligible not "intelligable". Sorry for bad spelling.

Dave

Post 27

Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 8:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Heya everyone. Concerning NDE, the implication is that there is an afterlife--or something magical worth catching a glimpse of when we are close to death. So it's understandably difficult to refrain from veering off into religion v. atheism discussions. Anywho...

There's nothing wrong with exploring whatever occurs after death. If there's something afterward, great. I don't mind the idea of living forever, as long as I can still do whatever the hell I want...But the simple fact is, I don't really care one way or the other. I know for a certainty that I will live this life as best I can, and probably be happy more often than not because of it. I know that I don't have to rely on some promise of a crystalline utopia bedecked with diamonds and virgins to be happy with the life I have now.

But if people decide that exploring post-life ordeals is a necessity of science, go right ahead...doesn't effect me in the least. If I discovered today that the afterlife existed, I wouldn't end my life tomorrow--and probably not ever, intentionally. This life has always been good enough for me. I just don't care at all whether the afterlife exists...it probably doesn't; if it does, I still won't change the way I live.

J

Post 28

Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 3:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Spirituality in the 21st Century
By Kurt Kawohl

IMHO, I have personally experienced my spirit leaving my body and being united with the "ultimate supreme spirit" (God?). In 1956, when I was fifteen years old, I had pneumonia and thought I was dying. My father took me to a doctor who gave me a penicillin injection and recommended immediate hospitalization. We had no medical insurance or money, so my father took me home to recuperate. I remember the drive home vividly. Every breath was painful and my chest felt as though a great weight was upon it. I watched cars and trucks drive by, and wondered how people could make long term plans when life was so unpredictable.

Several nights later, it felt as if my spirit left my body and it experienced being in a place with a gathering of souls or spirits. I sensed great peace, tranquility and ecstasy -- a rapture that was beyond a person's imagination. I felt as if I was a part of ALL, a part of God. I was mentally communicating and in sync with everyone, including not only some of my deceased acquaintances and relatives, but many of the prophets of the bible, and historical people I had read about. There was no dominant force, no forceful leader. I somehow knew who everyone was. Every thought interacted with the whole community. I had no questions; it seemed as if everything was revealed and crystal clear. I saw the universe stretched out with spirits engaged in mental interaction like master craftsmen contemplating the creation of a new frontier.

When I told my father who was a preacher of the Lutheran Faith about my experience he dismissed it abruptly and told me that this "supreme spirit," this God that my spirit had witnessed, was not the God of the bible and he told me to pray for my salvation. We never talked about it afterwards.

Since that time I never really gave it much thought until the New York World Trade Center tragedy on 9-11-01. I went into deep meditation. I wanted to find an answer to why and how some misguided individuals could believe that their actions would be rewarded with their soul's eternal life with God. I then had a couple of experiences similar to the one I had at age fifteen of my spirit communicating with the "ultimate spirit." (God, Allah or whatever one desires to call him/her/it)

One spiritual experience seemed to last throughout the entire night. My spirit observed the entire history and the evolution of the universe and our varying perceptions of God, as if in a fast-forward film.

The messenger is of no significance. It is the message that needs to be taken into account and judged for its merits. The experiences I encountered after the 9-11 tragedy helped me come to this conclusion: In this 21st Century, the Age of Technology, we are still plagued by religious beliefs that are a contributing cause toward terrorism, killings and wars between nations. Belief in a deity, who keeps causing catastrophes, punishes people, and created the universe out of nothingness as if by magic was brought about by hysteria and superstitions. This thought process needs to be reassessed and brought up to date. Open-minded people must use common sense to determine whether this so-called deity was incorrectly perceived, misinterpreted and misunderstood by the masses of a bygone era.

Some will say that my personal experience of oneness with a supreme spirit is nothing but a dream or a vivid imagination. It doesn’t matter whether you accept or totally reject my story. What does matter is that we evolve to a point whereby we can encourage open-minded people to offer feedback on how our religious beliefs can be brought into the 21st century.

Kurt Kawohl is the author of a book called "Transcendentalism - A New Revelation." See http://transcendentalism.us

Post 29

Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 12:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
After reading more books and watching documentaries, something (even if u don't believe in an afterlife) is happening to people after they are pronounced dead. Many people describe surgical procedures and instruments that were performed on them, that many laymen have little or no knowledge of. In addition to NDE's we have the phenomenon of Children who remember previous lives. They often relay incredible data and stories they should have no means of knowing. Another strange thing is that if the person who they say are the reincarnation of died a violent death they have birthmarks corresponding with there wounds.

Something I've found when attempting to discuss the paranormal with objectivists is that they either dismiss them without even reading the data, or they come up with (at times bizarre) rationlizations. Unless objectivists examine or discuss suggestive data of paranormal phenomenon it risks becoming dogma. I love solo because we aren't afraid to debate, critisize and discuss, let's keep it that way.

Any one interested in finding out about the work of the prominent reincarnation investigator Dr Ian Stevenson should visit this website;
www.childpastlives.org

Post 30

Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 12:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
By the way my view on what would happen to objectivism if paranormal phenomenon was oneday irrefutably pronounced as normal is this:

It wouldn't be refuted but it would have to be modified, as objectivism has to be continually modified. Objectism is contexual, and is based on logical inference from all relevent data. I don't define objectivism as a philosophy based on realism, egoism, capitalism and romanticism, I define it as a philosophy based on objectivity or logical inference. Nothing can refute logic it is our only means of assessing the true from the false, the real from unreal. Objectivism is a discovery from Rand, (like gravity was by Newton) and Rand's theories (like Newton's) have to be modified when relevent data calls for them to be so.

Those are my two cents take them or leave them it's up to you.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.