12 Apr 08
Originally posted by freightdog37I think it will draw bad press no matter how good it is.
I was curious to see what everyones thoughts are about this movie that is coming out this week. If you go to see the trailer on his site be aware it loads slowly (at least it did for me).
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
Kelly
12 Apr 08
Originally posted by freightdog37I haven't seen it. But I am curious; do you know what questions it asks?
I was curious to see what everyones thoughts are about this movie that is coming out this week. If you go to see the trailer on his site be aware it loads slowly (at least it did for me).
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
12 Apr 08
Originally posted by freightdog37Can't wait to see it. I saw a promo for it on TBN.
I was curious to see what everyones thoughts are about this movie that is coming out this week. If you go to see the trailer on his site be aware it loads slowly (at least it did for me).
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
12 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by freightdog37As an atheist and solipsist I am perfectly ready to admit that both science and religion are nonsense. Science is a kind of silly trick in which the sheer absurdity of what is being claimed is swamped by a mass of details and by the ostensible (but strictly fictional) consensus of expert, independent minds. The whole idea of mechanistic materialism involves an infinite regress in which each "answer" begs another question; but an infinite chain of questions answers nothing. Anyone who wants a conceptual overview of "science" should imagine an incredibly complex castle, forever being modified and increased, but built upon quicksand and therefore without foundation; and even if one restricts one's vision to the bricks and mortar, if one logically scrutinizes these at the most fundamental level, one sees that there is nothing actually holding them together except the mind of the viewer.
I was curious to see what everyones thoughts are about this movie that is coming out this week. If you go to see the trailer on his site be aware it loads slowly (at least it did for me).
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
On the other hand, it's clear to me that, whereas anything intelligible to a mind is the product of a mind, the universe which I perceive is too incoherent to be the direct and deliberate product of a mind. It's more like a dream, containing a number of irrational and defective elements (something, somewhere went terribly wrong) while also reflecting to a limited degree the proper values of the dreaming mind.
I rather imagine a mind -- powerful beyond that ordinarily conceived of, and without certain other limitations as well -- a mind existing in isolation and yet without the need for external support to exist -- that was nevertheless lonely and attempted to manifest a kind of pseudo-reality for its own entertainment, which included certain ideas (e.g., materialism, other beings); but something went wrong in the execution of the idea. Probably things worked more or less as conceived at first, but with certain improper (but tolerable) defects; over time the breakdown expanded and what currently exists represents the moribund final stages before fundamental change occurs.
12 Apr 08
Originally posted by freightdog37I haven't seen it, but the Scientific American podcast - Science Talk - did a nice review of it. They pretty much completely panned it, as you'd expect. They also did an extra 1 hour discussion with one of the film's producers - this is very interesting and revealing.
I was curious to see what everyones thoughts are about this movie that is coming out this week. If you go to see the trailer on his site be aware it loads slowly (at least it did for me).
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
The film essentially sets itself as a journalistic exploration of the issues. It claims to be trying to find out the truth of the ID versus Evolution issue - although interestingly, the url 'expelled' was bought before production began,so clearly they had in mind what they would find before they began.
They make the case that Evolution equates with atheism, and make no attempt to interview religious biologists. They also claim that Darwin was responsible for the holocaust - a little bit of a stretch.
Finally, for a film that is attempting to support ID, they do not interview many of its main proponents, and fail to adequately point out just what ID or evolution actually are.
Now of course, that's all from someone else's reading of the film.
But I wouldn't bother watching it ...
12 Apr 08
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsIf you're a solipsist, why would you think that the universe is NOT the product of a mind? Isn't it the product of YOUR mind?
As an atheist and solipsist I am perfectly ready to admit that both science and religion are nonsense. Science is a kind of silly trick in which the sheer absurdity of what is being claimed is swamped by a mass of details and by the ostensible (but strictly fictional) consensus of expert, independent minds. The whole idea of mechanistic materialism in ...[text shortened]... t currently exists represents the moribund final stages before fundamental change occurs.
Actually, for that matter, why bother responding to posts on a website? Aren't we all simply figments of your imagination? What we write here should be able to be imagined without you actually making any response?
If you're looking for irrational and pointless ideas,I would suggest looking no further than solipsism.
12 Apr 08
5 edits
Originally posted by amannionI DO think that my universe is (in one sense or another) a figment of my imagination. I'm the only sentient being in it.
If you're a solipsist, why would you think that the universe is NOT the product of a mind? Isn't it the product of YOUR mind?
Actually, for that matter, why bother responding to posts on a website? Aren't we all simply figments of your imagination? What we write here should be able to be imagined without you actually making any response?
If you're looking for irrational and pointless ideas,I would suggest looking no further than solipsism.
"You" (the text appearing on my screen associated with the name "amannion" ) certainly are a figment. But then, so is the screen it appears on.
When I'm sleeping, I sometimes interact with dream figures, too. And in that altered, impaired state of consciousness, they even seem to be genuine, independent beings -- except to the extent that I engage in "lucid dreaming".
Why bother answering a figment as to my motives when I am not inclined to?
Thanks for playing. The announcer has a nice door prize for you on your way out.
12 Apr 08
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsSo then the universe IS a product of a mind is it?
I DO think that my universe is (in one sense or another) a figment of my imagination. I'm the only sentient being in it.
"You" (the text appearing on my screen associated with the name "amannion" ) certainly are a figment. But then, so is the screen it appears on.
When I'm sleeping, I sometimes interact with dream figures, too. And in that alter ...[text shortened]... to?
Thanks for playing. The announcer has a nice door prize for you on your way out.
I'm not playing, there is no announcer, nor a door or a prize, there is no way out - since none of this, myself included actually exist, do we?
How do you rationalise your day to day life? Is it all just a dream?
How do you build your moral and ethical stance from this position? That is, how do you decide what is good and what is bad?
12 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionIt seems to me that your (strictly as-if) reading comprehension level is low. I wrote that "anything intelligible to a mind is the product of a mind" yet you seemed to assert, first, that I said otherwise, and second, that I have been inconsistent about this. I note also that you seem to be unable to distinguish between metaphorical and literal speech (i.e., my teasing dismissal of you by way of figurative reference to a door prize, etc.).
So then the universe IS a product of a mind is it?
I'm not playing, there is no announcer, nor a door or a prize, there is no way out - since none of this, myself included actually exist, do we?
How do you rationalise your day to day life? Is it all just a dream?
How do you build your moral and ethical stance from this position? That is, how do you decide what is good and what is bad?
Why should my morals proceed from outside myself? What a bizarre notion. It would remain equally bizarre even if I weren't a solipsist. I can't imagine a sentient being claiming that, without the dicta of men and/or gods, they would have no source for morality. Obviously you have no comprehension of morality, either. What a silly little pseudo-man you are.
In order to answer the question "How do you rationalize your day to day life?" I'd need to understand what such a question meant.
Tell me, mate, how do you keep the silverware from falling off your table "down under"? You're obviously UPSIDE DOWN.
13 Apr 08
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsNo really, you were teasing? Well, golly shucks, I never would've guessed. Must be my 'down under'-ness showing through.
It seems to me that your (strictly as-if) reading comprehension level is low. I wrote that "anything intelligible to a mind is the product of a mind" yet you seemed to assert, first, that I said otherwise, and second, that I have been inconsistent about this. I note also that you seem to be unable to distinguish between metaphorical and literal speech ...[text shortened]... he silverware from falling off your table "down under"? You're obviously UPSIDE DOWN.
You wrote - On the other hand, it's clear to me that, whereas anything intelligible to a mind is the product of a mind, the universe which I perceive is too incoherent to be the direct and deliberate product of a mind. - and I take your point on the first part, but the second seems a little like suggesting that the universe is not a product of mind.
But if you are truly a solipsist, rather than some 'hey the solipsism gig sounds trendy' wannabe, then the universe must be the product of your mind.
If it is incoherent (and what does that really mean?) then what does this tell us about your mind?
On the morals front,I'm not suggesting that morals need proceed from outside anyone. But for someone who believes that no one else exists (or at least non one that you can interact with) I'm interested in how you generate a set of morals to do with your interactions and relationships with these non-existent entities such as myself.
That's also essentially what I mean by rationalising your day to day existence.
As for me being a silly little pseudo-man, you must be right of course, since I am your creation, aren't I?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 Apr 08
Originally posted by amannionObviously he is not really a solipsist. Like most people, he probably just acts like one.
No really, you were teasing? Well, golly shucks, I never would've guessed. Must be my 'down under'-ness showing through.
You wrote - On the other hand, it's clear to me that, whereas anything intelligible to a mind is the product of a mind, the universe which I perceive is too incoherent to be the direct and deliberate product of a mind. - and I ...[text shortened]... ly little pseudo-man, you must be right of course, since I am your creation, aren't I?
13 Apr 08
3 edits
Originally posted by amannionI believe that I stated quite clearly what I meant by "too incoherent to be the direct and deliberate product of a mind". I did so by following this statement immediately with a sentence expounding it: "It's more like a dream, containing a number of irrational and defective elements (something, somewhere went terribly wrong) while also reflecting to a limited degree the proper values of the dreaming mind."
No really, you were teasing? Well, golly shucks, I never would've guessed. Must be my 'down under'-ness showing through.
You wrote - On the other hand, it's clear to me that, whereas anything intelligible to a mind is the product of a mind, the universe which I perceive is too incoherent to be the direct and deliberate product of a mind. - and I ly little pseudo-man, you must be right of course, since I am your creation, aren't I?
That's quite a broad statement, but clear enough as far as it goes. It says nothing about the modes or methods involved. Since you seem to be washed out to sea by any form of expression which does not involve a concrete description, I will provide an instance (by no means comprehensive) illustrating the phrase "too incoherent to be the direct and deliberate product of mind".
For example, say that I write a computer program to draw a picture of a kitty-cat. Now, would you say that the picture of the kitty-cat is a product of my mind? What happens if I screw-up the programming, or the data-file becomes corrupted, or a chip malfunctions, and the kitty-cat is still an intelligible picture but doesn't look like a proper kitty-cat? Wouldn't you still say that the picture is a product of a mind, but too incoherent to be the direct and deliberate product of a mind?
I really do not think you understand the concept of morality. On the one hand, you say that you're "not suggesting that morals need proceed from outside anyone"; but on the other hand, you then immediately ask me "how I generate a set of morals" with respect to my interactions with pseudo-sentients. What difference does the object of the interaction have, in this case, with the question of the source of morality? On the other hand, if you're asking what my ethical stance is towards pseudo-sentients (as opposed to how these ethics are derived) that's an entirely different question, isn't it?
As for your being my creation, yes, in a broad sense, and no, in another sense. If I am asleep and I have a dream in which someone behaves in an obnoxious fashion, then even though it might be said that they are (broadly) a product of my sleeping mind, it cannot be said that they are behaving as I wish, or that they are the direct and deliberate product of my mind.
I suggest that my universe, though not a sleeping dream in the conventional sense, is the product of an altered, impaired state of consciousness. I suggest that events demonstrate that I am at the center of my universe, and that this would only make sense provided that universe were a product of my mind in some sense. I do not believe that I am interacting with sentient, independent beings.
I will not at this point go into detail about the kinds of events I am referring to: however, the fact is that I began as a mechanistic materialist, and consequently I required a great deal of convincing before rejecting the hypotheses that I was mistaken or else simply mentally ill; and that before arriving at the apparently egomaniacal and grossly delusional philosophy known as solipsism, I entertained a series of successively more unconventional hypotheses, none of which, however, was sufficient to explain the totality of what I have experienced.
13 Apr 08
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsI guess what I'm really trying to figure out is how you live your life. Are you married, do you have kids, a girlfriend, friends, and so on. How do you interact with them? Do they find it strange that you don't believe they exist or does this not bother them?
I believe that I stated quite clearly what I meant by "too incoherent to be the direct and deliberate product of a mind". I did so by following this statement immediately with a sentence expounding it: "It's more like a dream, containing a number of irrational and defective elements (something, somewhere went terribly wrong) while also reflecting to a l ...[text shortened]... h, however, was sufficient to explain the totality of what I have experienced.
Clearly your skills are impressive - you must be able to play all instruments ever designed (or imagined) and you proficiency with foreign languages is obviously complete. I congratulate you on dreaming up the works of Shakespeare and the Bible, and all of the poems and stories that your imaginary creations have written.
And of course,on a personal note, I thank you for the life you have given me ...