The Golden Compass Controversy
- Thread starter iansales
- Start date
lin robinson
Science fiction fantasy
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 483
Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
Except that many such "alternative explanations" involve things like psychosis, hallucination, wish-fullfilment, etc.
Which could also be used to explain away physical reality itself.
A person's own experience is inviolable. You don't have to believe it, but you can't write it off, then call your results "logic" which SO many atheist "arguments" do.
The guy said he said he saw a cat, it's worth think about their being a cat there.
The guy said he didn't see one, doesn't mean there wasn't one there.
Guy says, "I didn't see a cat, therefore there was no cat", he's making a bit too much of his own significance in the universe.
Except that many such "alternative explanations" involve things like psychosis, hallucination, wish-fullfilment, etc.
Which could also be used to explain away physical reality itself.
A person's own experience is inviolable. You don't have to believe it, but you can't write it off, then call your results "logic" which SO many atheist "arguments" do.
The guy said he said he saw a cat, it's worth think about their being a cat there.
The guy said he didn't see one, doesn't mean there wasn't one there.
Guy says, "I didn't see a cat, therefore there was no cat", he's making a bit too much of his own significance in the universe.
lin robinson
Science fiction fantasy
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 483
Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
The background here is the really funny part.
Atheists always act like they are more logical and smarter and more modern and all that ****... when their belief is not one scintilla more logical, provable, intelligent, or provable than that of theists.
The background here is the really funny part.
Atheists always act like they are more logical and smarter and more modern and all that ****... when their belief is not one scintilla more logical, provable, intelligent, or provable than that of theists.
Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
So, Lin, if I said I had two heads (because with a brain my size, one skull simply isn't big enough
), you wouldn't feel able to say: "Ursa does not have two heads." After all, you've never seen me.
So, Lin, if I said I had two heads (because with a brain my size, one skull simply isn't big enough
), you wouldn't feel able to say: "Ursa does not have two heads." After all, you've never seen me.Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
OK, fine, that's a good argument, though I don't see what it has to do with my significance in the Universe, rather than just my ability to see a cat
And my real problem comes when they tell me I can't do something I want to, because the cat says it's wrong
OK, fine, that's a good argument, though I don't see what it has to do with my significance in the Universe, rather than just my ability to see a cat
And my real problem comes when they tell me I can't do something I want to, because the cat says it's wrong
Reading_fanatic
Smile people are watching
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Messages
- 156
Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
If you claim to have an experience but cannot prove that it occurred then that is not an argument at all merely an opinion.
All equally valid.
Not really as with these you can use reason to prove these
The problem with personal experiences is that they cannot be proved. It can be written off simply on the basis that although your experience is inviolable to you there is no evidence for me or anyone else to believe it.
If you claim to have an experience but cannot prove that it occurred then that is not an argument at all merely an opinion.
That is a really bad analogy. The third guy doesn't say cats do not exist but simply that one doesn't exist in that room so he is merely stating his observation on what he saw in that room not he world.
This all comes down to a point of view as many arguments are stronger or weaker depending on your theological position as you will be more inclined to believe certain arguments that support your view. (So some arguments are stronger to some people)
j d worthington
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 13,889
Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
Given my limited time, I've been really fighting getting involved in this, but I can't resist putting in my two cents' worth at this point:
I'm sorry, but that argument falls down immediately you start really examining it. Unless you're willing to grant a purely solipsistic view of the universe, there are far too many points of evidence to back up the existence of physical reality -- and solipsism itself, while not ultimately disprovable, has far too many flaws as a philosophy to need much refutation these days.
There's an enormous amount of difference between that which a person experiences individually, which can indeed be very strongly influenced by emotional and mental factors, and that which has been experienced, tried, tested, rigorously examined, and sifted time and again by humanity as a whole. The one is supported by mountains of evidence; the other by a personal, individual experience which, upon examination almost never matches up with a "similar" experience by any other human being, so that, more often than not, they end up using similar terms for things that, when you sift through it all, are almost always vastly different. "Physical reality" (or our understanding of it), on the other hand, is based on a very rigorous definition of terms, and an examination of the various aspects of that reality with an attempt by science to disprove an accepted view as often (or even more so) as to support it. It becomes self-reinforcing only to the degree that the testable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence from numerous disciplines continue to reinforce it. This is not something that can be said with any form of theism, which ultimately relies on mystification rather than clarification.
Their experience is a real thing, in the sense that they truly experience something emotionally (and often, because the two are interrelated, physically), but the interpretation or the cause they superimpose on it is not inviolable. It is open to examination and testing, the same as any other experience or view. If it fails to support itself with corroborating evidence, then it is much less likely to be the reality than that which does. In this, you most certainly can "write it off, then call your results 'logic'", as these results are supported by independently existing facts, or evidence.
As has been said, this isn't a very good analogy. Denial of the existence of something is no more valid than a claim of its existence, all things being equal. But, as noted above, this isn't the case with these sorts of claims; and if the evidence comes down on the side of one or the other, the opposing party had better be able to muster up something more than bluster or a claim that one can't absolutely prove something isn't (or is, should that be the side supported by evidence) so. Otherwise, said opponent really hasn't much of a leg to stand on, and certainly can't expect to be given the same credence as the one with all the evidence.
Again, in light of the mountains of evidence on the one side, and the paucity of evidence on the other... I'm afraid this statement is complete and utter nonsense, with no more support for it than for the claims that the earth is flat, or that we live in a universe of "chrystal spheres"....
Given my limited time, I've been really fighting getting involved in this, but I can't resist putting in my two cents' worth at this point:
I'm sorry, but that argument falls down immediately you start really examining it. Unless you're willing to grant a purely solipsistic view of the universe, there are far too many points of evidence to back up the existence of physical reality -- and solipsism itself, while not ultimately disprovable, has far too many flaws as a philosophy to need much refutation these days.
There's an enormous amount of difference between that which a person experiences individually, which can indeed be very strongly influenced by emotional and mental factors, and that which has been experienced, tried, tested, rigorously examined, and sifted time and again by humanity as a whole. The one is supported by mountains of evidence; the other by a personal, individual experience which, upon examination almost never matches up with a "similar" experience by any other human being, so that, more often than not, they end up using similar terms for things that, when you sift through it all, are almost always vastly different. "Physical reality" (or our understanding of it), on the other hand, is based on a very rigorous definition of terms, and an examination of the various aspects of that reality with an attempt by science to disprove an accepted view as often (or even more so) as to support it. It becomes self-reinforcing only to the degree that the testable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence from numerous disciplines continue to reinforce it. This is not something that can be said with any form of theism, which ultimately relies on mystification rather than clarification.
Their experience is a real thing, in the sense that they truly experience something emotionally (and often, because the two are interrelated, physically), but the interpretation or the cause they superimpose on it is not inviolable. It is open to examination and testing, the same as any other experience or view. If it fails to support itself with corroborating evidence, then it is much less likely to be the reality than that which does. In this, you most certainly can "write it off, then call your results 'logic'", as these results are supported by independently existing facts, or evidence.
As has been said, this isn't a very good analogy. Denial of the existence of something is no more valid than a claim of its existence, all things being equal. But, as noted above, this isn't the case with these sorts of claims; and if the evidence comes down on the side of one or the other, the opposing party had better be able to muster up something more than bluster or a claim that one can't absolutely prove something isn't (or is, should that be the side supported by evidence) so. Otherwise, said opponent really hasn't much of a leg to stand on, and certainly can't expect to be given the same credence as the one with all the evidence.
Again, in light of the mountains of evidence on the one side, and the paucity of evidence on the other... I'm afraid this statement is complete and utter nonsense, with no more support for it than for the claims that the earth is flat, or that we live in a universe of "chrystal spheres"....
Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
So I don't have two heads, JD?
So I don't have two heads, JD?
lin robinson
Science fiction fantasy
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 483
Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
LOL
Well, not really. The idea that writing off anything that doesn't fit your prejudices as hallucination isn't really a particularly scientific concept. Much less an exercise of human intelligence and potential.
The idea that "real things" are reason, but anything that doesn't fit the brand of reason of any given observer don't exist is a pretty stunted approach to the universe.
I hate to tell you guys, but the idea that the universe is a projection, or that it came into existence 15 minutes ago along with all physical evidence and memories, or that we are all lying in tanks hooked up to consensual reality feed....
...are completely unrefutable. There is no way you can use "reason" to disprove them. Many such ideas are MUCH more "reasonable" than the universe described by science.
It's the same problem you always run into with atheism: minds to small to grasp waving books and incantations to prove that they are the RIGHT ones and the pinnacle of existence.
Fundamentalism and atheism are cut from the same bolt of cloth. In between are entities known as "minds".
LOL
Well, not really. The idea that writing off anything that doesn't fit your prejudices as hallucination isn't really a particularly scientific concept. Much less an exercise of human intelligence and potential.
The idea that "real things" are reason, but anything that doesn't fit the brand of reason of any given observer don't exist is a pretty stunted approach to the universe.
I hate to tell you guys, but the idea that the universe is a projection, or that it came into existence 15 minutes ago along with all physical evidence and memories, or that we are all lying in tanks hooked up to consensual reality feed....
...are completely unrefutable. There is no way you can use "reason" to disprove them. Many such ideas are MUCH more "reasonable" than the universe described by science.
It's the same problem you always run into with atheism: minds to small to grasp waving books and incantations to prove that they are the RIGHT ones and the pinnacle of existence.
Fundamentalism and atheism are cut from the same bolt of cloth. In between are entities known as "minds".
You always find that when you write off any reports that don't agree with your own (or that you can only interpret in limited ways) as hallucinations.
j d worthington
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 13,889
Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
Sorry. You're reducing it to the level of the individual's perceptions again, and that simply doesn't stand up to the collective experience of the species. Again, you're turning to solipsism, which is an extremely shaky concept from any standard except its own....
Science, on the other hand, is solidly based in collective experience, research, and knowledge, rather than sheer speculation or individual interpretation of experiences. Again, the weight of the evidence comes down firmly on the side of such things not having much of a basis in reality....
Sorry. You're reducing it to the level of the individual's perceptions again, and that simply doesn't stand up to the collective experience of the species. Again, you're turning to solipsism, which is an extremely shaky concept from any standard except its own....
Science, on the other hand, is solidly based in collective experience, research, and knowledge, rather than sheer speculation or individual interpretation of experiences. Again, the weight of the evidence comes down firmly on the side of such things not having much of a basis in reality....
j d worthington
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 13,889
Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
At present, I couldn't say. Unlikely, but possible....
So I don't have two heads, JD?
At present, I couldn't say. Unlikely, but possible....
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 3,282
Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
Regarding Ursa: Almost definite I would say J. D. It would explain why he's so good at punning. Two head are better than...
On the other hand as I understand it Lin's argument (no doubt I will be corrected if I'm wrong) We are possibly all a figment of some things imagination and all the things we take as reality could be the result of some super mind ( or collective).
It keeps track of the all the interactions of the subservient "souls" and for each 'entity' in the system, ensures that they all enjoy an experience which they will think of as reality.
The proposal is then that this 'mind' is god. (I've had dreams like this)
The trouble I have with this vast entity is why if it does exist, it's not very good at it's job. There are so many errors in the system you'd think (given it's had at least 15 minutes to get it right) that it could do a better job of it.
I mean unless this mind is 'on' something why complicate the system with dinosaurs, mass extinctions and all the other ridiculous things that have been imagined?
Another problem is what would be the point. If the imagined things didn't follow the rules supposedly set in tablets of stone then who's fault would it be? A glitch in the system or just more evidence it's not very good?
Does 'it' get off on imagining wars mutilation and torture etc.?
It's obvious that the mind has to be part of the system or it wouldn't know what was going on, which would be pointless. So the question is :-
Is it you, me, Lin, Tom, Dick or Harry that is the mind in question?
I stake my claim here. Although I might concede J. D. as an alternative cos there are times when my mind is a complete mush.
Regarding Ursa: Almost definite I would say J. D. It would explain why he's so good at punning. Two head are better than...
On the other hand as I understand it Lin's argument (no doubt I will be corrected if I'm wrong) We are possibly all a figment of some things imagination and all the things we take as reality could be the result of some super mind ( or collective).
It keeps track of the all the interactions of the subservient "souls" and for each 'entity' in the system, ensures that they all enjoy an experience which they will think of as reality.
The proposal is then that this 'mind' is god. (I've had dreams like this)
The trouble I have with this vast entity is why if it does exist, it's not very good at it's job. There are so many errors in the system you'd think (given it's had at least 15 minutes to get it right) that it could do a better job of it.
I mean unless this mind is 'on' something why complicate the system with dinosaurs, mass extinctions and all the other ridiculous things that have been imagined?
Another problem is what would be the point. If the imagined things didn't follow the rules supposedly set in tablets of stone then who's fault would it be? A glitch in the system or just more evidence it's not very good?
Does 'it' get off on imagining wars mutilation and torture etc.?
It's obvious that the mind has to be part of the system or it wouldn't know what was going on, which would be pointless. So the question is :-
Is it you, me, Lin, Tom, Dick or Harry that is the mind in question?
I stake my claim here. Although I might concede J. D. as an alternative cos there are times when my mind is a complete mush
.j d worthington
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 13,889
Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
Hence my reference to solipsism:
solipsism - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education
And I'm afraid that, for all practical purposes, Berkeley was refuted long ago....
Hence my reference to solipsism:
solipsism - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education
And I'm afraid that, for all practical purposes, Berkeley was refuted long ago....
Reading_fanatic
Smile people are watching
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Messages
- 156
Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
And if you wish to claim we are all lying in tanks hooked up to consensual reality feed as equally valid argument to a testable reality then that pretty much leads you to a point where you must doubt all your experiences and as such end in a place where at all times you doubt what is around you and thus find yourself in the position of nothing. Eg why drink a glass of water if it doesn't exist? Your body doesn't exist so you don't need to eat etc.
As for the whole the universe came into existence 15mins ago and we would have no way of knowing that.
These Ideas are pointless and completely without any scientific or logical merit.
More reasonable is hardly an accurate description as although you can say they are unrefutable but by the same token they are equally unprovable as there can be no evidence to prove these theories.
And if you wish to claim we are all lying in tanks hooked up to consensual reality feed as equally valid argument to a testable reality then that pretty much leads you to a point where you must doubt all your experiences and as such end in a place where at all times you doubt what is around you and thus find yourself in the position of nothing. Eg why drink a glass of water if it doesn't exist? Your body doesn't exist so you don't need to eat etc.
As for the whole the universe came into existence 15mins ago and we would have no way of knowing that.
These Ideas are pointless and completely without any scientific or logical merit.
You can write them off as easily as attributing it to an unseeable/unfeelable/and unprovable higher being. However the laws of probability are on the side of the hallucinations.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 3,282
Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
J.D. I understood the reference, I just wanted to register my six penneth on the refutation and maybe take it a bit further.
Course what I don't know is that other peoples experiences during the last 15 minutes are similar to mine.
A few may have had the lottery winning, blond triplets and 'life of riely' one that I applied for, but didn't get. You know the one where a super being makes the tea and hoovers the carpets for you.
A kind of, spectrally magnificant life, you might say -sorry.
J.D. I understood the reference, I just wanted to register my six penneth on the refutation and maybe take it a bit further.
Course what I don't know is that other peoples experiences during the last 15 minutes are similar to mine.
A few may have had the lottery winning, blond triplets and 'life of riely' one that I applied for, but didn't get. You know the one where a super being makes the tea and hoovers the carpets for you.
A kind of, spectrally magnificant life, you might say -sorry.
lin robinson
Science fiction fantasy
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 483
Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
LOL oh, well that settles that. Hilarious.
I agree that your ideas about "not existing" have no merit, Fanatic. But they are your ideas, not mine. The usual sloppiness that allow people to refute the existence of God by defining the word in terms of their own juvenile images of some old guy on a throne or somebody in charge of making sure everything is good and nice or whatever.
Okay, you all did VERY poorly on the cat in the room thing, but let's try another little analogy.
Do you believe in the existence of Love? How about Orgasms?
What makes you think they exist? (Other than that you might have experienced them...perhaps even in situations involving other human beings)
Try THINKING about it for a minute first, okay?
Ooops, you're already feverishly typing that scientists have used electrodes and EEG's etc to map these experiences and etc, yada yads.
Well, guess what...same goes for spiritual ecstasy and a lot of mystical response states etc.
And somebody will probably say that Love is a myth, it's all really sex and hormones and ****. (Because there's always the same response to this stuff, whether it makes sense of not)
You're talking about some of the most powerful driving forces in the race, but you can't weigh them or take a picture or anything.
Gee.....
LOL oh, well that settles that. Hilarious.
I agree that your ideas about "not existing" have no merit, Fanatic. But they are your ideas, not mine. The usual sloppiness that allow people to refute the existence of God by defining the word in terms of their own juvenile images of some old guy on a throne or somebody in charge of making sure everything is good and nice or whatever.
Okay, you all did VERY poorly on the cat in the room thing, but let's try another little analogy.
Do you believe in the existence of Love? How about Orgasms?
What makes you think they exist? (Other than that you might have experienced them...perhaps even in situations involving other human beings)
Try THINKING about it for a minute first, okay?
Ooops, you're already feverishly typing that scientists have used electrodes and EEG's etc to map these experiences and etc, yada yads.
Well, guess what...same goes for spiritual ecstasy and a lot of mystical response states etc.
And somebody will probably say that Love is a myth, it's all really sex and hormones and ****. (Because there's always the same response to this stuff, whether it makes sense of not)
You're talking about some of the most powerful driving forces in the race, but you can't weigh them or take a picture or anything.
Gee.....
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 3,282
Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
Lin:
OK two things.
1: Your off on that juvenile put down thing again. It doesn't help and it's no way to have a discussion.
2: I think you'll find those that got into the cat's room will think we did rather well. Still...
Before I go down the love exist farce, I think it's only fair that we can examine of your own view of the cat's room.
Now if you have no view and your just putting up coconuts for us to knock down, fair enough. It's just I for one, have no interest would prefer to discuss the merits of Big Brother.
J.D.: A quick query (it's as relevant as anything else recently) when I look at a preview and press back space key the post window (and it's content) disappears. Is this a well known annoyance or just my bad luck?
Lin:
OK two things.
1: Your off on that juvenile put down thing again. It doesn't help and it's no way to have a discussion.
2: I think you'll find those that got into the cat's room will think we did rather well. Still...
Before I go down the love exist farce, I think it's only fair that we can examine of your own view of the cat's room.
Now if you have no view and your just putting up coconuts for us to knock down, fair enough. It's just I for one, have no interest would prefer to discuss the merits of Big Brother.
J.D.: A quick query (it's as relevant as anything else recently) when I look at a preview and press back space key the post window (and it's content) disappears. Is this a well known annoyance or just my bad luck?
lin robinson
Science fiction fantasy
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 483
Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
Well, End, you seem to be trying to be insulting or something, but it's not working because you aren't saying anything are you?
Did fairly well? Maybe if measured by word count. But if the criterion is making sense, I'd have to say no.
You don't seem to be able to grasp the idea of relative realms of proof.
Any mathemetician is aware of that, but not logicians in the grip of grinding axes based on blind faith.
Well, End, you seem to be trying to be insulting or something, but it's not working because you aren't saying anything are you?
Did fairly well? Maybe if measured by word count. But if the criterion is making sense, I'd have to say no.
You don't seem to be able to grasp the idea of relative realms of proof.
Any mathemetician is aware of that, but not logicians in the grip of grinding axes based on blind faith.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 3,282
Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
Well lets say I agree with you.
What is your opinion of the cat in the room?
Well lets say I agree with you.
What is your opinion of the cat in the room?
Re: Golden Compass Backlash...
Lin, I personally find your condescending tone and generalisations to be verging on the insulting and unless you are prepared to discuss this topic in a more adult fashion then I, for one, shall take no further part.
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
-
Golden Compass - spoilers (book and movie) discussion
- Started by Legolas
- Replies: 97