tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post878981338154864808..comments2024-03-28T02:00:11.260-05:00Comments on A Newbie's Guide to Publishing: KonrantsJA Konrathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comBlogger184125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-86802718180657206222014-05-27T18:43:14.472-05:002014-05-27T18:43:14.472-05:00You're right. Self-publishing is still growing...You're right. Self-publishing is still growing, and authors are more capable of doing things for themselves. Things are changing. Promoting, for example, the new way that people are doing it now is to give talks before specific groups. If your book is a survivors of cancer book, then what you need to do is to get a copy of that book to the head of every group that focuses on that in the country and say that you are available for speeches or whatever, or you would like to give a Skype interview to their membership, or in some way offer to be affiliated with them. I think you may have to just narrow down your book a little bit more than it used to be more, than the general author tour.<br />Anita Diggshttp://bit.ly/adeditornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-37068670072324229322014-05-26T12:29:04.973-05:002014-05-26T12:29:04.973-05:00Oops, wrong article, but still a true comment.Oops, wrong article, but still a true comment.Walter Knighthttp://www.waltknight.yolasite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-34354748140430597472014-05-26T12:15:54.566-05:002014-05-26T12:15:54.566-05:00Patterson is right about one thing, it's not j...Patterson is right about one thing, it's not just economic, it's also cultural. The Big Five liberal New York publishing establishment used to control what you were allowed to read, and now they don't. The socialist gatekeepers have fallen.<br /><br />Now they want the government to intervene. Of course they do. That's the Left's answer to most pesky freedom problems. Walter Knighthttp://www.waltknight.yolasite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-73663164722798409512014-05-25T17:38:25.643-05:002014-05-25T17:38:25.643-05:00Thanks for your blog efforts Joe, entertaining and...Thanks for your blog efforts Joe, entertaining and thought provoking as always.<br /><br />Jude said: <br />“We know (through science) that the universe existed long before human beings existed; therefore, if perception is the key to existence, then the only logical conclusion is that a continuous omniscient presence capable of perception must have witnessed the universe before we arrived.”<br /><br />Joe, from what I perceived from your statements is that once a (earthly) human observed the universe then it existed. Omniscient observation doesn’t play in your view. Science has expanded our understanding that other galaxies exist.<br /><br />Maybe we earthly humans are just an ongoing lab experiment conducted by advanced beings (not a God) from another galaxy. They can tune in to our progress remotely through modern communications (hack NSA’s collection), watch Fox News and see how it’s going. They send observers occasionally in UFOs to get a close-up feel (and maybe to see if we’re catching on). They even abduct a few humans occasionally for observation and testing and return them, dazed but with memories. These people have observed and been interviewed. Think about all the missing person’s that are never found. Have they become “seedlings” for another earth-type “human experiment” in another galaxy?”<br /><br />These advanced beings would have observed the universe before earthly humans existed, therefore it existed. (Right, Joe?) Maybe they have “controlled” our development of different religions to study interactions.<br /><br />These advanced beings would most certainly be sophisticated scientists, with no interest in God(s). Hopefully, they’ll continue the experiment until we earthly humans can perfect our coexistence. But would life on earth without conflict be like a novel without conflict? Boring!<br /><br />What say you?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13650618703761755628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-42715145208051907962014-05-25T13:23:59.078-05:002014-05-25T13:23:59.078-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556511906099897934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-45660997049571615282014-05-25T13:21:30.367-05:002014-05-25T13:21:30.367-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556511906099897934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-43532290818642473132014-05-25T13:20:07.395-05:002014-05-25T13:20:07.395-05:00Joe, Joe, Joe…
It's a bummer--a BIG bummer--t...Joe, Joe, Joe…<br /><br />It's a bummer--a BIG bummer--that you "gave up God for lent, and every day since." Especially if you made that decision based on an 18-year-old's understanding of science and what you call "a millenia-old book written by a bunch of nobodies with no historical gravitas and vetted multiple times through multiple translations by those seeking power." <br /><br />Imagine if your current take on the publishing industry was based on your thinking back in the days when you touted the traditional ways and means that you now speak out against.<br /><br />I was UNDER the age of 18 when I turned my back on religion, due in part to my, ahem, deep teen-aged understanding of science and the world. Since I figured mankind was going to solve all its problems through technology, I went off to study engineering at the University of Illinois. And while studying engineering, I was drawn to faith.<br /><br />Now, armed with two engineering degrees and years of experience with IBM and Bell Labs, my understanding of theoretical science and APPLIED science is far beyond what I knew (or thought I knew) when I was a teenager. <br /><br />One of the more interesting things I realize now is that "science" has always been in a state of confusion. While we understand enough to invent useful (and harmful) things, "learned scientists" are still in disagreement (as they've always been) about the underlying workings of the universe. <br /><br />Fortunately, I know both traditional and so-called "rogue" physicists, so I get some balance. Beyond that, I've come to realize that humankind has only simple, metaphorical understandings of reality. Just as a dog can not understand practical applications of analytic chemistry—they can't even think the thoughts—similarly we can not think the thoughts sufficient to fully grasp the very reality in which we exist. <br /><br />But again, fortunately, we can manipulate what we know (i.e. engineer) to produce some pretty neat stuff--like Air Conditioning, one of my personal favorites!<br /><br />As for my faith, it continues to flourish, under no threat by my so-called grasp of science which, while perhaps more in-depth than most folk's, is nonetheless deeply simplistic and probably wrong.<br /><br />Hey! Let's do lunch! Maybe we can help each other in each other's "delusion". I live in Wheaton. There's a good Chinese place here, unless you know a better place around your neck of the woods. <br /><br />I enjoy your blog, by the way...<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556511906099897934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-90752244969557829172014-05-24T13:45:28.060-05:002014-05-24T13:45:28.060-05:00"Functional religion"? Is that like a fu...<i>"Functional religion"? Is that like a functional psychic or a functional tin foil hat that prevents the aliens from reading minds?</i><br /><br />Religious communities are highly functional cultures. That's why so many people continue to join Churches, because of all the connections and help and community they find in them. Secular atheism don't provide much of that, which is why it's just not terribly popular. I'm not sure it ever will, but that's an open question I'm very much interested in seeing how it works out. <br /><br /><i>We keep teaching our children nonsense, and we always will. But, finally, children are able to see the world for themselves, thanks to worldwide communications.</i><br /><br />Nobody sees the world as it is, everyone has their illusions. You think the truth is out there in the media? Not bloody likely. <br /><br /><i>There is a reason police states restrict the Internet. That reason holds true for religion. If you grow up thinking Jesus is your savior, and you have no one to tell you otherwise, you're likely to believe it.</i><br /><br />Lots of people continue to believe Jesus is their savior, regardless of how much access they have to the internet or modern media. So it's not as if that's the answer. And the people you need to worry about restricting the Internet aren't Christians, it's the national security state and big business. You know, the people who employ all the scientists. The NSA is not a Christian organization, in case you didn't know. <br /><br /><i>Slowly but surely the world is waking up. They best way to fight terrorists isn't war. It's air-dropping laptops with free wifi.</i><br /><br />In your dreams. As if Al Qaeda doesn't use the internet to promote its agenda. The bigger problem is that you can't fight terrorism until you identify who the terrorists actually are. Snowden could help you with that. <br /><br /><i>Religion is one of many things that can give them that. But it also causes harm. Hence my killer vaccine analogy. If we understand human nature, let's give people something to latch on to that isn't imaginary and potentially harmful.</i><br /><br />Really, and what exactly would that be, this miraculous thing that only does good, and can't do any harm? Science? Are you out of your mind? Atheism? Need I remind you of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot? Democracy? You mean like the one that invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm not about to defend religion's many downsides, but the existence of downsides doesn't mean much in a world where most everything anyone considers good also has serious downsides. <br /><br />Likewise, I find it very odd that someone who makes a very good living selling made up stories thinks it's best if we don't give people imaginary things to latch onto. Aren't you biting the hand that feeds you? Do you really think imaginary=bad? Do you think the human imagination should be gotten rid of, simply because some of the things it comes up with turn out badly? What exactly are you saying here?<br /><br /><i>maybe as a species we can learn to be spiritual about science.</i><br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I think I'm in favor of it. But what exactly is spirituality if you don't believe there's anything real outside of material, physical things? If the imagination is unreal and so potentially harmful we should eliminate it, what's left to be spiritual about?<br />Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-37204491953014002962014-05-24T13:37:17.257-05:002014-05-24T13:37:17.257-05:00We can have ideals willing to die for beyond anyth...<br /><i>We can have ideals willing to die for beyond anything supernatural. The charitable things I do have nothing to do with religion.</i><br /><br />Or so you think. But charity in itself, apart from helping one's own kin, is hardly natural. It takes a stand against nature to become genuinely charitable towards distant, unrelated others. Anthropologists have found that primitive societies, when they meet on the fringes of their territory, will first try to find some kind of blood relationships between their groups, and failing that, they will kill each other. Religion provides that universal sense of brotherhood and connection that allows people to imagine themselves related to everyone, even when they aren't really. Except in a spiritual sense. And that helps reduce violence among strangers.<br /><br /><i>We're hardwired to believe in something, and born into societies that cram religion down our throats to fill that gap.</i><br /><br />But why did religion become the thing that societies cram down our throats? Why did human nature and human history evolve in such a way that religion became virtually universal? Why is it that religion came to dominate the things people believe in?<br /><br />I think it's obvious that this came about because religion worked, and provided people with advantages that other things couldn't give them. It created civilization. No secular atheist society every created a civilization on its own, these only evolved out of religious societies that had already done the hard work of building civilizations out of the raw material of the human being. <br /><br /><i>World religions appeared separately, because different groups of people had the same questions that needed answers.</i><br /><br />This is one of the problems with atheists who try to figure out religion. They think it evolved to provide answers to questions, as if the biggest problems man faced were intellectual issues of curiosity about why the sky is blue or something. Not at all, not even close. Religion evolved to deal with human insecurity and instability, facing a brutal world of indifferent nature that will snuff you out without a thought. Religion means “to bind together”, and it evolved to help bind human communities together, to give them a feeling of connection and significance in relation to the natural world, and as a literal firewall against the brutality of nature. It allowed people to cooperate and build cultures and societies that could survive in the face of nature's indifference to their survival. It allowed them to create an unnatural world, a world in which they had a psychic relationship to the powers of the universe, and one that could allow them to build a human culture that protected them from it. <br /><br />Religion is a survival mechanism. You may say it's outlived its usefulness, and there are certainly arguments to be made in favor of that proposition, but basically it comes down to what survives and gets passed on because it continues to work. If it doesn't continue to work, it won't survive. It's really that simple. <br /><br /><i>Many of those questions have been answered by science. If we had a reset button and could erase religion, I think we'd discover things to replace it. Real things, not imaginary ones. And humanitarianism would persist, while violence decreased. Hate is taught, and a lot of it is cloaked in religion.</i><br /><br />But of course we can't reset history. We are not blank slates. Things certainly can replace religion, as you are testament to. But even those things tend to resemble religion, and take from religion many things that worked. All religion of course is basically syncretic, composed of all sorts of things that may have worked before from various sources. And all religion evolves over time as conditions change and new ideas are generated. The question is always about whether something can evolve and adapt quickly enough to survive. Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-10436717182120480442014-05-24T13:25:02.617-05:002014-05-24T13:25:02.617-05:00Giving away sandwiches wrapped in the New Testamen...<i>Giving away sandwiches wrapped in the New Testament is a smart way to ensure the religion keeps growing.</i><br /><br />It sure is. Christianity's growth has, for the most part, been not through war and violence, but through attraction, through making itself attractive to other people. And it worked for a long time. Now it's having problems being attractive in the modern secular world, but it continues to grow in the third world, where it still seems to offer a lot of advantages over the alternatives.<br /><br /><i>Morality exists beyond any religious affiliation. It has been witnessed in children who have no religious background. Sharing, fair play, mutual respect, and on and on.</i><br /><br />But since you've already admitted that religious instincts are hard-wired into us, this only demonstrates that these instincts appear in young children, even when they are not conditioned by their culture. It has simply been a part of nature that these instincts have evolved into religion and spirituality when the children grow up and become adults. <br /><br />Where do you think religion comes from, after all? If there really is no God, as you say, then religion is purely the product of nature itself. So it's a natural instinct that has evolved over time along with the rest of the human psyche and culture. To posit that religion is unnatural or “wrong”, suggests that it must have some other-worldly origin that goes against your very presumption of a materialistic world. So being religious isn't wrong or evil, it's human and natural. Maybe we will evolve in a different direction at some point, but only because evolutionary forces render religion obsolete, not because there's something inherently wrong with it. <br /><br /><i>I define social morality as what is accepted by the greatest number of any given society at any given point in history. That's why it was acceptable to throw Christians to lions, or to build death camps, to those societies.<br /><br />But there is something in human nature that understands fairness, love, and cooperation, because without those things we'd die as a species. This isn't religious. It's genetic.</i><br /><br />The lack of these hasn't condemned any animals or insects or birds or microbes to extinction. Why would it condemn human beings?<br /><br />Now, I agree that there's something different in human beings from the natural order of life on earth. Hmmm, what do you think that could be? Maybe it's that they are religious? By which I mean, that they have the ability to imagine a different order of life than nature has marked out, and a different set of values than is defined by nature. What you seem to be against is not religion itself, but only certain historical limitations in religion. You seem pretty much on board with the general religious inclination to redefine morals and values according to a whole new set of ideals. You just disagree on a few specifics. <br /><br /><i>Which is why Snowden keeps preaching about Jesus. And Thomas Paine died for god.</i><br /><br />Snowden's enemy is not religion, but the national security state. And while Paine was an atheist, his real quarrel was with political tyranny. They had their eyes on the real threat out there. I suggest you listen more closely to their message. <br /><br /><i>Sacrifice for a religious cause is what gives us suicide bombers. </i><br /><br />Suicide bombers are a very small threat to the world. The biggest threats come from national armies, and the technology that science has developed to arm them. Religion didn't invent the nuclear bomb, or chemical and biological warfare, or guns and bombs. Who do you think did?<br /><br />Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-1781071704878018272014-05-24T12:53:32.350-05:002014-05-24T12:53:32.350-05:00Jude, check out Berkley on Primary and Secondary q...<i>Jude, check out Berkley on Primary and Secondary quality distinction.</i><br /><br />Fair enough. But then I investigated further, and found this:<br /><br />"Berkeley believed that God is not the distant engineer of Newtonian machinery that in the fullness of time led to the growth of a tree in the university quadrangle. Rather, the perception of the tree is an idea that God's mind has produced in the mind, and <b>the tree continues to exist in the quadrangle when "nobody" is there, simply because God is an infinite mind that perceives all.</b>"<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley<br /><br />Kind of sounds like what I said in a previous comment: <i>We know (through science) that the universe existed long before human beings existed; therefore, if perception is the key to existence, then the only logical conclusion is that a continuous omniscient presence capable of perception must have witnessed the universe before we arrived.</i><br /><br />:)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16298343190864662091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-22885401596708555092014-05-24T12:44:48.387-05:002014-05-24T12:44:48.387-05:00You can't apply the scientific method to any o...<i>You can't apply the scientific method to any of the nonsense spouted by any religion that worships a deity.</i><br /><br />You keep going back to science as if it's the only way to create credible evidence. It is not. <br /><br />You also seem to continue to insist the scientific method has no limitations. That too is incorrect. <br /><br />And you continue to generalize all claims into one. There is, for example, a huge difference in what you would test with prayer when you claimed that God is a vending machine versus one where you claimed God is an agent with free will. <br /><br />If someone claims to have seen Billy Bob kill Mary Joe, how do you establish the truth of that? You cannot practice the scientific method on that. You can practice science on things you might want to use as corroborating evidence, but not on that central fact. It's the same with many parts of religion. <br /><br />You're right to point out that such studies do not prove. What they do is supply corroboration for a claim that you would then have to judge for reasonableness. <br /><br />But just as it's a mistake to turn such studies into proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, so too is it a mistake to ascribe to the scientific method things it does not claim for itself. <br /><br /><i>We can be fooled by magic acts and slight of hand. We can also be fooled by religion. Which is why personal feelings meaningless when trying to prove things.<br /><br />Hence the scientific method. </i><br /><br />Hence, indeed! The scientific method helps us avoid many errors. But it is NOT iron-clad. And just because these things can happen when not applying the method does not mean they always do. <br /><br /><i>Once of the symptoms of delusion is believing you aren't checking your brain at the door. :)</i><br /><br />Back at you :) <br /><br />And yet another example of assuming that because something can happen in some cases it must therefore happen in all. <br /><br /><i>It is not delusional to claim something doesn't exist when there is no evidence to prove it does.</i><br /><br />True. And I haven't provided evidence in this exchange to do that. I think I'm going to write up my own post where I make the case that there is enough evidence to investigate and study. And why I would conclude what I do. <br /><br /><i>The evidence might be good enough for you, but it isn't good enough for the scientific community.</i><br /><br />Again, I have not provided any evidence here of what leads me to believe. <br /><br />Furthermore, there are a host of no-nonsense scientists who believe in a god. There are others who don't believe in god. Currently <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/" rel="nofollow">more of them do believe</a>. But whether something is popular is no basis for truth, as I'm sure you would agree. <br /><br /><i>But bigfoot won't exist until there is irrefutable proof. Not feelings. Not hope. Not faith. Not sketchy evidence. Not eyewitness testimony. But real, tangible evidence that proves it beyond any doubt.</i><br /><br />And we're back to what constitutes evidence. And what standard of proof we need to meet. <br /><br />Do we require ourselves to meet the standard of "beyond any shadow of a doubt" in history, our courts, or even science? <br /><br />No, we don't. <br /><br />A great deal of science is about proceeding with tentativity. <br /><br />At the same time, I do agree that it's a good thing to base religious beliefs on evidence that meets a reasonable standard of proof. And some personal experience meets that standard easily, regardless of whether a scientific study might corroborate it or not. I also think it's important to recognize where it's appropriate to proceed with tentativity in religious matters. <br /><br />This has been an interesting discussion for me. And I'm motivated now to write that post. John Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16644593323523613105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-51737774278138581852014-05-24T11:58:37.391-05:002014-05-24T11:58:37.391-05:00That would be nice if it were true. But racism, se...<br /><br /><i>That would be nice if it were true. But racism, sexism, discrimination, abuse, the sex trade, slavery, war, torture, and the ongoing stripping of peoples' rights continues to go on, worldwide.</i><br /><br />Yes, they do continue on, and the fact that they do shows that they have advantages to those who engage in such things. Where do you think those advantages come from? Religion? Please. Human beings from time immemorial have been violent creatures driven by hunger, greed, avarice, sexual desire, territorial dominance, and the sheer enjoyment of victory over one's enemies. You confuse evolutionary advantages with some abstract notion of “moral good”, as if the rule were “the good will triumph in the end” rather than “the strong and well-adapted will triumph in the present”. <br /><br />Where do you get the notion that “racism, sexism, discrimination, abuse, the sex trade, slavery, war, torture, and the ongoing stripping of peoples' rights” are bad things? They certainly weren't considered bad until very recently in human history. In the old, pagan days, these things were generally considered good. The root of the the very word “good” comes from the old Latin word for war. The almost universal pre-Christian morality was that those who were strong and victorious in battle were good, and deserved to rule over the weak. <br /><br />Where did that come from? From human nature, from the evolution of our species over time. Nature does not take a moral stand against these things you consider evil. It doesn't have anything bad to say about rape, for example. To nature, it's just another way of reproducing. It doesn't have anything bad to say about killing one's competition. It rewards such deeds. Natural selection is a brutal process with no sentimentality for the weak or ill-adapted.<br /><br />The better question is, where did this notion that such things are evil come from? The answer is primarily found in religion. Judeo-Christianity in particular focused its morality on an inversion of the ancient, natural morality of war and dominance, making heroes of the underdog, and making grand claims that the meek, the poor, and the weak were actually the good guys, and that the strong people were the evil ones, and that in the end, God would ensure the victory of the good guys. It's a genius invention, pulled out of the imaginative desperation of slaves to preserve at least in their own minds their own higher status, and it led to all sorts of revolutions in human thinking – Christianity itself, even. <br /><br />So for you to be espousing such notions yourself indicates that you are essentially a Christian moralist, who simply no longer believes in any metaphysical God. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, only that it's amusing to hear you rant against religion as some categorical evil, when your own morality is derived from it, even if you've lost the conscious historical connection. It's still a huge part of our secular culture. Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-25786891111416043872014-05-24T11:37:31.647-05:002014-05-24T11:37:31.647-05:00I'd say he values controlling others, which is...<i>I'd say he values controlling others, which is what his actions dictate.</i><br /><br />I'd say that like virtually all human leaders, he values that. But that's not the particular thing I think he values in the Eucharist. <br /><br /><i>If we totalled up all the people throughout history that were killed because of religion, I bet the mortality rate would be higher than you think.</i><br /><br />That's not what historians have found. They've done studies on this sort of thing, and it turns out that most wars are fought over simple human concerns like greed, territorial dominance, and nationalism. It would certainly be great to eliminate all religious wars, but if your primary concern is the elimination of wars, it would be better to target greed and nationalism than religion. And maybe take a look at psychopathy while you're at it. And if you want to get down to something a bit more esoteric, look at abusive child-rearing practices. <br /><br />The terrible reputation Christianity has gotten on this issue is mostly confined to the Crusades and the Reformation wars of the 16th and 17th centuries. The latter helped spawn the Enlightenment in reaction/response, but even that came out of the Christian rationalist movement, which had been going on in monasteries for centuries. It became a popular meme to paint most wars as being religious in nature, but that's an historical falsehood based on selection bias. <br /><br /><i>But my point was that religion has harmed enough people that whatever good it has done has been negated.</i><br /><br />And that's an anti-historical point that has more emotion to it than empirical rationality. Which you are of course entitled to, but don't claim to be the rationalist here. <br /><br />Let's be clear: science and technology has harmed more people than religion, by creating such ingenious ways of killing people. The genius of science has been used for some truly terrible ends, and much more effectively than religion. Does that negate the value of science? I think not, but you can make your own calculations.<br /><br />Nationalism has driven most wars, and employed the most soldiers and scientists to come up with ever more effective ways of killing people. So if you really want to go after the great evil in our time, go after national boundaries and ethnic and national identity, and go after scientists and engineers who devise weapons, and the governments who fund armies. In only a few nations is religion a major part of that, and mostly in Islam, not Christianity. <br /><br /><i>Making someone feel a little better about their life isn't worth a jihad that kills hundreds.</i><br /><br />Except that very few religious people mount jihadist attacks. Billions of people are in evidence today who are religious and don't mount jihadist attacks, or who don't even approve of such things. So the empirical evidence is in: religion doesn't have any necessary association with such things. But as with secular atheism, it's always an option.Broken Yogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257804418740860542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-6354130546432656172014-05-24T10:36:05.416-05:002014-05-24T10:36:05.416-05:00Jude, check out Berkley on Primary and Secondary q...Jude, check out Berkley on Primary and Secondary quality distinction.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary/secondary_quality_distinction<br /><br />JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-13700416595090581632014-05-24T08:28:59.782-05:002014-05-24T08:28:59.782-05:00Jude, that requires sensory experience.
Exactly. ...<i>Jude, that requires sensory experience.</i><br /><br />Exactly. And I'm sure a percentage of the population would never believe that colors existed, no matter what that one sighted person told them. :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16298343190864662091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-49754171850209891282014-05-24T01:26:05.742-05:002014-05-24T01:26:05.742-05:00Jude, that requires sensory experience.Jude, that requires sensory experience.JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-76310371043710863792014-05-23T22:37:38.353-05:002014-05-23T22:37:38.353-05:00If we were all blind, colors wouldn't exist.
...<i>If we were all blind, colors wouldn't exist.</i><br /><br />What if one person could see, and she taught the rest of the population about colors? Wouldn't colors then exist for everyone?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16298343190864662091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-52985689002012602552014-05-23T22:22:15.387-05:002014-05-23T22:22:15.387-05:00No person ever saw a dinosaur, yet we know they ex...<i>No person ever saw a dinosaur, yet we know they existed.</i><br /><br />Why do we know the dinosaurs existed?<br /><br />Empiricism runs counter to human expectations, because our brains are wired to accept things.<br /><br />But quantum mechanics shows us how relevant simple observation is. Particle physics, life as both particle and wave, schrodinger's cat, heisenberg uncertainty, quantum entanglement, particles in two places at once--it all requires someone to see it. <br /><br />Our reality is our subjective observances. Nothing else exists.<br /><br />If we were all blind, colors wouldn't exist. We can only prove what we can witness.JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-86603051706228798952014-05-23T21:49:31.962-05:002014-05-23T21:49:31.962-05:00No. The conclusion is the universe didn't exis...<i>No. The conclusion is the universe didn't exist until there was someone to witness it. Only our perception allows us to prove something existed prior to our perception of it. Without that perception, nothing exists.</i><br /><br />That's where empiricism sort of breaks down for me. No person ever saw a dinosaur, yet we know they existed.<br /><br />If every current and future human being on the planet lost the ability to see, would the moon and the stars cease to exist? Or would stories about those celestial objects, passed down from generation to generation, be enough to sustain their reality?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16298343190864662091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-16635339878044359902014-05-23T17:01:15.495-05:002014-05-23T17:01:15.495-05:00a continuous omniscient presence capable of percep...<i>a continuous omniscient presence capable of perception must have witnessed the universe before we arrived.</i><br /><br />No. The conclusion is the universe didn't exist until there was someone to witness it. Only our perception allows us to prove something existed prior to our perception of it. Without that perception, nothing exists.<br /><br />But you're welcome to try to prove something exists that we are unable to perceive.<br /><br />We can assume the Higgs boson has existed for millenia because we finally found one. Prior to that, it was a very agreed-upon scientific expectation, but it wasn't proven to exist.<br /><br />Besides, if we continue your argument, something must have witnessed the origin of the creator of the universe. And then something must have witnessed the creator of the creator, and so on.<br /><br />We base what we know on sensory observation. Science tests sensory observation according to the scientific method. Without senses, nothing exists.<br /><br />But, again, you are welcome to try to prove otherwise. Many have tried. JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-1520507758528211192014-05-23T16:36:54.603-05:002014-05-23T16:36:54.603-05:00Is there anything inherent in objects beyond our s...<i>Is there anything inherent in objects beyond our sensory perception of them?</i><br /><br />We know (through science) that the universe existed long before human beings existed; therefore, if perception is the key to existence, then the only logical conclusion is that a continuous omniscient presence capable of perception must have witnessed the universe before we arrived.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16298343190864662091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-10463177094589304402014-05-23T16:14:38.013-05:002014-05-23T16:14:38.013-05:00LOL! ;)LOL! ;)Jeramy Goblehttp://www.soulsofastraeus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-41309339402242740172014-05-23T16:08:27.084-05:002014-05-23T16:08:27.084-05:00That shit is empirical fact!
I'll believe tha...<i>That shit is empirical fact!</i><br /><br />I'll believe that when it happens. :)JA Konrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778324558755151986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11291165.post-55240888499122551372014-05-23T15:20:57.330-05:002014-05-23T15:20:57.330-05:00If I ever meet you in person, I'm going to buy...If I ever meet you in person, I'm going to buy you a drink or 10.<br /><br />That shit is empirical fact!Jeramy Goblehttp://www.soulsofastraeus.comnoreply@blogger.com