Thread: Any Atheists Here..?

Originally Posted by Box77

I don't know if I get it right, but according to the laws of probability, I think if you evaluate the second code under the known deciphering systems, it most probably will give you a random-like pattern like this for example: "��*" which won't make any sense. I don't know if you could probably get a word from it, and if you do, when you try to evaluate new sequences written in the same system, they won't make any sense because if they do, you should already know the deciphering system. I mean, if the second given code seems to be deciphered, then it should apply for all the codes written under the same system. If not, it most probably should be a very weird isolated coincidence (almost impossible) which will eventually come to light when evaluated, and according to the rules of logic, it won't be enough to give it the value of true as a result. Perhaps you'll conclude it could be a new deciphering system or most probably a random sequence, taking into account the way you got to find it which could eventually lead you to have a collection of sequences written in an unknown system, and perhaps it'll lead you into a new deciphering quest.

We have a million codes, and we try them all, and one gives a meaningful sentence, but it isn't true because the code meant to desypher this is none of the ones we know.


Also Steph, seems my example was a very bad one lol.

Actually, this might be a good example after all. You see, we expand our logical rules to fit more things we discover and study. We connect the dots in a way that fits the previously gained rules. So yes, mathematics is a great 'example', find a new rule that rationalizes the new thing, and follows the sense of the old rules.
But, where I stand is that when it comes to the start of the universe, there are no actual dots to follow. For every new thing we discover, we connect it's dots and create a rule that explains and fits it, and also works with all the other rules we have. This creates a very powerful system, but if this new concept doesn't really have dots to follow, we try to apply on it the old rules, which might make sense but isn't true. When I say a new concept, I mean something completely new, a one that requires to add a completely new logical rule to explain, like the start of the universe. If we can't reach it's new rule, we can't get the right answer, we can't desypher it with the right code. Even if any of our millions of codes (rules) might explain it, it won't be the right code.

OK, to explain further, take this scenario:
Now: we try to explain the start of the universe using our acquired rules, and we get an answer.

Second scenario:
1000 years after now, we have acquired more rules, and looking at the case of the start of the universe, we explain it differently due to different rules.

Third scenario:
10000 years after now, also new rules and new explanation.

And so on...

If we actually don't reach the road of the concept of the start of the universe, will we find it's own logical rule??
I bet not

This is like guessing, we are not actually walking towards it and connecting the dots there to find it's own rule.

Other than that, we can't answer this question at all, because this case is not a thing in the road of our advancement, it's the road itself. It involves the creation of logic too. It's like the logic's backside. We can't connect the dots to figure what's outside the bubble of existence, since these dots are confined inside this bubble, and if there are dots outside the bubble, we can't currently reach them.

So expanding our logic won't do anything in the start of the universe case.

Again, just speculations, giving another possibility, but I keep all the possibilities on the table.

I also love what dreamybear said about the never ending loop

^^ Pehaps if thinking about the start of the universe, we should talk about its ending too, and that could be somehow on the road to follow. Perhaps the universe as we know it, will end with our death. To start again in the shape of a non-existing thing and so on... like your given code (a loop?) 0101010101010101...

Originally Posted by Box77

^^ Pehaps if thinking about the start of the universe, we should talk about its ending too, and that could be somehow on the road to follow. Perhaps the universe as we know it, will end with our death. To start again in the shape of a non-existing thing and so on... like your given code (a loop?) 0101010101010101...

TBH I don't understand what you mean

Originally Posted by LouaiB

TBH I don't understand what you mean

I think if there's a start, logically there should be an end.

Lets assume it's the last human being in the universe. Once this person is dead, the universe perceived from a human point of view, stop existing. Now imagine there's no other living creature in the whole universe, it would be nothing more than particles here and there but non-sentient as we know it from a living point of view. Therefore, as far as it should be filled with non-sentient things, it would be the same as a non-existence.

Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Box77

I think if there's a start, logically there should be an end.

Lets assume it's the last human being in the universe. Once this person is dead, the universe perceived from a human point of view, stop existing. Now imagine there's no other living creature in the whole universe, it would be nothing more than particles here and there but non-sentient as we know it from a living point of view. Therefore, as far as it should be filled with non-sentient things, it would be the same as a non-existence.

Just a thought.

Meeeeeh, not really , because:

1) I don't think there's a concept of start of the universe, so there is no end too.

2) Sentients are just a bunch of neurons, bundle ego, nothing special, just neurons.

If you're meaning the second points as an end from our points of view, no more life, and the world is all about life, then I guess, but I don't think life and the universe is about anything.

Originally Posted by LouaiB

Meeeeeh, not really , because:

1) I don't think there's a concept of start of the universe, so there is no end too.

2) Sentients are just a bunch of neurons, bundle ego, nothing special, just neurons.

If you're meaning the second points as an end from our points of view, no more life, and the world is all about life, then I guess, but I don't think life and the universe is about anything.

I think I'm starting to see your point. If you mean, that all that theory about the big bang and the start of the universe could be a misinterpretation of a different event which is showing up as a start when actually is just a continuous of something because of there could be some (still) unknown variable missing. Sometimes I use to think something similar, although I don't think it's necessarily away from our understanding but as Alric said, just lack of information more than any other thing.

Originally Posted by Box77

I think I'm starting to see your point. If you mean, that all that theory about the big bang and the start of the universe could be a misinterpretation of a different event which is showing up as a start when actually is just a continuous of something because of there could be some (still) unknown variable missing. Sometimes I use to think something similar, although I don't think it's necessarily away from our understanding but as Alric said, just lack of information more than any other thing.

Actually that's not what I mean, frankly not at all. I think you misunderstood my view. Big bang is the theoretical start of the universe...... it's what we would call the start of LIFE, not existence.

My view is seeing the concept of a start for existence as faulty, because it's based on our logical laws, laws not applicable to this concept, and we can't even expand our knowledge and advance our logic to answer it, because this is not a goal in the road of our advancement, it is the road itself, also the existence of logic itself, rationalizing it logically is like making logic chase it's own tale.
Summed up in one paragraph, but kinda a rough summery, there are much more elements I posted before that are very important, please don't judge solely by this summery.

Quote Originally Posted by StephL View Post
I don't have enough time to tackle your posts, Louai - and the others on "logic" in more depth at the moment. I'm almost with you in many aspects and I'm with DreamyBear to an extent, too. But what I would say is this:
It can and does happen that we figure out things with mathematical logic, which make absolutely no sense to our evolutionarily programmed thinking, like that there might have "once been" no time. No time means there is no need for a cause as well. We can't even say this properly with language - but we are able to say and formulate it just fine with using the tool of mathematical logic. This will not help us to "grasp" it. We have a similar word in German, also coming from using our hands to understand - that won't work. Nevertheless - logic will. We will have a problem, of course, with things, which evade our awareness completely - like say - there are many universes, but we can't come to any form of insight into what they are like, because we maybe generally and finally lack access to the data. That's not failure of logic, though - stuff being outside of our scope of observation results in us not having a chance at wielding logic on these data.

Yes I know, I agree with this. I'm just proposing another explanation, that's all. My whole posts in this thread aren't debate, just proposing another possibility. I agree with your view completely, but with such complex subjects, one should have... several views at the same time

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, complex mathematics IS based on logic. We created math to deal with quantity. Logic advanced, math advanced. Math is like a number version of logic. Saying that math shows things illogical to be true, is a false statement. You see, we can handle math easily, so we reach an answer quicker, sometimes quicker than what logic has reached yet. It's like a shortcut of sorts. We will logically reach the state of understanding this thing you call "non logical", it's just that math is easier, and like a stick, we used it to pock and detect this logical (which is CURRENTLY illogical to us) concept. But what I'm talking about is specifically the start of the universe. This concept is out of logic, and so out of mathematics. Whatever we, or math, might conclude about it, it won't be the true rule. May I remind you about my latest example (the one about now, 1000 years from now, 10000 years from now,...).

Again, just trying to propose another view on the subject

Soooooo, don't chose which is more likely, just see if my view makes sense and is possible (it izzzz, it izzzzzzzzzzzzz )

Also, I hope you're actually enjoying the subject and not considering it as troll in your thread, cuz I just realized we've gone so off-topic here lol

Originally Posted by StephL

Oh - but there is one member I like a lot - and what comes to my mind first is - "afraid of acid" - how was it? acatalephobic, was it that? Something chemical, the first part, but not quite. She posts great music and pictures among other nice things. But her name flusters me every time...

Hah, I didn't even notice til you pointed it out.
And it is flustersome because I made it up, it's a take on:

acat·a·lep·sy
Pronunciation: \(ˈ)āˈkatəlˌepsē\
1 :* an ancient Skeptic doctrine that human knowledge amounts only to probability and never to certainty 2 :* real or apparent impossibility of arriving at certain knowledge

(from wikipedia):
Acatalepsy (from the Greek α̉-, privative, and καταλαμβάνειν, to seize), in philosophy, is incomprehensibleness, or the impossibility of comprehending or conceiving a thing.[1] The Pyrrhonians attempted to show, while Academic skeptics of the Platonic Academy asserted an absolute acatalepsia; all human science or knowledge, according to them, went no further than to appearances and verisimilitude.[1] It is the antithesis of the Stoic doctrine of katalepsis or Apprehension.[2] According to the Stoics, katalepsis was true perception, but to the Skeptics, all perceptions were acataleptic, i.e. bore no conformity to the objects perceived, or, if they did bear any conformity, it could never be known.[2]

Kinda fits in with how I was describing my views before.
Acat seems to be the obvious shortening to me. As in, "hey look, a cat!"
Not only do I just so happen to like cats, but my name also begins with an A.

Also,

Originally Posted by StephL

On topic - seems Jehovah is a complete mispronunciation of YHWH, the Hebrew written name...Do you know how it should be pronounced, anybody? "Jachweh" maybe?

I thought Judaism uses the four letters (along with other terms, that are more like titles than names) because to use the full name of one's almighty god does not show proper reverence...similar to the Christian insistence on not "using the lord's name in vain". In a religious sense, it's a faux pas similar to using informal conjugation to refer to a figure of great authority or importance.

It is a distinction that I think is made to instill the idea that god is on a level all it's own. A level of one, in some cases. By using terms like master, lord, almighty, everlasting, etc instead of a proper name...religious texts drive home points about the godfigure that reflect their intended values, making clear to the reader that this figure is of supreme importance.

If even the devout stopped uttering this name centuries ago though, it's possible the original pronunciation is lost forever.

It's shocking how well your username fits into the current discussion in that case.

Oh wow!!
If I had known that - I would have invoked you also!
Lots of thought went into that - great name and thanks for teaching me new words - from a cat to acat!
You're right with the not speaking out of god's name in Judaism - that's probably why Christians got it "wrong".
I draw on my religious lessons in higher school for that question - I believe somebody told us about this mix-up, and that by just taking the 4 letters and doing with them, what is usually done in Hebrew, namely inserting the vocals into the writing, it would result in Jachweh.
So it's actually only two vocals missing, not three.

Maybe HeWhoShapes knows something more, how it reads to him. Hebrew script always, including modern text - for any sort of text - leaves out the vocals in writing, and when you read it, you know which ones go where. But maybe not in this case...
Oh - and I hope he and his are doing fine!

Sorry guys - will check through our/your exchange later!

Originally Posted by LouaiB

This concept is out of logic, and so out of mathematics. Whatever we, or math, might conclude about it, it won't be the true rule.

Aren't you using logic to get to this conclusion? I mean, which are the logic steps that you are following to get into this? or are you just using your intuition?

I'm an atheist. I was raised Southern Baptist, and basically resented every moment of it. I only got "saved", because the kids in church picked on me for not being a Christian... I never truly believed. I tried the praying thing, but felt like I was talking to nothing. Eventually, when I got older I just stopped going to church... For quite a while I honestly hated everything the church and religion stood for, but over the years I've just decided that if I kept that attitude, I'd be even more miserable. Really, there's no point in hating it. And there's no point in senselessly arguing with people because they believe in something that I don't.

Originally Posted by Box77

Aren't you using logic to get to this conclusion? I mean, which are the logic steps that you are following to get into this? or are you just using your intuition?

Lol yeah I thought about that before, that I'm actually using logic for this.
Well, I think it's safe to say that this conclusion can be established using logic actually, because this conclusion is by considering evolution, and evolution can be viewed logically.

Well, I'm just trying to generaly explain this as a concept that MIGHT be at play. Even if some parts of this were to be shot down, I'm speaking as a general idea: Our logic is limited by how much evolution provides.

Edit: I just realized that my statement in my last post about math being like a stick to logic might be a false assumption, because math rule check through logic first. So you might be right Steph, what seems illogical to us but which is logical using math IS actually logical to us, but we see it as complex, and math simplifies it. Maybe, even if this still is the case, I would still like to continue proposing that logic is limited to what evolution has to give, also the idea about the start of the universe being the road itself instead of a concept, logic's backside, a knife that can't cut itself (I love this one! )

Originally Posted by LouaiB

Lol yeah I thought about that before, that I'm actually using logic for this.
Well, I think it's safe to say that this conclusion can be established using logic actually, because this conclusion is by considering evolution, and evolution can be viewed logically.

Well, I'm just trying to generaly explain this as a concept that MIGHT be at play. Even if some parts of this were to be shot down, I'm speaking as a general idea: Our logic is limited by how much evolution provides.

Finally I got your point, although I don't clearly digest it yet, perhaps I'm not that evolved . Anyway, I was thinking a bit in my position in front of a new hypothesis, and thought about what would it be, if I travel back in time and see people using their limited logic back in the days of Genghis Khan (Wasn't this guy another historical catastrophe? How would people think now, if these days somebody did the same he did?) to explain certain events that are completely logic these days thanks to the knowledge gained in the field of physics for example, but completely unknown those days. I guess perhaps it would be inconceivable to think about subatomic particles because they barely knew some fundamental concepts needed to understand that theory. Wouldn't they be saying that thinking about quantum physics could be something out of their logic? I think they would be right, because it's not their logic, it's the knowledge what limits its applications.

Originally Posted by Box77

Finally I got your point, although I don't clearly digest it yet, perhaps I'm not that evolved . Anyway, I was thinking a bit in my position in front of a new hypothesis, and thought about what would it be, if I travel back in time and see people using their limited logic back in the days of Genghis Khan (Wasn't this guy another historical catastrophe? How would people think now, if these days somebody did the same he did?) to explain certain events that are completely logic these days thanks to the knowledge gained in the field of physics for example, but completely unknown those days. I guess perhaps it would be inconceivable to think about subatomic particles because they barely knew some fundamental concepts needed to understand that theory. Wouldn't they be saying that thinking about quantum physics could be something out of their logic? I think they would be right, because it's not their logic, it's the knowledge what limits its applications.

Yes, you make a very good point. We gain new knowledge, connect the dots and reach new concepts. It's the path our logic goes, and as dutchraptor said, we may be only seeing one path in front of us, the path that logic can explain. So yeah, in a sense, we gain new knowledge and continue this path, so since we evaluate each new thing that logic can evaluate, we are in a sense advancing.
One thing though...perception. This path is what it is, a path, a perception. After thinking about everything being a perception, you start to also see that logic is indeed a perception too. But, is our logical perception our overall perception? Assuming so, three possibilities lie now:

1) Existence is a concept inside our perception, and so our logic can reach it. Even though it would just be a figment of our perception (as in an 'illusion' that only our perception sees (isn't everything a perception sees but an illusion since only it sees it that way, if not the only who sees it at all?)), we would solve it's mystery.

2) Existence is a concept inside our perception, and so our logic can reach it, but that still isn't enough ; it's not that simple.

3) Concept of existence is false, only created by the marriage of our logical rules and self awareness(might, probably not, since I'm assuming here that everything we perceive passes through logic first, and not relating to other elements that might disrupt that (is that even possible for an all logic perception? I can't figure it out. Augh, I feel so limited). To try to figure it out, my first thought is that we can assume that logic is our only tool to understand, but is it really the only element for perception?? If it is, then everything we percieve, even the concept of existence, would be possible and rational and solvable logically, but is logic truly the only element of perception? If not, then new concepts would come in, a lot of them not by, or merged with logic, and since logic is our only tool for understanding, creating false concepts ( yes I can assume that it's false even though it's in our perception because everything our logic can't understand would be false, because everything is perception (illusion) and the only true things are things we can understand)

Also in the end, nothing of these speculations might be more than mere shadows of what's outside our perception. Really, Box77 seems to be the most open minded and rational thinker here, since he took the two steps back and implied it first by saying that these concepts from the start depend on logic, these concepts that divert logic from it's basic tracks. I congrat him for his wide scope and sharp detection, because these require a thoughtful and patient person. I'm not dissing anyone else, but, with NO modesty, I like to point out things I notice strongly on other ppl that I have too and love having it!

Edit: Just to clarify for you Steph, because I think you think I don't understand your view:
Evolution gave us senses and logic. We have a perception now. We expanded to artificially study elements of nature, in a sense, expanded our senses, and thus our perception. Anything new we discover, we will search for the relation, connect there dots, discover the new elements (artificial senses) to explain it. We are able to expand our perception a lot, covering new things. So in a sense, nothing is illogical, because our logic can perceive anything in our perception, and we are constantly expanding our perception. So the problem is not our logic, it's our perception, our senses and mental limitation (like creativity). So in a sense it doesn't matter that our logic is limited because we are managing to 'translate' new elements to elements we can understand.
I agree with you, and I also agree that seemingly we can expand drastically, even to cover all the elements of the physical world.
I agree, though I suspect some errors to occur, since some rules we make to explain new things might work now, but aren't true because some other elements aren't still discovered. Think about it this way, even though we expand and spot these errors, will we end up with 100% error free results? Maybe, at the end.
Also, why do ppl assume multiuniverses just by probability rule in QM? I mean, probability means that? Maybe there are new elements we don't know about. Also, can we assume physical worlds like this using our current one physical world logic/understanding? See, a lot of things to consider and bable about

I'm just proposing exclusively the existence subject.

I'll keep your last post for later digestion, Luoai - but seems we do gain some common ground with the one before!

Originally Posted by zaelithia

I'm an atheist. I was raised Southern Baptist, and basically resented every moment of it. I only got "saved", because the kids in church picked on me for not being a Christian... I never truly believed. I tried the praying thing, but felt like I was talking to nothing. Eventually, when I got older I just stopped going to church... For quite a while I honestly hated everything the church and religion stood for, but over the years I've just decided that if I kept that attitude, I'd be even more miserable. Really, there's no point in hating it. And there's no point in senselessly arguing with people because they believe in something that I don't.

Warm Welcome!
Was it a problem with your family, maybe friends as well? Were you alone with it?

Originally Posted by Box77

Anyway, I was thinking a bit in my position in front of a new hypothesis, and thought about what would it be, if I travel back in time and see people using their limited logic back in the days of Genghis Khan (Wasn't this guy another historical catastrophe? How would people think now, if these days somebody did the same he did?) to explain certain events that are completely logic these days thanks to the knowledge gained in the field of physics for example, but completely unknown those days. I guess perhaps it would be inconceivable to think about subatomic particles because they barely knew some fundamental concepts needed to understand that theory. Wouldn't they be saying that thinking about quantum physics could be something out of their logic? I think they would be right, because it's not their logic, it's the knowledge what limits its applications.

This would be what culture and upbringing, environment does to people of other times, places and cultures, like ours does things to us. But if you were to take some sperm and eggs away from them with our time-machine and implant them into a rich and loving etc. foster-mother's womb - there is nothing, which would speak against the child growing up to be a quantum-physicist! Kahn was much too recent and nurture is very important - you always need to take living conditions into account. I believe to remember the official doctrine at the moment is, that we already had the theoretical same potentials since reaching our current denomination, genetically speaking, not sure there, though. A conservative estimate, as far as I know, is placing a time border for this at 100.000 years back. Some say longer, some less long, but somewhere there the species homo sapiens sapiens comes into existence, but we did evolve since then, but little.

Ah - and logic is logic - it is not limited as you seem to imply - it was seen or maybe "found" like this in antiquity at the very latest and for sure - it doesn't change. We only find new things to apply it to and at times expand it! Or rather not expand it, but expand our understanding of it. You seem to maybe confuse logic with cognitive and rational ability and practice - that's not the same!

Oh - but then, I'm editing, maybe I was somewhat too enthusiastic - it's indeed more complicated, who would have expected that!
I just came to start this: Husserl’s Arguments against Logical Psychologism (Prolegomena, §§ 17–61)

In other words, according to LP, logic is nothing over and above empirical psychology

Funnily I wanted to look up Saunt Atamant up for your ASC thread anyway, the thing with you never know what is behind that door, this coulisse, there's this guy in Anathem of Neal Stephenson, who has even a wiki entrance, but not with that aspect, maybe I really will find, what I mean in the text, though: Saunt Atamant - Anathem Wiki
Not that I would agree with him, necessarily!
But now that lead back to Husserl and his views on logic - we're all over the place, I would say!

Warm Welcome!
Was it a problem with your family, maybe friends as well? Were you alone with it?

Yeah, everyone else was a Christian, and I was expected to be as well. Fun times. Luckily they finally got used to the idea of me being an Atheist and have pretty much left me alone about it. I like this thread btw. No yelling ftw.

Coool zaelithia!!
What does your name mean, if you don't mind me asking?

Originally Posted by StephL

Ah - and logic is logic - it is not limited as you seem to imply - it was seen or maybe "found" like this in antiquity at the very latest and for sure - it doesn't change. We only find new things to apply it to and at times expand it! Or rather not expand it, but expand our understanding of it. You seem to maybe confuse logic with cognitive and rational ability and practice - that's not the same!

Yeah! you're right, I mean the results you can get with it, not the process itself.

It's just a gaming name that I like to use.

Jeeezus H. Christ - I just wanted to make a small post, and bring on Husserl once more - made myself a coffee - and now see, what happened again...:sleepysteph:

Originally Posted by LouaiB

Edit: Just to clarify for you Steph, because I think you think I don't understand your view:
Evolution gave us senses and logic.

I rather think, evolution has given us sophisticated heuristic mechanisms, into which's workings we even lack conscious insight. Besides it has given us brains, which can deal with rational thought, and by that they are suited for using logic. But it doesn't really come natural to us - like it comes natural to say a computer, it's often difficult to be stringent and not suddenly start jumping to conclusions for example, without even noticing, or stepping into other heuristic traps.

For me logic is something we have found, chanced upon - something which is perfectly correct and working, even if we all die out tomorrow. The aliens a million planets to the left will have to use the very same logic as well, even if they used completely different organs for thinking, if they want to say build space-ships - in this universe. This universe keeps being stubbornly logical, I really don't think, that's just for show.

This is a view, which is controversial, though - I mean, both our views, of course we're not the first. I found this, funnily rather by total coincidence:
Husserl’s Arguments against Logical Psychologism (Prolegomena, §§ 17–61)
Your ideas seem to be very related with with Logical Psychologism and mine with Husserl's ideas - however much psychology plays into our use of logic - there is such a thing as pure logic, independent of any brains, that's what I tend to believe. But the more I let the topic sinter through whatever mechanisms there are, the more the message crops up - beware - you might be missing lots of relevant aspects!

In other words, according to LP, logic is nothing over and above empirical psychology

I didn't work myself through it completely, but it should be exactly spot on topic, I read maybe half of it now, and I will openly admit, that I might lack the necessary enthusiasm for the matter to follow through with it. But I really guess, you will find it interesting!
What this shows me at the least, though, is that we have a subject here, which is not as easy to decide upon, as I might have thought and come across with it.
Obviously Husserl had some work on his hands to deconstruct the subject matter of logic being either formed and determined by the workings of human psychology - or not. A screenshot:



About the spoiler - I think, it is not adequate to propose logic as a form of perception, and what follows from that hence doesn't really follow in my eyes - but I rambled along about it, quite off topic, and instead of deleting it all - I just brush it under the metaphorical rug, not to need to work it over, or so...

Spoiler for a ramblesome answer on the idea of logic being a form of perception, which I don't share:

Originally Posted by LouaiB

.
One thing though...perception. This path is what it is, a path, a perception. After thinking about everything being a perception, you start to also see that logic is indeed a perception too. But, is our logical perception our overall perception? Assuming so, three possibilities lie now:

1) Existence is a concept inside our perception, and so our logic can reach it. Even though it would just be a figment of our perception (as in an 'illusion' that only our perception sees (isn't everything a perception sees but an illusion since only it sees it that way, if not the only who sees it at all?)), we would solve it's mystery.

2) Existence is a concept inside our perception, and so our logic can reach it, but that still isn't enough ; it's not that simple.

3) Concept of existence is false, only created by the marriage of our logical rules and self awareness(might, probably not, since I'm assuming here that everything we perceive passes through logic first, and not relating to other elements that might disrupt that (is that even possible for an all logic perception? I can't figure it out. Augh, I feel so limited). To try to figure it out, my first thought is that we can assume that logic is our only tool to understand, but is it really the only element for perception?? If it is, then everything we percieve, even the concept of existence, would be possible and rational and solvable logically, but is logic truly the only element of perception? If not, then new concepts would come in, a lot of them not by, or merged with logic, and since logic is our only tool for understanding, creating false concepts ( yes I can assume that it's false even though it's in our perception because everything our logic can't understand would be false, because everything is perception (illusion) and the only true things are things we can understand)
We have a perception now. We expanded to artificially study elements of nature, in a sense, expanded our senses, and thus our perception. Anything new we discover, we will search for the relation, connect there dots, discover the new elements (artificial senses) to explain it. We are able to expand our perception a lot, covering new things. So in a sense, nothing is illogical, because our logic can perceive anything in our perception, and we are constantly expanding our perception. So the problem is not our logic, it's our perception, our senses and mental limitation (like creativity). So in a sense it doesn't matter that our logic is limited because we are managing to 'translate' new elements to elements we can understand.
I agree with you, and I also agree that seemingly we can expand drastically, even to cover all the elements of the physical world.

A machine can use logic, but it can't perceive. Perception and logic are two completely separate things, most definitively I wouldn't equate them.
But I agree on that our perception is not a direct contact with the world, with the data - it's what gets cooked together from the actual external physical signals entering over our senses and from our internal state of affairs. This is following rules, but not resulting in a perception entirely determined by the actual outside physical property measured, like a sound. Our brain has quite a lot of cookie cutters at the ready, when the signals come in, and constructs for us a picture of the world, an illusion, which differs in slight respects from a strictly analogous representation. Especially it differs in respects that have turned out useful to be a bit open to interpretation, lets say. My view - off topic, sort of - because I don't equate the two.

I also can't see, how there's "logic" to pass through - perceptions pass through all sorts of filters, which are set so and so, since that proved to be useful in evolution, logic, as a tool, comes much later, as I said above, I see it as something, which we rather found, chanced upon by observing the workings of the world (and ourselves, and with ourselves, sure - and there might lie the hook of it). We don't have a mechanism to decide if something is logical - we need to consciously do rational thinking, following certain rules for that - they are not exactly innate, even if a bit of it is maybe.
View it as an activity, a technique if you will - you sit down and take care to think logically, to avoid heuristic traps, like jumping to conclusions - that's not what some centre does, let alone automatically - that's conscious controlled thinking.

I've been asking it of Box - and maybe I should have rather have asked it of you - do you equate cognitive, rational capabilities and practice with logic, or do you see logic as a system outside of mammalian brains, existing irrelevant of there being brains making use of it? I tend to think so.

Also - evolution has given us heuristics, see above, the possibility to come to quick decisions, even unconsciously - so there should be indeed heuristics-centres or something for our thoughts to pass through, and for logical thinking, we will also have special dedicated subsystems, maybe. We are quite logical animals by nature, but not in the sense of that it comes easy to us, or even that once we use it, we do it flawlessly. It's rather quite a fuss and an exertion to try and stick with pure logic instead of using all the other nice tools in our heads.

Originally Posted by LouaiB

I agree, though I suspect some errors to occur, since some rules we make to explain new things might work now, but aren't true because some other elements aren't still discovered. Think about it this way, even though we expand and spot these errors, will we end up with 100% error free results? Maybe, at the end.

You could find a lot of internally error-free explanations for something - but that doesn't mean any one of them is true. And if one happens to be indistinguishable from true, if it conforms with all available data, and if you can make correct predictions with it - that still doesn't mean it is exhaustive and final in it's explanatory scope for that something.
There's always the next heap of weird dots around the corner, and suddenly your still perfectly logical explanation has a hole anyway. You need to work it over and expand it or throw it out and construct a new one. Make it internally consistent and in accordance with all available and relevant data - great - job done for the day. Never ultimately and for all times, that's as I think, not possible.

Originally Posted by LouaiB

Also, why do ppl assume multiuniverses just by probability rule in QM? I mean, probability means that? Maybe there are new elements we don't know about. Also, can we assume physical worlds like this using our current one physical world logic/understanding? See, a lot of things to consider and bable about

Do they? As far as I am aware of it, the multiverse is a possibility in the eyes of most cosmologists, but they can't distil it out of QM or anything other (yet). I think, they just noted, that it could just as well be the case.
Check this out - great videos in posts #9 and #10: http://www.dreamviews.com/science-ma...%B4t-know.html
On cosmology including concepts of the multiverse, even simulation hypotheses "are we real?" etc...

I'm just proposing exclusively the existence subject.

Come again?

Originally Posted by StephL

On topic - seems Jehovah is a complete mispronunciation of YHWH, the Hebrew written name. Having been in Israel, I know that the vocals are left out in writing in general, it's to be decided in context, correct HeWhoShapes?

Yeah I just stumbled here again and noticed it way too late, sorry about that.

Generally jews don't prenounce that name (it's god's true name after all!!) I don't really know if it's mispronounced but I know that when people do pronounce it it's "Yehova" and it's written יהוה in hebrew. thinks this answers your question!

Ah! An actual myth busted! So "Jehova" seems basically correct, and what I was told in school + read lately = probably bull. Thank you - good to know!


So - I have come across a very controversial Canadian woman, Karen Straughan. I posted a video of her's on the dangers of ideological thinking somewhere else, because she also grazes upon dogmatism in the scientific community, which exists of course, unfortunately. Anyway - so I found her - and she impresses me a lot with her intelligence and eloquence.
I'm not well versed in the gender topic - what I know, is that I have read a lot of nasty stuff from self-proclaimed, esp. radical feminists. And so I had long ago switched from "coffee-house-feminism" as a youngster to "don't really give a shit" upon realizing, it's not equivalent to Humanism. I know almost nothing about the MRM - Men's Right's Movement, and who might be spewing nastiness there, and in which ways, though - but she's a declared activist (MRA) and decidedly ideologically un-nasty at least in my view and as far as I listened to her. Well - if you're open-mindedly actually listening, that is.

Whatever - I thought she is so clever - she surely has something to say on religion/atheism. And so she does - but not as I had expected.

This has a backdrop, which I also didn't yet explore intensely - buut - seems the atheist community has been in some troubles with their internal feminists, one woman claimed to have been invited by a guy from a convention to come have a coffee with him in his room. This after having been at the bar, and she felt cornered, because he asked her in an elevator. She said no and slept out her self-confessed inebriation alone, without notifying somebody about the evil elevator-inviter, who was free to go on with his horrible affairs... To then in the next morning claim sexual assault just for him inviting her in a closed space (her own version). That's called "elevator-gate" - oh - and she failed to identify the guy on top of it all, claiming problems with face-recognition. What is not nice at all - she gave the message out, and loudly, that women aren't safe with the atheist community. Seems there were more harmless, but nonetheless quite disturbing things going down, with trying to impede free speech, etc - that just from a cursory look around youtube.
Get a fluffing grip, girls!
That's what many people seemed to have thought, and so they came to subscribe to Karen's youtube channel, because she had made the affair a topic for one of her videos.
What follows now is her, not exactly warmly, saying welcome to her new atheist friends, and heaping criticism on the "atheism+", or "atheism doubleplusgood", or "atheism+ideology" camps, of which's very existence I used to be ignorant as well.

While I still think, it makes sense to answer to the claim, that religions are beneficial to people with counter-examples, and while such are not brought forward fallaciously to disprove god, not usually, I do really like her reasoning on how doing this can easily completely backfire - she made me think again, which can't be bad.



You'd need to listen with attention - what she starts out with for example is dismantling an argument against feminism, which doesn't make sense. She has a lot of her own arguments, but starts with taking one apart, which was presented by an atheist, and I think, it might be easy to miss or misunderstand something, if you listen to it on the side of doing something else.

I would really strongly suggest, that you begin watching it from 17:45 min., from where she will stay specifically with atheism, in order not to fall prey to reflexively reacting with rejection before getting there. You'd be jumping over most of the gender-stuff like that, and if you think, she makes sense, you can and probably will get back to the beginning anyway, slightly prepared for hearing unusual things.

What then does she think, the atheist community "asked for"?
First off - she's an atheist herself, but solely on the basis of the complete lack of valid evidence, which would give veracity to the god-concept, and not because of the consequences, which religion might have. She says it right out - if religion was shown without doubt to be good and even necessary to police a relevant part of humanity, threaten it with eternal damnation, in order to not have them drop all morality - she would still be an atheist.
Of course so would I!
She has good points to make against emotional arguments and the appeal to consequences.

Yepp - you will invite irrationality and dogmatism and ideological shit into your house by going about "recruiting" people primarily with such sentiments.
Even while "emotional arguments get shit done" - a lesson to be learned from feminism, as she puts it.
It's also surely true that some people drawn to atheism don't care about sceptical thought, but just "don't like what god has to say", and this is indeed not exactly a reasonable motive, bound to lead to squabbles, as they are actually occurring.

So - I feel inspired by this woman - needed to check the sources she mentions on some things, and I only saw two videos by now, but she doesn't seem to me as somebody inventing evidence. I already know, but only since recently, that there's for example indeed quite a lot of sexual abuse women on boys going on. A friend's husband, who is a German director will soon have his new movie out on exactly that, and he has told me he did extensive research around this very, very taboo topic. Which hence gets no attention from the state, and only recently from science. Similar to some of what she says, I suppose, like male rape-victims, for example from war-zones, only lately getting counted, but also not being met by any organized assistance.
Do I need to say it? Of course I'm not a rape-apologist for men on women rape, the most common type, and nor is she! It's not the only type, though.

What do you guys - and gals (hopefully plural!) - think about what she has to say on atheism, or her main topic of choice, or about her?

Aaaahh, now I get your point Steph òuó
Pure logic, and creatures try to wrap their brains into understanding it.
So this assumes there is a correct code for the universe, and logic isn't perception, it is how much we understand of the pure code, pure logic. And perception is our senses and current "logical level". So logic isn't a tool as in a mere way to try to make sense of the world for us to understand it and survive, mold itself around new aspects to explain them, and filters, or irrationals, the rest that doesn't help with that.
So existence as all is a concept that:
1) Exists and is explained in the deeper depths of pure logic, or
2)Still might be a false concept created by 'errors', or imperfection in our human minds, and isn't part of the pure logic.

Wow I managed to leap to another rock!

Truly we can't determine which is true yet, though (?)(Logical Psychologism or pure logic). Both seem possible, and explain closely our experiences, though pure logic seems to rely on less assumptions.

In these times I just sit down and say to myself : "They both seem probable . Is it because they both are, or because I'm too dumb to grasp them properly?" lol

Also thnx for the links!

About that last sentence, I meant that we logically can explain our perception and expand our perception to involve all elements, but existence itself can't be rationalized or dealt with using perception of the physical world because it's too drastic.

Pure logic gives one reality and one expanding mind trying to grasp the pure logic of the world.

Logical psychologism gives a reality for each perspective, with it changing as the perception expands (since logic expands with it to create logical dots that fit), and so reality also is very solid in the vie of one specific LP perception at each point in time since the experience of life is only with the dots that the perception included and logic connected.

Considering survival, why would creatures evolve a perception of their own when facing one constant physical reality? It gaining a sense of it's own to survive does seem unlikely in a physical place that is constant to all creatures and realities(perceptual realities). But I defend that a constant physical reality law is only a figment of our perception too, since everything is inside our perception (here defending logical psychologism).

So, really, both seem likely, we can't really tell.
Again, pure logic uses much less assumptions, and I'm really considering it now, but still, if LP is the case, we would still stand here. So, we can tell that it is pure logic when we expand our logic some more from now, but if it is LP, we can't really tell(assuming perception can't catch itself if it is the CREATOR of the reality (imphasize creator, and not just view of reality(which seems the case in pure logic)).