ampage
Tube Amps / Music Electronics
For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum. New: view Recent Searches.
New: visit Schematic Hell!
The sunn still shines online!

 
Listen to great tunes streaming live right now!

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Search for:  Mode:  

Re: success and god


 
10/15/2005 1:38 PM
Kursad Re: success and god
quote:
"You are right about one thing: I hate all organized religion and I will do everything in my power to express my disgust for all things that have to do with organized religion"
 
 
What will be the use of that? I mean, why do you think that a religion free world will be better for all? Is this really a worthy goal? Wouldn't you rather prefer the case to be decided by Darwinism instead? That if a religious mankind is a better fit to the nature (and perhaps to humanity's own nature), why force to change it? Perhaps you think that religion makes social unjustice unchallengeable?
 
10/15/2005 2:44 PM
Pierre Debs
Nothing I say will change anything. I just wish to express my disgust for all things religion. Can I imagine a world without religion? Yes. Would it be better? Maybe.
 
 
  Sunday
Book Of The Day The Ultimate Tone, Volume III by Kevin O'Connor
Have you ever wondered if there is a better way to build a Bassman, Champ, Plexi, an 800, AC-30, Bulldog or Portaflex? Or you wanted to build an SVT with off-the-shelf parts? How about a master-volume amp that doesn’t change tone with the master setting? Everything you need to know is right here, including: proper grounding techniques, wiring methods, and mechanical considerations. Eighteen chapters cover the “iconic” amps everyone knows and loves, with schematics and layouts for each, along with the technical history of the product. Eyelet-board and chassis-mounted tube socket construction is used throughout, for easy servicing and modding. TUT3 is very accessible even if you cannot fully read a schematic and is a "must have" if you are going to build an amp for your self.

Note: The Ampage Archive is an Amazon Associate site. A small commission is paid to the site owner on any qualified purchase made after clicking an associate link such as the one above.
 
10/15/2005 4:13 PM
steve
email

Pierre,  
 
From your posts you've made it clear how you feel about organized religion, and I agree with some of your views. Many henious acts have been commited in the name of God by zealots and followers.  
 
But I differentiate spirituality from religion in that spirituality is the belief that there is something greater that transcends mere human form. There is some greater purpose as to why we are here on the Earth. There is some divine intelligence that does not exist in physical form.  
 
I know you are a hard-core atheist, but does this mean you do not allow for the possibility of God at all?  
 
Just curious.  
 
Respectfully,  
 
steve
 
10/16/2005 1:11 AM
Pierre Debs
Everything is possible, even a god, I just don´t believe in a god. I guess you could call me lazy because I never give reasons. I have my reasons. Maybe.... if pressed someone could label me as agnostic, but they would be in for a long, long, long interrogation. In spite of this, in the end, I lean towards the outright denial of the existence of a god or any "force" which anyone would want to argue is a god: the energy-force that keep the nucleus of a hydrogen atom together and the unexplained beauty and reasons for the existence of nature included  
 
Honestly, I don´t remember and never investigated whether spirituality is a creation of a religion or theist individual or theist movement. Spirit is often explained as that fluid energy which escapes upon the physical death of the body. This is used as a last resort or final hands-up-in-the-air by theists and non-theists alike to argue the importance of human existence; That the spirit is everlasting and carries with it some substance or meaning that sums up our physical presence on earth...giving our actions and behaviours a consequence. One need not go much further to see the potential mechanism to control, through organized religion for example, human behaviors and thoughts. The consequences of behaviours is used by everyone to control. Put aside the morality and/or usefulness that is gained by teaching children how to behave in various social situations from crossing the street only at the corner and when the light is green to not picking your nose and eating the booger at the end of the finger. Religion is constantly reminding us that we are children of god and thus consequences and ......etc....... you get my point.  
 
( if any of you smart alects are going to challenge me on the LOGIC above, you better start by converting what I have written into the proper equations, otherwise I will ignore it)  
 
I have always attributed spirituality to a type of wart on the nose of religion.
 
10/16/2005 3:42 AM
Kursad
quote:
"( if any of you smart alects are going to challenge me on the LOGIC above, you better start by converting what I have written into the proper equations, otherwise I will ignore it"
 
 
I dont want to sound like a smart alect but, Godel's theorem states that there are true theorems of formal systems that are not provable from their axioms. For some reason, human mind is capable of accessing these theorems. (Maybe either because there is something wrong with the current state of the art of formalization of what it means to mean something or there is something wrong with the current computational theory of mind.) (My opinion is the former, and the latter is that of Roger Penrose)  
 
Kursad
 
10/16/2005 5:16 AM
Pierre Debs
Hmmmm
 
10/16/2005 6:53 AM
Kursad
This link has info about the argument:  
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem  
 
It is interesting that it has caused theories about the human mind as crazy as polulating "quantum mechanical access" to the "platonic world of mathematical forms" (whatever that might be). Which sounds like the modern version of the "ghost in a machine" (the spirit that "flies" after you die) to me. I feel like there's something fishy going on around these theories, but I cant quite spot it exactly, but I think that the symbolic formalization of natual numbers mentioned in the theory is lacking something about the essence of the meaning of being a natural number. (Essentially what is says is that a natural number is something that has instances like ., .., ..., ...., and so on, in some fancy symbolic notation.) Similarly, any other application of formal logic might have similar consequences and one needs to be careful there. In both cases, (whether you are reasoning with your intuitions or formalizing everything mathematically and proving your arguments mathematically), both approaches are subject to error), and the symbolic representation may not capture the meaning. I dont know how sensible is the idea of postulating a quantum mechanical theory of mind just because some symbolic representation did not work and did not capture the human capacity of reasoning about the "formalized" phenomenon and could not "mechanize" it, so that a computer would be capable of doing the same. (Indeed, the computational theory of mind assumes exactly that - that human reasoning is merely computation and nothing else and there's no ghost in the machine.)
 
<<First Page<Prev Page 2 of 8 Next> Last Page>>