mad evil scientist pathology

syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
mad evil scientist pathology

 This is about the "irrationality" to reject all emotions, to reject subjectivity, resulting in people becoming like a Hollywood caricature of the emotionless mad evil scientist. Many atheists are affected by this pathology. 

This pathology has the following symptoms:

1 - rejection and or suppression of all knowledge about free will

2 - treating the existence of love and hate as a matter of fact

3 - defining choosing as to mean calculating an optimum, where the result is forced

 

- 1 Knowledge that has the logical form that in the moment X can turn out A or B alternatively, logic of freedom, is currently not accepted in most science. Instead of alternatives and decision most all science uses the logic of force, cause and effect.

The internet is full of such people who say to adore science, they adore facts, and then they don't even accept the obvious fact that freedom is real.... Whatsmore they go out of their way to replace all knowledge in terms of freedom, with knowledge in terms of force. So they will say like that people are forced by some psychological / genetic / environmental mechanism, to replace knowledge about people choosing in freedom.

It is quite an absurd spectacle to see people professing an emphatic love of knowledge on the one hand, and on the other hand surpressing / throwing out a whole class of knowledge which everybody uses on a practical basis in daily life, with very little consideration. 

- 2 The same people will then say that love and hate are some electro-chemical "whatever" in the brain. And as "ought" and "ought not" follows pretty much automatically from what is identified as loving or hateful, these people will either explicitly or implicitly propose to know as matter of fact what "ought" and "ought not" (naturalistic fallacy). Most times this takes the shape of some form of social darwinism, where in talking about the meaning of life, either they say selfishness is right on account of natural selection theory, or they say selfishness is wrong on account of natural selection theory.

- 3 Part of the rejection of the logic of freedom is to redefine all the words associated to free will to give them a logic of force. So this means to redefine choosing as calculating an optimum, as like a chess computing calculates an optimal move, or a thermostat turns the heat on or off. The thermostat is forced in doing what it is, yet they call this choosing.

There is no room for any spontaneous expression of emotion in this way of thinking, altough ofcourse they have redefined the meaning of the words "spontaneous", "expression", "emotion", "subjectivity", "freedom" etc. to say that there really is room for it. It is very telling in their personality that they are coldhearted and calculating.

The correct way to deal with freedom is to categorize between dual substances of "what chooses" and "what is chosen", and then call the first category the spiritual domain, the second the material domain. Together with these dual substances come dual ways of reaching a conclusion, subjectivity and objectivity. You have to choose to identify what is in the spiritual domain, resulting in opinions. You have to measure to identify what is in the material domain, resulting in facts. 

For example; beauty is a love of the way something looks. Love belongs in the category of things that choose, therefore beauty is categorically a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.

Subjectivity is only validated by accepting the existence of subjectively identified things (duh!) So to deny the spiritual domain altogether because it can't be objectively measured, is to irrationally mix up subjectivity and objectivity, and then completely reject all subjectivity.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That is ridiculous bs. I'm

That is ridiculous bs. I'm not even wasting my time.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 A lot of bald assertions

 A lot of bald assertions here - back up what you propose with some form of validation or else no-one will take you seriously.

 

Quote:
This is about the "irrationality" to reject all emotions

 

We're not fucking Vulcans dude. Where do you get this rubbish?

 


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
 Well the big bang theory

 Well the big bang theory tv-show illustrates / makes fun off this sort of pathology. Much of the humor in the show is that the science geeks will pretend to measure and calculate love, it makes fun of their incapability to deal with subjectivity. 

Also history illustrates this quite well with communism and nazism. Dialectical materialism and biological determinism basically ignore freedom, and they both claim scientific pretense over what is right and wrong. 

Nazism is basically about identifying yourself as a player in terms of natural selection and calculating optimal survival. Nazism does provide some room for subjectivity, but only subordinate to the social darwinism.  So it provides room to fanatically accept whatever belief (Aryan Christ, paganism, etc. )  is thought to promote survival.  But really nazi ideology pressed down hard on emotions of people with the calculations in terms of survival that is paramount, resulting in the emotionless coldblooded calculating murderous attitude so typical of nazism. Nazi ideology does say to believe in "spiritual" things, but then these "spirtual" things were said to be objectively identifiable heritable characteristics. 

So you can see the connection of denial of freedom, making ought and ought not matters of fact, rejection of subjectivity. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You're a complete idiot.

You're a complete idiot.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Seriously, you're citing

 Seriously, you're citing the Big Bang Theory TV show as your evidence of what Atheists think?

 

I agree with Vastet on this one. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote: Well the big

syamsu wrote:

 Well the big bang theory tv-show illustrates / makes fun off this sort of pathology. Much of the humor in the show is that the science geeks will pretend to measure and calculate love, it makes fun of their incapability to deal with subjectivity. 

It's called comedy/satire.

 

syamsu wrote:

Also history illustrates this quite well with communism and nazism. Dialectical materialism and biological determinism basically ignore freedom, and they both claim scientific pretense over what is right and wrong. 

You mean when Adolf Hitler talked about Christ being the first man to fight the Jew in his speech and his dedication in the opening sleeve to Mein Kampf that dedicates his work to "god" was Atheistic in nature ?

syamsu wrote:

Nazism is basically about identifying yourself as a player in terms of natural selection and calculating optimal survival. Nazism does provide some room for subjectivity, but only subordinate to the social darwinism.  So it provides room to fanatically accept whatever belief (Aryan Christ, paganism, etc. )  is thought to promote survival.  But really nazi ideology pressed down hard on emotions of people with the calculations in terms of survival that is paramount, resulting in the emotionless coldblooded calculating murderous attitude so typical of nazism. Nazi ideology does say to believe in "spiritual" things, but then these "spirtual" things were said to be objectively identifiable heritable characteristics. 

Nazism had nothing to do with "denial of subjectivity" and denial of emotions. Why do you think those crimes were called/are called "hate" crimes by the people that carry that out ?

When you examine racism, it is driven by hatred, fear, and ignorance. Nazism was very efficient in pumping out the emotional propaganda machine of appealing to the senses of it's citizens.

Why do you think there were so many flyers with pictures of little children and an appeal to "save" them from the Jewish threat ?

Why all the giant festivals, rallies and marches, except to appeal to the emotional responses that are generated by fierce patriotism, aversion to those of other races, etc. ?

Not too different from the way that some churches pump out their message of hate towards gay people and stuff, when you examine it closely.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote: This is about

syamsu wrote:

 This is about the "irrationality" to reject all emotions, to reject subjectivity, resulting in people becoming like a Hollywood caricature of the emotionless mad evil scientist. Many atheists are affected by this pathology. 

Evidence ? Where is your proof that "most" Atheists suffer from this ?

syamsu wrote:

This pathology has the following symptoms:

1 - rejection and or suppression of all knowledge about free will

2 - treating the existence of love and hate as a matter of fact

3 - defining choosing as to mean calculating an optimum, 

Evidence ? Name of that pathology ?

 

 

syamsu wrote:

- 1 Knowledge that has the logical form that in the moment X can turn out A or B alternatively, logic of freedom, is currently not accepted in most science. Instead of alternatives and decision most all science uses the logic of force, cause and effect.

The internet is full of such people who say to adore science, they adore facts, and then they don't even accept the obvious fact that freedom is real.... Whatsmore they go out of their way to replace all knowledge in terms of freedom, with knowledge in terms of force. So they will say like that people are forced by some psychological / genetic / environmental mechanism, to replace knowledge about people choosing in freedom.

Religion does not allow freedom. Do god's will or be punished by the tyrant.  Again where is your proof for these observations and assertions ?

syamsu wrote:

It is quite an absurd spectacle to see people professing an emphatic love of knowledge on the one hand, and on the other hand surpressing / throwing out a whole class of knowledge which everybody uses on a practical basis in daily life, with very little consideration. 

- 2 The same people will then say that love and hate are some electro-chemical "whatever" in the brain. And as "ought" and "ought not" follows pretty much automatically from what is identified as loving or hateful, these people will either explicitly or implicitly propose to know as matter of fact what "ought" and "ought not" (naturalistic fallacy). Most times this takes the shape of some form of social darwinism, where in talking about the meaning of life, either they say selfishness is right on account of natural selection theory, or they say selfishness is wrong on account of natural selection theory.

- 3 Part of the rejection of the logic of freedom is to redefine all the words associated to free will to give them a logic of force. So this means to redefine choosing as calculating an optimum, as like a chess computing calculates an optimal move, or a thermostat turns the heat on or off. The thermostat is forced in doing what it is, yet they call this choosing.

There is no room for any spontaneous expression of emotion in this way of thinking, altough ofcourse they have redefined the meaning of the words "spontaneous", "expression", "emotion", "subjectivity", "freedom" etc. to say that there really is room for it. It is very telling in their personality that they are coldhearted and calculating.

What "people" do you keep referring to ?

syamsu wrote:

The correct way to deal with freedom is to categorize between dual substances of "what chooses" and "what is chosen", and then call the first category the spiritual domain, the second the material domain. Together with these dual substances come dual ways of reaching a conclusion, subjectivity and objectivity. You have to choose to identify what is in the spiritual domain, resulting in opinions. You have to measure to identify what is in the material domain, resulting in facts. 

Subjectivity is only validated by accepting the existence of subjectively identified things (duh!) So to deny the spiritual domain altogether because it can't be objectively measured, is to irrationally mix up subjectivity and objectivity, and then completely reject all subjectivity.

 

How do you know this ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
So what I cite a tv show, so

So what I cite a tv show, so what. It indicates that this pathology is very common, everybody knows the sort of thing I am talking about. I will cite the goodbye show of Oprah now. What it was really all about Oprah said in her final show, what people really wanted, is to be acknowledged. 

Who you are as the owner of your choices, that is called your soul. And your soul can only be subjectively identified, not measured. Angst, despair is associated to not being personally acknowledged in this subjective way. 

Likely your parents told you that choosing was about calculating the best alternative, so that you would come to think before you choose. That way you become more self-controlled, and safer, making it easier on the parents.

But really the purpose of any choice is in the spirit in which the choice is made. In principle the results of a choice are always either 1 or 0, in principle it doesn't matter which way it turns out, it is from dust to dust. And the human spirit of any decision can only be subjectively identified, it's a matter of opinion. 

It is just my experience that many athiests suffer from this mad evil scientist pathology, but it's perfectly possible to be an atheist and accept the spiritual domain. You just have to not believe there are any gods in the spiritual domain, but you can still accept love and hate and so on, are in there. And I am sure that you have socialized understanding of things where you do accept love and hate as subjectively identified. Your intellectual understanding of things however is probably inconsistent with this socialized understanding, and wrong. There are also many theists who have the exactsame pathology. These are the theists who consider the existence of God to be a matter of fact. 

 

 

 


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Nazism

harleysportster wrote:

Nazism had nothing to do with "denial of subjectivity" and denial of emotions. Why do you think those crimes were called/are called "hate" crimes by the people that carry that out ?

This is not the way nazism works, it works with cold emotionless calculating, and emotions, if any, are subordinate to the calculating.  

If nazism accepted freedom was real, subjectivity, then it would not be nazism anymore but some sort of Aryan appreciation society, much as like now there are websites devoted to appreciation of Asians. 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:This is not the

syamsu wrote:

This is not the way nazism works, it works with cold emotionless calculating, and emotions, if any, are subordinate to the calculating.  

So the ardent screaming of passionate hatred from the voice of Adolf Hitler to the maniacally cheering crowds that were fanatically screaming "Sieg Heil" and joyously singing "Deutschland Deutschland Uber Alles" over mugs of beer had nothing to do with emotion right ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:So what I cite

syamsu wrote:

So what I cite a tv show, so what. It indicates that this pathology is very common, everybody knows the sort of thing I am talking about. I will cite the goodbye show of Oprah now. What it was really all about Oprah said in her final show, what people really wanted, is to be acknowledged. 

Who you are as the owner of your choices, that is called your soul. And your soul can only be subjectively identified, not measured. Angst, despair is associated to not being personally acknowledged in this subjective way. 

 

Likely your parents told you that choosing was about calculating the best alternative, so that you would come to think before you choose. That way you become more self-controlled, and safer, making it easier on the parents.

But really the purpose of any choice is in the spirit in which the choice is made. In principle the results of a choice are always either 1 or 0, in principle it doesn't matter which way it turns out, it is from dust to dust. And the human spirit of any decision can only be subjectively identified, it's a matter of opinion. 

It is just my experience that many athiests suffer from this mad evil scientist pathology, but it's perfectly possible to be an atheist and accept the spiritual domain. You just have to not believe there are any gods in the spiritual domain, but you can still accept love and hate and so on, are in there. And I am sure that you have socialized understanding of things where you do accept love and hate as subjectively identified. Your intellectual understanding of things however is probably inconsistent with this socialized understanding, and wrong. There are also many theists who have the exactsame pathology. These are the theists who consider the existence of God to be a matter of fact. 

 

 

 

 

Define "spiritual domain" as anything other than a natural process of the brain.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:So what I cite

syamsu wrote:

So what I cite a tv show, so what. It indicates that this pathology is very common, everybody knows the sort of thing I am talking about.  

It doesn't indicate a pathology. It indicates that:

1) Producers thought the show would make them money, and

2) that a bunch of people perceive atheists this way.

You've yet to demonstrate that atheists by and large are autistic robots.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
He's doing a grand job

He's doing a grand job demonstrating that he is an autistic robot, however.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
 Oh dear. I already

 Oh dear. I already explained all about how spiritual is defined as the category of "what chooses" etc.

You can't validate subjectivity with objectively identifiable things in the brain. Subjectivity is validated by accepting the existence of subjectively identified things (as should be bleedingly obvious).


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:syamsu

harleysportster wrote:

syamsu wrote:

This is not the way nazism works, it works with cold emotionless calculating, and emotions, if any, are subordinate to the calculating.  

So the ardent screaming of passionate hatred from the voice of Adolf Hitler to the maniacally cheering crowds that were fanatically screaming "Sieg Heil" and joyously singing "Deutschland Deutschland Uber Alles" over mugs of beer had nothing to do with emotion right ?

 

As said, all that emotional stuff is subordinate to the calculating in terms of survival. In nazism there was no activity, be it dancing, painting, or whatever, which was not subordinate to this calculating in terms of survial.


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Once again you prove your

 Once again you prove your ignorance.

 

Tell me how these paintings by Adolf Hitler can be calculated in terms of survival?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paintings_by_Adolf_Hitler


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

ROFLMAO !

I guess the fact that I thought this picture was funny, was a cold emotionless, calculated, Atheistic response that only correlates to survival.  Laughing out loud

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote: Oh dear. I

syamsu wrote:

 Oh dear. I already explained all about how spiritual is defined as the category of "what chooses" etc.

You can't validate subjectivity with objectively identifiable things in the brain. Subjectivity is validated by accepting the existence of subjectively identified things (as should be bleedingly obvious).

Oh dear.

Of course you can "validate" subjectivity.

Have you heard of CAT scans and what happens to the brain when it experiences emotion ?

Simply because it is a byproduct of chemical and material processes does not cheapen the emotion.

As it should be bleedingly obvious.

Where do you think emotions come from ? An invisible realm that is handed out by an omnipresent deity ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:syamsu

harleysportster wrote:

syamsu wrote:

 Oh dear. I already explained all about how spiritual is defined as the category of "what chooses" etc.

You can't validate subjectivity with objectively identifiable things in the brain. Subjectivity is validated by accepting the existence of subjectively identified things (as should be bleedingly obvious).

Oh dear.

Of course you can "validate" subjectivity.

Have you heard of CAT scans and what happens to the brain when it experiences emotion ?

Simply because it is a byproduct of chemical and material processes does not cheapen the emotion.

As it should be bleedingly obvious.

Where do you think emotions come from ? An invisible realm that is handed out by an omnipresent deity ?

 

You are misusing MRI pictures just like pseudoscientific skull measurers and face measurers used to identify emotional makeup of people.

On the pictures you see the results of choices. In the moment it can turn out alternative ways, and then on the picture you can see which way the decision turned out. You can also see the organization in terms of decisionmaking in the brain. What you cannot see on the picture however is some thing doing the deciding. The result of a choice comes from nothing, the information is new. Nothing or zero is a perfectly legitemate scientific concept.

Ofcourse it is very reasonable subjective judgement to identify the spirit of choices which result in some particular brainchemistry with love, or hate. Just like it is very reasonable judgement to identify the choices which turn the corners of the mouth upward Smiling with a spirit of happiness. But this is categorically a subjective issue, and no amount of scientific research will ever make it into a matter of fact.  

Now think about it, instead of playing defensive. Is the freedom of expression and religion referred to in constitutions, about human beings turning out A or B in the moment, or is it about human beings calculating the best result?


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:what people

syamsu wrote:

what people really wanted, is to be acknowledged

Angst, despair is associated to not being personally acknowledged in this subjective way.

These statements are absolutely correct--I am impressed by your insight. 

On a less pleasant note, I believe this is why depression seems to correlate strongly with Asperger's Syndrome (a mild form of autism).

Anyway, as an autistic, agnostic, atheist who can be very emotional, I submit my existence as evidence against claims made in this thread. 

 

syamsu wrote:

In the moment it can turn out alternative ways, and then on the picture you can see which way the decision turned out.

How do we know it really can turn out different ways? And, if it can, how do we find out what (if anything) causes it to go one way or the other?

 


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Like I mentioned, that was

Like I mentioned, that was Oprah's insight.

There are various ways to distinghuish freedom from force, which will become intuitively obvious if you try to look for it. Basically you are looking for a nothing that is nowhere, zero postion, zero mass etc. as where the result information appears from. The result information can be a movement, it can be a word, it can be anything.

My advice, experiment on a cat. Just look for where the cat can turn out alternative ways in the moment. And then when you think you got a hang of it, then you relate your free will to the free will of the cat. Which means you decide what it is that is making the decisions of the cat turn out the way they do. Is it love, or hate, or whatever, you decide it in the moment. That is subjectivity.

For as far as scientific evidence goes there is some technical experiment which proves that what "could have happened", the alternative not chosen, can be established as matter of fact. Ofcourse it is very easy to see alternatives chosen, but they aren't chosen alternatives unless you can establish the alternatives not chosen as real also. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote: Oh dear. I

syamsu wrote:

 Oh dear. I already explained all about how spiritual is defined as the category of "what chooses" etc.

You can't validate subjectivity with objectively identifiable things in the brain. Subjectivity is validated by accepting the existence of subjectively identified things (as should be bleedingly obvious).

You can redefine as many terms as you like. Just don't expect us to go along with your delusions.

Stop reading about quantum mechanics. It is quite clear you don't know how any science works.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote: But this is

syamsu wrote:

 But this is categorically a subjective issue, and no amount of scientific research will ever make it into a matter of fact.  

Then if it is subjective, and there is no amount of science that can make it a fact, how do you know that I am truly ever experiencing happiness ? How can you make an assertion about what is "cold" "categorical" and "unfeeling" if feelings are relative ?

syamsu wrote:

 Is the freedom of expression and religion referred to in constitutions, about human beings turning out A or B in the moment, or is it about human beings calculating the best result?

I don't see the relevance of the U.S. Constitution, which pertains to the democracy and the government of the people, having anything to do with whether or not emotions are arbitrated by some sort of spiritual thing or whether or not they are a natural process of science.

What is your point ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote: - 1 Knowledge

syamsu wrote:

 - 1 Knowledge that has the logical form that in the moment X can turn out A or B alternatively, logic of freedom, is currently not accepted in most science. Instead of alternatives and decision most all science uses the logic of force, cause and effect.

 

Show me where science does not accept observable/falsifiable data.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:It is just my

syamsu wrote:

It is just my experience that many athiests ....

 

 

*sigh*


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:syamsu

Anonymouse wrote:

syamsu wrote:

It is just my experience that many athiests ....

 

 

*sigh*

Yes, syamsu. How many Atheists do you know personally ?

EDIT :

    I am still waiting for the name of this so-called pathological disorder that you were referencing earlier. Should be easy to find in the DSM-IV

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Then

harleysportster wrote:

Then if it is subjective, and there is no amount of science that can make it a fact, how do you know that I am truly ever experiencing happiness ? How can you make an assertion about what is "cold" "categorical" and "unfeeling" if feelings are relative ?

By ways of choosing I reach the conclusion. It is not even a fact that you exist as being the owner of your choices, all matter of opinion (Ockham). That's the place for subjectivity. And since you have not provided any other place for subjectivity in response, you certainly don't know any better. 

harleysportster wrote:

I don't see the relevance of the U.S. Constitution, which pertains to the democracy and the government of the people, having anything to do with whether or not emotions are arbitrated by some sort of spiritual thing or whether or not they are a natural process of science.

What is your point ?

You have a responsibility to understand the word freedom in the constitution. I mention it to pressure you to take responsibility for your knowledge in terms of freedom. Bring up your level of care for the knowledge, so the care is on par with your care for knowledge in terms of forces. You probably have excellent knowledge about the way things work in terms of forces.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:By ways of

syamsu wrote:

By ways of choosing I reach the conclusion. It is not even a fact that you exist as being the owner of your choices, all matter of opinion (Ockham). That's the place for subjectivity. And since you have not provided any other place for subjectivity in response, you certainly don't know any better. 

Provided a place for subjectivity ?

Look do you understand the meanings of the words objective/subjective ?

Need I provide definitions ?

syamsu wrote:

You have a responsibility to understand the word freedom in the constitution. I mention it to pressure you to take responsibility for your knowledge in terms of freedom. Bring up your level of care for the knowledge, so the care is on par with your care for knowledge in terms of forces. You probably have excellent knowledge about the way things work in terms of forces.

I am quite well aware of what the word freedom means.

In terms of forces ?

Are you trying to make a point ?

Or are you simply playing a semantics game ?

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:There are

syamsu wrote:

There are various ways to distinghuish freedom from force, which will become intuitively obvious if you try to look for it. Basically you are looking for a nothing that is nowhere, zero postion, zero mass etc. as where the result information appears from. The result information can be a movement, it can be a word, it can be anything.

My advice, experiment on a cat. Just look for where t [he cat can turn out alternative ways in the moment. And then when you think you got a hang of it, then you relate your free will to the free will of the cat. Which means you decide what it is that is making the decisions of the cat turn out the way they do. Is it love, or hate, or whatever, you decide it in the moment. That is subjectivity.

For as far as scientific evidence goes there is some technical experiment which proves that what "could have happened", the alternative not chosen, can be established as matter of fact. Ofcourse it is very easy to see alternatives chosen, but they aren't chosen alternatives unless you can establish the alternatives not chosen as real also. 

More meaningless semantics

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:Ofcourse it is

syamsu wrote:

Ofcourse it is very reasonable subjective judgement to identify the spirit of choices which result in some particular brainchemistry with love, or hate. Just like it is very reasonable judgement to identify the choices which turn the corners of the mouth upward Smiling with a spirit of happiness. But this is categorically a subjective issue, and no amount of scientific research will ever make it into a matter of fact.  

Your arguing this authority and making this assertion from what exactly ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:  Is the

syamsu wrote:

 

 Is the freedom of expression and religion referred to in constitutions, about human beings turning out A or B in the moment, or is it about human beings calculating the best result?

This type of pointless question  proves nothing in the way of subjective/objective.

Nor does it have anything to do with force or freedom.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:I am

harleysportster wrote:

I am still waiting for the name of this so-called pathological disorder that you were referencing earlier. Should be easy to find in the DSM-IV

It's apparently called "mad evil scientist pathology".   The most similar ACTUAL disorder I can think of is "Anti-Social Personality Disorder"--which, thankfully, is quite rare.

 


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:syamsu

Vastet wrote:
syamsu wrote:

 Oh dear. I already explained all about how spiritual is defined as the category of "what chooses" etc.

You can't validate subjectivity with objectively identifiable things in the brain. Subjectivity is validated by accepting the existence of subjectively identified things (as should be bleedingly obvious).

You can redefine as many terms as you like. Just don't expect us to go along with your delusions. Stop reading about quantum mechanics. It is quite clear you don't know how any science works.

Ofcourse it's you who redefines all the words in a positively Orwellian way to make all the words associated with free will use a logic of force.

And they basically solved that whole science thing over 10 years ago.  Turns out the theory of everything is just creatio ex nihilo like they said all along. Now you can work on getting a more refined subjectivity, beliefs, instead of getting more knowledge.


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:syamsu

harleysportster wrote:

syamsu wrote:

You have a responsibility to understand the word freedom in the constitution. I mention it to pressure you to take responsibility for your knowledge in terms of freedom. Bring up your level of care for the knowledge, so the care is on par with your care for knowledge in terms of forces. You probably have excellent knowledge about the way things work in terms of forces.

I am quite well aware of what the word freedom means.

No you don't. Anybody who knew in a practical matter of fact way what freedom means would not respond the way you do.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:Ofcourse it's

syamsu wrote:
Ofcourse it's you who redefines all the words in a positively Orwellian way to make all the words associated with free will use a logic of force.

Projection: The most common theist tactic in the universe.
You're the one who redefines words, you even admitted it. I use the dictionary, because I'm not stupid enough to think I can redefine half the English language and still retain the capacity to communicate with other English speakers.

syamsu wrote:
And they basically solved that whole science thing over 10 years ago.  Turns out the theory of everything is just creatio ex nihilo like they said all along. Now you can work on getting a more refined subjectivity, beliefs, instead of getting more knowledge.

Thanks for proving your complete ignorance. There has never been a theory of everything. I'd have heard about it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
 Ofcourse you wouldn't hear

 Ofcourse you wouldn't hear about such a theory, because you reject all theory which posits freedom as a reality without looking into it.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote: Ofcourse you

syamsu wrote:

 Ofcourse you wouldn't hear about such a theory, because you reject all theory which posits freedom as a reality without looking into it.

So how did you come by this theory ?

Why have you repeatedly refused to provide any empirical data of any type that backs up your claim ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:No you don't.

syamsu wrote:

No you don't. Anybody who knew in a practical matter of fact way what freedom means would not respond the way you do.

Trying to remain decidedly enigmatic are you ?

Again, what gives you the authority to decide who understands what freedom mean ?

You have yet to really define anything other than with semantics.

I have asked you to provide evidence of your claim about a pathological disorder, you did not.

I asked you how many Atheists did you know personally, you did not answer.

I asked you to provide some evidence for these claims, and you have not.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote: Ofcourse you

syamsu wrote:

 Ofcourse you wouldn't hear about such a theory, because you reject all theory which posits freedom as a reality without looking into it.

Another assertion.

Your just saying the theory is automatically rejected without any knowledge of the person.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:Ofcourse it's

syamsu wrote:

Ofcourse it's you who redefines all the words in a positively Orwellian way to make all the words associated with free will use a logic of force.

Since your the one who is taking the position of classifying everyone into your categories, I would say that it is you that is guilty of Orwellian thinking.

syamsu wrote:

And they basically solved that whole science thing over 10 years ago.  Turns out the theory of everything is just creatio ex nihilo like they said all along. Now you can work on getting a more refined subjectivity, beliefs, instead of getting more knowledge.

Please provide evidence of this.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Just for shits and giggles,

Just for shits and giggles, here's a theory : No matter how ridiculous, mean-spirited and badly written a piece of fiction is, there's always someone, somewhere, who's more than willing to take it seriously.

...

Heh, sorry, that's just too depressing isn't it ? Nobody in their right mind would even dream of...

syamsu wrote:

 Well the big bang theory tv-show illustrates ....

 

Oh dear.....


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote: Ofcourse you

syamsu wrote:

 Ofcourse you wouldn't hear about such a theory, because you reject all theory which posits freedom as a reality without looking into it.

Quite the opposite. Unlike you, who accepts the word of a single book without any corroborating evidence and refuses to enlighten himself, I seek out knowledge constantly, and always give hypothesise a fair shake.
And you continue to prove your ignorance and close mindedness by misusing the term theory, on top of making up secret theories that only you've heard of without citing sources or evidence.

You're a joke.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:Like I

syamsu wrote:

Like I mentioned, that was Oprah's insight.

Oh, well...I'm impressed by her insight, then!

 

syamsu wrote:

There are various ways to distinghuish freedom from force, which will become intuitively obvious if you try to look for it. Basically you are looking for a nothing that is nowhere, zero postion, zero mass etc. as where the result information appears from. The result information can be a movement, it can be a word, it can be anything.

My advice, experiment on a cat. Just look for where the cat can turn out alternative ways in the moment. And then when you think you got a hang of it, then you relate your free will to the free will of the cat. Which means you decide what it is that is making the decisions of the cat turn out the way they do. Is it love, or hate, or whatever, you decide it in the moment. That is subjectivity.

For as far as scientific evidence goes there is some technical experiment which proves that what "could have happened", the alternative not chosen, can be established as matter of fact. Ofcourse it is very easy to see alternatives chosen, but they aren't chosen alternatives unless you can establish the alternatives not chosen as real also.

I, um...I'm having a really hard time understanding your meaning in the above sentences. I'll read through them again and try to respond later; sorry about the delay.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No fear. You can't

No fear. You can't understand what he said because it is senseless. The fault is his, not yours. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:No you don't.

syamsu wrote:

No you don't. Anybody who knew in a practical matter of fact way what freedom means would not respond the way you do.

No True Scotsman? That's not real freedom!


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:syamsu

harleysportster wrote:

syamsu wrote:

No you don't. Anybody who knew in a practical matter of fact way what freedom means would not respond the way you do.

Trying to remain decidedly enigmatic are you ?

Again, what gives you the authority to decide who understands what freedom mean ?

You have yet to really define anything other than with semantics.

I have asked you to provide evidence of your claim about a pathological disorder, you did not.

I asked you how many Atheists did you know personally, you did not answer.

I asked you to provide some evidence for these claims, and you have not.

 

 

You write a lot of BS. 

A normal critical response would be;

no the formal logic of freedom is not that X in the moment can turn out A or B alternatively, it is... 

no subjectivity is not about choosing what it is that chooses, it is....

the agency of a choice is found in the brain, the decision is precisely here in this mri picture and consists of a neuron...


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:syamsu

blacklight915 wrote:

syamsu wrote:

Like I mentioned, that was Oprah's insight.

Oh, well...I'm impressed by her insight, then!

 

syamsu wrote:

There are various ways to distinghuish freedom from force, which will become intuitively obvious if you try to look for it. Basically you are looking for a nothing that is nowhere, zero postion, zero mass etc. as where the result information appears from. The result information can be a movement, it can be a word, it can be anything.

My advice, experiment on a cat. Just look for where the cat can turn out alternative ways in the moment. And then when you think you got a hang of it, then you relate your free will to the free will of the cat. Which means you decide what it is that is making the decisions of the cat turn out the way they do. Is it love, or hate, or whatever, you decide it in the moment. That is subjectivity.

For as far as scientific evidence goes there is some technical experiment which proves that what "could have happened", the alternative not chosen, can be established as matter of fact. Ofcourse it is very easy to see alternatives chosen, but they aren't chosen alternatives unless you can establish the alternatives not chosen as real also.

I, um...I'm having a really hard time understanding your meaning in the above sentences. I'll read through them again and try to respond later; sorry about the delay.

 

I will make it a step by step sequence.

- X decides between A and B in the moment

- X chooses B

- Q: what made the choice turn out B instead of A?

- make at least 2 alternatives to answer the question

- 1 it was hate that made the choice turn out B

- 2 it was love that made the decision turn out B

- you decide in the moment between the alternatives, you choose alternative 1

- which results in the OPINION that it was hate which made the choice turn out B instead of A

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Ok, so your view of why B

Ok, so your view of why B was chosen was because X based their choice on hate.

Obviously this is only your opinion, as you're not a mind reader.

 

What exactly has this got to do with anything? What is the point of this thread? I'd appreciate it in as simple a response as you can - pretend we're a classroom of 5 year olds, because I believe I am not the only person reading your posts and having a hard time trying to get to the nub of what you're getting at.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:You write a lot

syamsu wrote:

You write a lot of BS. 

A normal critical response would be;

no the formal logic of freedom is not that X in the moment can turn out A or B alternatively, it is... 

no subjectivity is not about choosing what it is that chooses, it is....

the agency of a choice is found in the brain, the decision is precisely here in this mri picture and consists of a neuron...

Well, good for you.

Since I am full of shit and unable to write a critical response, please provide evidence and prove that I am full of shit.

This should not be hard to do at all.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno