 
|
This board is closed to new users and new posts. Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years. Details here.
|
|
The Free Talk Live BBS
Profile of theCelestrian
Show Posts Messages
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
166
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: March 13, 2007, 12:17:54 PM »
OH MY SCIENCE!
167
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: March 13, 2007, 10:24:08 AM »
I like this response, Gene. You actually addressed everything I said:
Sure.
True, to a point. Religion and government aside, the difference is those "unknowns" are explored, not practiced, until "proven." It's only when they're proven (ideally) that we use it as part of our day-to-day existence.
Hmmm. Consistent answer at least.
I addressed this above, like I said, it's a good point.... to a point.
This still revolves around faith. Why not embrace the reality that there is no one fit to rule over me (in all of "eternity" or "existence") but myself? I can't control the actions of others, nor can I "get the lowdown" from "God." So why is faith necessary, and how is a dogmatic adherence to an unknown not "cult like behavior?"
I'd rather put faith in myself than either the E.B., G.W., J.C., M.i.B, T.L.C, M&M, etc...
Anarchy: Okay, "more sensible" ... for the purpose of my question this works.
Christian: Still not quite clear on how this is the "only sensible answer."
I don't mind discussing theology and metaphysics with you, if this is where you want to go, but I would suggest having a new thread for that one, since this relates to C.A. being the "only sensible answer."
Quote
It is not "necessarily" or "inherantly" sensible, but it can be sensible.
Sure.
Quote
Every unknown throughout history was once considered unsensible until it was proven to be true.
True, to a point. Religion and government aside, the difference is those "unknowns" are explored, not practiced, until "proven." It's only when they're proven (ideally) that we use it as part of our day-to-day existence.
Quote
Yes, I believe that "satanic anarchy" or any other religious choice, would be more sensible than the cult of government...
Hmmm. Consistent answer at least.
Quote
And we would not have any of the "discoveries" of the past that prior to the "event" of their discoveries, were "unknown"...
I addressed this above, like I said, it's a good point.... to a point.
Quote
Becase a secular view puts your faith in your fellow man to rule over you. I'd rather put my faith in the Easter Bunny than in G.W. My faith is in an omnipotent omnipowerful perfect Creator. Sounds better to me...
This still revolves around faith. Why not embrace the reality that there is no one fit to rule over me (in all of "eternity" or "existence") but myself? I can't control the actions of others, nor can I "get the lowdown" from "God." So why is faith necessary, and how is a dogmatic adherence to an unknown not "cult like behavior?"
I'd rather put faith in myself than either the E.B., G.W., J.C., M.i.B, T.L.C, M&M, etc...
Quote
Anarchy is a more sensible answer for how man relates to man. The "Christian" part is for how man relates to eternity...
Anarchy: Okay, "more sensible" ... for the purpose of my question this works.
Christian: Still not quite clear on how this is the "only sensible answer."
I don't mind discussing theology and metaphysics with you, if this is where you want to go, but I would suggest having a new thread for that one, since this relates to C.A. being the "only sensible answer."
168
General / Re: Free Thought Association Game
« on: March 13, 2007, 09:48:35 AM »
"Nice web, Mr. Crack Spider."
170
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: March 13, 2007, 01:42:45 AM »Quote
Because I place my "faith" in a Creator/Father who I believe made us and cares for us.
Alright, that's fine, as long as you recognize that this is indeed "faith," which is not necessarily nor inherantly sensible.
Quote
I have no "faith" in fellow men having some pretend authority over me by virtue of their unfounded "belief" in a "fictious" entity called "government".
Again, also fine. I have my own quandries about anarchy which I've already covered, but it least in desire you and I are on the same page on this point.
Quote
Now although I cannot prove or disprove the existance of God, I can and have proven that "government" is a fiction and those who believe in it are exhibiting cult like behaviour...
Here is where you and I part ways. Simply because God is still (always will be) an "unproven value" does not all of the sudden render it "valid" when placed next to a value that has been widely agreed to be (at least on this forum) a "fiction." I can't prove that what you would consider to be "Satan" is the "one true god" or not, and that his "anti-morality" is the one morality designed for man, does that make a "satanic anarchy" (or insert any religion of your choice here) more "sensible" than government?
It would seem "sensible" to treat all unkown values as just that, "unknown".... and to try and limit (or eliminate entirely) these from the foundations of our logic and reasoning. As I said before, I'll never know if God exists, so he/she/it doesn't enter my "equations" in my daily life or how I relate to other human beings.
--------------------------
Interesting you mention "cult like" behavior, which the entymology of that concept is a religious one. Can I also make the inferrence that the vast majority of Christians, Jews, Muslims, [insert religion of you choice here] are also exhibiting "cult like" behavior?
If so, how does this make a "religious" faith more sensible than a "secular" one?
If not, please explain to me how it isn't, as it seems what you're talking about with your "faith" and the "faith" of others in government are similiar, if not the same.
--------------------------
Summation: I can't see how you can make the claim of fact that "Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer" when the very pillar of your position rests upon something that is subjective, unprovable and ultimately circular in nature. It's also something that niether you nor I will convince each other of, so I can respect your position and understand at the end of the day, we're both human beings and we both want more freedoms.
...but isn't it interesting that I don't need a "God" or "faith" to come to that conclusion?
Wouldn't "Anarchy" be a more sensible answer?
171
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: March 13, 2007, 12:45:00 AM »
Sorry guys, I can't help myself:
Alright, Gene. I respect this position. You have just admitted that you cannot prove, nor disprove the existence of God, nor can we conclude the prediction of the "big bang/big crunch" theory until we have measurement and observation. Alright, we're on the same page so far.
So let's sum this up:
1. God can niether be proved nor disproved. (I contend we'll never be able to, other disagree)
2. Trying to Prove the existence of God is a fool's folly.
3. A "fool's folly" is not a "sensible" course of action.
So:
How is Christian Anarchy the only "sensible" answer again?
Quote
Also, I've stated in the past and I'm re-iterating it now for the uninformed that there is no way to "prove" God (or to disprove) and that is not now nor has it ever been my intent. Such an attempt would be fools folly.
Alright, Gene. I respect this position. You have just admitted that you cannot prove, nor disprove the existence of God, nor can we conclude the prediction of the "big bang/big crunch" theory until we have measurement and observation. Alright, we're on the same page so far.
So let's sum this up:
1. God can niether be proved nor disproved. (I contend we'll never be able to, other disagree)
2. Trying to Prove the existence of God is a fool's folly.
3. A "fool's folly" is not a "sensible" course of action.
So:
How is Christian Anarchy the only "sensible" answer again?
172
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: March 11, 2007, 06:57:41 PM »
Sure, Gene, but there's other part of the allegory you seem to either be missing or ignoring.
1. In this Allegory, there's at least 3 "gods" (the programmer, the hardware manufacturer, and the IDE developer(s)) - with the strong likelyhood of more (I didnt take into account the chip designers, Hard Drive Manufacturers, RAM manufactueres....etc). These are all seperate entities. Does this mean that "polytheism" is the more "sensible" answer?
2. "Free will" is a fiction that is "concluded" as a result of looking through the "computiverse" from the inside (an example of this: "centrifugal" force; which is merely "centripital" force observe from the perspective of the moving object, or similarly the "coriolis" effect), when one of those "variables" consisting of a collection of single electrical pulses is being "random" or "contrary" to the rest of the variables, that's exactly what I wanted it to do, even if it thinks and other "variables" tell it otherwise.
3. It's just allegory. Maybe it's a good analogy for what you're trying to prove, but it's still not exactly the same. I had lots of tools not of my design, making, knowledge or expertise that was needed to make this program run. Add electricity and a multitude of other "computiverses" out there to the mix, and while I might be "God" of the program, I was merely one conciousness that was able to create something in a limited capacity, which combined with others to create the "grand design".
4. My central point was, and is, is that even IF God existed, looking on the inside of "his creation" means that we'll never be able to know or prove if he/she/it really did it, or if it's a series of actions not by random chance or actions, but a physical universe that follows a set of mechanical laws that are intrinsic to this state of being. I'll cover this a little more in a second.
Therefore, I don't need to look to God to make my life more fulfilling or give my existence "purpose."
1. Every action brings more disorder to the Universe. See: Second Law of Thermodynamics -> entropy.
2. You mentioned Chaos Theory, I would point to Quantum Mechanics instead - your CRT TV works around the fact that we can't measure or predict the path the electrons take when they are shot out of the the Cathode - thus as far as we know... it's completely random, but it somehow works and creates perfectly ordered "pictures" that our brains can translate.
3. Maybe there's a "big crunch" as the result of gravitational forces slowly and inexorably coalescing in a timeframe far to long for me to comprehend, but I don't know. We can make "predictions," but those are just that until they are verified with observation and measurement...and again we're still within "the box" so to speak.
------------------------------
Again: I don't know, I'll never know, and really, niether will you. However, I'm not really stoked on the idea of a wrathful, jealous God who is going to scratch my name from the book of Life because I simply was using the brain he/she/it "gave me" and lived my life as his "omnipotence" intended (see point #2).
1. In this Allegory, there's at least 3 "gods" (the programmer, the hardware manufacturer, and the IDE developer(s)) - with the strong likelyhood of more (I didnt take into account the chip designers, Hard Drive Manufacturers, RAM manufactueres....etc). These are all seperate entities. Does this mean that "polytheism" is the more "sensible" answer?
2. "Free will" is a fiction that is "concluded" as a result of looking through the "computiverse" from the inside (an example of this: "centrifugal" force; which is merely "centripital" force observe from the perspective of the moving object, or similarly the "coriolis" effect), when one of those "variables" consisting of a collection of single electrical pulses is being "random" or "contrary" to the rest of the variables, that's exactly what I wanted it to do, even if it thinks and other "variables" tell it otherwise.
3. It's just allegory. Maybe it's a good analogy for what you're trying to prove, but it's still not exactly the same. I had lots of tools not of my design, making, knowledge or expertise that was needed to make this program run. Add electricity and a multitude of other "computiverses" out there to the mix, and while I might be "God" of the program, I was merely one conciousness that was able to create something in a limited capacity, which combined with others to create the "grand design".
4. My central point was, and is, is that even IF God existed, looking on the inside of "his creation" means that we'll never be able to know or prove if he/she/it really did it, or if it's a series of actions not by random chance or actions, but a physical universe that follows a set of mechanical laws that are intrinsic to this state of being. I'll cover this a little more in a second.
Therefore, I don't need to look to God to make my life more fulfilling or give my existence "purpose."
Quote
Random actions bring about disorder not order
1. Every action brings more disorder to the Universe. See: Second Law of Thermodynamics -> entropy.
2. You mentioned Chaos Theory, I would point to Quantum Mechanics instead - your CRT TV works around the fact that we can't measure or predict the path the electrons take when they are shot out of the the Cathode - thus as far as we know... it's completely random, but it somehow works and creates perfectly ordered "pictures" that our brains can translate.
3. Maybe there's a "big crunch" as the result of gravitational forces slowly and inexorably coalescing in a timeframe far to long for me to comprehend, but I don't know. We can make "predictions," but those are just that until they are verified with observation and measurement...and again we're still within "the box" so to speak.
------------------------------
Again: I don't know, I'll never know, and really, niether will you. However, I'm not really stoked on the idea of a wrathful, jealous God who is going to scratch my name from the book of Life because I simply was using the brain he/she/it "gave me" and lived my life as his "omnipotence" intended (see point #2).
173
General / Re: Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...
« on: March 11, 2007, 09:46:03 AM »
When I was younger I used to be obsessed about religion/God and his/her/its nature, heck I even tried "converting" to Shinto in 7th grade (not being Japanese ended that one real fast):
I live my life. I look around and I see some wonderful things, I see the outward expression of organic organisms in the fibonachi sequence, I taste sweet, sweet hydro-carbon molecules, and marvel how if one "universal constant" was screwed up...everything would crumble.
Then I see that everything that we have been able to "discover" has shown that "God's hand" isn't required to constantly make it work. I think of my experiences as a programmer. I code something that when it compiles is entirely self-contained. I never need to touch it once it starts, and all those 1 and 0s whiz by in a circuit board not of my design and are completely ignorant of the fact that it was indeed me that didn't "create" them, but set them on the "path". Any comments I write in there that say, "written by Branden" are parsed out by a development environment not of my making, thus removing any "smoking guns" of my participation.
I don't know if those pulses of electricity, once within the confines of the circuit board, can suddenly use the other resources within their sphere of existance to pontificate why they were set in motion, where they came from, and where they will go once that final bit of machine code is executed....nor do I particularly care...they're doing exactly what I wanted to regardless of their desires, even if that function is be completely random based upon a variety of factors including those I have no control over. I made the program to suit some purpose of mine; either for a client or for whim....the execution of the program is the end goal, the output it generates is the desire of whomever I coded it for.
If god does exist (and I'm not sure he/she/it does), it seems so far that everything we have been able to observe and measure (and remember, we only had a real consistent and codified "method" for doing this for about 1000 or so years [VERY conservative estimate]), God doesn't seem to be actively playing a part in the execution of what we call "existence."... however, if God does exist, and it's anything similar to the allegory I just described, then that raises some very profound and troubling questions about whether or not my "free will" really is that.
...so as I live my life, he/she/it doesn't enter my equations. I marvel at what is "existence" and have come to the conclusion that I will never ever be able to prove whether or not I was designed by some omniscient being, or if I'm simply the result of multi-billion year process beginning with the formation of the most basic ammino acids.
....and if either can be proved conclusively tomorrow, does that make the life I'm living suddenly more or less "real" or "significant" than it is now?
(EDIT: I didn't "create" the electrons the make up the electrical pulses, so I adjusted that in my allegory)
I live my life. I look around and I see some wonderful things, I see the outward expression of organic organisms in the fibonachi sequence, I taste sweet, sweet hydro-carbon molecules, and marvel how if one "universal constant" was screwed up...everything would crumble.
Then I see that everything that we have been able to "discover" has shown that "God's hand" isn't required to constantly make it work. I think of my experiences as a programmer. I code something that when it compiles is entirely self-contained. I never need to touch it once it starts, and all those 1 and 0s whiz by in a circuit board not of my design and are completely ignorant of the fact that it was indeed me that didn't "create" them, but set them on the "path". Any comments I write in there that say, "written by Branden" are parsed out by a development environment not of my making, thus removing any "smoking guns" of my participation.
I don't know if those pulses of electricity, once within the confines of the circuit board, can suddenly use the other resources within their sphere of existance to pontificate why they were set in motion, where they came from, and where they will go once that final bit of machine code is executed....nor do I particularly care...they're doing exactly what I wanted to regardless of their desires, even if that function is be completely random based upon a variety of factors including those I have no control over. I made the program to suit some purpose of mine; either for a client or for whim....the execution of the program is the end goal, the output it generates is the desire of whomever I coded it for.
If god does exist (and I'm not sure he/she/it does), it seems so far that everything we have been able to observe and measure (and remember, we only had a real consistent and codified "method" for doing this for about 1000 or so years [VERY conservative estimate]), God doesn't seem to be actively playing a part in the execution of what we call "existence."... however, if God does exist, and it's anything similar to the allegory I just described, then that raises some very profound and troubling questions about whether or not my "free will" really is that.
...so as I live my life, he/she/it doesn't enter my equations. I marvel at what is "existence" and have come to the conclusion that I will never ever be able to prove whether or not I was designed by some omniscient being, or if I'm simply the result of multi-billion year process beginning with the formation of the most basic ammino acids.
....and if either can be proved conclusively tomorrow, does that make the life I'm living suddenly more or less "real" or "significant" than it is now?
(EDIT: I didn't "create" the electrons the make up the electrical pulses, so I adjusted that in my allegory)
174
General / Re: The Shrine is Dumb.
« on: March 08, 2007, 06:02:40 AM »
I didn't bring up wives, because in Japan they're not called wives, they're called "tsuma" or the more common, "oku-sans." Rest assured, had I brought up wives it would have been under the proper cultural references of where I currently live, which is Japan.
I do have a fiance, though, which in Japanese is konyakusha, which sounds and aweful lot like konyaku, which is a kind of japanese food that is famous in Gunma, the part of Japan I live.
My Konyakusha is not Konyaku though.
I have pictures to prove this.
I do have a fiance, though, which in Japanese is konyakusha, which sounds and aweful lot like konyaku, which is a kind of japanese food that is famous in Gunma, the part of Japan I live.
My Konyakusha is not Konyaku though.
I have pictures to prove this.
175
General / Re: The Shrine is Dumb.
« on: March 08, 2007, 05:12:07 AM »
Sure.
So am I an "asshole" or am I an "asshole"?
I can't be a total asshole, though.....I live in Japan, and my fiance is Japanese.
I have pictures.
So am I an "asshole" or am I an "asshole"?
I can't be a total asshole, though.....I live in Japan, and my fiance is Japanese.
I have pictures.
176
General / Re: The Shrine is Dumb.
« on: March 08, 2007, 04:35:27 AM »
Oooo....a fight that doesn't involve me.
::grabs some popcorn::
funny, I was talking to someone earlier about this thread. I'll throw my two cents in for no reason other than to be completely asinine...although after being a total ass to Brasky I don't know if I should:
++[LONG NOVEL - Plenty of fomatting - Multi-colored if possible - here's the noose]++
Japan, Japan, Japan!
I have a fiance. She's Japanese. My fiance is teh Hawt! ....did I mention I have a fiance and she's japanese?
::tilt to the left::
...next time, Gadget. Next time.
::grabs some popcorn::
funny, I was talking to someone earlier about this thread.
I'll throw my two cents in for no reason other than to be completely asinine...although after being a total ass to Brasky I don't know if I should:++[LONG NOVEL - Plenty of fomatting - Multi-colored if possible - here's the noose]++
Japan, Japan, Japan!
I have a fiance. She's Japanese. My fiance is teh Hawt! ....did I mention I have a fiance and she's japanese?
::tilt to the left::
...next time, Gadget. Next time.
177
The Polling Pit / Re: Government or Private Education?
« on: March 05, 2007, 05:43:08 PM »
Preschool - 3rd Grade - Private School
3rd - 12th - Government school
Then for some reason, I decided I didn't have enough and went to college, and worked for government schools as well. Good thing my real job and area of study didn't require me to indulge in the Collegiate Academia Groupthink (hahahaha.... "ugh....there's CAG all over my hands!"), but was definintely saturated with them (hint: Arts & Technology - film, video, blah blah).
3rd - 12th - Government school
Then for some reason, I decided I didn't have enough and went to college, and worked for government schools as well. Good thing my real job and area of study didn't require me to indulge in the Collegiate Academia Groupthink (hahahaha.... "ugh....there's CAG all over my hands!"), but was definintely saturated with them (hint: Arts & Technology - film, video, blah blah).
178
The Polling Pit / Re: I'm in your wifi stealing your bandwidth
« on: December 18, 2006, 02:47:59 AM »
Interesting question, because while I lived in San Diego, and actually now that I live in in Japan, Ive set up two wireless Networks:
1. My private Wi-fi, that I have encrypted: "ShadowNet GAMMA" (802.11g) - all of my Wireless computers connected to ShadowNet Gamma.
2. The open Wi-fi, that I deliberately leave open and have a booster antenna on to increase the range: "ShawdowNet BETA" (802.11b) - it's a slower protocol but has a longer range, and since I personally didnt use this network, it would be ideal for anyone (friends, family, passers by) to simply jump on if I wasn't around to give them a WEP key (in the case of friends/family), and I have no problem with people using the network as long as they don't use it to cause damage to myself or others through hacking, etc.
When I check the DHCP client table I can get a list of MAC addresses and computer names that logged onto the network, if I suspect anyone doing something indecent that could get me in trouble, I could simply ban their hardware MAC address from getting on my network, which means that would have to buy a completely new NIC or Motherboard to get back on..... punishment enough if their dead set to get back on the network.
....however, I've never even had a problem in the 3 years that I first started running ShadowNet BETA, so I think the super majority of people just want to get on the internet.
I think if the owner has no problems with you using their network, then no problem. It's something that they pay for, so ulitmately that accounting of bandwidth/connect is their private property.
[EDIT: Most service providers do not charge you based on Bandwidth, or have high enough caps that the only way you could "top out" would be some really really serious multimedia throuput, like uploading/downloading fully uncompressed video 24/7. Most comapnies, even YahooBB here in Japan do it based on a connection charge, which is a flat rate per month.
What will be more common in the future (and it may already be happening in the US) is that their flat rate is based on the "width of your pipe." That is, you pay for more having a higher throughput connection. example: Paying $15/month for a 100Kbps connection or $30 for a 300Kbps connection. We already see this in terms of:
X for Dialup
Y for Cable/DSL
Z for T1
A LOT for T3/OC3/Backbone connectivity
But the trend in Japan is a stratification within those classifications like:
X for 100Kbps DSL
Y for 250Kbps DSL
Z for 500Kbps DSL
etc.
]
1. My private Wi-fi, that I have encrypted: "ShadowNet GAMMA" (802.11g) - all of my Wireless computers connected to ShadowNet Gamma.
2. The open Wi-fi, that I deliberately leave open and have a booster antenna on to increase the range: "ShawdowNet BETA" (802.11b) - it's a slower protocol but has a longer range, and since I personally didnt use this network, it would be ideal for anyone (friends, family, passers by) to simply jump on if I wasn't around to give them a WEP key (in the case of friends/family), and I have no problem with people using the network as long as they don't use it to cause damage to myself or others through hacking, etc.
When I check the DHCP client table I can get a list of MAC addresses and computer names that logged onto the network, if I suspect anyone doing something indecent that could get me in trouble, I could simply ban their hardware MAC address from getting on my network, which means that would have to buy a completely new NIC or Motherboard to get back on..... punishment enough if their dead set to get back on the network.
....however, I've never even had a problem in the 3 years that I first started running ShadowNet BETA, so I think the super majority of people just want to get on the internet.
I think if the owner has no problems with you using their network, then no problem. It's something that they pay for, so ulitmately that accounting of bandwidth/connect is their private property.
[EDIT: Most service providers do not charge you based on Bandwidth, or have high enough caps that the only way you could "top out" would be some really really serious multimedia throuput, like uploading/downloading fully uncompressed video 24/7. Most comapnies, even YahooBB here in Japan do it based on a connection charge, which is a flat rate per month.
What will be more common in the future (and it may already be happening in the US) is that their flat rate is based on the "width of your pipe." That is, you pay for more having a higher throughput connection. example: Paying $15/month for a 100Kbps connection or $30 for a 300Kbps connection. We already see this in terms of:
X for Dialup
Y for Cable/DSL
Z for T1
A LOT for T3/OC3/Backbone connectivity
But the trend in Japan is a stratification within those classifications like:
X for 100Kbps DSL
Y for 250Kbps DSL
Z for 500Kbps DSL
etc.
]