About Knowledge

[Blog of Reason]

Discussion thread for the blog entry "About Knowledge " by zomgitscriss.

Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/reason/about-knowledge/

 

[AndromedasWake]

Re: About Knowledge

Welcome to the blog pigeon. Good to have you on board.

 

[TiredofCRAPetc]

Re: About Knowledge

First i really like your contribution to the world on youtube. This was a good text you wrote here.

One thing thoug, according to craig venter we differ 5-6% from chimpanzies (GAH i must train english spelling).

Se between 17.30 and 18.00 in this clip.
Craig Venter - The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews - Richard Dawkins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E25jgPgmzk

I know this is not a scientific journal but imo Craig Venter seems to be valid dude.

Thanks again

 

[SchrodingersFinch]

Re: About Knowledge

Welcome aboard!
Great first post.

 

[CosmicSpork]

Re: About Knowledge

I enjoyed reading that, I look forward to more in the future

Welcome to the Blog of Reason.

 

[shad1c]

Re: About Knowledge

It is true, nobody can know that God exists, they can only believe, but what irritates me when it comes to the existence of god or not is the fact that those who believe in "it" cannot be satisfied with their own belief, they have to go and pick on everyone else who doesn't believe or speaks out against "it." I am a believer of God, and thats where I stop the sentence because there is no reason for me to say anymore, because my belief is good enough for me, and you know what, one of my best friends is an atheist, I see no reason to pick on him and lecture him on a book with no proof to back it up, yes I believe in God, but there are things in the bible that I question, like gay being a sin, I mean come on, whats wrong with that? I don't entirely believe that the "word of God" comes from printed text, for me, I believe the "word of God" comes from me, what I think is right, and to any person who doesn't believe in God or questions him, I say "continue to do so, there is nothing wrong with what you believe, I can respect that." I only hope that the world of religion will someday understand that they should just be happy with their beliefs rather than thinking that anyone who doesn't believe what they believe is their sworn enemy or something. I am a believer of God, speaking out for the Athiests and the people who are constantly bullied by the religious jerks out there, if cats and dogs can get along, then why not religious people and athiests? That's my message for the world, and no one can change that...

Johnny

 

[prodigyat9]

Re: About Knowledge

Don't be silly; I know god exists because I feel him in my heart. Unless it's that angina acting up again. Well anyway ...

 

[DontHurtTheIntersect]

Re: About Knowledge

A very good entry

 

[xxdjsethxx]

Re: About Knowledge

Yes you bored me.. now off with your head



No but really <3 your blog entry it really sums it up IMHO on how we think differently then theist do.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: About Knowledge

How about God ? When you say you KNOW God is real and He created everything, what do you base it on?

I have to question the purpose of this statement (and, to a lesser extent, this blog**), theists know god is real because of personal experience. That this personal experience is not objective does not bother them. In the same way I know I had a dream last night involving aliens and explosions and hiding and cuddling (it was a badass dream), but I can not in any way objectively demonstrate that. Who are you to say "how do you KNOW you had that dream"? And while it's possible to argue that I don't know I had that dream, do you really get anywhere in doing so? Are you really going to convince me that it's not a valid experience?

Theists know god is real on some level between that of dreams and knowing I had a conversation with my mother yesterday about fight club: the only difference for a theist between those experiences is that one less human being has shared the former experience. When you combine that with plenty of other nodes in the network, that supporting evidence is plenty.


** I would not object if it were presented less towards attacking theists and more towards trying to explain to theists why atheists don't accept someone else's personal experience. You'll get nowhere in saying "your personal experience isn't valid", but you can get somewhere in saying "can you not see why your personal experience isn't proof for me?"

 

[NickDutch]

The Birth and Death of lies

There are many problems when we deal with religous people. It is not just a question of the beliefs that people have, but often the beliefs that these indirviduals percieve that they have, when not only will experience of these individuals demonstrate that their statements about their beliefs are false, but also that these individuals are not eloquent enough, educated enough within the specifics of their alleged subjects or sufficiently knowledgeable of the meanings of the words that they use.

Or indeed that the meanings of the words that they use have different meanings (there is a semantic difference) depending on the context of the usage of the words and the background or setting in which the things that the words mean, are being enacted.

For instance, if a chosen meaning for the word "knowledge" in the context of "knowledge of god" meant entrance into a state of being in which something happend that felt like the presence of god, a rather intimate experience, and a technique that existed in the world allowed people to have this experience, and a particular person then has this experience and attempts to communicate the idea to another human, we are left with a problem.

How would or should person A (the person who has had the experience) communicate an almost indescribeable experience to another? And how would person B, the one who listens to the statements of this almost indescribeable experience, react and then communicate the experience second hand to other humans?

We can see here that there ar many weaknesses in the chain of communication, many areas where the perceptions of human individuals can interfeer with the affective and cognitive processing of the information that was firstly experienced by person A, and then interpreted by his experiences and perceptions to a level that he might feel (possibly incorrectly) that he has understood. Yet another weakness in the chain occurs when person B hears the interpretation that person A communicates to him, and person be then re-interprets the experience again and communicates the experience to another human. With each subsequent retelling, rereading, re-hearing and re-thinking the story gets more and more distorted and probably anthropomophesised.

Now, the techniques to have this powerful mind altering experience exist, have existed and will exist forever. It is the techniques of prayer and meditation, when done to extreemes. I have had this experience. At this level and in the level of this discussion, It means nothing more or less then an experience can be had. it is not proof of anything apart from under some strange psychological conditions some strange sensations occur.

But with the perpetual story telling of the primative human animal, the story gets distorted, the facts of the experience gets twisted. The meanings of the word "knowledge" gets used out of context. Cultures fight for their theological supremacy through debate. Myths are born. The myths get defended by those who feel a loyalty to an interpretation of the myths. Strange as it may seem, the educational system of any nation is not sufficiently advanced to undo the damage of a myth that is heavily culturally engraned. Not at the school level, or indeed (so my experience of dealing with creationist postgrads goes) or at the university level.

The human animal is essentially very primative, superstitious to an extreeme and will do almost anything to keep in favor with a Higher Power. So if we are to take the example as mentioned above, of a person who has experienced a very real experience (which is just an experience no more and no less) and starts to communicate the experience to others, with in very little time the experience will have become in the minds eye of some individuals, corroberation of something that is not corroberateable, proof of something that is unproveable and a most excellent way of controlling the minds of superstitious people for financial, psychological or political gain.

I would hypothesise that this is not necessarily the intention of the individual (person A) who has had the experience.

In attempting to fight against antirationalism (irrational ideas present in society) we are fighting an uphil battle. It is a battle not just against religion, but aganst human nature.

How many people hold on to their political views despite the fact that these political views are irrational, immoral, class centric, gender centric, race centric, against equal opportunities or freedom?

Too many. Why do people hold on to these views?
It is the way of the tribal mamal.

Taking that into account it might seem appropriate to create a group of people who are set against the irrational ideology, but wouldnt that be just creating another tribe and more tribal warfare?

It would be better to design and create a course of many years in which young people are taught about reasoning, and critical thought and with the help of a mass media campaign, to increase public awareness of the courses and then to force the national and state governments by public pressure to incorporate that into the national and state curriculum of schools.

If that can be done, if people can be taught how to think and not what to think then that would probably be a decisive blow against the lies being promoted by individuals, religious and political groups of certain types.

NickDutch

http://www.youtube.com/BespokeGroupUK

 

[johnhummel]

Re: About Knowledge

But let's try another example. Not to long ago, if anyone asked me to define a triangle without mentioning its angles, I would have said that any given 3 points that are not in a straight line form a triangle . And I thought I KNOW that the sum of the interior angles of any triangle is 180 degrees. But I was wrong.

What it boils down to is that there are three ways of "knowing" something.

We know things based on their definition. A triangle has three points and adds up to 180 degrees in Euclidean geometry because that's the definition.

Then there's the things we know by directly observing them. I know I'm watching "The Dark Knight" because I'm sitting here doing it.

Then, there's the things we believe. Now, here's an important thing: some people will say that "Oh, you only *believe* in something that science has proven - but you don't know."

The problem is - I do know. The reason why I can trust the scientific method is because when I read the details of the experiment published in a journal, I know if I do *exactly* what they did - I will get the same results. And if not, that means that the results were a lie (such as in the infamous "cold fusion" experiments in Utah almost 20 years ago).

That's why science will always triumph over "faith."

Anyway, good first start. I'll be curious to see where the conversation goes from here .

 

[Dusty341]

Re: About Knowledge

I enjoy everything that you produce. Nice entry

 

[Gravity Lense]

Re: About Knowledge

Hiya Criss...

I just want to say that it's great to be able to say hello to you in this your first ! blog on here... good to see that your 'voice of reason' is growing in popularity - - I like the humour and witty irony you put into your argument - - I am a fan of Pat Condell and came across your videos whilst watching his (which doesn't take much working out!

I have just joined as a consequence of watching your video 'Winner (qdragon) and FAIL (me)' so thank you for including this site in your video...

NickDutch 's post is about the most intelligent thing I've read for a while, so have a read even tho it is a bit of a long post - perhaps ask folk who want to discuss your blog with you to keep post down to a few paragraphs or something - - or it will be too hard for you to answer them after a while due to sheer volume, which will be a drain on your energy and time, plus they are more likely to get a reply perhaps!

Wonderful... Gravity Lense

 

[MAXIMUS]

Re: About Knowledge

where did the consciousness of the first organism come from? did it come from nothing? where did the energy that is the universe come from? did it come from nothing, some one once told me energy cannot be created or destroyed. is it wrong to assume the universe in its wholeness is a closed system? if so wouldnt that mean that the energy that is here now has always been here and always will be? and if so was it conscious, would it be far from possibility to assume it was, and if before the big bang all the energy was condenced into a single "entity" , would the consciousness not be in the same state of singularity? and if so, when the big bang started to disperse the energy into different regions of space, what effect did this have on consciousness? if living organisms were produced from chemical evolution into the first living cells would it be wrong to assume that it received its consciousness the same way it recieved its energy to exist, from a state on singularity? if not, where did the consciousness come from? has it always been there like the energy has? and when the organism dies would its consciousness seperate from its physical body and return to its source?
assume this theory is correct, that all energy and consciousness once was one, wouldnt it still be theoretically one, just divided. and one can be divided infinitly eg. .000000000000000000000000000000001. if this theory was correct wouldnt that mean i am just relaying information to you via electromagnetic impulses in my brain giving orders to my fingers to type on this computer comprised of mass and mass of energy, and the computer sends you the message at the speed of light , your eyes pick up the different frequency vibrations of colour from the screen and your brain decodes the information via elecromagnetic imulses triggering the neurons in your brain to relay information and boom you just "downloaded the file i sent you", if there is a medium where i can communicate with you , wouldnt that mean we have a connection, how could we share information with each other if we were not connected? if we are one, as the theory BOLDLY assumes, how is are communication so different from neurons communicating? which brings up the question if we were all one in consciousness and energy, are we just like the neurons in my brain except in a much bigger more complicated plateau? if this theory was correct that energy was never created and always will be and always has been, then that would mean there is no such thing as time, time needs a begining and an end, that would back up the theory that all energy does is change form, we observe seasons , bodies get old and die, but thats just energy changing forms like a wave has a crest and a trough and then repeats, einstein once said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." >>>pardon my grammar...<<<

 

[SchrodingersFinch]

Re: About Knowledge

where did the consciousness of the first organism come from? did it come from nothing? where did the energy that is the universe come from? did it come from nothing, some one once told me energy cannot be created or destroyed. is it wrong to assume the universe in its wholeness is a closed system? if so wouldnt that mean that the energy that is here now has always been here and always will be? and if so was it conscious, would it be far from possibility to assume it was, and if before the big bang all the energy was condenced into a single "entity" , would the consciousness not be in the same state of singularity? and if so, when the big bang started to disperse the energy into different regions of space, what effect did this have on consciousness? if living organisms were produced from chemical evolution into the first living cells would it be wrong to assume that it received its consciousness the same way it recieved its energy to exist, from a state on singularity? if not, where did the consciousness come from? has it always been there like the energy has? and when the organism dies would its consciousness seperate from its physical body and return to its source?
assume this theory is correct, that all energy and consciousness once was one, wouldnt it still be theoretically one, just divided. and one can be divided infinitly eg. .000000000000000000000000000000001. if this theory was correct wouldnt that mean i am just relaying information to you via electromagnetic impulses in my brain giving orders to my fingers to type on this computer comprised of mass and mass of energy, and the computer sends you the message at the speed of light , your eyes pick up the different frequency vibrations of colour from the screen and your brain decodes the information via elecromagnetic imulses triggering the neurons in your brain to relay information and boom you just "downloaded the file i sent you", if there is a medium where i can communicate with you , wouldnt that mean we have a connection, how could we share information with each other if we were not connected? if we are one, as the theory BOLDLY assumes, how is are communication so different from neurons communicating? which brings up the question if we were all one in consciousness and energy, are we just like the neurons in my brain except in a much bigger more complicated plateau? if this theory was correct that energy was never created and always will be and always has been, then that would mean there is no such thing as time, time needs a begining and an end, that would back up the theory that all energy does is change form, we observe seasons , bodies get old and die, but thats just energy changing forms like a wave has a crest and a trough and then repeats, einstein once said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." >>>pardon my grammar...<<<

Please, start sentences with a capital letter and divide big chunks of text into smaller paragraphs.
Posts like that make my eyes hurt.

 

[SchrodingersFinch]

Re: About Knowledge

where did the consciousness of the first organism come from?

The first organism with consciousness most likely had some form of primitive central nervous system

did it come from nothing?

No.

where did the energy that is the universe come from?

Nobody knows. It's possible that the total energy of the universe is zero.

did it come from nothing, some one once told me energy cannot be created or destroyed.

That's the first law of thermodynamics. As far is we know it applies everywhere in the universe. But does it apply to the universe, we don't know.

is it wrong to assume the universe in its wholeness is a closed system?

No, I don't think so.

if so wouldnt that mean that the energy that is here now has always been here and always will be?

Yes, but the fact that the energy has always existed doesn't necessarily mean that the universe is eternal.

and if so was it conscious, would it be far from possibility to assume it was

There is not a shread of evidence to support that assumption.

and if so, when the big bang started to disperse the energy into different regions of space, what effect did this have on consciousness?

First of all, your idea of the Big Bang is wrong. The Big Bang wasn't an explosion that scattered energy everywhere, but an expansion of space-time.
Second, what's the point in speculating the effects if there is no reason to assume the consciousness ever existed.

if living organisms were produced from chemical evolution into the first living cells would it be wrong to assume that it received its consciousness the same way it recieved its energy to exist, from a state on singularity?

Yes.

if not, where did the consciousness come from?

Consciousness is the product of a central nervous system.

has it always been there like the energy has? and when the organism dies would its consciousness seperate from its physical body and return to its source?

No, since the central nervous system is a part of the physical body.

assume this theory is correct, that all energy and consciousness once was one,

Why should I, when you have presented absolutely nothing to support it?
And please, don't call your incoherent metaphysical drivel a theory, as if it was even remotely scientific.

wouldnt it still be theoretically one, just divided. and one can be divided infinitly eg. .000000000000000000000000000000001. if this theory was correct wouldnt that mean i am just relaying information to you via electromagnetic impulses in my brain giving orders to my fingers to type on this computer comprised of mass and mass of energy, and the computer sends you the message at the speed of light , your eyes pick up the different frequency vibrations of colour from the screen and your brain decodes the information via elecromagnetic imulses triggering the neurons in your brain to relay information and boom you just "downloaded the file i sent you", if there is a medium where i can communicate with you , wouldnt that mean we have a connection, how could we share information with each other if we were not connected? if we are one, as the theory BOLDLY assumes, how is are communication so different from neurons communicating? which brings up the question if we were all one in consciousness and energy, are we just like the neurons in my brain except in a much bigger more complicated plateau? if this theory was correct that energy was never created and always will be and always has been, then that would mean there is no such thing as time, time needs a begining and an end, that would back up the theory that all energy does is change form, we observe seasons , bodies get old and die, but thats just energy changing forms like a wave has a crest and a trough and then repeats, einstein once said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." >>>pardon my grammar...<<<

Quite frankly, I couldn't be bothered to read the rest.

 

[ladiesman391]

Re: About Knowledge

Hi Criss!

Just read your blog and I find it hard to fault anything in it (ok I'll admit it I have an internet crush, but honestly which heterosexual guy or lesbian doesn't! Just read her tag ZOMGitsCriss!)

But seriously i'm really tired too atm, I might post tomorrow if everything hasn't already been said.

I look forward to reading (in my biased view of course) your future, always perfect, blogs.

 

[xman]

Re: About Knowledge

Well, I say I, "There are no gods" with great certainty because one has never been displayed and is unlikely (understatement anyone?) to ever be shown.

Thanks for everything Criss.

X

 

[evilbrainproductions]

Re: About Knowledge

I KNOW you rock, because I have sufficient data proving it