It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Fundamental Flaws of Modern Rationality

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Connell




conception of the universe is akin to looking through at an oscilloscope


I never knew an oscilloscope was used to look at the universe or even measure it.



The scientific explanation of our universe is no more concrete than any religious explanation, both are theoretical


Well there's a difference between a theory and a belief based on faith. Usually theories are testable.




posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Connell




Gibberish is not my first language


It isn't I can see that...from the following



my hands are shaking after a nice wank, so




out of my arse cheeks


You speak the language of poetry perhaps or of a regressed kindegarden toddler? Such persuasiveness. I think the site you'll feel at home at is GLP.

edit on 13-4-2015 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: spelling



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Connell




That's the inherent hypocrisy in all forms of modern rationalism, to act as if subjective, perceptual, abstract concepts are "real" simply because scientists (priests of relativism) have an official piece of paper that says so..... and then they ask a theist to prove the existence of God. Sheer hypocrisy, and an inherently flawed mode of thought.


Hello there! S&F for a great thread
however the rabbit hole is a bit deeper though.


The Fundamental Flaw of Modern Rationality and scientific thought is:

THAT THE FOUNDATIONS IT WAS STANDING UPON WERE THROWN AWAY BY WHAT IS NOW THE DOMINANT FACTION
IN OTHER WORDS, RATIONALITY, SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT, POSITIVISM ARE RESTING ON NOTHING AT ALL!

The legendary founders of the above are all connected via a golden thread as it were;
THEY WERE ALL STUDENTS OF The Corpus Hermeticum and Hermetic Tradition

From Ancient Egypt to Modern Science: The Forgotten Link



The ‘Scientific Revolution’ describes the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century watershed in the basic attitude to the scientific method, laying the foundations for the modern technological age. Starting when Copernicus went public with his heliocentric theory in 1543, and ending when Isaac Newton published Principia Mathematica in 1687, textbooks say there was a window of just 150 years when European thinking was transformed from superstition to science.

But that’s not the way it was. In reality, science owes its origins to beliefs that the high priests of modern science such as Richard Dawkins would regard as even more irrational than Christianity. Far, far worse to them would be the fact that the particular ‘superstitions’ in question were unprecedentedly influential.

In fact, the Scientific Revolution was driven by a very specific magical philosophy and cosmology, set out in a set of texts that inspired all the pioneers of science, directly or indirectly.
The Books that Really Changed the World

Bluntly, these texts have had a greater influence on Western civilization than any other set of texts apart from the Bible – and the greatest effect on modern Western civilization than any texts including the Bible. The scandal is that so few people today have even heard of them.

They are a collection known as the Hermetica, setting out an uncompromisingly magical and mystical philosophy and cosmology. Their name comes from their attribution to the legendary Egyptian teacher, Hermes Trismegistus (‘Thrice-Great Hermes’). According to the Hermetica, he was a descendant of the god of that name – Hermes in Greek, identified with the Egyptian god of learning, Thoth, scribe to the gods.

In medieval Europe, with the exception of the one treatise Asclepius, they had been lost, thanks to the fourth-century crackdown on pagan learning by Christian zealots. However, the books survived in the Middle East, becoming the foundation for the famously advanced medieval Arab science. All knowledge-hungry Europeans could do was hope – and pray? – that they might be rediscovered.

Eventually they were. In 1463 an agent of the great patron of the early Renaissance, Cosimo de Medici, returned to Florence with a set of 14 Hermetic treatises, written in Greek, which he had acquired in Macedonia. Famously, Cosimo’s top scholar, Marsilio Ficino, was working on the first translation of the complete works of Plato into Latin – but Cosimo, beside himself with excitement at the new discovery, ordered him to drop it in favour of the Hermetic books.

Through his translation – the Corpus Hermeticum – and allied esoteric writings, Ficino is a major figure in the restoration of Hermeticism, setting it at the heart of the Italian Renaissance. And thanks to the sensational new technology of the printing press, the Hermetic books fomented the greatest furore among European intelligentsia. It is impossible to overstate their impact, both then and much, much later. Hermeticism influenced everyone from Leonardo da Vinci to Shakespeare, and can be said without exaggeration to have kick-started the Renaissance. But the Hermetic books’ significance has always been downplayed by academics, particularly historians of science and philosophy.

The Hermetic works were so enthralling largely because they were believed to preserve the wisdom of the most ancient period of the Egyptian civilisation, that of the pyramid builders, predating even the Old Testament. But the most important reason for their huge impact was the image of humankind they presented – diametrically opposite to Man-the-doomed-worm so beloved of the Vatican.

According to the Corpus Hermeticum human beings are brilliant, amazing creatures of unlimited potential. Treatise X even declares that “the human is a godlike living thing,”1 reinforced by the Hermetic adage ‘Magnum miraculum est homo’ (‘Man is a great miracle’). This also applies to women: the Hermetic tradition had great respect for the feminine – a reason by itself for the Catholic Church’s horrified reaction to this audacious philosophy.

Although to the Church it was bad enough to promote ideas of a divine-spirited Man, to include women as inherently god-like was considerably worse. Some clerics were still debating whether they had souls, and here come these vile pagans with outrageous beliefs that women were dazzling beings of ultimate light…

Many authors have written at length about the Hermetica’s influence in generating the surge of self-confidence that inspired the great flowering of art and literature that is the Renaissance. We, however, take it further and link this Hermetic epiphany with the history of science.


but don't worry friend! The Magic never really "went away" it was HIDDEN, and as will be revealed in time, has slipped the transhumanists a very ironic little joke at their expense revealing where it's been hidden.





edit on 13-4-2015 by AdamuBureido because: ?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Curious about our OP, I went to his (or her) profile and looked at their posts in other threads. On their most active thread, most of his or her posts had been deleted by staff for being off-topic. One poster in that thread suggested to our OP that since he or she seemed to have trouble being understood, they should start a thread so as to make their position clearer.

The OP's last post in that thread hadn't been deleted. Here is what it said:


Righto, I'll get to making that thread.

Message to my opposition: Prepare to be mentally annihilated.

Is this the thread, Connell? How's the mental annihilation going?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Yeah, I noticed that too. If you'll notice also, the posts that didn't get removed seemed to display an arrogance and abusive tone for no reason as well. I'm guessing this is why so many others had been removed to begin with. Those kind of issues typically are red flags for Troll Crossing. Maybe that has something to do with it??



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Oh look, a couple of gentlemen have taken issue with some of my posts. That's alright, but take it up with the moderators rather than barking at me here. But then again, this is the era of entitlement, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.


originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Connell



I never knew an oscilloscope was used to look at the universe or even measure it.


Well there's a difference between a theory and a belief based on faith. Usually theories are testable.



I am dumbfounded by how totally dense and inane many posters here are. The "oscilloscope" reference is an analogy, do you know what an analogy is? Or do you prefer to be intentionally dense and obstinate because that's the only way you can drag your superiors down to your dull level?

This is quite tedious, please do not post these things in my thread any more. I can't continue giving my time to midwits.



originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Connell


You speak the language of poetry perhaps or of a regressed kindegarden toddler? Such persuasiveness. I think the site you'll feel at home at is GLP.


GLP? What's that, and why should I “feel at home” there?

You don't like my prose? Fine, I can't say that I'm particularly devastated. I do style myself as a kind of poetic prosaist, but of course my work won't be appreciated by all.

I am not here to entertain the humors and fancies of midwits. Thank you for your post, but I don't want it. Please dispose of it somewhere else.













originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Connell

A little late, but welcome to ATS.

Your basic premise was exploded in the thirteenth century by the friar-philosopher Roger Bacon, who pointed out that the universe has a metrical frame.

Peeple explained it well. There's really nothing else to add, except that, when your point that our perceptions could be no more reflective of fundamental reality than an oscilloscope trace, you neglect to consider that an oscilloscope trace is a very accurate reflection of that aspect of fundamental reality it is designed to reflect — one may equally well say, 'to manifest'.



I'm not sure that you even understand what my basic premise is. After some quick reading about Roger Bacon, I think that you are mistaken. He would have understood science in the Aristotelian sense, that is, in a far broader sense than the empiricism of today. Theology, philosophy, and science would have constituted a single generalized entity in his mind, based around demonstrative reason and logical soundness. Very different to whatever butchered up modern understanding of the world you have in that little head of yours. His philosophy assumes the existence of the divine, and he was using practicality and mathematical utility to confirm it. Sadly it's not totally coherent, because in his model the divine would have to exist outside the “frame” of the universe, which is far too simplistic. Still, I respect his philosophy far more than I would respect the opinions of any modern midwit.

Anyway, Peepol told me nothing that I haven't heard before. She is asking me to “prove” things. From the Euclidean perspective the universe is infinite, and this is the orthodox of your vaunted “science” (as of now anyway, but that can always change). If the universe is infinite nothing can be truly measured without somehow factoring in "the whole", but you and her do not believe in the whole. You don't even realize that you are contradicting yourselves, like most people who try to argue using sciencemagic.

All the posts in this thread are perfect examples of Rene Guenon's "reign of quantity".
edit on 14-4-2015 by Connell because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Connell

That's a disappointment. I overestimated you apparently.
Just so you know: All i read was "I am right and you're all stupid" while to me honestly it seems like you are wrong.
Analogy and metaphor cost you a big content-price. Says the Yoda in me.
And it is sad because the question seems worthy for a discussion. With all the break through recently, where the object was at the same time at one place and another at seemingly the same time. The revelation some things do travell faster than light, do we really have to redefine our approach to society, religion and science as a whole?
In other words, is there a realm we can't have access to because to observe one event would take a few lifetimes, or in the other direction are so fast, if you would start expending it to an observable maximum, would you maybe still be missing 90% of what is going on. Will say, how far do we have to shift the horizon, from: We just can't go over that line, to how far do we set our next horizon?
And the implications would also be interesting:
What if spiritual, and therefor religious experiences really are talking to that realm of existence, we usually can't access, need enhancement, or lost maybe important parts of the trade? Are we having these "weird" moments through a measurable, natural phenomena? Because you an overly religious defense person, made it a mathmatical proofable thing. The fluctuation wave of the biger thing, the echoe of the bing bang, an unhearable soundwave maybe, or whatever?
Like with our calendar, we just can't get it accepted, precisely enough to make experimental tests like TimeWaveZero work. We would have to embrace a more complicated world, where, back to the example calendar, we collective use, lunar calendars, with a cycle ending all 23 years, this could maybe help us bringing global weather events in a system, that makes them more precise to study and forecast in along term. Lightnings in two seperated, different weather systems seem to interact, just fyi.
And if you could cut the personal insults, not to me, i like it you dirty old bastard, but be nicer to the other discussion participants unless they give you their okay too.
edit on 14-4-2015 by Peeple because: bee



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   
No, don't be disappointed. I don't have enough time to write everything that I want to write. I will answer your posts eventually, because they seem to be the only ones in this thread worth responding to anyway.

I am not an old man either, I am quite young, 19 years old.

I will answer your posts as best I can, I just need enough time to sit down and think for a bit. Can't do it right now.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   


On their most active thread, most of his or her posts had been deleted by staff for being off-topic.
a reply to: Astyanax

Like Peter Pan no one would sew the shadow back on?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Before I get back to work I will leave you all with a quote by Einstein about Mathematics:

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"

Surely you would esteem his word highly. He was a scientist after all, so he must be right
.
edit on 14-4-2015 by Connell because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Connell


Rationality can be accurately summed up as dogmatic naturalism, something that attempts to apply human perceptual standards to the universe at large, and attempts to explain our existence through extrapolation of observable telluric phenomena.


Except for the fact that logic and the scientific method are the only tools that humans have ever used that have resulted in a system that provides accurate predictions.

The validity of any system of thought can be measured by the accuracy of the predictions it makes.
edit on 14-4-2015 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Connell


Time is a system we've devised to measure material degradation and solar phases, but it has no absolute basis in the physical world. Can you show me proof that there are twenty-four hours in a day, can you prove that things come into being and then cease to exist in a linear fashion?


Time is a measurement of predictable change in a system. The fact that we create categories that work to help us manage time doesn't change the fact that the earth spins on it's axis or revolves around the sun.



Neither is mathematics anything but a theoretical system of quantification and measurement, based on ascribed values and the arbitrary division and reunification of those values. There is no physical basis for mathematics, yet it is universally accepted.


No. Applied mathematics is not theoritcal.

The symbols (1, 2, 3, 4...) that we use are arbitrary--the quantities that those symbols represent are not.

4 apples will always represent 4 apples, regardless as to what word or symbol you use.

Quatro = four

Same quantity, different symbols

Vier = four

Same quantity, different symbols.

X = . . . .

Therefore, x = 4, and four, and quatro, and vier.

If knowledge was quantifiable and absolute, we would never be able to make predictions, and no technological advancements would occur.

How about a challenge?

If knowledge is subjective, then you should have no trouble accepting my challenge.

I posit that knowledge is absolute. I absolutely know that if you drink an 8 ounce glass of liquid ricin in under 60 seconds, then you will die.


Ricin /ˈraɪsɪn/ is a highly toxic, naturally occurring lectin (a carbohydrate-binding protein) produced in the seeds of the castor oil plant, Ricinus communis. A dose of purified ricin powder the size of a few grains of table salt can kill an adult human.


Drink an entire 8 ounce glass of liquid ricin in under 60 seconds. If you do it and live, I will concede your argument that knowledge is subjective and not objective.

If you refuse, then admit that knowledge is absolute and can be measured and observed objectively.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Connell

It has pros and cons, just like any human endeavor. Don't worry about it too much, the time is coming when the rules will change. Then we'll have a golden age.

Change the Rules!

Abstract

'Although consciousness-correlated physical phenomena are widely and credibly documented, their appearance and behavior display substantial departures from conventional scientific criteria. Under even the most rigorous protocols, they are only irregularly replicable, and they appear to be insensitive to most basic physical coordinates, including distance and time. Rather, their strongest correlations are with various subjective parameters, such as intention, emotional resonance, uncertainty, attitude, and meaning, and information processing at an unconscious level appears to be involved.

If science, by its most basic definition, is to pursue understanding and utilization of these extraordinary processes, it will need to expand its current paradigm to acknowledge and codify a proactive role for the mind in the establishment of physical events, and to accommodate the spectrum of empirically indicated subjective correlates.

The challenges of quantitative measurement and theoretical conceptualization within such a "Science of the Subjective" are formidable, but its potential intellectual and cultural benefits could be immense, not least of all in improving the reach, the utility, the attitude, and the image of science itself.'


👣



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Dude, if i were a mod i'd delete that. You just gave someone a precise recipe to death and the advice to do it. He is 19 for gods sake.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse


I actually agree with what you say. Science's theories are just theories. Even the scientific laws have limitations as to their use and application.


You are confusing hypothesis with theory.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Dude, if i were a mod i'd delete that. You just gave someone a precise recipe to death and the advice to do it. He is 19 for gods sake.


Knowledge is subjective, the ricin won't kill him, it will turn to unicorns in his veins and they will dance on his cells.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
From philosophical point I believe "rational" is flawed.
For example, if you make a statement "x" then person "y" requires that you provide "proof."
If you read up on Kurt Godel's Incompleteness theorem you see that in a formal closed system
(Assuming that the universe is a formal closed system) that there are actually statements which
are true but cannot be shown to be true to this "prove it" mechanism. A rationalist in debate would
baulk at such statements as they require proof.

There are good ways to deal with these statements, one being a good argument which extreme
pseudo skeptics tend to ignore.....

Limbo



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: rickymouse


I actually agree with what you say. Science's theories are just theories. Even the scientific laws have limitations as to their use and application.


You are confusing hypothesis with theory.


Nope. I have read a lot of the theories and laws and researched the limitations of what they apply to. Their application many times is not viable unless certain conditions are met. Many of the laws of physics may not apply outside of this galaxy and possibly even just outside of the solar system away from the influence of the sun. The only way to know is to go outside the heliosphere and test them.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse


Nope. I have read a lot of the theories and laws and researched the limitations of what they apply to. Their application many times is not viable unless certain conditions are met. Many of the laws of physics may not apply outside of this galaxy and possibly even just outside of the solar system away from the influence of the sun. The only way to know is to go outside the heliosphere and test them.


90% of those "theories" you are talking about are actually hypothesis being tested still.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Yeah, what you say is true. But it seems some people use those theories as if they are proven fact. Look at the big bang theory. They are creating tests that can possibly be used to verify their theory is correct when in fact they are just interpreting the evidence to verify it is true. We will never know how our universe was formed from this speck of dust in the universe. The evidence can probably verify a bunch of possible theories.

I think we sort of are on the same page anyway. At least we are saying that what is referred to as a theory is possibly not real. It is just accepted consensus of the time.

When I look at a theory, I try to imagine what other things that the evidence could support. Most times this makes me question the validity of the theory. Some theories seem to hold up to scrutination well only if tests that are allowed to be run on the theory are used. If something can prove it wrong, chances it will not be allowable evidence.

This is a problem with human nature, not with science itself. But human nature and science are tightly bound when it comes to interpretation of evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join