response 150 of 372:

Jun 10 11:48 UTC 2002

Re #143:  I think you've made an error, that cells could not conceive
of greater organizations of cells.  Would intelligent cells (a la
"Blood Music") not be able to easily perceive something on the order
of the Islets of Langerhans (sp?)?  How about the organization of
epithelia, vessels, muscles and such?

Wouldn't they be able to conceive of something even bigger than
themselves, as humans conceive of (and even design) corporations
and nations?  If they couldn't, then the analogy is grossly flawed.

There's no doubt whatsoever that humans can conceive of such things
as deities, Gaia and whatnot, and even swear to (and die for) their
beliefs in them.  However, the evidence for their existence in any
form resembling the concept is shaky at best.

response 152 of 372:

Jun 10 13:31 UTC 2002

I think all of you guys who are emphasising the "scientific 
implausibility" of god are missing the point completely. Science and 
religion are two separate things. Science does not help a person to 
understand their life or make sense of it any better. From a scientific 
perspective, one could say that the highest aim of life is to 
reproduce. If that is really the case, why are we chatting about 
philosophy instead of being busy fucking? The point is that just 
because science says that something is so doesn't mean that that 
particular point makes much difference in how we make sense of our 
lives or live them. Rane seems to think that all religion is bunk . . . 
wishful thinking by people less intelligent than him. Maybe he is 
right, I don't know. But there are some people who seem to have a 
nagging sense of unfulfimment or being somehow incomplete, even though 
they seem to have no reason for feeling like that. Someone with some 
great kids, a hot spouse, good job, etc. may still find life curiously 
unrewarding. What then? What does science tell us to do? Prozac? Dope 
ourselves to make sure that your own psychological impulses are in line 
with what we are told we are supposed to be like? Literature and music 
are also supposedly illogical. What could be sillier than listening to 
a sequence of sounds or reading about a bunch of made up characters? 
Nevertheless, certain types of literature or music can often seem to 
touch us in places where logic doesn't. Religious impulses to me seem 
to be of a smiliar nature. Now maybe this is just a product of biology, 
and maybe it isn't. But that really doesn't matter much since one way 
or the other when you begin to start asking yourself what is the 
meaning of your life, how do you go about living in the fullest way 
possible and not waste the time that you have been given, whether by 
accident or design, these are religous questions. You can deny that 
they are valid questions, but that doesn't make them go away. And 
despite some people trying to convince us that maybe we are somehow 
stupid for asking such questions or for trying to figure out what we 
should do with our lives, the questions remain . . . the harder we try 
to ignore them, the more insistent they become. Personally I have never 
been much interested in the traditional religious approaches, as they 
always seem to emphasise belief, which I have little interest in, and 
conformance to doctrines thought up by others, which I have evel less 
interest in. It has never seemed to me that belief does much of 
anything for most people. It gives them a reason to look down on others 
who don't share the same belief, but that is a poor reason to embrace 
it. The real thing that I would be interested in is a transformation of 
my own life, something beyond words. The writers of the Upanishads held 
similar views. The point of religious knowlegde was not belief, but an 
inner transformation, a sort of "salvation" as it were. The way that 
most religions try to go about describing this is pretty comical. They 
resort to myths because they have no real words to say what they mean. 
Then people take the myths as 100% valid and try to force them on 
others, when all the while this makes them less valid since it involves 
a "one fits all" mentality, which is less likely to speak to any one 
person who is trying to think things out for him or herself. So maybe 
all of us who are less than adulatory about the virtues of science as 
it impacts on our own understanding of our lives and what we should do 
with them now that we are here are certifiably insane, and much less 
intelligent than Rane, as well as being bad spellers. But that does not 
make the dilemmas go away. It does not fill the emptiness and does not 
allow science to be any more able to fill the void than water would be 
able to take the place of love. So, to all of you people who are oh-so-
much-smarter-than-I, what should I do? 

response 154 of 372:

Jun 10 14:43 UTC 2002

..and judgin science based on religion's rules in also implausable (if not
more so) which is why this item has often become a set of futile and annoying
arguments.

i personally enjoyed jan's comments.

response 156 of 372:

Jun 10 15:01 UTC 2002

i imagined yoda's voice when i read that.

response 158 of 372:

Jun 10 15:39 UTC 2002

Re #152: I ended up wondering what you really think. You are apparently
not religious in the common sense. I agree completely that we have an
emotional life and have never denied that. So what should make us more
satisfied with life and our lot? Pleasure in mysticism or pleasure in
reality? I get nothing from the former except as "stories" (and their
instructive metaphors), while my greatest pleasures lie in the
complexities and beauty of the latter.

response 160 of 372:

Jun 10 16:21 UTC 2002

One can "understand" (or attempt to understsand) oneself without
mysticism.  I'm a very introspective type of person, but I don't cast my
introspection in terms of mystical constructs. Emotions, feelings,
personalities, one's "psychology" etc, are not mysticism. They are
realities of consciousness. I am fascinated by consciousness (and have
read quite a bit about it: you will find a review of a book about
consciousness in the NonFiction item in the books cf.).

response 162 of 372:

Jun 10 16:25 UTC 2002

I meant *of them*.

response 164 of 372:

Jun 10 17:21 UTC 2002

from the Dark Side comes bullshit.

response 166 of 372:

Jun 10 17:52 UTC 2002

Mmm... Rane. Much touchiness I sense in him.

response 168 of 372:

Jun 10 18:11 UTC 2002

<snorts>  I'm loving this whole thing.

response 170 of 372:

Jun 10 18:47 UTC 2002

So, Rane, would you consider all literature as mysticism? Sometimes things
can be got across much more powerful ion literature than in the normal
argumentative method of philosophising. Maybe we should just get rid of all
music and literature as mindless mysticism. Honestly, you remind me of most
Christians that I know . . .either you agree with them or you are a moron.

response 172 of 372:

Jun 10 20:32 UTC 2002

All we have is the life of the mind. We don't know what really is, all we know
is what we perceive to be. It is possible, Rane, that you are the only
conscious entity that exists, and all that you experience is a fantasy created
as a defense mechanism so that you don't feel so lonely. Implausible, but
possible. I don't understand why you don't get *that.*

response 174 of 372:

Jun 10 21:23 UTC 2002

(I'm going to regret stepping into this, I know)

So, in order for something to be considered mysticism, it has to be actually
contradicted by science?