Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by LorienRyan


51. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140261 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 4:42 am

Philip1978,

Wow! Applause.

Suck on that wooter.

52. Fleabytes

Comment #140251 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 4:31 am

Thoughts?


While some ride the rollercoaster down the track of infinite causes, the others are trying to work out how to best survive in the here and now?

53. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140236 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 4:15 am

Philip1978,

Are we experiencing technical difficulties?

54. Fleabytes

Comment #140234 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 4:12 am

clodhopper,

Nevermind, although, wooter, how ironic.

EDIT: now relevant to post #3999

55. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140226 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 4:06 am

MPhil,

Ok. Yes, the mint sauce thing was a great analogy.

56. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140224 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 4:04 am

One thing I don't get about the British, pie floaters...can someone explain that to me.

57. Fleabytes

Comment #140218 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 4:01 am

Please don't tell me anyone's truly missing him. I can't be the only one to have noticed that we don't need his comments to get the conversation flowing on here!


Clear who?

58. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140214 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 3:57 am

Comment #140209 by MPhil

I'm probably just missing something.


Yes, the olive branch. If you know what I mean.

59. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140196 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 3:36 am

Ok, fine then, have your damn popcorn....wotandammit!

60. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140187 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 3:30 am

Phil,

Let it rip...

*takes handful o popcorn*

61. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140183 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 3:27 am

Comment #140176 by MPhil

And we're back at philosophy again :)


Why you...:)

After reviewing my little rant about philosophy and ethics I realized the importance of (formal) philosophy in the process of inquiry and guarding against ambiguity... anyway.

*hug*

62. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140173 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 3:11 am

Depends if being a non-existent cunt counts, but then you can't 'be' non-existent...um, 'wooter, you ignorant cunt!'

63. Crossing the Divide

Comment #140155 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 2:36 am

YssiBoo,

There was an incident here in Australia involving two JW's, they were invited into a young man's home who kindly served them with a couple of hash cookies. After a couple more door knocks they (JW's) had to call an ambulance..., don't feel insulted if they refuse coffee and biscuits.

64. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140149 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 2:26 am

Wooter,

Well, I guess if you believe in talking snakes then talking paintings are no problem.

65. Fleabytes

Comment #140146 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 2:23 am

Only after you've finished your plate of brussel sprouts.

66. Fleabytes

Comment #140132 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 1:56 am

At what point do the Guinness chaps get called up?


I believe that is served at the upstairs bar.

67. Fleabytes

Comment #140130 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 1:53 am

Comment #140124 by MPhil

Studying philosophy attempts and often succeeds to make the one who studies it much more modest.


Yes, and this is where, I believe, philosophy is most relevant, namely, ethics.

68. Fleabytes

Comment #140125 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 1:42 am

Clodhopper,

Explains the devil's nice shiny white sharp teeth, he obviously couldn't get hold of any interior decorators though.

69. Fleabytes

Comment #140118 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 1:28 am

Diacanu,

Speak for yourself when your speaking to yourself:)

70. Fleabytes

Comment #140110 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 1:15 am

Cartomancer,

Can we add Jim Beam and coke to the menu? I'd rather drink the overflow from a salivating young earth creationist at a Dawkins lecture on Darwin day!

71. Fleabytes

Comment #140099 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 12:55 am

Accept in hell when you ask for a 'Gin and Tonic, please' you get watery red cordial in a styrofoam cup:)

72. Fleabytes

Comment #140077 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 12:38 am

Comment #140075 by clodhopper

"A fellow fallen Catholic"......oh yea, you bet, see you in hell Max...are board games allowed?


Yes, you get a chessboard with some of the pieces missing.

EDIT: Muhahahahah...

73. Fleabytes

Comment #140071 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 12:34 am

Off topic. If I may offer a note of praise to the infamous Wooter, he has inspired some great postal art from the illustrious Reverend Dark:)

74. Fleabytes

Comment #140061 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 12:21 am

Wooter is a purist of the worst kind...God bless him:)

75. Fleabytes

Comment #140058 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 12:19 am

Sorry MPhil,

Of course there's going to be some overlaping. But one section can't overlap more than part of it's neighbouring category:)

76. Fleabytes

Comment #140057 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 12:17 am

Oh yes, sorry forgot...


... - religion - wooter.

hows that:)

77. Fleabytes

Comment #140053 by LorienRyan on March 7, 2008 at 12:14 am

An aside,

If there could be some sort of scale...

Reality - science - philosophy - religion.

And in our every day lives we slide up and down the scale.

78. Fleabytes

Comment #140028 by LorienRyan on March 6, 2008 at 11:53 pm

Sir Martin Rees (and other physicists) have used the term "stillborn" to describe possible universes that don't end up with intelligent observers in. Does this make sense? I have no idea.


Sounds like dualism, like intelligent observation is something other than what a universe is made of. Although it's nice to think that we are the 'universe' waking up.

79. Fleabytes

Comment #139994 by LorienRyan on March 6, 2008 at 11:19 pm

If I may add, philosophy plays front and centre role in ethics, sure we can do the science and strip logic of all it's redunancy but what is it's goal and how do we avert disaster or unwanten unethical behaviour. Philosophy attempts to answer and solve these problems, it gives the concerns of the community an authoritative and measured voice.

80. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #139914 by LorienRyan on March 6, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Time to call the plaintiff to the witness stand...

81. Fleabytes

Comment #139911 by LorienRyan on March 6, 2008 at 5:25 pm

haha, there's only place where one continuous thread can contain gay porn, quarks, God on drugs, hippy stoners, boy scouts, ID, the Standard Model, Latin, Gambling, Scooby Doo, reindeer droppings... luv it! Oh yes, and even a mention of Iron Maiden, gotta hand it to the old rockers.

82. Fleabytes

Comment #139519 by LorienRyan on March 6, 2008 at 3:01 am

Richard,

One of the questions that puzzled me when I was kid...

Do colours exist in the dark?

I would go back 'n' forth with 'yes' and 'no' and still do today!

83. Fleabytes

Comment #139514 by LorienRyan on March 6, 2008 at 2:53 am

It is based around my belief that what is private to me about my experiences has no relevance to any discussion of objective reality, so it doesn't really matter.


It matters to marketing companies. Many don't like the idea of our subjective experiences becoming objectified. From a materialistic POV we really are objects though. I think different POV weigh differently between merit vs our inherent value as a human being. If that make any sense.

84. Fleabytes

Comment #139504 by LorienRyan on March 6, 2008 at 2:20 am

No doubt religion has been the main factor in social cohesion for a long time and still is. I for one, can't buy into the terms, thank goodness for seperation of church and state.

I think the best thing to do about it is be honest with yourself, think critically and speak the truth. Qualities that are seldom found in religion.

85. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139491 by LorienRyan on March 6, 2008 at 1:44 am

But when the AofC makes a speech on, say, civil and criminal law then we may pay some attention to it in the same way as we do from someone in the National Farmers Union. They carry the same weight of authority.


In theory, but in reality the AofC actually has more authority because more people pay attention to what he says. He has influence through those that grant it to him - and there are plenty who do.

86. Fleabytes

Comment #139482 by LorienRyan on March 6, 2008 at 12:45 am

I think that knowing the exact causes would also take up much to much computational resources (if it isn't impossible - it seems to be a self-reference problem) and thus render us incapable of action.


Yes. Be nice to have a hand held computational device that could do all that for us - 'Incoming message...don't have the chocolate dessert it's just neuron #1325675 being greedy again...end transmission.' :)

87. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #139432 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 8:17 pm

Because Buddhists just believe what they believe and leave everyone elso alone - your perogative to study it and believe it if you want to - to criticize a Buddhist for their belief is just futile, because who cares!

Religious evangelicals I can understand - their deluded. But atheist evangelicals?

By all means criticize belief systems that encourage violent behaviour and/or are a threat to the well being of humanity - but if a belief system, no matter how outlandish, is peaceful and manifests no ill-will or bad behaviour - then the evidence is that detractors of that belief system are the ones being 'toxic.'

They say 'knowledge is power', don't let it go to your head. We all love a good blood rush, but don't get too excited, that wide eyed salivating expression is not so becoming.

Well, I guess we all go through that 'I-know-it-all-angst' stage. Even us ever-so-wise atheists.

*yes, I'm finished now*

88. Fleabytes

Comment #139426 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 7:51 pm

Sure, the evidence points to the impossibility of free will as an uncaused cause, and it could be said that causality is the only universal absolute.

Although, when we consider going about our day-to-day activities, ignorant of 99.9% (sorry, no reference for that figure) of factors that cause us to act the way we do, this feeling of 'freedom' keeps us moving 'forward' and all is 'well'.

89. How to abandon your God

Comment #139416 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 7:13 pm

Religion is evolving to keep bums on seats. It wants something from you, gives you essentially nothing - idea's about god, woop-de-doo.

Rhetorical rubbish mind games. Might as well call it a marketing survey. Hey, what I think is better than what you think, gimme a dollar and I'll tell you all about it;)

If I can give less and take more... no, how 'bout give nothing and take everything! Woo-woo, here comes the gravy train...

*ranting*

90. Fleabytes

Comment #139080 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 5:28 am

Steve,

When I started practicing some meditation it was difficult to focus even for fifteen minutes, now I've built up to over an hour, no problems. It does seem to have had a positive effect on my ability to remain focused during tasks and deal with difficult people, like not being affected so personally. It also seems to leave me with sense of wellbeing afterwards - nothing mystical, just a refreshed feeling.

91. Fleabytes

Comment #139070 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 5:18 am

I don't, possibly as a result of this, feel that we can experience properly unless our brains actually shut up for once. They don't, do they?


Meditation is a good example. To focus and experience thoughts simply as passing phenomena, not paying them any attention until they just disappear. Then basking in the silence, the 'nothingness'.

Ok, I'll stop the Buddhist ramble...

92. Fleabytes

Comment #139056 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 4:58 am

irate_atheist - thanks for the link.

from the review...

Wolpert's book comes at a time when examining our beliefs seems more crucial than ever. We maintain ideas about ourselves, but it becomes too easy to project them to others. When more reasonable ideas are put forward, we must not be too ready to reject them.


So true, not easy to do.

93. Fleabytes

Comment #139053 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 4:53 am

The ability of the brain to model other minds. This goes too far (possibly for good evolutionary reasons) and we see intentionality and other aspects of mind where there is nothing.


And what makes things more difficult is the conceptual work the brain has to do (well my brain anyway) to grasp ideas like, what MPhil was discussing before, qualia and materialism. Which seem so essential for a basic understanding of reality, yet are not intuitive.

94. Fleabytes

Comment #139045 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 4:31 am

David Robertson experiences beauty and that experience is labelled "God", somehow.


I wonder if these experiences caused the idea of 'God' or if they were routed to some sort of presupposition?

Was God originally invented by an unscrupulous atheist starting the 'meme' or was the concept inspired, maybe by something like the experience of beauty?

95. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139021 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 3:15 am

What's the point of the Archbish o Cantebury?

So we can ask the question? Nah, f**k it, no point:P

96. Fleabytes

Comment #139018 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 3:13 am

MPhil,

Thanks for the quality qualia:)

97. Fleabytes

Comment #139015 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 3:11 am

Steve,

Agreed, and I've got a lot more reading to do to get a bit more up to speed.

98. Fleabytes

Comment #139004 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 2:52 am

MPhil,

I am having difficulty distinguishing the fundamental difference between 'private' and 'unique' in this context.

99. Fleabytes

Comment #138995 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 2:35 am

MPhil,

I mean qualia is private in the sense that the conditions, contained within a certain timeframe, that caused the qualia, once had, has passed. And any description will be incomplete or attempt to recreate that specific qualia be futile. All the information and material that alligned at that moment in time is unrecoverable, therefore is private to the brain that experienced that moment of qualia.

Qualia cannot be described completely because an absolutely complete and acurate discription would take all the matter in the universe, plus room for the header, 'This is the discription of so 'n' so's qualia'. I'm probably being way over pedantic:)

EDIT: I guess I mean private in the sense of infinite combinations.

100. Fleabytes

Comment #138982 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 2:18 am

The idea of having the information "corrupted" already presupposes that qualia are not physical processes or states, and thus denies materialism.


Well, I think that proves the point I'm trying to make. Not that qualia are not material, but that once the experience has been had, in time, all the factors that contributed to that experience are practically impossible to recreate in any way because of the fluidity of time and space. Therefore qualia are private, and no denial of materialism.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 | Next