[dead_battery]

I thought this deserves its own thread.

The fantastically brilliant and weird Tim Morton is part of the Object Oriented Ontology movement.

Basically it wants to think humans as being on an equal plane with all other objects. The table, the floor, oxygen, molecules. The universe is just objects inside other objects. Each object is split between its essence and its appearance. For example, think about how the computer screen in front of you is an object that exists on its own, independent of your mind, and would still be there if you suddenly died. It also exists as an appearance in your own mind and in the mind of everyone else who looks at it. "An object is withdrawn, even from itself".

That's a very crude cartoonish sketch of what its about based on my limited understanding.

It's trying to say that we humans are not special. We don't create the universe through giving it meaning or naming it. The universe was here before us, will be here when we are gone and would still be here if we went extinct tomorrow. We aren't the centre of everything.

Thoughts are objects. (You can find pictures of thoughts forming as neuron firings in the brain). We are trapped inside objects and can't get out. Objects are inside each other. You are one. You are composed and formed by external objects. You're an unrepentant oxygen junkie.

You can read Tims book Realist Magic here

 

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

What of objects themselves do not really exist,
but are merely fabricated concepts of the human mind
to create an understandable narrative of the myriad complexities
of the sub-atomic world?

 

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

What of objects themselves do not really exist,
but are merely fabricated concepts of the human mind
to create an understandable narrative of the myriad complexities
of the sub-atomic world?

YES.

objects are concepts but the world is "quantum soup" or whatever the fuck one wants to call it.

still, objects are useful. please pass the salt.

[TheMadcapLaughs]

jackie treehorn treats objects like women….

but seriously, whats the benefit to thinking of humans just as other objects?

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

It's trying to say that we humans are not special. We don't create the universe through giving it meaning or naming it. The universe was here before us, will be here when we are gone and would still be here if we went extinct tomorrow. We aren't the centre of everything.

Well, what's new?

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

What of objects themselves do not really exist,
but are merely fabricated concepts of the human mind
to create an understandable narrative of the myriad complexities
of the sub-atomic world?

 

http://disinfo.com/2013/05/physicist...string-theory/

[SonikJesus]

we are not objects. we are living beings. we are not special; maybe as a species we are. we are not the center of the universe. Yes, science just explains what already is there.

[dead_battery]

dont take my incredibly bad explanation of it for the real thing. go read the link, the book is amazing.

[EVOLghost]

sweet. new reading material at work.

thanks person!

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by SonikJesus

we are not special; maybe as a species we are. we are not the center of the universe.

But what if we are? What if there really is no Universe, and it is all just a projection of our mind and collective consciousness? In other words, we are all just sharing the same dream.

[dead_battery]

i look forward to the day science definitively proves that to be untrue beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt, and you christos pretend you never believed it in the first place. like when you said heaven was literally in the sky above us and prayer cured illness and priests incense cured mould infestations and...

altho, since we already have footage from the inside of peoples brains which clearly shows the outlines of actual objects in their thoughts, and all that other fucking library of science we have, i think such solipsistic fictions are already beyond the point of needing to be taken seriously enough to refute...

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

i look forward to the day science definitively proves that to be untrue beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt, and you christos pretend you never believed it in the first place. like when you said heaven was literally in the sky above us and prayer cured illness and priests incense cured mould infestations and...

altho, since we already have footage from the inside of peoples brains which clearly shows the outlines of actual objects in their thoughts, and all that other fucking library of science we have, i think such solipsistic fictions are already beyond the point of needing to be taken seriously enough to refute...

How can science prove such things, when science is entirely a human creation, and therefore part of the same dream? Who said prayer was ever about curing illness rather then contemplating the higher planes of reality, or more correctly, transcending beyond the limitations of the dream to find the Dreamer?

And by the way, you should know that botanically speaking, myrrh does in fact have antibacterial and antimicrobial properties hence why it was used in medicine as well as embalming for thousands of years. You should be more careful than to dismiss the previous 250,000 years of human history in the name of post-modern so-called "scientific discoveries" because simply put, without the continuity and discoveries of those previous and so-called primitive humans, we all would have long ago went extinct. Interestingly, examining the effects of cancer caused by industrialization as well as the ever menacing threat of total nuclear annihilation, perhaps science is actually MORE threatening towards our extinction than primitivism

[dead_battery]

its not a human creation. its not a CREATION.

thats the one concept that i am in eternal war against (and encounter everywhere). all i want is for people to just see the obvious connection with the fact they live in a post christian culture and that they think creation is so great. their are implicit assumptions hidden in our valorization of this concept, in the arts, in politics, in economics. my gamble is that by learning to recognize all the excess christianity smuggled into our post christian culture we can unclog some of the blockages we have.

what you are describing is a kind of loop where you rediscover your rationality through pushing through the cloud of sensationalism. very good. i just think this is another machinic process. im interested in what you are doing but science is going to be able to help me get there quicker than you could if you just sat down with me and told me to chill out and have a spliff or whatever. don't you want to know thats going on in your brain when you are in these trance like states, or states of prayer or whatever they are? don't you want to know what the shortcuts to get there are? im betting that your gut and brain and diet, not to mention environment, over a certain period of time are what made you adept at it. im betting altering those factors and learning how to manipulate them is more useful than the kind of vague, conceptual language you find in religious texts.

anyway. science is not a human creation because it is capable of replicating reality in a way that results unclouded by the biases of our minds and desires are broken. of course it requires our collaboration, and we can 'do it wrong'. but at least with science we know that all our ignorance is merely a lack of data. science allows us to bear witness to realities indifference to us, and then, starting from that assumption, manipulate reality in our favour.

but you have to start from that assumption, not from jesus' hugs. we did that for centuries and centuries and nothing new is going to come out of it.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

its not a human creation. its not a CREATION.

SCIENCE DOES NOT DESCRIBE OR EXPLAIN NATURE.. BUT NATURE AS EXPOSED TO OUR METHOD OF QUESTIONING.

Werner Heisenberg

thats the one concept that i am in eternal war against (and encounter everywhere). all i want is for people to just see the obvious connection with the fact they live in a post christian culture and that they think creation is so great. their are implicit assumptions hidden in our valorization of this concept, in the arts, in politics, in economics. my gamble is that by learning to recognize all the excess christianity smuggled into our post christian culture we can unclog some of the blockages we have.

But you're quite literally being foolish so as to discredit or dismiss the significant impact which Christian, Islam, Brahmanism, and Buddhism actually had on human civilization and advancements in language, science, mathematics, engineering, and medicine. By the way, you did realize that Sir Isaac Newton INVENTED modern calculus but not for what you may have been thinking. Newton was obsessed with gamatria, and he designed calculus in an attempt to "decode" the Bible to predict the Apocalypse (he went to the grave insisting that his algorithms predicted the end of the world in 2060)..

i just think this is another machinic process.

BUT CONSIDERING YOU ARE FOREVER TRAPPED IN YOUR OWN MIND, HOW CAN YOU KNOW WITH CERTAINTY THAT IT REALLY IS JUST ANOTHER MECHANIC PROCESS?

im interested in what you are doing but science is going to be able to help me get there quicker

Yet with all the cancer causing chemicals released and the menacing threat of nuclear annihilation, how can you be so smug as to rely on science, when it has proven as dangerous as any other human art?

don't you want to know thats going on in your brain when you are in these trance like states, or states of prayer or whatever they are? don't you want to know what the shortcuts to get there are?

There are no shortcuts. Further, how can you be so sure that the chemicals in the brain cause what you observe or experience, and that its not completely the other way around? How can you know that the experiences don't cause the chemicals?
.

anyway. science is not a human creation because it is capable of replicating reality in a way that results unclouded by the biases of our minds and desires are broken.

Bullshit. Science is filled with human conceptions, human measurements, human fabrications. All of the lovely "science" is merely a human art of interpreting reality, but as with all matters of interpretation, how can we always be so certain that something isn't lost in translations?

but you have to start from that assumption, not from jesus' hugs. we did that for centuries and centuries and nothing new is going to come out of it.

Considering how many great scientists were active, worshiping Christians how can you be damned sure that these are in natural conflict or dichotomy? From Newton, to Mendel, all the way up to Francis Collins, many impacting scientists were also men of renowned faith. Did you know Newton published more commentaries on Scripture than he did on science? Or that Mendel celebrated Mass as a priest? Or that Francis Collins is an active church goer? Yet these men are also foundation pioneers and corner stones of post-modern science. Hmmm.. Seems your supposed scientific dichotomy is non-existent than

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by TheMadcapLaughs

j
but seriously, whats the benefit to thinking of humans just as other objects?

it makes it easier to rape and murder them.

[dead_battery]

lets do this!

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Werner Heisenberg


But you're quite literally being foolish so as to discredit or dismiss the significant impact which Christian, Islam, Brahmanism, and Buddhism actually had on human civilization and advancements in language, science, mathematics, engineering, and medicine. By the way, you did realize that Sir Isaac Newton INVENTED modern calculus but not for what you may have been thinking. Newton was obsessed with gamatria, and he designed calculus in an attempt to "decode" the Bible to predict the Apocalypse (he went to the grave insisting that his algorithms predicted the end of the world in 2060)..

yeah. and all those contributions are what led to science, and are now a part of history. they have nothing more to teach us. newton also spent most of his time in more secular pursuits (fucking alchemy).

im giving your religion credit, but only in the way that a parasite burrowing through the brain of a host gives the host credit. sure it was fun but now i've sucked up your brain and am some sort of insect drone creature with psychic internet antenna flying the globe and remotely hacking the financial markets. i dont really care about that old dead person i once used up. going back to them would be a waste of time.

BUT CONSIDERING YOU ARE FOREVER TRAPPED IN YOUR OWN MIND, HOW CAN YOU KNOW WITH CERTAINTY THAT IT REALLY IS JUST ANOTHER MECHANIC PROCESS?

This is only a problem if you believe in the self. Your point is that the self is omnipotent and thus we can endlessly avoid facing what we dont want to face because you can accuse the other of not knowing what your self REALLY is and thus you can never be pinned down.

And of course, that's the whole point of the culture. Men have selves and do the naming of others, and thus the pretense is that men create all these things. But its either men or the violent or the briefly powerful that endlessly change the definitions. I'm sick of this stupid pretense.

Also, there is nothing in me that ever could 'get out' of the trap of this mind. That's more christianity right there if you think there is. Please show me where in the brain the self is located? You're just an ape standing there pointing at it howling your noise and i'm supposed to respect it or else. I'm supposed to believe it exists. lol

Yet with all the cancer causing chemicals released and the menacing threat of nuclear annihilation, how can you be so smug as to rely on science, when it has proven as dangerous as any other human art?

Answer me this then - without science, would we not be going extinct anyway? Wheren't we always going extinct? If science makes us go extinct, then thats another bonus and an almost divine miracle for the human race. That's a more christian ending. We do something that makes us go extinct. You can still have your god then, and be the tragic figure who held onto hope in a corrupt world, where ultimately the corrupt hearts of your fellow men won, but you still held out strong. How lovely! Also, there's a lot of cancer causing substances in nature. And all this relies on this silly split between nature and culture. You think the natural is good cos like, god made it and its simple and feels good. The artificial is bad cos we made it and its all industrial and it must be our fault for doing that that the world is tainted with death and suffering. You and half the fucking culture still believes in this idea but it's not going to remain credible for much longer. Try regressing and seeing how nature or god takes care of you. Try not artificially regulating the earths co2 levels and see what happens. Try putting your faith in the inherent goodness of the world.

Also, science has already done more than religion ever will. You know this to be a fact. More Americans would know this is they didn't have to face going broke to pay medical bills. You don't need faith as much when you have socialized medicine.

There are no shortcuts. Further, how can you be so sure that the chemicals in the brain cause what you observe or experience, and that its not completely the other way around? How can you know that the experiences don't cause the chemicals?

The photons coming from the objects themselves are what is experienced. they are literally inside the eyes.

Bullshit. Science is filled with human conceptions, human measurements, human fabrications. All of the lovely "science" is merely a human art of interpreting reality, but as with all matters of interpretation, how can we always be so certain that something isn't lost in translations?

Whereas religion is nothing BUT one big human interpretation where EVERYTHING is lost in translation.

And I'd rather question your pretense to know reality. Or to know one singular reality that you have access to and are able to discern from what is non reality. You exhibit the same type of logic as some on the new right who endlessy whine about how modern decadent liberals and all those other groups they want to murder refuse to accept 'reality'. This is a way of salvaging the male ego. It has access to reality and everyone else is just a little puppet gliding over its surface.

You are trying to hold onto creationism by saying that reality is just a big blur and an incomprehensible mess until we interpret it. And by we you have specifically you and presumably your god or gods wherever they are. You want to pretend that whatever interpretation you spin on it is somehow immune from being mere data and thus not subject to a set of laws. That what you think is coming from your will to create. That you are making things up as you go along rather than being made up by the flux that goes through your mind.

I'm saying that reality is just a big blur period and our interpretations dont mean shit. Literally they are worthless. But science is something that we can do, reproducing results that bring intelligibility and systematization.

Considering how many great scientists were active, worshiping Christians how can you be damned sure that these are in natural conflict or dichotomy? From Newton, to Mendel, all the way up to Francis Collins, many impacting scientists were also men of renowned faith. Did you know Newton published more commentaries on Scripture than he did on science? Or that Mendel celebrated Mass as a priest? Or that Francis Collins is an active church goer? Yet these men are also foundation pioneers and corner stones of post-modern science. Hmmm.. Seems your supposed scientific dichotomy is non-existent than

Yeah, I agree, its something I want to see happen rather than something that is entirely here already.

But this isn't the 19th century anymore.

[dead_battery]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

it makes it easier to rape and murder them.

ok. but trying to make them something other than this hasn't exactly worked out for us very well so far.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

lets do this!



yeah. and all those contributions are what led to science, and are now a part of history. they have nothing more to teach us. newton also spent most of his time in more secular pursuits (fucking alchemy).

No its not just history, it is part of our collective understanding of today. Without the discoveries and insights of the past, not only would we not have the benefit of that wisdom today, we very well may have went extinct and therefore NOT EVEN EXIST TODAY, PERIOD.

im giving your religion credit, but only in the way that a parasite burrowing through the brain of a host gives the host credit.

So again, what would we do without all those mechanical, scientific, and medicinal discoveries of the ancients who were following religious pursuits? You may not agree with the motivations of those engineers who built the Cathedrals of Europe, but where would modern construction have evolved without them?

sure it was fun but now i've sucked up your brain and am some sort of insect drone creature with psychic internet antenna flying the globe and remotely hacking the financial markets. i dont really care about that old dead person i once used up. going back to them would be a waste of time.

That is truly foolish, and one day you will learn the wisdom of relying on the past rather than dismissing it as foregone.

This is only a problem if you believe in the self. Your point is that the self is omnipotent and thus we can endlessly avoid facing what we dont want to face because you can accuse the other of not knowing what your self REALLY is and thus you can never be pinned down.

The Self is all you have really, everything else is ephemeral.

And of course, that's the whole point of the culture. Men have selves and do the naming of others, and thus the pretense is that men create all these things. But its either men or the violent or the briefly powerful that endlessly change the definitions. I'm sick of this stupid pretense.

Then why are so reliant on the modern religion of science, which is nothing more than as you've said, men having selves and naming of others (i.e. classification)?

Also, there is nothing in me that ever could 'get out' of the trap of this mind. That's more christianity right there if you think there is. Please show me where in the brain the self is located? You're just an ape standing there pointing at it howling your noise and i'm supposed to respect it or else. I'm supposed to believe it exists. lol

Haha, that is cute, but in the core and essence of your being, you KNOW that is simply not true, and if it is, what a sad, empty, and meaningless existence it must be

You think the natural is good cos like, god made it and its simple and feels good. The artificial is bad cos we made it and its all industrial and it must be our fault for doing that that the world is tainted with death and suffering.

Didn't say that. Just pointed out that science can be as dangerous when reckless as anything else. Its not divine, its as human as anything else, and humans are as inherently dangerous as we are fragile.

You and half the fucking culture still believes in this idea but it's not going to remain credible for much longer. Try regressing and seeing how nature or god takes care of you.

Meh.

Try not artificially regulating the earths co2 levels and see what happens. Try putting your faith in the inherent goodness of the world.

C02 levels are only rising above naturally sustainable levels because of the gross abuses of human technology.

Also, science has already done more than religion ever will.

Nope. Science today is entirely built upon the previous scientific discoveries of more religious minded people. Again, your dichotomy is false, and not supported by many functioning, laboratory scientists today who even the modern world spend their 9-to-5 in the lab, and then their Sundays sincerely behind a pew

More Americans would know this is they didn't have to face going broke to pay medical bills.

Isn't it interesting how the Catholic Church is the largest provider or charitable healthcare in America and the world meanwhile all those scientists in lab coats at the pharmaceutical labs only think about their wallets and new cars in the drive way patiently watching innocent humans die of preventable diseases whereas the conscience of people of Faith is moved to help save lives and put their money where their mouth is to boot

the photons coming from the objects themselves are what is experienced. they are literally inside the eyes.

Maybe, maybe not. We can easily chemically manipulate the brain to perceive things which do not exist, so how can we always be so sure that we we perceive in ordinary circumstances actually does exist, and is not rather the product of our minds as it is with visions, dreams, and hallucinations? How exactly can we know the difference when consciousness and experience are entirely subjective?

Whereas religion is nothing BUT one big human interpretation where EVERYTHING is lost in translation.

Not any more or less than science, because religion has a unique advantage, it has 250,000 years of studying the depths of the human mind, consciousness, and experience to build upon. Religion knows the human mind and heart in an existential way which science is barely starting to catch up with. It would be silly to dismiss the collective wisdom of our previous several hundred generations? Only a fool pretends the past isn't important, and any old man will laugh in your face to remind you of this, and that is just over a single life-time, let alone the collective wisdom of tens of thousands of people.

And I'd rather question your pretense to know reality.

I don't pretend to know reality, YOU DO THOUGH

You are trying to hold onto creationism by saying that reality is just a big blur and an incomprehensible mess until we interpret it. And by we you have specifically you and presumably your god or gods wherever they are.

Way to battle a Straw Man there!

When exactly did I say that? You infer too much. To have an existentialist conversation with me, you need to reject any of your bigoted, biased, or prejudiced preconceived notions of what you think I think, and instead address what I actually said

I'm saying that reality is just a big blur period and our interpretations dont mean shit. Literally they are worthless. But science is something that we can do,

Can't you see the inherent contradiction in what you just said? Science is a human art, using human created conceptions and measurements which indeed often prove false, inaccurate, and biased. Science changes and evolves. What was a so-called fact becomes fiction and previous fiction becomes the facts of the future. I rather accept reality as a big blur and try my best not to read too much between any particular lines. The basic premise of my Faith is to say (a) I know nothing but what is temporarily revealed, and (b) such revelations are by definition fleeting, changing, evolving, as is science.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

British philosopher J.R. Lucas agrees with Langer that perception is based upon the creative and formulative process of decision-making. He argues further that there are no abstract facts or events to form decisions, rather internal decisions form and shape the world of external facts and events. Facts and events, while having their own external counterpoints, from the perspective of individual perception are entirely limited by internal processes and decisions. He explains, “There are few facts if any that we cannot in our metaphysical moments be uncertain of, our concept of truth is regressive.” That is, our experiences are trapped in the regression of past tense and interpretation. We are constantly living a split-second after the fact, and so our thoughts are creative and formulative interpretations and decisions of the external events we experience. We live in our memory of events and our interpretations of facts, and according to Lucas this all an internal, creative decision.

I'm reposting this because it seems relevant.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

ok. but trying to make them something other than this hasn't exactly worked out for us very well so far.

right but have you noticed how every time one society wants to exterminate another it has to paint them as "evil" and "animals"?

some sociopaths have no problem carving up people's insides for fun, but in order to recruit the bulk of the population into a genocidal frenzy you must dehumanize the enemy in their eyes-- untermensch, heathens, savages, barbarians, infidels, evil terrorists. and nothing objectifies like the "evil" label. you can put aside any qualms when it comes the time to destroy evil. it's so easy when the enemy is no longer a person.

what ever the fuck happened with friendly adversaries and worthy honorable enemies? they went the way of the 18th century i think. now every motherfucker and their fucked mother are most earnestly fighting evil. and "evildoers" are objects (not people) onto which we project everything we repress and hate about ourselves.