Friday, May 20, 2011
Wild & Injured
I'm in the corner licking my wounds. It hurts so much. Why would she do that to me. I thought she was my friend. Someone is coming, they say they want to help. I don't believe them, they will hurt me too if I let them get to close. I can't rely on them any more. They only want to hurt me, like she did. Why did she do that? Did I do something wrong? Maybe it's me. Should I believe her that I'm not good enough. I want to chase the stars but she told me to sit and stay. What's wrong with the stars? I thought she wanted to chase them too. I want to take her with me but I need to run out first and make sure it's safe for her. She says it's to dangerous and I need to stay here were things are familiar and safe. But that's boring I thought. How can I become better if she wants me to stay the same? Ouch! I'm in the corner licking my wounds. It hurts so much.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
My Perspective of Perspectives
Everything that was, is, and will be is limited to our perspective and the pursuit of truth is no exception. This is the primary argument for the existence of God, as science is only allowed to accept what it can know and not perceive. The error with this statement is that we as humans use our perspectives to guide science to the truths with way of theories and questions based on our perspective of reality. It is the jobs of the priests and clergymen to help science to the truth that is God. But why don't they? Why has every God believing individual I have met side stepped science when asked about God? One theory is they fear that in the pursuit of proving God they might in fact disprove Gods existence thus permanently damaging their indoctrinated perspective of life!
We as a race are damn good liars. Able to conceive amazing things that are well outside the realm of reason and reality. Sometimes even to the point of convincing ourselves that our delusions are fact. Many fail to stop to ask science to help us confirm our theories because the perception of reality was so compelling that to affirm otherwise would be too unthinkable and emotionally painful. Take movies for example, these elaborate moving paintings can depict anything the mind can conceive. As we watch these films we are subconsciously adjusting our perspective of reality. We leave the theater with a slightly modified view of the world. I mean after all, we saw it happen right? Just because it was computer generated doesn't mean we our minds will automatically discard it. We have to apply rational thought to our experiences otherwise we will be caught in a perpetual delusion. Once a person has been indoctrinated into a perspective it is very difficult to break.
This is one reason why we die of old age. This is natural selections mechanism to prevent our indoctrinated perspectives from polluting further generations by protecting our children from ourselves. If you want proof just jump back a few centuries and compare the morals of society from then and now. Very different! How different do you think the world would be if the Mayan, Greek, or Egyptian priests and rulers were still alive today? Would we even know if the world was round? I know I injected a lot of presumption into this argument as it presents itself more of an opinion that fact. Perhaps the question would best be answered in a movie.
Faith verses Perspective, whats the difference? Well, religion has made claim in that Faith is knowing without proof and belief is a notion without proof. A belief implies the existence of doubt which is not compatible with the idea of perspective. So I surmise that faith and perspective are synonym's. Thus an individuals perspective is their faith. You might claim that perspective is limited to the individual while faith is encompassed by the group. The problem with this is how would you prove it? The lexicon of the average individual is far to limited to properly convey in absolute terms the perspective of each individual for comparison to the group. Far too much interpretation would be required and would pollute the results. I would suggest that people should take up painting and their masterwork should be of their perspective. I have a strong notion that no two would be alike without being tainted by prior works.
How can anyone know something as true without proof?
Isn't that self delusion? The religious devouts would claim divine intervention but I then I have to ask how was the intervention done? Again science is side stepped. Maybe we just don't have a theory that is compatible with science. Perhaps the religious should stop praying to the heavens and start praying to their core or inner-self. Quantum mechanics is the science of studying the laws, principles, and nature of the sub atomic. One of these mysteries science is attempting to unravel is the apparently random creation and destruction of these elements. Could these seemingly random and unexplained occurrences be the voice of God? His whispers changing the world with the echos in the subatomic? Maybe. Science will eventually find the answer and I'm more inclined that the explanation is far simpler as God would have to be imaginatively complex to be able to interact with every infinitesimal element of the universe completely and constantly.
What if God is like a computer?
My laptop's cursor blinks in anticipation as I write this. Millions of times per second it waits in anticipation of my key strokes. From the computer's perspective, it it had any notion of self, I am it's God. The movie Tron depicts this world of the users and the programs. The "programs" claim that they were made in the image of there creators, the "users". I'm going to geek out here so if you get lost ask a well versed geek to translate.
If we compare mono-theology and our humble Windows computer we can identify an almost one to one correlation. Our universe starts with a computer with a single core processor and a hard drive in pure chaos that is unable to boot. We bring order into the chaos by installing a single threaded operating system whose sole purpose to to simulate a virtual universe with ultimate detail. This simulation is not in real-time as the calculations are too complex. The user watches and waits a million years, this is fine as the user is immortal and has infinite patience. From the universe perspective only a second has gone by. Occasionally the user will execute a custom program that will adjust the simulation. This program can only interject changes within the rules of the universe it simulates and can only process these events during an kernel interrupt event we will call the divine intervention interrupt. An unfathomable amount of time passes for the user and the simulation has reach a point there interstellar bodies exists and sustain life. One notable planet has a collection of life that become self aware.
The grass is always greener on the other side.
We love analogies, they are just vague enough to convey our intended impression while still leaving a lot of available interpretations. When we are able to decipher the play on words it makes us feel cleaver. At what point do we interpret what is implied, absolute, and/or intended? One scripture from Genesis would have you believe that if a few male guests are visiting and the local villagers come knocking with the intent to sodomize the male guests, then your first retort is to offer your daughters instead. This is the literal interpretation and I find it not only improbable in today's society but just plain weird. What are the possible interpretations? As-sodomy is bad when performed on an unwilling male? Women and daughters are only useful to protect your guests? Is this an example of acceptable behavior, If so whose? By today's standards this particular section of scripture would be shrugged off as a segment on the Jerry Springer show. Perhaps a lawyer is needed to rewrite the bible using absolute terms that are not up for interpretation. This would prevent the inevitable bickering that ensures when one interpretation doesn't coheir with another's. This is alas impossible as no single interpretation would be accepted because it would interfere with one group or another's "perspective".
This old adage addresses the inability of us as individuals to accept complacency in the world we live. We strive to achieve the next best "whatever" in a line of available, or even not yet available, "whatever"s.
We as a race are damn good liars. Able to conceive amazing things that are well outside the realm of reason and reality. Sometimes even to the point of convincing ourselves that our delusions are fact. Many fail to stop to ask science to help us confirm our theories because the perception of reality was so compelling that to affirm otherwise would be too unthinkable and emotionally painful. Take movies for example, these elaborate moving paintings can depict anything the mind can conceive. As we watch these films we are subconsciously adjusting our perspective of reality. We leave the theater with a slightly modified view of the world. I mean after all, we saw it happen right? Just because it was computer generated doesn't mean we our minds will automatically discard it. We have to apply rational thought to our experiences otherwise we will be caught in a perpetual delusion. Once a person has been indoctrinated into a perspective it is very difficult to break.
This is one reason why we die of old age. This is natural selections mechanism to prevent our indoctrinated perspectives from polluting further generations by protecting our children from ourselves. If you want proof just jump back a few centuries and compare the morals of society from then and now. Very different! How different do you think the world would be if the Mayan, Greek, or Egyptian priests and rulers were still alive today? Would we even know if the world was round? I know I injected a lot of presumption into this argument as it presents itself more of an opinion that fact. Perhaps the question would best be answered in a movie.
Faith verses Perspective, whats the difference? Well, religion has made claim in that Faith is knowing without proof and belief is a notion without proof. A belief implies the existence of doubt which is not compatible with the idea of perspective. So I surmise that faith and perspective are synonym's. Thus an individuals perspective is their faith. You might claim that perspective is limited to the individual while faith is encompassed by the group. The problem with this is how would you prove it? The lexicon of the average individual is far to limited to properly convey in absolute terms the perspective of each individual for comparison to the group. Far too much interpretation would be required and would pollute the results. I would suggest that people should take up painting and their masterwork should be of their perspective. I have a strong notion that no two would be alike without being tainted by prior works.
How can anyone know something as true without proof?
Isn't that self delusion? The religious devouts would claim divine intervention but I then I have to ask how was the intervention done? Again science is side stepped. Maybe we just don't have a theory that is compatible with science. Perhaps the religious should stop praying to the heavens and start praying to their core or inner-self. Quantum mechanics is the science of studying the laws, principles, and nature of the sub atomic. One of these mysteries science is attempting to unravel is the apparently random creation and destruction of these elements. Could these seemingly random and unexplained occurrences be the voice of God? His whispers changing the world with the echos in the subatomic? Maybe. Science will eventually find the answer and I'm more inclined that the explanation is far simpler as God would have to be imaginatively complex to be able to interact with every infinitesimal element of the universe completely and constantly.
What if God is like a computer?
My laptop's cursor blinks in anticipation as I write this. Millions of times per second it waits in anticipation of my key strokes. From the computer's perspective, it it had any notion of self, I am it's God. The movie Tron depicts this world of the users and the programs. The "programs" claim that they were made in the image of there creators, the "users". I'm going to geek out here so if you get lost ask a well versed geek to translate.
If we compare mono-theology and our humble Windows computer we can identify an almost one to one correlation. Our universe starts with a computer with a single core processor and a hard drive in pure chaos that is unable to boot. We bring order into the chaos by installing a single threaded operating system whose sole purpose to to simulate a virtual universe with ultimate detail. This simulation is not in real-time as the calculations are too complex. The user watches and waits a million years, this is fine as the user is immortal and has infinite patience. From the universe perspective only a second has gone by. Occasionally the user will execute a custom program that will adjust the simulation. This program can only interject changes within the rules of the universe it simulates and can only process these events during an kernel interrupt event we will call the divine intervention interrupt. An unfathomable amount of time passes for the user and the simulation has reach a point there interstellar bodies exists and sustain life. One notable planet has a collection of life that become self aware.
The grass is always greener on the other side.
We love analogies, they are just vague enough to convey our intended impression while still leaving a lot of available interpretations. When we are able to decipher the play on words it makes us feel cleaver. At what point do we interpret what is implied, absolute, and/or intended? One scripture from Genesis would have you believe that if a few male guests are visiting and the local villagers come knocking with the intent to sodomize the male guests, then your first retort is to offer your daughters instead. This is the literal interpretation and I find it not only improbable in today's society but just plain weird. What are the possible interpretations? As-sodomy is bad when performed on an unwilling male? Women and daughters are only useful to protect your guests? Is this an example of acceptable behavior, If so whose? By today's standards this particular section of scripture would be shrugged off as a segment on the Jerry Springer show. Perhaps a lawyer is needed to rewrite the bible using absolute terms that are not up for interpretation. This would prevent the inevitable bickering that ensures when one interpretation doesn't coheir with another's. This is alas impossible as no single interpretation would be accepted because it would interfere with one group or another's "perspective".
This old adage addresses the inability of us as individuals to accept complacency in the world we live. We strive to achieve the next best "whatever" in a line of available, or even not yet available, "whatever"s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)