The Case Against Reason

Jun 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Slate Magazine

When Richard Dawkins was named the world's "Top Thinker" in a poll recently published by Prospect magazine , it was hard to avoid the suspicion that the world - or at least that part of it that votes in such polls - must have an impoverished sense of what constitutes a vital or transformative intellectual figure.

Comments (Page 2)

Showing posts 21 - 34 of34
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jun 22, 2013
 
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
When I actually started to look up verses that atheists had thrown at me for years...I was appalled! I couldn't believe that I had spent my entire life believing the things that I did and never questioning. It's amazing the amount of conditioning that goes into the youth of a church (any church). We were trained to only know certain responses, and I did like most people do and never actually read the bible in it's entirety. I still have yet to do it, but I am becoming more and more inspired to, simply because I want to dive into the fiction of it as just a book lol. I also want to be able to attempt to show people the insanity of it all. I may never change someone's mind, but I'm certainly glad that my boyfriend has been around for the two years that I have been finding the truth. He's always been there to kindly tell me where my thinking has been trashed over the years. It has really helped.
I had read the NT through and through many times as a youth, but the OT was really horrid stuff. I'd never read it through until I took a college level class on the thing-- took 9 months to complete, and we went through the whole ugly thing.

When I started, I had no real idea just how horrid it was. That course later was instrumental in my eventual loss of faith.(yeah, I'm an ex christian too)
Thinking

Tisbury, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jun 22, 2013
 
The end in sight for Moore's Law?
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I am old enough to remember "discrete" electronics-- individual transistors, resistors and capacitors.
And you are correct about those-- mostly it was packaging (usually epoxy resin or plastic) the actual working bits being either quite thin (resistors) or very tiny (transistors were mostly packaging to make them easier to handle).
But these days? With super-large scale integration? Take your typical micro computer processor: the "working" part is literally the size of a small person's little fingernail in area, and not even that thick. The rest is packaging, again. But in that CPU is millions of components.
That used to be individually wired.
So closely packed are modern electronics, that the #1 engineering issue is one of overheating. The second one being the speed-of-light issues with length of conductors.
Interesting stuff.

“If God was real”

Since: Jan 10

He would look like this

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jun 22, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I had read the NT through and through many times as a youth, but the OT was really horrid stuff. I'd never read it through until I took a college level class on the thing-- took 9 months to complete, and we went through the whole ugly thing.
When I started, I had no real idea just how horrid it was. That course later was instrumental in my eventual loss of faith.(yeah, I'm an ex christian too)
I read the OT as a kid and teenager, that was one of the reasons I deserted the religion so quickly.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jun 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Thinking wrote:
The end in sight for Moore's Law?
<quoted text>
As a straight linear path, yes.

But, as always, engineering genius has taken a slight turn: multiple processors.

As it was back in the 50's and 60's with hot-rod engine power? If one engine cannot be made sufficiently strong? Use two or four or more...

... so it goes with microprocessors. When engineering has reached the limits of speed, due to speed-of-light, heat, and chaos issues?

Use more than one processor; divide your tasks up into smaller pieces, process in parallel, and achieve a virtual speed/power many times faster than simple linear progression.

Of course--this presents a new problem, as parallel processing is not quite as simple as slicing and dicing up a tomato...

...:)

But progress is being made here, too.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jun 22, 2013
 
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I read the OT as a kid and teenager, that was one of the reasons I deserted the religion so quickly.
I wish I had made a more formal study of it, when I was younger.

I'd likely have rejected the whole a lot sooner myself.

Willfully blind is a powerful attraction, when wish-fulfillment is one of the rewards.
Thinking

Tisbury, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jun 22, 2013
 
Better parallelism of processes is going to be the way forward once Moore's Law breaks.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
As a straight linear path, yes.
But, as always, engineering genius has taken a slight turn: multiple processors.
As it was back in the 50's and 60's with hot-rod engine power? If one engine cannot be made sufficiently strong? Use two or four or more...
... so it goes with microprocessors. When engineering has reached the limits of speed, due to speed-of-light, heat, and chaos issues?
Use more than one processor; divide your tasks up into smaller pieces, process in parallel, and achieve a virtual speed/power many times faster than simple linear progression.
Of course--this presents a new problem, as parallel processing is not quite as simple as slicing and dicing up a tomato...
...:)
But progress is being made here, too.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jun 22, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
Better parallelism of processes is going to be the way forward once Moore's Law breaks.
<quoted text>
Yes.

Imagine an electronic thinking machine, modeled after the massively parallel-processing of organic brains such as humans.

We already know that neurons are sloooow when compared to silicon electronics.

Yet, the massively parallel processing capability of a mammal's brain permits quite rapid reaction times and calculations.

So imagine a massively parallel processor running at silicon's speeds...

.... it ought to be pretty amazing.

“If God was real”

Since: Jan 10

He would look like this

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jun 23, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I wish I had made a more formal study of it, when I was younger.
I'd likely have rejected the whole a lot sooner myself.
Willfully blind is a powerful attraction, when wish-fulfillment is one of the rewards.
That is why the Church fought against reading the buybull in the language. They wanted to shield the horrible verses from the people. Notice when preachers preacxh they only recite verses that show God in a positive light, not the verses showing him in the negative like the penalty of death for working the Sabbath or the one about Bastards being banned from heaven.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jun 24, 2013
 
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
That is why the Church fought against reading the buybull in the language. They wanted to shield the horrible verses from the people. Notice when preachers preacxh they only recite verses that show God in a positive light, not the verses showing him in the negative like the penalty of death for working the Sabbath or the one about Bastards being banned from heaven.
Yes, of course they do. The sheeple mustn't know what is at the end of the shearing-chute... and it ain't sheep-shears...

... mutton, anyone?

“If God was real”

Since: Jan 10

He would look like this

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jun 24, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, of course they do. The sheeple mustn't know what is at the end of the shearing-chute... and it ain't sheep-shears...
... mutton, anyone?
Another dumb godbot
“If a woman is raped… We have hospital emergency rooms,” Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R) insisted.“We have funded what’s called rape kits that will help the woman, basically clean her out. And then hopefully that will alleviate that.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/24/watch-s...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jun 25, 2013
 
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Another dumb godbot
“If a woman is raped… We have hospital emergency rooms,” Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (R) insisted.“We have funded what’s called rape kits that will help the woman, basically clean her out. And then hopefully that will alleviate that.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/24/watch-s...
Yes. And a woman besides.

When will these people learn to face reality?
Amused

Shrewsbury, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Jun 25, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. And a woman besides.
When will these people learn to face reality?
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
— Unnamed White House aide, quoted by writer Ron Suskind, in an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article

These wingnuts really believe that they can alter reality just by ignoring inconvenient facts. No coincidence that Wingnuttery is entirely a subset of theism, which embraces the same idea as a cardinal principle.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
— Unnamed White House aide, quoted by writer Ron Suskind, in an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article
These wingnuts really believe that they can alter reality just by ignoring inconvenient facts. No coincidence that Wingnuttery is entirely a subset of theism, which embraces the same idea as a cardinal principle.
Disgusting morons is what they are.

With helpers like that? No **wonder** Bushy's regime was so evil.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Jul 2, 2013
 
This made me want to stop reading so bad I wanted to keep reading.
"Curtis White argues that science isn't the only way of looking at the world."
Note this isn't even a part of the article this is the subtitle the editors added this is a new and unbeatable record!
This is at it's basic level a rant against the field of human biology as show here, "White has it in for the theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, who insisted that “there is nothing that living things do that cannot be understood from the point of view that they are made from atoms acting according to the laws of physics.” But instead of seriously pursuing the troubling implications of this anti-humanist notion, he plunges us down the off-ramp and starts zipping along the low road at a ferocious clip:“I hope you will agree that this is a very disappointing conclusion for someone who was almost as famous for playing the bongos and going to strip clubs as he was for physics.”". A "anti-humanist notion" why is this? well that is down to speculation (aka unkind guess work) as no reason is given...
This brings us back to the subtitle, when did Richard Dawkins or Richard Feynman say that "science is the only way to look at the world", no quotes were given from them that said this this is what I shall now call a S***man, this is when strawman is so bad it is on the level of saying "the French believe that it is ethically ok to be a womanising prat"
How the F*** did is get thorough to the printing rooms and to the website editors, this is sewage S****! Strawmen are disavowing their cousin in a fit of rage, this is on par with content of creationist videos. This is one of the worst things I have ever read!
Hallef***inglujah! I made it thorough this still wanting to live, now can we have something of intellectual merit on this site that is worth reading as a masterpiece. I know 99% of everything is C*** but where is that majestic 1%?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 21 - 34 of34
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••