|
Post by rocketdad on Sept 27, 2005 18:11:07 GMT -4
Well, I'm bored with moron-bashing.
I would like to engage the regulars here in a discussion on what it is to believe. Why do we believe and what is it to believe vs. know?
First, I would like to say again that I go out on a limb to believe in whales. After all, I've never seen one, and besides, what kind of mammal has only one nostril? The notion of the largest creature on earth living on the smallest creatures on earth is, to quote Bart Sibrel, "absurd".
Second, I would like to point out that as correspondents on electronic media we are all potontially "bots." Can any one of you prove you are not a chatterbot? JayUtah has admitted to working for a company with supercomputing power, so perhaps Margamatix and DH are some his extra-curricular activities. Can they prove other wise? Can any of us? PeterB has fairly short answers to posts, for instance. Turbonioum switches subjects. Continue anaysis at your leisure...
That's the point. What can anybody PROVE? Well, I can look at a piece of plywood that it's rated for 24/36 inches of span rating, and I can put a piece of it on sawhorses in my yard, and I can load it with sacks of concrete until it breaks and decide for myself if I can use it for a floor in my mower shed, or use it for just the roof sheathing and corner sheer-wall. I can prove for myself what the American Plywood Association stamp on the sheet tells me, or I can save time and believe the APA.
I can go fishing in Google and come up with a guy who "believes" life could exist on Venus. What's my bait? I Google JayUtah, and come up with a guy who calls him a Borg. Then I Google Brad Guth and come up with many words but no sense.
I can Google JayUtah's "one true name" and find he is a Christian living in Mormon land. Yet he and "DeadHoosiers" have very different apparent beliefs, despite both being ostensibly readers of the same book.
I found turbonium today, bitching several months ago on another forum that nobody on this forum wants to talk about JFK. I was agnostic about the JFK thing until I downloaded JFKReloaded and tried myself to whack a president. Tough to get it "just right," but I think Oswald could have done it alone, based on my half-hearted scores of about 80%. Really, I, a man who was in the "unArmed Services" of the 1980's USAF could almost duplicate Oswald's shots. What do I believe now? Maybe he was just a lone nut, but I think he was nervous and didn't take the easy shots available earlier in the moment.
Does it matter what I believe? Only if it affects how I A)Vote or B)spend my money.
Anybody interested in discussing the belief systems in modern America? Don't worry - the NSA is already reading this forum, so you've already come to their attention if they're interested. But they're probably looking at Rocketry forums first.
|
|
|
Post by rocketdad on Sept 27, 2005 22:13:46 GMT -4
And another thing:
I would like to point out that there is a pronunciation similarity and numerelogical relationship between "Bart(space)Sibrel" and BARTZABEL, the Crowleyan Spirit of Mars. No matter how hard I search the web I can find no reference to him before spring, 1991. Obviously, the people behind "Group W" (Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove) are his mysterious "investors," and his name is a pseudonym. His videos are part of a disinformation plot to keep paranoid loonies busy looking in the wrong direction.
Really!
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 28, 2005 3:31:43 GMT -4
Ultimately everything could be an illusion as far as proof is concerned, but I suppose I go with a combination of René Descartes, Dr Samuel Johnson and Graham Chapman ("Cogito, ergo sum", "I refute it thus", "This is getting very silly!")
I'm probably a step ahead of you on the whales front, in that I've seen a live Orca in captivity and the skeleton & model of a Blue Whale in the Natural History Museum, so I know that at least one species of whale does exist and another at least has existed. From there accepting that there are others isn't a great stretch. I suppose it's conceivable that David Attenborough is the natural world's Bart Sibrel, but Life on Earth, The Blue Planet et al are a tad more comprehensive than anything BS puts out.
|
|
|
Post by rocketdad on Sept 28, 2005 17:12:21 GMT -4
My point about the whales is that I believe in them anyway. Why? I have no reason to believe that Attenborough, NatGeo, Greenpeace and the Norwegens are conspiring to deceive me. Yet, the HB's and CT's are saying just that, about their various theories.
In short, I'm willing to accept at face value the "Giant Cetacean" theory, based on the reliability of the sources.
I was trying to discuss with DeadHoosies the "rex-84" theory, and she kept listing unreliable sources. I gave her some comments on what makes a source reliable (Rex-84,pg8, reply93) but it was dismissed as a "rant." In short, do they have anything to lose by not getting the facts right? Do they have anything to gain by same?
So if National Geographic came out with an article on the "Giant Cetacean Hoax," that would be worth considering. If "some random guy with a webpage.com" says it, uh, I click away. Fast.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 28, 2005 17:26:55 GMT -4
Yes, it's history that's important: establishing a reputation. If a source has proved to be accurate in the past, there is more justification for believing it next time and vice versa.
I can't recall the exact details, but applying probability theory there is a regime whereby a number of consecutive successful tests establishes reliability: any failure increases the number of successes required.
|
|
|
Post by rocketdad on Sept 28, 2005 18:19:04 GMT -4
Which is why journalists freaked out when 1 guy was revealed to be making up his sources.
And yet, true believers are willing to overlook irrational and illogical claims by their favorite source and say "I think some of them contain good information." I'm trying to understand why that is.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 28, 2005 22:45:03 GMT -4
May I suggest the writings of David Hume? Permit me to correct you here. I maintained that Rex 84 (the government's plan to incarcerate American civilians) is real. I did not state that the sources which provided locations of the camps were correct. BTW, I determined to visit the camps in my area. Went to the first one last weekend. I can see why someone would think it might be one, but I don't think it is. One down, 2 to go. I thought Jay Utah was a Mormon? If so, we don't read the same book.
|
|
|
Post by rocketdad on Sept 29, 2005 0:02:20 GMT -4
DH: you aren't paying attention. I assert he is "a Christian living in Mormon land." That's what I said, and that's what I meant. I found that on-line, in another forum, by googling his name. His real name.
Why did you think he's Mormon? Because he's in Utah? How very open minded of you.
That's what I'm trying to start a conversation about here, what we know and what we instead believe for some reason or another. Usually assumptions and prejudices. I, for instance, am prejudiced against the government, and don't think they could cover-up balony with whitebread, much less a major conspiracy.
From comments embedded in your posts I've learned you are in LA, but I don't assume you have "a day job for now and a screenplay in your pocket," as the saying goes. I figure you're one of the millions of Californians who DON'T fancy themselves actors, or producers, or screenwriters. Not because of anything you've said, but because the popular conception represents a highly-visible minority rather than the majority.
If JayUtah is Mormon, then I've misread something. He can correct me, and I'll stand corrected. Then I'll go back and review my information, trying to understand where I went wrong. And in that case, no, he would not read the same book you do. I would also assert, though, that you and my Granny don't read the same book, either. She's after messages of hope and redemption, not fear and anxiety.
So IS Rex-84 real? Or WAS Rex-84 real? Look at the comment by Al Johnson again, and then contemplate your sources. And go back and reread my rant on journalism. Please contemplate and comment, I would like your input.
I'm serious here, people in this country belive some really weird doodoo. Some poeple believe that cruise missles cloaked in holograms hit the WTC. Some people believe that WestNile is a terrorist job. Some people believe that NASA and NSA are the same thing (?) and that we've been lied to about the inhabitablity of Venus.
Within the principles of Discordianism, I could argue that the various 9/11 conspiracies are all Fnords. If you know what that means, comment. If not, you should find out.
I'm trying to figure out what's driving this need for fear and anxiety. Are we so afraid of a powerless society that we'll elevate the government to an absurd height of power and control, just to belive somebody is really in charge? Are we feeling powerless and uncertain ourselves? Does your belief in a government conspiracy of some kind feed you in some way? Or does it need you to feed it? (along the principle that "that which does not feed you tries to eat you")
I'm glad, DH, that you've taken it upon yourself to check out the supposed camps in your area. Please report further. Really, I'm very curious to know what you find.
Oh, and thanks for the name David Hume. I'll follow that up.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 29, 2005 2:18:57 GMT -4
D-u-u-u-de. Everybody knows Jay's real name. It's right here in the General category. I read a couple of articles he posted but I'm not sure whether he was posting a Mormon POV or his own. He'll tell us if he wants to. I'm not running an inquisition.
Fnord. Foundation for Neo-cognitive and Ontological Research and Development? A witches' circle? "A sound. Meaningless. Response to any statement when none is required or normally able to be made"? ;D ;D ;D Focker.
You make a lot of false assumptions rocketdad.
Hume made some goofs, but you'll probably like him.
I will let you know about the camps, after I've made my report to you-know-who. Just kidding. You don't know who.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 29, 2005 2:23:23 GMT -4
IIRC Jay has stated on another thread that he is a christian.
Of course I've noticed that some christians have a rather narrow definition of what constitutes a "real" christian...
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 29, 2005 2:27:53 GMT -4
IIRC Jay has stated on another thread that he is a christian. Of course I've noticed that some christians have a rather narrow definition of what constitutes a "real" christian... So did Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 29, 2005 4:48:39 GMT -4
When did Jesus call himself a Christian?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 6:09:48 GMT -4
When did Jesus call himself a Christian? Good Point! Rather reminds me of the old joke where Julius Caesar was asked what year it was, and he replied "It's 55 B.C."
|
|
|
Post by rocketdad on Sept 29, 2005 11:19:28 GMT -4
Fnord From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A fnord is disinformation or irrelevant information intending to misdirect, with the implication of a conspiracy.
The word was coined as a nonsense word in the Principia Discordia by Kerry Thornley and Greg Hill, but was popularized by The Illuminatus! Trilogy of books by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson. In these novels, it is claimed that the interjection "fnord" possesses hypnotic power over readers. A conspiracy of the world's controlling powers conditions everyone from a young age to be unable to consciously see the word "fnord"; instead, every appearance of the word will unconsciously generate a general feeling of uneasiness and confusion.
In the Shea/Wilson construct, fnords are scattered liberally in the text of newspapers and magazines, causing fear and anxiety in those following current events. However, there are no fnords in the advertisements, encouraging a consumerist society. It is implied in the books that fnord is not the actual word used for this task, but merely a substitute, since most readers would be unable to see the actual word. In the movie They Live, the main character discovers a similar conspiracy, when commercials are revealed to have hidden conformity messages visible only with specially prepared glasses.
To see the fnords means to be unaffected by the supposed hypnotic power of the word or, more loosely, of other fighting words. The phrase "I have seen the fnords" was famously graffitoed on a railway bridge (known locally as Anarchy Bridge) between Earlsdon and Coventry (U.K.) city centre throughout the 1980s and 1990s, until the bridge was upgraded. The bridge and the phrase were mentioned in the novel A Touch of Love by Jonathan Coe (ISBN 0140294910).
"Fnord" has become a popular word with followers of Discordianism. It is often used in Usenet and other computer circles to indicate a random or surreal sentence; anything out of context (intentionally or not) may be labelled "fnord".
|
|
|
Post by rocketdad on Sept 29, 2005 11:47:28 GMT -4
"You make a lot of false assumptions rocketdad."
Please elaborate. That's what this thread is here for, to discuss our assumptions and misperceptions, and how they inform our belief structures.
Please don't call me a "focker" again unless you can prove I'm a triplane.
But then chatterbots often spell things strangely...so...
|
|