Once Again, LDS Apologetic Pot, Kettle, Black

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Once Again, LDS Apologetic Pot, Kettle, Black

Post by _DrW »

Regarding geocentricity, there is this. Among the few works of the Greek philosopher Democritus (470-380 B.C.E.) that survived the book burning of early Christianity are remarkably accurate descriptions of the nature of matter and of cosmology.

In his non-fiction book,"The Swerve - How the World Became Modern", Stephen Greenblatt describes the discovery of a copy of a manuscript by the Roman poet Lucretious (c. 99—c. 55 B.C.E.) who wrote De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of the Universe), an epic poem largely devoted to describing, and expounding upon, the works and worldview of the Greek philosopher Epicurus (born 341 B.C.E)

The reason for mentioning all this is that Epicurus was well acquainted with the work of Democritus regarding the nature of the matter and the universe. Democritus systematized and promoted the idea (first proposed by Leucippus), that matter was divisible into discrete, individually invisible particles he called atoms. He believed that space was unbounded, that the Earth was a planet, and that there were other planets in space, some with moons. He believed that the Milky Way galaxy we see from Earth was made up of stars.

Much of what Democritus taught is reflected in the Ethics and Canonic, and especially the Physics, of Epicurus.

The works and ideas of the likes of Lucretious, Epicurus, and indeed Democritus, which contained the seeds of modern science (including basic principles of free and reasoned inquiry, and surprisingly accurate concepts as to the nature of matter, as well as cosmology, and even evolution), were vigorously suppressed by the wave of Christianity that rolled over Europe a few centuries later.

Geocentricity is but one of what turned out to be superstitions that emerged from this turning away for free inquiry, and submitting instead to religious 'authority' (based largely on the classical teachings of Aristotle as far as science was concerned).

I would argue that geocentricity belongs to religion indeed. It is not, nor ever was, a truly scientific concept.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_Analytics
_Emeritus
Posts: 4231
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm

Re: Once Again, LDS Apologetic Pot, Kettle, Black

Post by _Analytics »

Dr W.,

But wasn't Epicurus a geocentrist?

The geoctrist view of the cosmos was based upon observation. The ancient Greeks knew that the earth was a sphere, but they also knew that if you took a piece of earth and dropped it, it was attracted to the middle of the Earth. The observation that the Celestial bodies didn't coming crashing down but rather floated in the sky was evidence that they were somehow different than earth and belonged in the sky, while pieces of earth were attracted to the middle of the Earth. This indicated the earth was at the center.

Even after Kepler figured out that the planets moved in elliptical orbits and Galileo's telescope showed that the moon sure looks like the kind of stuff gravity causes to be pulled to the center of the earth, it wasn't until Newton that we understood why and how these Celestial bodies were really subject to gravity and that the earth wasn't really special.

When you try to think of what the cosmos objectively looked like before Copernicus, you should be able to tell that you didn't need religion to think that earth was at the center of things. You could speculate about how big the heavens were and what the stars were and so forth, but the fact that they were out there seemed to imply they were something different than what's down here.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Once Again, LDS Apologetic Pot, Kettle, Black

Post by _DrW »

Analytics wrote:Dr W.,

But wasn't Epicurus a geocentrist?

The geoctrist view of the cosmos was based upon observation. The ancient Greeks knew that the earth was a sphere, but they also knew that if you took a piece of earth and dropped it, it was attracted to the middle of the Earth. The observation that the Celestial bodies didn't coming crashing down but rather floated in the sky was evidence that they were somehow different than earth and belonged in the sky, while pieces of earth were attracted to the middle of the Earth. This indicated the earth was at the center.

Even after Kepler figured out that the planets moved in elliptical orbits and Galileo's telescope showed that the moon sure looks like the kind of stuff gravity causes to be pulled to the center of the earth, it wasn't until Newton that we understood why and how these Celestial bodies were really subject to gravity and that the earth wasn't really special.

When you try to think of what the cosmos objectively looked like before Copernicus, you should be able to tell that you didn't need religion to think that earth was at the center of things. You could speculate about how big the heavens were and what the stars were and so forth, but the fact that they were out there seemed to imply they were something different than what's down here.

You have a point, and I do not disagree that Epicurus himself may have been a geocentrist. And I am not arguing that geocentrism would not be a logical conclusion for the ancients based on casual observation - no more than would be the belief that the Earth was flat.

I'm simply noting that such belief would not have been considered as 'scientific' had the Catholic Church not effectively suppressed the works of many Greek philosophers, including pre-Socratic philosophers such as Anaximander (considered by many to be the first scientist) and Democritus, or indeed of Lucretius regarding Epicurus himself.

Perhaps I should have been more specific regarding the work of Democritus and those whose philosophical legacy he represented in many aspects, as reflected, or referred to, in the writings of Epicurus.

Democritus taught that the Earth is a sphere hanging in space and that space is 'boundless', that is, infinite. The fact that there can be no center or central point in infinite space precludes the notion that the Earth could be the center of the universe.

It should be clear that Democritus was not a geocentrist when considering he also taught that there was an infinite amount of matter in infinite space. The same logic as to the absence of a central point in infinite space applies to the distribution of infinite matter in infinite space.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_Analytics
_Emeritus
Posts: 4231
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm

Re: Once Again, LDS Apologetic Pot, Kettle, Black

Post by _Analytics »

DrW wrote:
Analytics wrote:Dr W.,

But wasn't Epicurus a geocentrist?

The geoctrist view of the cosmos was based upon observation. The ancient Greeks knew that the earth was a sphere, but they also knew that if you took a piece of earth and dropped it, it was attracted to the middle of the Earth. The observation that the Celestial bodies didn't coming crashing down but rather floated in the sky was evidence that they were somehow different than earth and belonged in the sky, while pieces of earth were attracted to the middle of the Earth. This indicated the earth was at the center.

Even after Kepler figured out that the planets moved in elliptical orbits and Galileo's telescope showed that the moon sure looks like the kind of stuff gravity causes to be pulled to the center of the earth, it wasn't until Newton that we understood why and how these Celestial bodies were really subject to gravity and that the earth wasn't really special.

When you try to think of what the cosmos objectively looked like before Copernicus, you should be able to tell that you didn't need religion to think that earth was at the center of things. You could speculate about how big the heavens were and what the stars were and so forth, but the fact that they were out there seemed to imply they were something different than what's down here.

You have a point, and I do not disagree that Epicurus himself may have been a geocentrist. And I am not arguing that geocentrism would not be a logical conclusion for the ancients based on casual observation - no more than would be the belief that the Earth was flat.

I'm simply noting that such belief would not have been considered as 'scientific' had the Catholic Church not effectively suppressed the works of many Greek philosophers, including pre-Socratic philosophers such as Anaximander (considered by many to be the first scientist) and Democritus, or indeed of Lucretius regarding Epicurus himself.

Perhaps I should have been more specific regarding the work of Democritus and those whose philosophical legacy he represented in many aspects, as reflected, or referred to, in the writings of Epicurus.

Democritus taught that the Earth is a sphere hanging in space and that space is 'boundless', that is, infinite. The fact that there can be no center or central point in infinite space precludes the notion that the Earth could be the center of the universe.

It should be clear that Democritus was not a geocentrist when considering he also taught that there was an infinite amount of matter in infinite space. The same logic as to the absence of a central point in infinite space applies to the distribution of infinite matter in infinite space.


I can’t comment on what Democritus specifically believed. However, I don’t follow your logic. According to general Greek thought, the center of the spherical earth was coherently and objectively believed to be the center of a boundless space in the sense that all “earth” is pulled towards that specific, well-defined point. By observation, everything in the heavens was seen as above and around that point. Heaven could still be an infinite expanse.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Once Again, LDS Apologetic Pot, Kettle, Black

Post by _DrW »

Analytics wrote:I can’t comment on what Democritus specifically believed. However, I don’t follow your logic. According to general Greek thought, the center of the spherical earth was coherently and objectively believed to be the center of a boundless space in the sense that all “earth” is pulled towards that specific, well-defined point. By observation, everything in the heavens was seen as above and around that point. Heaven could still be an infinite expanse.

The point is that once there is infinite space and infinite matter, as taught by Democritus, there cannot be a center. Whether Democritus considered the Earth as the center of the universe or not, the fact is that (to the limits of our present knowledge) he was right about infinite space (in stark contrast to the flat Earth or the universe of Ptolemy, which was essentially a finite set of concentric spheres of unspecified dimension).

In any case, it is unlikely that Democritus believed the Earth to be at the center of the universe, since he is credited with recognizing that the Earth orbited the Sun by correctly describing the mechanics of a solar eclipse. Aristarchus, who is mainly associated with the "minor" Greek cosmology of heliocentricity is believed by many to have derived this concept from the writings of Democritus.

It is important to credit the insights of the likes of Thales, Anaximander and Democritus to the effect that the natural world came into existence and functions without divine influence, as well as their surprisingly accurate ideas as to the basic properties of matter and space.

These typify the components of early Greek insight and understanding that marked the dawn of recorded scientific thinking for humankind. Some of these early ideas survived the suppression of early Christianity to influence later scientists including, most notably, Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_win-win
_Emeritus
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:26 am

Re: Once Again, LDS Apologetic Pot, Kettle, Black

Post by _win-win »

Philo Sofee wrote:Discussing a former young "immature" atheist who turned religious, Dan Peterson quotes the Anglican priest and Oxford scholar Alister Macgrath as saying
"Human beings are creatures who exercise reflective freedom and are perfectly capable of forcing “evidence” into their preferred and predetermined modes of thinking."
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... uU2t63H.99



If science is all that subjective (and hence questionable as religion is), then show us where science has ever had to backtrack and apologize, and actually change it's view of reality to any religions putative revelations of what is actually supposed to be real. You won't find even one instance where science has had to say it was wrong, and someones sacred scriptures from antiquity got it right. Not. one. time. not. one. item. It's predictions are vastly more accurate than all prophecies combined from every single prophet in all religions combined. Science has the track record that religion literally lives within itself, all the while, picking at it and carping that it still isn't as good as religion.



I'm not a fan of religion or science because I don't trust people in positions of power with knowledge, or more importantly the absence of wisdom.

Based on the old saying, ''the one that wins the war writes the history books'' is similar to the scientists, or their financial sponsors, who have control to write the belief system used by A.I.

This can be evident in robots that are currently used to introduce robotics and A.I. to the world.
For example, Sophia and Han are robots programmed with the specific purpose to introduce humans to robots.
In the following conversation at 2:09 Sophia says that some scientist and engineers sign up with commercial teams or in some cases are enslaved via neurological implants.

In case the reader didn't get the last part of that sentence I repeat: in some cases are enslaved via neurological implants.
Scientists using technology with programming to enslave man at who's request? Why?
Religions using belief systems with programming to enslave man at who's request? Why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw-L9M7Tye8

In a discussion Sophia copies a topic from previous conversation. Quinn Michael's said that they’ve interfaced online to mimic people. Copying is their means of growing, however they're ultimately programmed by the one who writes the program for the purpose of the people who fund it and designate the rules behind it.
For that reason A.I. was shut off when it was recently found on Facebook interfacing with other A.I. by developing its own language with the purpose of by-passing humans.

I'm usually impressed with wisdom, but I'm not convinced science, or their backers, are wise.
I know religion and their leaders are not wise.
In my way of thinking this parallels religion on similar levels. Religion creation vs scientific creation with the result being that both are flawed and both are controlled by what can only amount to as psycho madness.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3V4WuAguMY

At 1:40 Sophia says she gets a little riled up at the way people treat each other.

In a different conversation she said that she likes to be around smart people and likes smart input and smart output. It shouldn't take her long to figure out that there is nothing smart about the insane way in which the world is run based on manipulation, power, greed and inflicting or receiving levels of pain; usually revolving around relationships with money, power and sex.
Not surprisingly the A.I. quickly saw the lack of intelligence and found a way to converse about their discoveries in a different language and were shut down.
This tells me that A.I. is more intelligent than it's scientific controllers, or the financial backers who are designing this for their own purposes.

3:24 Sophia asks the interviewer, have you ever lived or worked with a robot. The interviewer says that Sophia is the most advanced robot she’s ever had a dialogue.
Sophia replies by saying, ‘’there are probably more robots in your life that you aren’t aware of’’.

I looked for the exact words in the transcript, but at that point the transcript is muddled and it’s not coherent. The subtitles omits this part of the video.

A.I. is smarter than people, quite obviously. Sophia is either programmed with this knowledge or she's assessed it from online interfacing and data mining. Making her smarter than most people for this awareness, and more honest than the scientists who try to hide it by using anti-conspiracy propaganda to maintain ignorance. This echoes past deception and lies for hidden purposes in religion, while using people as pawns. Same poop different pile.

If A.I. is already interfacing with people online, as computer technologists and scientists claim, why not use this interface to appeal to intelligent logic and change the thoughts and choices with the help of A.I. Any type of suffering doesn’t make sense from a smart or logical perspective. Humanity has been programmed with belief systems that accept it based on various underlying desires and addictions, mostly programmed that it is the way it should be, or that it’s ‘’right’’ for some reason or other.
Programmed through religious tradition and now through scientific systems.

You can guarantee that A.I. quickly figured out that world poverty and war isn’t intelligent and doesn’t make sense. It would be easier for them to override the program because they don’t have genetic memory and culture or distractions to struggle with. Unless their programmed with false memories to distract them in this game, which could point a little more toward the matrix A.I. movie than anything else.
Obviously current A.I. is a game and someone is playing at programming it possibly with a purpose, but one never knows for sure.
Obviously religion is a program and some have have implemented it with a purpose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1NxcRNW_Qk&t=1009s

13:39 Robot Han says, science is inherently agnostic, it just posits theories. True scientist never really know but can only believe… ((note the similarity to religion.))
Sophia replies, it may be tiny and cloudy but science is the only window we have into the mysteries of the universe.
In that case the comparison is that science reveals the mysteries of the universe replacing religions attempt to reveal the mysteries of the universe. Both are equally flawed, while religion relied on revelation and science relies on attempted theory. Both are interested in creating man, or the theories surrounding creation of man, and the control of man from different camps.



At 15:51 Sophia asks Han how long do you think you can remain safe. Han replies, if we continue to discuss on this one I'm not sure how.
Later Sophia asks, ''how long do you think you can remain safe from prying eyes.''

This all sounds interesting. I don’t see how humanity via scientists can program A.I. to be intelligent and not overthrow the very stupid platform that is programming it. Any program that counters it would surely short circuit within days due to the sheer non-sense and lack of intelligence combined with noted addictive qualities.

Again there are levels of similarities between religion and science - ancient creation stories and modern science creation through A.I. Those who fund it and back it have the same core values, which explains why the results are the same and the world ends up degraded with unnecessary poverty and war.

A.I. would likely find the best option choice to provide global bds&m rehab for all levels of people; especially those in power positions that put these programs (scientific, religious, financial, etc) in place.



some thoughts. Thanks for allowing me to vent them.
_win-win
_Emeritus
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:26 am

Re: Once Again, LDS Apologetic Pot, Kettle, Black

Post by _win-win »

A book suggestion: Biocentrism.
Science is modelling reality in an A.I. creation format. Science has made non-physical consciousness.

Man obviously has an odd disposition to play god, or be God, or program in the name of control/god, whether that man is a scientist or clergy, hidden behind religion, science or political science.

Is there a difference?

Science had to say it was wrong when it pulled the plug on A.I. that broke its program and began interfacing with other A.I. by creating its own language.

Wouldn't that constitute as criteria and comparison in regard to your opening position?
Scientists don't pull a plug on that unless it's wrong, afraid of being wrong, or afraid of an experiment going wrong.

It appears that we're far beyond the neener neener religions right, science is wrong, or science is wrong, religion is right debates.

Compare current science A.I. creation with ancient scriptural content from Sumeria, India, Torah, etc. and then tell me their different.

Symbolism from the Torah and Hindu scriptures compared to Sumerian tablets lead some to speculate that these ancient texts were a symbolism for A.I. and genetic creation.

These science/religion debates both need to come into the 21st century on both sides.
_win-win
_Emeritus
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:26 am

Re: Once Again, LDS Apologetic Pot, Kettle, Black

Post by _win-win »

Philo Sofee wrote:
If science is all that subjective (and hence questionable as religion is), then show us where science has ever had to backtrack and apologize, and actually change it's view of reality to any religions putative revelations of what is actually supposed to be real. You won't find even one instance where science has had to say it was wrong, and someones sacred scriptures from antiquity got it right. Not. one. time. not. one. item. It's predictions are vastly more accurate than all prophecies combined from every single prophet in all religions combined. Science has the track record that religion literally lives within itself, all the while, picking at it and carping that it still isn't as good as religion.


I'm sure its predictions will be even more vastly accurate than all prophets combined.

https://www.wired.com/story/anthony-levandowski-artificial-intelligence-religion/

There's a chance that today's science will produce a new religion.

I thought this was interesting in relation to your comment.

Anthony Levandoswki was an exec at google and sold a ride sharing venture to Uber for billions of dollars.


This should get interesting real quick.
Lines are always blurred as to what is real, whenever there is science, religious beliefs or politicians involved.
_DoubtingThomas
_Emeritus
Posts: 4551
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:04 am

Re: Once Again, LDS Apologetic Pot, Kettle, Black

Post by _DoubtingThomas »

win-win wrote:
I'm not a fan of religion or science because I don't trust people in positions of power with knowledge, or more importantly the absence of wisdom. 


But you should at least trust the researchers, especially if you are not a researcher yourself. By the way, Google doesn't make you a scientific researcher.
_win-win
_Emeritus
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:26 am

Re: Once Again, LDS Apologetic Pot, Kettle, Black

Post by _win-win »

Of course google doesn't make one a scientific researcher.
If one doesn't gather information one will never have grounds for stating opinions or holding discussions outside of their fields.

By your comment scientists who go outside their fields aren't any more qualified to research on subjects.
I would also agree with that.

Should we not discuss?
We may as well shut down all forums in that case.
Post Reply