tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11362488.post5668120297850590490..comments2020-01-13T01:33:56.879-08:00Comments on Never an Original Thought: Why Are Unicorns Hollow?Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09114333829118818988noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11362488.post-43691109259912820182011-08-18T17:42:23.817-07:002011-08-18T17:42:23.817-07:00Last summer I read GEB. this summer I have read Th...Last summer I read GEB. this summer I have read The greatest show on earth, The Jesus mysteries and I'm currently reading Hawking's Grand Design.<br /><br />Hofstadter tries to write about systems and they work like universes. WHen you are in your universe you have to follow it's rules. A system cannot explain itself and if you let information outside leak into the system chaos. <br /><br />Dawkins focuses on evolution and I'd guess he doesn't look for the originas of the soul like Hofstadter. He is convinced there is no god and that if there was one it won't matter since she will not interfere with what he has started.<br /><br />Jesus Mysteries looks at the origins or Christianity. Most importantly Jesus is not his only name and he is not a historical figure but a a mere mythological god used for getting nonbelivers into the next pahse where the real meanings behind the stories gets unravelled. Great thinkers and early scientists were a part of these so you might find math and symbolics in the bible because of that. <br /><br />For the Grand Design I belive Hawking doesn't care about the origin of species nor if there is a god as long as they both don't mess with his quantum physics..<br /><br />So what if the science fiction film Matrix was true? According to Hofstadter we wouldn't know this and I belive all of the above books along with your blog would have looked the same (or different, but similar). <br /><br />Back to Dawkins I think he point out the fact that looknig for some things like why might not be useful for him since he things there might not be a why in the same sense there is no why to some thing I do out of boredom or interest that serves to deliberate purpose other than to my own amusement.Sylwesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15431467552415356502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11362488.post-73688593147701859802010-09-22T02:32:49.960-07:002010-09-22T02:32:49.960-07:00I disagree, the question what is the meaning of li...I disagree, the question what is the meaning of life has no answer. It is an interesting question to think about, but it is as pointless as "why are unicorms hollow" simply because there is no need for life to have a meaning.Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11362488.post-76170101182896846122009-11-03T13:46:40.308-08:002009-11-03T13:46:40.308-08:00You seem to find meaningless that all those philos...You seem to find meaningless that all those philosophers and scientists would disagree on the "why" question but this is exactly the problem: interpretation, own thoughts and personal belief, which clue is exactly the fact that every person has its own personal feeling and answer about it.<br />This, as the belief for god, proves it wrong. There's not one idea, shared by everyone, but everyone has its own idea. You could be honest and follow the rational path, truly, to agree that if god would be there, its essence would be shared by anybody, by construction, and it's clearly not.<br />God is a personal view, taken as an easy answer to meaningful questions.Ruihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11585940859761661480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11362488.post-85210128590662284802009-04-01T17:38:00.000-07:002009-04-01T17:38:00.000-07:00You claim Dawkins is begging the question? I cert...You claim Dawkins is begging the question? I certainly don't see where in the transcript you've provided. I take it you believe his conclusion is that "God should be excised from human thought." I see nothing in the dialogue that is a reformulation of this.<BR/><BR/>If you'd be so kind as to point it out I'd me much obliged.<BR/><BR/>If this is not the conclusion you take him to be supporting, then please tell me what the conclusion and indicate where he uses it as a premise.<BR/><BR/>Else, I really think it intellectually unfruitful to falsely accuse arguments of fallacies they don't commit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11362488.post-71555439610934359972008-09-07T17:52:00.000-07:002008-09-07T17:52:00.000-07:00I don't think you guys get the point of what he's ...I don't think you guys get the point of what he's saying, which I really find quite sad. I don't know how theology will ever be weeded out when the general populace are not good at critical thinking. <BR/><BR/>His point is that there is no purpose to life. It may not be a reality that you want to deal with. Most religious types are weak in spirit when it comes to accepting the nature of the world, that's why they are drawn to it in the first place. You are here because you replicate, if you didn't your bloodline would cease to exist. This is true of both organisms AND culture. There is no purpose to it, no reason, just heredity, mutation and selection. It only requires these three rules and order emerges from chaos. So sad that people are to stuck in their ways to accept the truth. There is not God, there is no purpose, deal with it.<BR/><BR/>P.S. I hope you don't moderate this comment, though given religions past I certainly expect it.Brett Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09369353796996392604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11362488.post-10840914713410937542007-01-30T02:19:00.000-08:002007-01-30T02:19:00.000-08:00Hi James,
That is a good article. I am not exper...Hi James,<br /><br />That is a good article. I am not expert on Dawkins, but I saw him on Charlie Rose of PBS and Dawkins basically indicated that religious people were not educated. Dawkins seemingly trusts in scientific empiricism at the expense of philosophical theology and therefore fails to see that science does not answer issues such as first cause and the meaning of life. A more reasonable approach would be to pursue truth both scientifically and philosophically.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />RussDr. Russell Norman Murrayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06703130625190233670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11362488.post-57832401110678606932006-12-30T11:58:00.000-08:002006-12-30T11:58:00.000-08:00Excellent commentary, James. Well parsed.Excellent commentary, James. Well parsed.Stushiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10693178228505134028noreply@blogger.com