Another way of Looking at Design

Part of my resistance to the general concept (outside of practical limitations) I think lies in my model of how I view design. To me, design is a structured process where you fully explore the problem domain, and then formally structure and create the solution. -There isn't evidence of *this* kind of intelligence in nature. I think this distinction (though obvious to all of you) needs to be made; nature is incremental in nature in the fact that even if a major form change happens in generation 0, before it can be "part of the species," this change needs to transfer to generation 1. This is what evolution appears to have done. This is the defacto nature of evolution and is the basis of theory.-Pondering it some more, it appears that the only way intelligence is possibly valid, is if we expunge "design" from the record. Cells seem to react at least somewhat intelligently; perceptive intelligence is of course what I'm referring to. Who's to say that the intelligence you all seek in nature isn't the result of perceptively-directed cells all making "votes" within their domain, similar to how democratic governments work: the end result is a hodgepodge of fairly structured but messy parts, that gets the job done, but not always well. Design performed in the manner I described in the first paragraph, would result in much more efficient systems that we could most definitely say "this was designed." -I thought of this because there really is only two ways to solve a problem: plan and execute, or just execute and iterate "from the hip." If we're intelligently created, it's obvious to me that the design is suboptimal (especially in terms of the wear and tear on the human body). Therefore it's a "from the hip" kind of thing. -Additionally, if it is the case that we're designed, how do you separate the designer from the collective wants and needs from the cells in the "democratic growth" idea?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Post reply

3125 views

Matt on the subject of design: [...] the end result is a hodgepodge of fairly structured but messy parts, that gets the job done, but not always well. Design performed in the manner I described in the first paragraph, would result in much more efficient systems that we could most definitely say "this was designed"...If we're intelligently created, it's obvious to me that the design is suboptimal (especially in terms of the wear and tear on the human body).-This is not another way of looking at design ... it's the Dawkins, Jason Rosenhouse and Greta Christian way of looking at it, and I'm afraid you will get the same response from me now as you had previously. All your views are based on the designs you know, which of course are made by humans. But in view of the fact that no human has ever succeeded in designing a machine that can replicate itself, repair itself, feel emotions, think its own thoughts, question its own existence, write novels, plays and symphonies, how the heck do you know what such a design should be like? The very fact that despite our astonishing, conscious intelligence, we are unable to come up with the goods could be taken ... and is taken by some ... as an indication that we are the product of a greater designing intelligence than our own.-But your argument doesn't even work at the human level. Can you name a single human-designed machine which does not eventually show signs of wear and tear, break down, and eventually "die"? You are not arguing against design at all here. You are simply arguing that a designer ought to create what you personally would consider to be the perfect machine ... which is equally outside the scope of your experience. We needn't go too far into theology, but if there is a designer, what makes you so sure he could or would want to create a machine that went on for ever without a hitch? What makes you so sure that a designer would not want to create a mechanism which would come up with all kinds of weird and wonderful variations for his entertainment (Deism), or for his surprise and delight as they evolve into conscious reflections of himself (Frank's process theology)? The mechanism, of course, lies in the cells which underlie the whole process. With such a scenario, it's not each finished product that has been individually designed, but simply the mechanism that gives rise to each product via evolution. That, incidentally, is an account that makes theism and evolution perfectly compatible.-Anyway, when you or others have succeeded in designing "democratic" cells that produce life, different organs, different species, consciousness etc., let me know and I will gladly acknowledge your qualification to tell us what such cells ought to be like!

Post reply

3083 views

Matt on the subject of design: [...] the end result is a hodgepodge of fairly structured but messy parts, that gets the job done, but not always well. Design performed in the manner I described in the first paragraph, would result in much more efficient systems that we could most definitely say "this was designed"...If we're intelligently created, it's obvious to me that the design is suboptimal (especially in terms of the wear and tear on the human body).
> 
> This is not another way of looking at design ... it's the Dawkins, Jason Rosenhouse and Greta Christian way of looking at it, and I'm afraid you will get the same response from me now as you had previously. All your views are based on the designs you know, which of course are made by humans. But in view of the fact that no human has ever succeeded in designing a machine that can replicate itself, repair itself, feel emotions, think its own thoughts, question its own existence, write novels, plays and symphonies, how the heck do you know what such a design should be like? The very fact that despite our astonishing, conscious intelligence, we are unable to come up with the goods could be taken ... and is taken by some ... as an indication that we are the product of a greater designing intelligence than our own.
> -I'm not even talking about humans--I'm talking about even smaller things such as certain chemical systems and whatnot; there's more than one chemist that could concoct more efficient (and sometimes safer) chemical designs concerning certain biochemical processes and organic reactions. As far as optimal design for humans, if we had non-locking knees with a lower center of gravity for example, walking upright would be far less damaging (but still imperfect) to those components. This too would decrease stress on the human backbone or collarbone--structures that clearly weren't designed for bipedalism. If human beings can concoct obvious improvements to certain structures such as these, it weakens the case that we were designed by a "supreme" intelligence of some kind. But especially on the chemical side of things; if we can find a better way to do certain reactions, that means the maker--is more like us; flawed, and not supremely intelligent. -I agree with you in one respect; we only know of one kind of design; our own. In this light, however--how are we to judge that something has really been designed or not? You're creating a black hole here. If our only means of comparison in terms of design, are things that we ourselves have designed--then it stands to reason that we cannot reasonably claim that some object "x" in nature was designed. And if we cannot claim that it was designed, then the only option is "not designed." -In terms of self-replicating machines; computer virii. These things by themselves give us a prototype. Self-repairing machines? Some computer servers now come equipped with the means to detect errors, troubleshoot, and fix them on their own. What about crystalline structures? While not alive these are certainly self-replicating structures. -The bigger stretch and much less explainable element is how matter gained consciousness; we are undoubtedly matter, and we are undoubtedly conscious. The only important question (to me) is "how," because even if a UI exists, it's not like we can ask it "Why?" -A question I've had of you that is still outstanding, is how you go about accepting (on some level) completely untestable claims? (Accepting in such a way, that you view them as valid oppositions to material explanations is what I'm driving at here.) Stating "A UI exists," is not a subjective claim in the same way as would, say, "That Matisse is beautiful!" One is an existence claim that requires material evidence--because we have no other means to explore our world. Which is another good question, related to the previous. I challenge that there is only one way to truly study nature; what other way is there? Maybe I can understand you better if I know why you give supernatural explanations any weight. To me, we have a blank slate. Someone makes a claim, and then we examine it and test it. If it can't be corroborated, why then take it seriously?-What makes you so sure that a designer would not want to create a mechanism which would come up with all kinds of weird and wonderful variations for his entertainment (Deism)-Frightful idea. -The mechanism, of course, lies in the cells which underlie the whole process. With such a scenario, it's not each finished product that has been individually designed, but simply the mechanism that gives rise to each product via evolution. That, incidentally, is an account that makes theism and evolution perfectly compatible.-For the record--I never said it didn't. Just that Greta's UI argument is pretty powerful. I know you don't believe in a UI; but at the same time, what about it seems compelling enough to you that you're willing to consider it? Is it just the complexity of life again?

Post reply

3077 views

On this thread and under "Practical Consequences", Matt has raised several important issues, and so I'll try to answer them in one go.-Matt: [...] if we can find a better way to do certain reactions, that means the maker is more like us; flawed, and not supremely intelligent.-If there is a maker, I have no problem with the idea that he might be "more like us" and "flawed". I have repeatedly put forward the suggestion that the design might reflect the designer. As for "supremely intelligent", if he was able to design something we have so far failed to design, namely life, I reckon that puts him way above us. We gave Crick and Watson the Nobel Prize just for cracking DNA.-Matt: And if we cannot claim that it was designed, then the only option is "not designed".-This has always been a problem between us. The third option is to suspend one's judgement. The argument that we cannot claim it was designed is as hollow as the argument that we cannot claim it was not designed. We can only believe, disbelieve or not believe according to what we personally consider to be reasonable.-Matt: A question I've had of you that is still outstanding, is how you go about accepting (on some level) completely untestable claims? (Accepting in such a way, that you view them as valid oppositions to material explanations is what I'm driving at here.)-You've raised the same point in your "Practical Consequences" post, and given a partial answer yourself: "I assume all claims are false until found reasonably true. [..] We all know that I have a high threshold for evidence ... which might well be another real sticking point. To me, evidence is something that can actually be studied; so evidence is inherently material in nature." -I don't like the word "accept", because it's too positive, but "valid opposition" is fair enough, so long as you realize it means I regard both explanations as equally reasonable/unreasonable. Life is too complex for me to believe that it could have been initiated by chance, so out goes non-design. Apart from the complexity of life, and with one possible exception I'll come to in a moment, I see no evidence of a UI actively at work in our world, which seems to me to be governed by chance and human will; furthermore, belief in such a being raises the unanswerable question of its own origin, which thus replaces one mystery with another. Out goes design. -However, one of these options must have at least a degree of truth. If there is no God, the sheer randomness of life makes perfect sense. It's the simplest of all the options. But the simplest is not necessarily the truest. To embrace it, we have to accept the claim that life can spontaneously arise out of inanimate matter, and that consciousness can be created by little physical blobs (in mind-bogglingly complex configurations which take extreme intelligence just to unravel). You assume all claims are false until found reasonably true. I don't make this assumption (e.g.. that the theory of abiogenesis is false), but since there is no evidence of any kind to back these claims, I do not accept them even as reasonably true, i.e. I do not believe them.-The alternative ... a designer, whom I would see as a scientist not a miracle-worker ... is equally unacceptable, for the reasons given, but when it comes to evidence there is one more area to be considered (the possible exception I referred to). You call it the "supernatural", which is a term I dislike. In her discussion with Frank, BBella asks most pertinently: "Is it possible there are natural laws that are not yet evident or are not yet fully realized by humanity [...]?" You and I part company when you refuse to consider (I don't mean accept) evidence other than material. On this forum alone, BBella and Frank have undergone what we might call "mystic" experiences, and although David turned from agnosticism to panentheism through his scientific studies, he too ... like myself ... has witnessed the acquisition of apparently inaccessible knowledge. I haven't met David, BBella or Frank, but just as I would never dream of saying the theory of abiogenesis is false, I would never dream of telling them that they are faking, deluded, off their heads. Nor would I assume as you clearly do that every one out of millions of other similar experiences is the result of faking, delusion or madness. I keep an open mind. We all have our subjective limits of credulity, though, which is why I'll switch off if that old drunk Paddy O'Reilly tells me about his leprechauns. Of course even what we might call the bona fide experiences are not material evidence you can study, but just as materialism makes sense after the initial leap of faith, so too do these experiences, which ... if you take the initial leap ... suggest that there may be dimensions of existence beyond our current comprehension. Since our knowledge of ourselves and our universe is so riddled with gaps, I can't take either of these leaps, which leaves me, as we have noted before, both more sceptical and more open-minded than you! However, I hope you will now see why I regard both options as equally reasonable/unreasonable.

Post reply

3045 views

dhw,
> The alternative ... a designer, whom I would see as a scientist not a miracle-worker ... is equally unacceptable, for the reasons given, but when it comes to evidence there is one more area to be considered (the possible exception I referred to). You call it the "supernatural", which is a term I dislike. In her discussion with Frank, BBella asks most pertinently: "Is it possible there are natural laws that are not yet evident or are not yet fully realized by humanity [...]?" You and I part company when you refuse to consider (I don't mean accept) evidence other than material. On this forum alone, BBella and Frank have undergone what we might call "mystic" experiences, and although David turned from agnosticism to panentheism through his scientific studies, he too ... like myself ... has witnessed the acquisition of apparently inaccessible knowledge. I haven't met David, BBella or Frank, but just as I would never dream of saying the theory of abiogenesis is false, I would never dream of telling them that they are faking, deluded, off their heads. Nor would I assume as you clearly do that every one out of millions of other similar experiences is the result of faking, delusion or madness. I keep an open mind. We all have our subjective limits of credulity, though, which is why I'll switch off if that old drunk Paddy O'Reilly tells me about his leprechauns. Of course even what we might call the bona fide experiences are not material evidence you can study, but just as materialism makes sense after the initial leap of faith, so too do these experiences, which ... if you take the initial leap ... suggest that there may be dimensions of existence beyond our current comprehension. Since our knowledge of ourselves and our universe is so riddled with gaps, I can't take either of these leaps, which leaves me, as we have noted before, both more sceptical and more open-minded than you! However, I hope you will now see why I regard both options as equally reasonable/unreasonable.-I have some minor issues with the last statement; there's a difference in recognizing the paralysis of study that non-material claims present us with, and writing all such things off as "delusion." You're putting words into my mouth--I don't do that. I do "write it off" as part of the subjective human experience, such as art and music that is unique to each person and therefore irreconcilable to any objective measure at all. [EDIT] You can't study what you can't truly compare, without having a common language, without *knowing* that the object(s) you're studying are the same object(s). You are hamstrung and paralyzed, and the only thing I take issue with on your thinking, is how you can consider claims that cannot be studied with any level of objectivity?-I think of myself more as an open mind that is very aware of the limits of human endeavors; I can see the boundaries. Even in subjective measures, there is limits. It is important to know and identify the limits if you're ever going to do anything about them. -In terms of "mystic experiences," there's still a couple of outstanding ideas I'd put forth on OBEs that were never demolished--and they still had a materialistic bend to them. (They are at least--studyable.) -BBella's, and to some extend David's idea is really similar to the thinking of the "New Thought" movement at the beginning of the 20th century; what has since become "New Age." (I use these terms without derision!) They have this statement as a core of its dogma: "Chance is but a name for undiscovered law." (From the Kybalion.)-EDITED

Post reply

3064 views

Matt: [...] the only thing I take issue with on your thinking, is how you can consider claims that cannot be studied with any level of objectivity.-If this is now our only point of disagreement, we can shake hands once again on a great entente cordiale, though I'm sure we'll find lots more to disagree on as time goes by!-I apologize for using the word "delusion", and will instead pursue the fact that you "write off" subjective human experiences, which are "unique to each person and therefore irreconcilable to any objective measure at all." In my heart of hearts, I don't think an objective truth is possible in the matters we have been discussing. I don't think you do either. It always boils down to what each individual considers reasonable or most likely. You have mentioned the experience of art and music. It doesn't matter two hoots that these can't be "reconciled" to objective measures. And so if someone like BBella or Frank describes their own mystic experience, I can compare it to the profound realities of other subjective experiences, and acknowledge that it has a validity of its own. If thousands of people have similar subjective experiences, even though they can never attain the status of objectivity, it suggests that there may be something that transcends pure individuality. That doesn't mean I don't retain a degree of scepticism, but you ask how I can "consider" such claims, and the answer is: I'm not convinced that "objective" is necessarily a better guide to truth or reality than "subjective". It may be that there is more truth and reality in a kiss than in a test tube.

Post reply

3067 views

Matt: [...] the only thing I take issue with on your thinking, is how you can consider claims that cannot be studied with any level of objectivity.
> 
> If this is now our only point of disagreement, we can shake hands once again on a great entente cordiale, though I'm sure we'll find lots more to disagree on as time goes by!
> -If experience bears fruit, it'll probably be more likely that we think we disagree. -I guess I never asked this: Do you understand why I lean towards materialism because of our operational limitations? I don't want to continue beating a dead horse...-> I apologize for using the word "delusion", and will instead pursue the fact that you "write off" subjective human experiences, which are "unique to each person and therefore irreconcilable to any objective measure at all." In my heart of hearts, I don't think an objective truth is possible in the matters we have been discussing. I don't think you do either. It always boils down to what each individual considers reasonable or most likely. You have mentioned the experience of art and music. It doesn't matter two hoots that these can't be "reconciled" to objective measures. -Perhaps we must diverge here: When we're looking for truths about existence, we need to be *certain* about a great many things. In terms of music, it is pitch, timbre, and rhythm. In art it's shade, pigment, and brush-stroke. In terms of life's genesis its...? What? -All things that man can properly study have a material component. Or what about consciousness? Part of why I think it's rash (I realize you don't) to jump onto a... "spiritual bandwagon," if you will, is that in terms of both how life got here, and how consciousness arose, we haven't developed anything that can be materially studied. In my mind, both of these are a holy grail; the universe may be as a sonnet, but a sonnet must have words and structure in order to be called a sonnet. One might also stress "meaning," but that is beyond the scope of a material study. -My point here, is that although you are absolutely correct that the greater half of man's existence is seated in experience; those experiences all have something that we can study. And at least as far as every formulation I've ever heard about God; there is no material component. Though this is my nihilistic side; how much of the search for God isn't simply man's instinctive desire that everything carries meaning? I still find wonder that man creates meaning "from nothing" on a regular basis. At what point can we say that God is perhaps a hope and desire of man--perhaps the ubermensch itself? (My own writings reflect on this.) -And so if someone like BBella or Frank describes their own mystic experience, I can compare it to the profound realities of other subjective experiences, and acknowledge that it has a validity of its own. If thousands of people have similar subjective experiences, even though they can never attain the status of objectivity, it suggests that there may be something that transcends pure individuality. That doesn't mean I don't retain a degree of scepticism, but you ask how I can "consider" such claims, and the answer is: I'm not convinced that "objective" is necessarily a better guide to truth or reality than "subjective". It may be that there is more truth and reality in a kiss than in a test tube.-My thinking here is (shockingly) similar to Nietzsche's. He writes about a "knot of causes," in which things become so hopelessly tangled that there is no way to unravel the mystery. In my more nihilistic moments I think that perhaps this mystery itself is nested in human consciousness; The mystery exists only because WE exist, not because the mystery is actually a real thing. But then we enter conundrum land... and enter what I will rephrase as the "knot of snakes." -Two hours after I wrote about not learning if I was accepted into Grad School or not--I was. This summer I'll be playing some catch-up in Cryptography under the wing of a former NSA analyst and director for Georgia Tech's infosec program. I have to admit, ten years ago I don't think I would have considered work so closely aligned to defense--but no sane nation outsources security. After much consideration I'm going to concentrate on secure coding; specifically a very overlooked section with little research. Directly: I'll be helping design and build software systems to detect/deter hackers--which itself is something that has become a highly-paid and skilled black art in organized crime.

Post reply

3078 views


> Two hours after I wrote about not learning if I was accepted into Grad School or not--I was. This summer I'll be playing some catch-up in Cryptography under the wing of a former NSA analyst and director for Georgia Tech's infosec program. I have to admit, ten years ago I don't think I would have considered work so closely aligned to defense--but no sane nation outsources security. After much consideration I'm going to concentrate on secure coding; specifically a very overlooked section with little research. Directly: I'll be helping design and build software systems to detect/deter hackers--which itself is something that has become a highly-paid and skilled black art in organized crime.-Great!!!

Post reply

3073 views

David,
> >
> > Two hours after I wrote about not learning if I was accepted into Grad School or not--I was. This summer I'll be playing some catch-up in Cryptography under the wing of a former NSA analyst and director for Georgia Tech's infosec program. I have to admit, ten years ago I don't think I would have considered work so closely aligned to defense--but no sane nation outsources security. After much consideration I'm going to concentrate on secure coding; specifically a very overlooked section with little research. Directly: I'll be helping design and build software systems to detect/deter hackers--which itself is something that has become a highly-paid and skilled black art in organized crime.
> 
> Great!!!-I was beginning to think you'd disappeared! :-P

Post reply

3160 views


> > > Two hours after I wrote about not learning if I was accepted into Grad School or not--I was. > > 
> > Great!!!
> 
> I was beginning to think you'd disappeared! -
Been busy at the Paint World Horse show, getting projects done on the ranch, such as further fencing out feral hogs. Haven't eaten one yet but intend to. Also been asking very uncomplicated questions of Frank, and I think I have a pretty good understanding of what he thinks, given his premises.Glad he is onboard.

Post reply

3084 views

Matt: Do you understand why I lean towards materialism because of our operational limitations?
The "operational limitations" are very clear to me, and the attractions of materialism are obvious, not just because it appears to offer a degree of testability, but also because it's by far the most straightforward of all the ...isms. However, while respecting your priorities, I don't share them, and I think they will continue to cause misunderstandings.-For instance, you say: "When we're looking for truths about existence, we need to be 'certain' about a great many things. In terms of music, it is pitch, timbre, and rhythm..." When my heart misses a beat during an opera or symphony, I'm not thinking about pitch, timbre or rhythm, and nor, I dare say, are you! You go on: "All things that man can properly study have a material component." I suspect you mean that it's only material things that can be "properly" studied, and by "properly" you mean scientifically. If so, I agree. However, your various statements seem to imply that existential experience needs to be studied if it is to be taken seriously. If so, I disagree. The impact of music and art, the nature of love ... these can be studied in a sense, but you can never come up with objective conclusions, and you will never be able to explain their essence. They're experiences that go way beyond any material context, but that doesn't dilute their reality. Whether they represent "truths about existence" is another matter. I can only say maybe. But if they do, they aren't testable "studiable" truths, and indeed one of the truths they might tell is that there's a world beyond the material, testable one!-When it comes to life and consciousness, again I agree with you. We can study material aspects ... the structure of DNA, the physical workings of the brain ... but as you say, these won't solve the mystery of origins, and with God we don't even have a material component to examine, so it's all a "holy grail" for me too. However, if we set God in the same context as musical impact or love, study becomes irrelevant (to me). Just as I experience my love for my family as being intensely real, no matter how subjective and immaterial, there are people who experience something beyond the known physical world. It's perfectly understandable that this won't count for you. All such "truths" are subjective, and we can't escape our subjectivity, but I don't see objectivity and "studiability" as the sole criteria for truth. How rash is it to jump onto a "spiritual bandwagon"? Much rasher for you than for me, but still rash for me too. As George never tires of pointing out, I remain obstinately seated on my fence. -You ask: "How much of the search for God isn't simply man's instinctive desire that everything carries meaning?" We don't know, do we? Nor do we know if "the mystery exists only because WE exist." I'm always amazed by the number of people ... believers and atheists ... who are confident enough to think they do know, one way or the other. But so long as you keep asking the questions, as opposed to believing you know the answers, you're a long way away from nihilism.-Congratulations on being accepted into Grad School. As a confirmed technophobe, I can only admire anyone who is able to launch himself into such projects. I hope you'll be happy doing this work, and I have no doubt (away with agnosticism!) that you'll make a success of it.

Post reply

3107 views

Matt: Do you understand why I lean towards materialism because of our operational limitations?
> The "operational limitations" are very clear to me, and the attractions of materialism are obvious, not just because it appears to offer a degree of testability, but also because it's by far the most straightforward of all the ...isms. However, while respecting your priorities, I don't share them, and I think they will continue to cause misunderstandings.
> 
> For instance, you say: "When we're looking for truths about existence, we need to be 'certain' about a great many things. In terms of music, it is pitch, timbre, and rhythm..." When my heart misses a beat during an opera or symphony, I'm not thinking about pitch, timbre or rhythm, and nor, I dare say, are you! -At one time; no I wouldn't. Before I started learning music and music technology, it was all about "being in the moment," and sometimes I still connect to that, especially with certain bands--and always with Miles Davis. But usually, I'm always thinking about critical components: clutter, timbre of the instruments and their choice in the mix, stereo pan; application of reverb on tom drums and not cymbals; Once you've opened pandora's box it's impossible to close it, heh. I also hate how much compression gets applied to vocals anymore... if you hear "sibilance" symbols distort it's almost always because they crunched the singer's vocals way too much to try to deal with the amount of compression applied on modern radio. Wow that was a tangent...-You go on: "All things that man can properly study have a material component." I suspect you mean that it's only material things that can be "properly" studied, and by "properly" you mean scientifically. If so, I agree. However, your various statements seem to imply that existential experience needs to be studied if it is to be taken seriously. If so, I disagree. The impact of music and art, the nature of love ... these can be studied in a sense, but you can never come up with objective conclusions, and you will never be able to explain their essence. They're experiences that go way beyond any material context, but that doesn't dilute their reality. Whether they represent "truths about existence" is another matter. I can only say maybe. But if they do, they aren't testable "studiable" truths, and indeed one of the truths they might tell is that there's a world beyond the material, testable one!
> -Anyone who deeply considers consciousness knows this to be true. Yeah, "Properly" means that we can humanly wrap it up, tie it together, and DO something with it. (Always the "DO" for me...)-> You ask: "How much of the search for God isn't simply man's instinctive desire that everything carries meaning?" We don't know, do we? Nor do we know if "the mystery exists only because WE exist." I'm always amazed by the number of people ... believers and atheists ... who are confident enough to think they do know, one way or the other. But so long as you keep asking the questions, as opposed to believing you know the answers, you're a long way away from nihilism.
> -The only time you can stop asking questions is if you actually have an answer. And in my case, there is practically no way to tell that I've found an answer... my own "real" search began well over 18 years ago, and the only thing that's different is that I have a deeper appreciation for all things mystical; much more than I would have admitted 10 years ago, but all the same I think we've finally hit a watershed: Religious experiences--however they exist--are exactly the way you state in this post. They are fleeting; like a song, they leave deep impacts, and they rush us to inspiration. When I say that "The best argument for God lies in consciousness," this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Mysticism when studied is often an exercise in duplicating emotional states from one person to another. This is no coincidence to me. -> Congratulations on being accepted into Grad School. As a confirmed technophobe, I can only admire anyone who is able to launch himself into such projects. I hope you'll be happy doing this work, and I have no doubt (away with agnosticism!) that you'll make a success of it.-"Confirmed Technophobe?" I didn't know Luddites had priests!

Post reply

3026 views

Matt: Before I started learning music and music technology, it was all about "being in the moment".-We have an extraordinary capacity for separating our levels of consciousness ... which is yet another of our mysteries. Awareness of technology can be fascinating in itself, and is obviously essential for a practitioner, but it can also ruin the impact of art and music. No artist or composer wants his audience to focus on his technique! In fact too much awareness of technique can inhibit the whole creative process. I worked very closely with a renowned literary theorist for over forty years, and although this opened up areas of literature that I'd never thought about, it was essential for me actually to dismiss these insights from my mind when it came to my own writing. -It's interesting that nowadays you have "a deeper appreciation for all things mystical". I think it's the emotional subconscious that links up to what you call the "deep impacts" (which of course need not have anything to do with religion), whereas the intellectual conscious can act almost as a barrier. An image I like is that of the city, with its massively impressive artificial structures totally covering the earth and natural life beneath its foundations. Abandon the city, and before long the natural world will take over again. That's not meant as a criticism of intellect, though. We need a balance between the levels. Too much of the one will destroy the spontaneous pleasures, and too much of the other will turn you into a raving lunatic! But which of the levels will take us closer to any sort of "ultimate truth" is the question you and I will probably never be able to answer.-A propos of which you wrote: "The only time you can stop asking questions is if you actually have an answer. And in my case, there is practically no way to tell that I've found an answer." Then you and I together will carry on asking questions, and shake our heads in wonderment at those who reckon they have the answers!-Confirmed technophobe: no priests necessary. You just have to keep going through the ritual of messing things up. Or having them messed up for you ... as in my 48 hours without the Internet.

Post reply

3051 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

Another way of Looking at Design (The nature of a \'Creator\')