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

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, November 15, 2009, 14:53 (5486 days ago) @ dhw

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.

--
\"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.\"