yes because frankly they were... uhh.. idiots compared to us :D
-
-
Replying to @vgr
Haha, sure. :) But if we're using their terms and their concepts, and have redefined them to exclude what they would have included...
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @micahtredding @vgr
We could have the same discussion around Clark's Third Law.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @micahtredding
The thing about Clark's Third Law is that it finally gave us a workable definition of magic.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @micahtredding
no it does not. Any more than the turing test gives us a defn of intelligence. Did you ever see this? http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2007/07/06/harry-potter-and-the-concept-of-magic/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
Ah yeah, good stuff. I think I agree, though I'm just skimming to refresh my memory.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @micahtredding
religious creation myths aren't the same as aliens inventing genomics. They're about breathing consciousness into matter.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @vgr @micahtredding
that's where the categorical diff between theists/atheists lies: how they account for consciousness. "Breath of god" vs "tbd"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @micahtredding @vgr
Breath of God isn't defined in the sense you're thinking. These are experiential categories.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm talking generally about that kind of allegory. In hinduism it is the primordial sound (nad brahma) for eg
-
-
Replying to @vgr
Haven't read, but sounds beautiful. You take it as a primarily ontological claim?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @micahtredding
in general steelman views of religion = best understood as consciousness ontologies. Everything else breaks with skepticism
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.