Religious beliefs on bitcoin

[Rassah]

Just to make sure we're on the same page:  You can conceive, just as a hypothetical, that certain knowledge is inaccessible to logical analysis?  

I can conceive that stories or fantasies can be inaccessible to logical analysis, but not knowledge. Mainly because knowledge is something based in a concrete world, which happens to follow a set of strict logical rules, and to violate those rules would mean throwing everything else out of the window. Like, if things don't have to follow logic, why should 2 + 2 = 4 or the speed of light be a constant?

[1713508089]

1713508089

[1713508089]

1713508089

[1713508089]

1713508089

[Rassah]

This is where I differ from most Christians.  I struggled with the whole idea of how a loving God could send people to hell who like the girl were suffering from such horrid things they took their own life.  Or what about the people who never got a chance to even hear about Jesus and make that choice?  Talk about unfair?  Just because you are born into a family that is not Christian, and you never have the chance to even accept Jesus you go to hell?  That is unfair too.  Hence why I did some soul searching on this.

This train of thought is what destroys the Christian organized religion, and leads to a more personal, spiritual understanding of religion. And I'm all for it. For some people, like me, an extra step of just dropping the spiritual side was needed, for others they're perfectly content holding on to whatever part of Christianity they are willing to leave themselves with. As long as people realize that their ethics come from themselves, and not from a dogmatic book or some set of man-made laws, which claim to be inerrant, I'm ok with it.

Also in 1 Peter 18-19 it says "Christ suffered for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners to bring you safely home to God.

The issue I have with this idea is, let's say someone broke into your house, and stole one of your most cherished possessions. Or worse, killed one of your loved family members. This criminal is the one who did the act, who must now seek your forgiveness. What would you say if I said that I forgive him on your behalf? What about god forgiving him on your behalf? That's what Jesus did when he "died for our sins." So why were the people who lived during Jesus's time accepting that "everything is cool now" because someone else forgave those who wronged them personally? I guess some would say that such act requires forgiveness from both, god, and the person who was wronged, but then the fact that god may have forgiven someone who didn't do anything against him personally (except maybe break a few laws) is little solace.

I suppose the reason I still feel compelled to share with others is that life without Jesus is not easy.  It can be a lonely dark place.  Life with Jesus, although not easy, is filled with hope, joy and love.

I think that depends  more on how one lives their life, than whether there is Jesus in it. My life is totally devoid of Jesus, as are the lives of many others I know, and our lives are still filled with joy and love. We get that from the world around us, and our family and friends. At the same time, those people who are constantly afraid of hell and sin if they don't follow strict dogma, are likely miserable, despite having lives filled with Jesus. I guess you would say that we live lives as Jesus intended, while others don't, and thus we still get joy out of it. *shrug*

[BitChick]

Also in 1 Peter 18-19 it says "Christ suffered for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners to bring you safely home to God.

The issue I have with this idea is, let's say someone broke into your house, and stole one of your most cherished possessions. Or worse, killed one of your loved family members. This criminal is the one who did the act, who must now seek your forgiveness. What would you say if I said that I forgive him on your behalf? What about god forgiving him on your behalf? That's what Jesus did when he "died for our sins." So why were the people who lived during Jesus's time accepting that "everything is cool now" because someone else forgave those who wronged them personally? I guess some would say that such act requires forgiveness from both, god, and the person who was wronged, but then the fact that god may have forgiven someone who didn't do anything against him personally (except maybe break a few laws) is little solace.

I guess you are questioning why it is OK for God to forgive those who have sinned against us?  The Bible is pretty clear that if someone does sin against us they are supposed to come and ask for forgiveness and try to make the wrongs right. but this is not always possible. Perhaps the person who did the wrong does not know where the person is now?  Or perhaps the person is dead that he/she hurt?  That is why the person should tell God in a humble way what he did and ask God to forgive him for his wrongs.  But yes, you are right in that the person should apologize to the person he hurt not just to God.  That takes humility. Most people do not do this and I really think it is an area that the "church" in general should encourage more.  Instead of people going around hurting each other then going to God for forgiveness.  I wonder if the person really is repentant then?  Will God accept their repentance as genuine?  It is not up to me to decide but I do think that they are missing an important step in the process.  That still does not negate the fact that God is the one that can forgive us of our sins against Him.

I suppose the reason I still feel compelled to share with others is that life without Jesus is not easy.  It can be a lonely dark place.  Life with Jesus, although not easy, is filled with hope, joy and love.

I think that depends  more on how one lives their life, than whether there is Jesus in it. My life is totally devoid of Jesus, as are the lives of many others I know, and their lives are still filled with joy and love. We get that from the world around us, and our family and friends. At the same time, those people who are constantly afraid of hell and sin if they don't follow strict dogma, are likely miserable, despite having lives filled with Jesus.

I guess the question is where does the good things in your life truly come from?  I believe that every good and perfect gift comes from God.  All the sin, hate, pain, sorrow, etc.. does not come from God but from the evil one.  Who is the one we should be against then?  Who is the one we should be angry with because he allows innocent children to suffer from abuse?  Who is the one that distorts the truth in all areas? 

I do agree that there are many Christians that put themselves in "chains" again by living in constant fear of God striking them at any time for their sins, but when we are really free there is "no condemnation for those who are in Christ." 

[crumbcake]

Just to make sure we're on the same page:  You can conceive, just as a hypothetical, that certain knowledge is inaccessible to logical analysis?  

I can conceive that stories or fantasies can be inaccessible to logical analysis, but not knowledge. Mainly because knowledge is something based in a concrete world, which happens to follow a set of strict logical rules, and to violate those rules would mean throwing everything else out of the window. Like, if things don't have to follow logic, why should 2 + 2 = 4 or the speed of light be a constant?

There's a real answer, which is long, boring & counterintuitive (so i guess a lousy answer), and a less correct, but more palatable one.  Here's the latter:
You're correct that while inaccessible to logical** analysis, God is knowable.  Otherwise, the whole thing would be a pointless exercise in futility.  This knowledge is as different from knowing that 2+2=4 as knowing love, or thirst.  Again, sorry for analogies, but it would be pretty ridiculous if, after saying that this knowledge is inaccessible to logic, i proceeded to logically define it.  
A point that differentiates this knowledge from what's commonly called "batshit craziness" is intrinsic consistency. "Intrinsic consistency" is jargon, so i'll explain what it means so we're talking about the same thing:  Intrinsic consistency is a necessary quality of any formal system.  If a logical system can generate a well-formed formula which leads to a contradiction (if the result is A & !A), the system's junk.  Garbage.  The knowledge i'm talking passes at least this test.  Doesn't make it true.  What makes me cringe about this explanation is that intrinsic consistency is a test of *logical systems* -- things which are outside of logic, like God (or metalogic, if a term like that is somehow useful), *don't need to be intrinsically consistent*.  But this is getting loooong.

You don't have to toss anything out of the window just because there are systems which do not obey the rules of logic**.  You don't discard Newtonian physics & Euclidian geometry just because they're shown to fail in extreme cases, you go on using them -- only an idiot would use quantum mechanics to design a hammer.  Knowing that as you get closer to the speed of light or subatomic size, Newtonian physics fail is pretty handy, though.  You gain, not lose.  Sorry for the TL.

**People use the word "logic" as if there was only one.  The word's almost meaningless to a logician, if you say "logic," he'll say "which one?"

[justusranvier]

You're correct that while inaccessible to logical** analysis, God is knowable.  Otherwise, the whole thing would be a pointless exercise in futility.  This knowledge is as different from knowing that 2+2=4 as knowing love, or thirst.

The difference in the two types of knowledge is that one type is true and the other type is false.

[crumbcake]

...
The issue I have with this idea is, let's say someone broke into your house, and stole one of your most cherished possessions. Or worse, killed one of your loved family members. This criminal is the one who did the act, who must now seek your forgiveness. What would you say if I said that I forgive him on your behalf? What about god forgiving him on your behalf?

Seamless segue to cripto:
 "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" -- this is Ripple IOUs!  The dirty deal:  You promise to forgive so you yourself will be forgiven.

[Rassah]

You're correct that while inaccessible to logical** analysis, God is knowable.  Otherwise, the whole thing would be a pointless exercise in futility.  This knowledge is as different from knowing that 2+2=4 as knowing love, or thirst.  Again, sorry for analogies,...

You should be, since love and thirst are as explainable and testable as 2+2=4. Or a set of chemical equations, anyway.

You don't discard Newtonian physics & Euclidian geometry just because they're shown to fail in extreme cases, you go on using them -- only an idiot would use quantum mechanics to design a hammer.  Knowing that as you get closer to the speed of light or subatomic size, Newtonian physics fail is pretty handy, though.

It's not false if it's based on an approximation. We don't say that the circumference of a circle = Diameter * 3.14 is wrong, we just say it's close enough, since using all the digits of Pi would be impossible, since they go on for infinity. But using 3.14 doesn't make Pi any less illogical than using Newtonian physics when a close macro approximation is easier than a quantum one. All of these are logically "intrinsically-consistent." Something like a god, however, isn't even an approximation. It's just a whole other thing entirely, that has no measurable effect on the "intrinsically consistent" world at all. I could just as easily propose that we use Norse or Greek mythology as "other type of logic" truths, since they have the same exact requirement of "truth" as the present idea of god.

[neurobox]

You're correct that while inaccessible to logical** analysis, God is knowable.  Otherwise, the whole thing would be a pointless exercise in futility.  This knowledge is as different from knowing that 2+2=4 as knowing love, or thirst.  Again, sorry for analogies,...

You should be, since love and thirst are as explainable and testable as 2+2=4. Or a set of chemical equations, anyway.

You don't discard Newtonian physics & Euclidian geometry just because they're shown to fail in extreme cases, you go on using them -- only an idiot would use quantum mechanics to design a hammer.  Knowing that as you get closer to the speed of light or subatomic size, Newtonian physics fail is pretty handy, though.

It's not false if it's based on an approximation. We don't say that the circumference of a circle = Diameter * 3.14 is wrong, we just say it's close enough, since using all the digits of Pi would be impossible, since they go on for infinity. But using 3.14 doesn't make Pi any less illogical than using Newtonian physics when a close macro approximation is easier than a quantum one. All of these are logically "intrinsically-consistent." Something like a god, however, isn't even an approximation. It's just a whole other thing entirely, that has no measurable effect on the "intrinsically consistent" world at all. I could just as easily propose that we use Norse or Greek mythology as "other type of logic" truths, since they have the same exact requirement of "truth" as the present idea of god.

Classic god-of-the-gaps argument. For me, the very existence of the book of Isaiah, for instance, results in a number of serious gaps, which IMHO demonstrate the equation to be more like 2+2x=4y. When God is not making a point, all things work to the tune of 'x=2y-1', everything works predictably. Why would you pay any attention to 'y'? It's when it doesn't add up that you start to question, am I missing something? Is there a more intricate equation? Unfortunately you're also past that, to shrugging your shoulders. Also a terrible analogy.

[crumbcake]

You're correct that while inaccessible to logical** analysis, God is knowable.  Otherwise, the whole thing would be a pointless exercise in futility.  This knowledge is as different from knowing that 2+2=4 as knowing love, or thirst.  Again, sorry for analogies,...

You should be, since love and thirst are as explainable and testable as 2+2=4. Or a set of chemical equations, anyway.

If you feel that love could be explained, to your satisfaction, as a set of chemical formulas, i'm afraid i have no better analogies.  You'll have to settle for dry arguments to internal consistency.  Of course, by expressing love in a set of formulas, you've made it as elevated & sublime as as the crap you took today, and just as laudable.  You keep eking out our sympathy for some trolled loli who goes on to an hero herself, and now i learn that her suffering is no more noteworthy than what the kid in my avatar is doing.  I'm not saying you're wrong, just that if you're sincere, i don't envy you.  Just to make it absolutely clear:  When you talk about your love for that boy, that's the kind of love it was?  Listen, listen, drop a few tabs of X and have a fuckload moar love!
 

You don't discard Newtonian physics & Euclidian geometry just because they're shown to fail in extreme cases, you go on using them -- only an idiot would use quantum mechanics to design a hammer.  Knowing that as you get closer to the speed of light or subatomic size, Newtonian physics fail is pretty handy, though.

It's not false if it's based on an approximation. We don't say that the circumference of a circle = Diameter * 3.14 is wrong, we just say it's close enough, since using all the digits of Pi would be impossible, since they go on for infinity. But using 3.14 doesn't make Pi any less illogical than using Newtonian physics when a close macro approximation is easier than a quantum one.

No, it's not like that.  I assumed you understood the difference between Newtonian physics & quantum mechanics.  It's not a question of approximation & rounding off decimal points, it's  an entirely different paradigm with radically different results.  After you do something basic like convert mass into energy with Newtonian physics, get back to me.  In the meantime: Learn to physics.

All of these are logically "intrinsically-consistent." Something like a god, however, isn't even an approximation. It's just a whole other thing entirely, that has no measurable effect on the "intrinsically consistent" world at all. I could just as easily propose that we use Norse or Greek mythology as "other type of logic" truths, since they have the same exact requirement of "truth" as the present idea of god.

No, no.  Never mind.

[Tekkna]

however the changes are normally so small and un-noticeable that they are easily identified.

Can you rephrase that please?

Ah, sorry:

however the changes are normally so small and un-notable that they are easily corrected.

Finding them is trivial, just run diff on the manuscripts.

[Rassah]

Classic god-of-the-gaps argument. For me, the very existence of the book of Isaiah, for instance, results in a number of serious gaps, which IMHO demonstrate the equation to be more like 2+2x=4y. When God is not making a point, all things work to the tune of 'x=2y-1', everything works predictably. Why would you pay any attention to 'y'? It's when it doesn't add up that you start to question, am I missing something? Is there a more intricate equation? Unfortunately you're also past that, to shrugging your shoulders. Also a terrible analogy.

Well, sure, that happens all the time. We always expect 'y' to be 0, but sometimes it's not, and so we investigate what 'y' is and expand the equation. We don't just say, "'y' must have been a miracle, praise god!"  Well, scientists don't. Fundamentalist Christians do.

[Rassah]

If you feel that love could be explained, to your satisfaction, as a set of chemical formulas, i'm afraid i have no better analogies.  You'll have to settle for dry arguments to internal consistency.  Of course, by expressing love in a set of formulas, you've made it as elevated & sublime as as the crap you took today, and just as laudable.

I didn't say that love was meaningless. We can measure changes in brain chemistry when someone feels love. We can measure changes in electrical brain activity. We can even track permanent structural changes in the brain synapses when someone falls in love, and the continuing changes as that love continues to affect that person's life. All I was saying was that it's measurable, not magical. Just because landing an SUV on Mars and being able to take high resolution pictures of another planet was entirely reliant on an enormous slew of physics calculations, doesn't make the fact that we actually f'in did that any less special. It also doesn't make it a magical miracle.

 

No, it's not like that.  I assumed you understood the difference between Newtonian physics & quantum mechanics.  It's not a question of approximation & rounding off decimal points, it's  an entirely different paradigm with radically different results.  After you do something basic like convert mass into energy with Newtonian physics, get back to me.  In the meantime: Learn to physics.

I understand what the difference is, thanks. One applies to a scale that has little effect to the scale of another. Maybe my analogy would have been better if I had compared finding the circumference of a circle using Pi, to finding a never touching tangent to a derivative curve using an infinitely close approximation. Sure, the later can be close, but since it never touches and just gets closer, it's not the same.

Whatever. Point is that Newtonian physics is supported by repeatable testing, and is practically fact at macro scale, while quantum physics is all those same things at micro scale. Neither type of physics involved fancy stories to explain something we don't understand, which are passed as fact. Point me to something god related that is also testable and repeatable, and maybe I'll consider it.

[myrkul]

If you feel that love could be explained, to your satisfaction, as a set of chemical formulas, i'm afraid i have no better analogies.  You'll have to settle for dry arguments to internal consistency.  Of course, by expressing love in a set of formulas, you've made it as elevated & sublime as as the crap you took today, and just as laudable.

I didn't say that love was meaningless. We can measure changes in brain chemistry when someone feels love. We can measure changes in electrical brain activity. We can even track permanent structural changes in the brain synapses when someone falls in love, and the continuing changes as that love continues to affect that person's life. All I was saying was that it's measurable, not magical. Just because landing an SUV on Mars and being able to take high resolution pictures of another planet was entirely reliant on an enormous slew of physics calculations, doesn't make the fact that we actually f'in did that any less special. It also doesn't make it a magical miracle.

It's like the religious mindset has inextricably bound wonder and mystery together, and they find themselves incapable of experiencing wonder without the mystery.

I can tell you in pretty exact detail how the atoms in our bodies (and everything else) were formed. That doesn't make it any less awesome and amazing (in their undiluted meaning) that we are made of star-dust. How's that for wonder?

Jesus died for your sins? That's nice. Stars died so that you can exist.

[crumbcake]

If you feel that love could be explained, to your satisfaction, as a set of chemical formulas, i'm afraid i have no better analogies.  You'll have to settle for dry arguments to internal consistency.  Of course, by expressing love in a set of formulas, you've made it as elevated & sublime as as the crap you took today, and just as laudable.

I didn't say that love was meaningless. We can measure changes in brain chemistry when someone feels love. We can measure changes in electrical brain activity. We can even track permanent structural changes in the brain synapses when someone falls in love, and the continuing changes as that love continues to affect that person's life. All I was saying was that it's measurable, not magical. Just because landing an SUV on Mars and being able to take high resolution pictures of another planet was entirely reliant on an enormous slew of physics calculations, doesn't make the fact that we actually f'in did that any less special. It also doesn't make it a magical miracle.

Yes, i get it.  To you, love could be reduced to altered brain chemistry -> altered release/reuptake of neurotransmitters.  Got it.  As i said, take a few tabs of ecstasy & go to town. Rinse & repeat.  
Somebody told me that all three of fruit fly's pleasure synapses are firing on the dime when it sticks its sucker into a drop stale beer.  Terminal happiness.  Nirvana.  Guys, it just don't get no better than this.  Just a curious aside for you.  BTW, you do realise that unless you start introducing variables & fudge-factors, you're stuck in clockwork determinism?  Irrelevant.
Forgive me if i don't weep with you when you tell your stories of young love on the rocks.  Now that you've explained it to me, i feel as much for you as for my washing machine.
 

No, it's not like that.  I assumed you understood the difference between Newtonian physics & quantum mechanics.  It's not a question of approximation & rounding off decimal points, it's  an entirely different paradigm with radically different results.  After you do something basic like convert mass into energy with Newtonian physics, get back to me.  In the meantime: Learn to physics.

I understand what the difference is, thanks. One applies to a scale that has little effect to the scale of another. Maybe my analogy would have been better if I had compared finding the circumference of a circle using Pi, to finding a never touching tangent to a derivative curve using an infinitely close approximation. Sure, the later can be close, but since it never touches and just gets closer, it's not the same.

No, you still don't get it.  Please learn to physics.

Whatever. Point is that Newtonian physics is supported by repeatable testing, and is practically fact at macro scale, while quantum physics is all those same things at micro scale.

No, no and no.  I don't care if you don't know physics, but don't try to wing it.

Neither type of physics involved fancy stories to explain something we don't understand, which are passed as fact.

You've obviously never studied physics.  Until you do, take my word for it:  physics is no moar "factual" than the flimsiest myth.  What's funnier, through explicit reliance on logic, physics is not even intrinsically sound.
  

Point me to something god related that is also testable and repeatable, and maybe I'll consider it.

I'm not offering anything up for your consideration, i'm not some born-again pushing Christianity on you.  This is not a sales pitch, don't lowball me.

edit: tags
edit2: typo

[crumbcake]

If you feel that love could be explained, to your satisfaction, as a set of chemical formulas, i'm afraid i have no better analogies.  You'll have to settle for dry arguments to internal consistency.  Of course, by expressing love in a set of formulas, you've made it as elevated & sublime as as the crap you took today, and just as laudable.

I didn't say that love was meaningless. We can measure changes in brain chemistry when someone feels love. We can measure changes in electrical brain activity. We can even track permanent structural changes in the brain synapses when someone falls in love, and the continuing changes as that love continues to affect that person's life. All I was saying was that it's measurable, not magical. Just because landing an SUV on Mars and being able to take high resolution pictures of another planet was entirely reliant on an enormous slew of physics calculations, doesn't make the fact that we actually f'in did that any less special. It also doesn't make it a magical miracle.

It's like the religious mindset has inextricably bound wonder and mystery together, and they find themselves incapable of experiencing wonder without the mystery.
I can tell you in pretty exact detail how the atoms in our bodies (and everything else) were formed. That doesn't make it any less awesome and amazing (in their undiluted meaning) that we are made of star-dust. How's that for wonder?

Stardust?  Meh.  The "i can explain everything with my maths & other learnings" offers a reality no more convincing than the the straw bombers made by & worshiped by islanders during WW2.  Yeah, sure looks similar, but ... will it drop goodies?  The straw bombers proved useless, but not for the lack of trying.  Goodies never fell from the sky after the murkans left, no matter what the islanders did.  Dat's 'coz they doing it wrong.

When you make matter out of nothing, get back to me.  'Till then, enjoy your cargo cult.

Jesus died for your sins? That's nice. Stars died so that you can exist.

Drama.

[myrkul]

Forgive me if i don't weep with you when you tell your stories of young love on the rocks.  Now that you've explained it to me, i feel as much for you as for my washing machine.

There's that wonder/mystery thing again. Look, just because we can fully explain what happens when someone falls in love does not reduce the wonder of that emotion. It is still a great thing, a driving force of the universe, and the result of our consciousness. Human consciousness is that "fudge factor," that turns a deterministic system into a chaotic one. Because we can, just by thinking, change the state of our minds. Our every conscious thought modifies the electrochemical patterns in our brain, making us far more wonderful (again, original, undiluted meaning) than a mere machine.

The genetic makeup of Rassah's brain determined that who he falls in love with will be male. He chose the values that would attract him to a person. He saw values he admired in that other man, and the interaction of his conscious decisions and genetic predispositions created that beautiful synthesis that we call love.

Try asking your washing machine what it thinks of Kant some day.

When you make matter out of nothing, get back to me.

http://home.web.cern.ch/

[Rassah]

Yes, i get it.  To you, love could be reduced to altered brain chemistry -> altered release/reuptake of neurotransmitters.  Got it.  As i said, take a few tabs of ecstasy & go to town. Rinse & repeat.  
Somebody told me that all three of fruit fly's pleasure synapses are firing on the dime when it sticks its sucker into a drop stale beer.  Terminal happiness.  Nirvana.  Guys, it just don't get no better than this.  Just a curious aside for you.  BTW, you do realise that unless you start introducing variables & fudge-factors, you're stuck in clockwork determinism?  Irrelevant.
Forgive me if i don't weep with you when you tell your stories of young love on the rocks.  Now that you've explained it to me, i feel as much for you as for my washing machine.

Some people feel love and wonder at their sports or muscle cars. Some even moreso at their expensive exotic cars. I'm sure this wonder is an actual component in the engine somewhere, right? Or is it a soul in the transmission that god put there?

Also, no, it's you who doesn't know physics, but thanks for trying to cover that up by pretending that I'm the one who doesn't get it. My blood lineage is the reason we made it to the Moon and Mars in the first place, and, sure, I may not have lived up to it fully, but I'm no stranger to it all either.

[crumbcake]

Forgive me if i don't weep with you when you tell your stories of young love on the rocks.  Now that you've explained it to me, i feel as much for you as for my washing machine.

There's that wonder/mystery thing again. Look, just because we can fully explain what happens when someone falls in love does not reduce the wonder of that emotion. It is still a great thing, a driving force of the universe, and the result of our consciousness. Human consciousness is that "fudge factor," that turns a deterministic system into a chaotic one. Because we can, just by thinking, change the state of our minds. Our every conscious thought modifies the electrochemical patterns in our brain, making us far more wonderful (again, original, undiluted meaning) than a mere machine.

Remember i gave you the link to "begging the question," "petitio principii"?  Did you follow that link?  You should have.
For your "consciousness" to do anything, something must first cause it to do so.  In a casually-bound universe, there are no uncaused events, no free volition.  So your consciousness is as predetermined as everything else, just a slightly more intricate clockwork.  Try again?

The genetic makeup of Rassah's brain determined that who he falls in love with will be male. He chose the values that would attract him to a person. He saw values he admired in that other man, and the interaction of his conscious decisions and genetic predispositions created that beautiful synthesis that we call love.

See above and it's just another boring link in a boring causal chain.  Sorry, just doesn't do it for me -- call me jaded.

Try asking your washing machine what it thinks of Kant some day.

I've written chatbots (slightly more complex washing machines) which would have discussed Kant much better than 90% of the folks i know.  What's your point?

When you make matter out of nothing, get back to me.

http://home.web.cern.ch/

[Rassah]

Also, no, it's you who doesn't know physics, but thanks for trying to cover that up by pretending that I'm the one who doesn't get it. My blood lineage is the reason we made it to the Moon and Mars in the first place, and, sure, I may not have lived up to it fully, but I'm no stranger to it all either.

Your blood lineage?  I could care less whose nutsack you came from, my furry little friend.  Mind your fuckin' manners.

Now who's reducing it all to mechanics? It's not who's nutsack I came from, as you so eloquently put it, it's where I grew up, with whom, in what culture, who raised me, and with what values and history. All those things you accuse me of ignoring in your replies about mechanics of love. So kindly fuck off, good sir.

[myrkul]

For your "consciousness" to do anything, something must first cause it to do so.  In a causally-bound universe, there are no uncaused events, no free volition.  So your consciousness is as predetermined as everything else, just a slightly more intricate clockwork.  Try again?

Is it? Are you so certain? Call it god of the gaps, if you want, but sapience, consciousness, volition, seems to me to be the one "uncaused" thing in this universe. I can decide that I want to, or do not want to, reply to your next post, and that decision influences my brain state, which in turn changes my actions. It's not a probabilistic function, nor a determinative one. It is a volitional act.

I've written chatbots (slightly more complex washing machines) which would have discussed Kant much better than 90% of the folks i know.  What's your point?

I'm sure you could. But it wouldn't be that chat bot discussing Kant. It would be you, putting your thoughts on his philosophy into a text file, from which the bot would choose, based on the question asked it. It's just a sophisticated way for you to discuss Kant with many people all at once.