VonNoble

Mentor
  • Posts

    1,368
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by VonNoble

  1. Insightful. Particularly the "rush" accompanying violence. BTW, I was surprised to learn you are large in stature. I already knew you were pretty darn tall/deep in thought. von
  2. Sounds like Dan56 offered humor with a smile. Much appreciated. von
  3. In the early 1990s I had an occasion to meet with a Catholic priest several times in a social setting. He was a well educated man. And a missionary to Bangladesh for (at that time almost 40 years.) He died after more than 50-years of working there. One of many ideas exchanged was, if he had not been born and raised and educated in the United States, he suspected his religion of choice would be Buddhism. When I raised an eyebrow he added, of course is very much a faithful Catholic. However, if in his younger days he had been exposed to Buddhism he would have, perhaps, chosen that for his path. His other surprising statement is that he studied, as a Catholic priest in his mid-life years with some Buddhist monks. His conclusion is that Buddhism was compatible with most other religions. One need not give up any base religion to practice Buddhist philosophy. He also noted that "Everyone is Buddhist in some way" they just don't realize it - yet" I have been pondering a good long time about these things. I suspect the supposition that early exposure influences ones later choices is likely true. It also seems true that many people of many base religions incorporate some form of or appreciation for Buddhism right along with other helpful values. I am still pondering that last point. At heart is everyone, in some fashion - Buddhist in thought or action?
  4. It has come to my attention by way of learned Apache and Navajo teachers - running can be a very spiritual event. Walking too, has a spiritual component. I am not referencing a euphoric high effect, though I am told that can happen from running enthusiasts. I am talking about an actual belief in the power of healing (physically as well as non-physical attributes) associated and connected with native culture/beliefs. Would someone more adept at this point of view assist me in explaining it, perhaps with better terminology. I am neither native, nor a runner so an actual participant might allow the rest of us additional insight von
  5. Jonathan H. b. Lobl, your answer = education Key, Judgement equal bias. I thank you both. When a disaster occurs, and I am unfamiliar with the area, I may run without knowing which way is the safest. In fear, might run along side anyone I assess to look like they know what they are doing. Short of a disaster where survival could over-ride bias and education. Are we educated to have bias? Whom or what drives learned judgment and bias? von
  6. Instinctively we assess survival risks, calculate danger and threats. Laws of society/ culture establish norms. We evaluate prices, time expenditures, and other people using acquired information and experience filters. Can judgement be taught? Legislated? Weaponized? von
  7. After completing an upper level entomology class (that was fascinating) (but tough!)... I overheard two of my classmates speculating on insect intelligence. They are, by sheer numbers, the dominant creatures on planet earth. The have survived, adapted, and thrived longer than other animals. They have proven they can be altruistic, and some live in complex societies. Are they intelligent? They are strategic in warfare, brutal in hunting, loyal in colonies, brilliant in engineering, and effective in communications. They can triage wounded members in battle, and haul back likely survivors. They can “mind control” victims, go on raiding parties for slaves, and coerce others to raise their young. But are they intelligent? Sentient? von
  8. Actually...... that is HELPFUL to know! Thank you. von
  9. ANYONE see RENT? I am thinking that has to be better as a live performance, right? von
  10. First my admiration for your continued reasoned and reasonable responses. 2nd... kudos for your gracious handling of the age of the cosmos-I have zero reason to doubt your number... I never looked it up....I took the number from two biology students who sit in front of me (arguing about it after their mid-term).... I took the more conservative number of the two numbers they were tossing about .... I do suspect neither of them got a 100% on the mid-term.... my apologies for being lazy and not actually looking it up. For purposes of the discussion -your number works just fine. i am familiar with punctuated equalibrium and for me the jury is still out... we share an interest in needing a bit more evidence to accept that as VERY LIKELY. with continued respect von
  11. I can appreciate your reasoning. For evolutionary biology - with a historic reckoning in the neighborhood of 65 billion years in the making.....even the much briefer history of life in this planet requires a wee bit more than 100 or do years to reconstruct in detail...perhaps. Mankind has had the mere blink of an eye to process the information coming to us anew. Arriving daily. From a myriad of sources. Allowing young people to understand the process and allowing them to marvel at what is possible might well expedite the few missing proofs. Eh.... not to mention not all physical evidence survives millions of years in the making .... organic material does decompose over time. However the fragments, bones and DNA collected so far has caused proofs to leap forward at exponential rates of late. I find it all pretty amazing in the last 50 years. It is amazing what is knowable now. Adding to that is big chunks of information made possible by the Hubble telescope. And in less than two years the data streaming in from the new Webb telescope will jump our understanding forward at rates that will astound us still. Compters are cranking out lots lots of proof of lots of things. We need more scientists to collaborate, coordinate and share things known only to a few currently... but it is being released as quickly as it is verified, tested retested as valid. It is encouraging that speculation items are able to predict outcomes with such pinpoint accuracy. It is also a good thing that science is more than willing to correct the record whenever better evidence is provided. I am happy the record no longer is offered to us to have a “flat earth” point of view. I feel fortunate to have lived long enough to see what is likely ( or even possible) to know. I won’t live long enough to see the conclusion of the story but it is grand to see how far we have come. I am happy with the chances humans have for the next 1,000 plus years. On whatever planet they might add for inhabitation. In the last three million years the evidence points to an ever increasing brain power for humans. I have met a couple of people that might cause a person to question that as fact .... but a glance at our collective advances is convincing. von
  12. I find we are very much on agreement on this one. von
  13. I agree. We add and delete traits etc as they prove useful to us..... or so it seems. I am told that others disagree with that.... and I am not particularly well read on the matter. It is just an observation in my own life. von
  14. New input.....interesting quote... attributed to more than one person ( I am choosing to believe it was Aristotle) ”....morals are the child of habit...” This would indicate not so much of it arrives with us at birth.... Woukd that then also be true of the many who choose immoral behavior? All (largely) a matter of habit? von
  15. Our last “ God project” today Eight people on a team.... 45 minutes to complete our assignment. Before beginning the assignment we each had to share our inner most feelings about of God with the group. (We did not take that as a literal requirement in our group) As a group we had to write a 75 word essay for the three major positions (theist, agnostic, atheist). Then condense each essay into a standard form argument. The group sharing went well. Four theists ( 3 of them Catholic....one generic Christian) ..... three Agnostics .... one very strong atheist. When we were done sharing.... we had less than 30 minutes to go. We cheated. Rather than ALL OF US WORKING AS a single unit..... we divided into three small groups.... the atheist working alone ....and finished with a whole 1.4 minutes to spare. As far as I could tell those who tackled it as a larger group got bogged down and did not finish. Next up..... ethics von
  16. Thank you VERY MUCH! We receive our final exam topic the end of the month von
  17. I could not tell. The question was put to me. I could understand how the person explaining it to me came to the conclusions (so I could see the end picture was likely suppose to be a duck..... ) However my own thought processes could derive other options -so I was curious where the normative range if conclusions might fall. (Since we know from class I am not in the normative range in Philosophical thought) (that teacher is a doozie) Then again I have seen some parenting with extremely liberal hands off approaches produce some rule following kids.... so there may be no cause and effect ever... I am just mulling things over von
  18. Some variation of this has been around - apparently since the days of ancient philosophers, however it is new to me. It seems some wise old guys gathered a random few children around and encouraged them them to have a piece of candy even though the old duffers were well aware that the mothers had admonished the kids NOT to accept sweets before their next meal. The story goes...the kids thought it over, knew the men in question (or at least some of them) and knew they were important men...authority figures recognized in the community. Perhaps, in the mind of a kid wanting candy - perhaps even more of an authority than mom. So they each accepted the candy and enjoyed it. Before leaving the authority figures (who were doing this experiment just to see the impact of being authority figures with the children) put a second "test to the kids"......they asked them to come into another room in pairs. Once in the room one kid was then asked to punch the other. For no reason. Just punch them. Just punch them in the face ! But the children would not do this. They refused to punch another kid for no reason. They refused to punch another kid even for greater rewards than on piece of candy, for refused for praise - or simply because the authority figures ordered them to do so....they even refused when there was a threat to tell mom that they did not do as asked by people with even greater authority (after all that was the rationale for taking candy).......they refused flatly to punch someone with no reason. The conclusion was that kids seem to be able to sort out some degree of right and wrong - possibly even in spite of authority. They show signs of having a fairly balanced sense of right and wrong on their own. If that whole thing were true - - can we conclude kids to some extent develop a moral compass naturally most of the time? Just curious. von
  19. Ta da! I actually recognize the format! I learned something in this class after all. I was pleased I got it ( are you helping me prep for the final?) i didn’t have anything to add to the conversation so I am .... but happy this morning (before yet amother quiz) that I “got” something. It is an omen I am making progress von
  20. It seems perhaps those choosing faith in Christianity do so hinged on the operative word “faith” In the New Testament..... after Easter Sunday..... Jesus appeared to the disciples. Thomas was not there. When told the Lord had appeared Thomas did not believe and said he would not believe until he himself examined the Risen Lord....which eventually happened. When they met up Thomas recognized it was Christ and fell down to worship Jesus. Jesus gently put things aright ..:but noted those who believe without proof (all those to follow this...his last appearance till the Rapture.... all the millions of our times who believe without concrete evidence... those will be found virtuous for being faithfilled. They believe without the benefit of direct physical evidence Therefore anyone searching for proof is out there more than likely to shut up the faithless. The faithful have accepted the story as reality.... and go about their business (most of them) without need to prove anything except their loyalty ....to God. von
  21. I am by far not the most learned person in this Forum about such things. if I can try a rephrasing? Since Genesis begins with creation of all living things.... and notes the Garden if Eden and the serpent...& the Apple and the fall and banishment.....with that provided .....it does allow for some question. Or maybe curiosity. If the Torah’/old testament provides detailed ancestors linking the roots of the one true belief back to the beginning of time.... the the question (I think?) is placing Christianity as claiming to be there in the beginning.... maybe 1. I am agreeing with Pastie Dave....it seems Christianity does not claim to be Christian..... until AFTER THE APPEARANCE OF CHRIST! 2. The Old Testament-Torah established the reason for the Arrival of the Savior.... and indicates the lineage necessary to “ know Him” 3. Only after the arrival of Jesus who fulfilled the aforementioned predictions.... articulating the new covenant (New Testament) did the Christian (followers if Christ) emerge 4. If you want an archeological item dating to the Garden of Eden .... an instrument that actually was in play ...a tangible between God and man...... the Muslims have it. As I understand it the original altar used by Abraham is in Mecca. if I managed to screw any of this up.... my apologies to true believers.... I am hoping I got the basics correct. von