Posts by Pole

34

WTS's explanation of current events based on false premise!

by Schizm in

jw
friends

that scan of the march 2005 issue of our kingdom ministry that someone supplied said the following:

"hence, from january 2006, awake!

will ... highlight more prominently the bible's explanation of current events.

Pole

Hi Schizm,

It's me the Polecat raising his ugly head/tail again. What exactly are the bones of contention between you and the WTS? (Apart from the 1914 thing)?

Cheers,

Pole

234

Intelligent Design

by Delta20 in

hey all,.

i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).

basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.

Pole

onacruse,

I'd be willing to bet that you've read Ouspensky. Your observations about the dimensional limitations of human perception are right on the mark, and play directly into this issue of intelligent design. For, if in fact God is a 4D, 5D, 6D... being, and It designed (or, by default of its own existence, caused to exist) a 3D being, then It knows that such 3D beings are instrinsically incapable of understanding anything more than their own dimensionality.

Good points. I've never heard of the guy, but I think I should make myself familiar with him. Coming up with the conclusion I presented above was a coincidence. I was doing some simple vector space maths and reading a book on cognitive linguistics at the same time. The claim in the book was that human cognition is exclusively experience-based and that when we come across anything abstract we need a metaphor to conceptualize it. I thought this was largely true, but inapplicable in the case of > 4 dimensional algebra.

Thanks for the reference. I see where you're getting at with your vision of dimension-stripped humanity :). Well, we're still better than ameobas, or are we?

Kant, and others, assert that the only way such a thing could happen is by having a super-imposed transcendent experience. But even then, the "value" of that experience is limited to the capacity of the 'vessel' in which such an experience is experienced. Perhaps the Biblical proposition of "transformation" (e.g., the resurrection of the anointed) is a way to get around this problem.

Kant was a mathematician as well, wasn't he? Anyway I see nothing transcendent about finding the cosine of the angle of two 4D vectors when using the formalism of algebra. I just see a cognitive dissonance between algebra (which gets a bit supra-linguistic in this case) and geometry (which is perfectly experiential up to the level of 3 dimensions).

In the case below case the it's easy to draw the 2D vector on a piece of paper and it corresponds perfectly with reality (geometry, etc.), so it's different from any metaphor (which are usually ontologically invalid).

v1 = {1, 2};
v2 = {2, 1};

In the case below the formalism of algebra tells us we can measure those two vectors in pretty much the same way as the two above. However, the problem is we no longer understand the dimension metaphor when dealing with four or more dimensions.

v1 = {1, 2, 3, 4};

v2 = {4, 3, 2, 1};

Narkissos,

However, I would hesitate to call the description of a x-D hyperspace "supra-linguistic". It is "supra-realist" indeed, but we do access to it through language (namely, through the symbolical analysis of the "real world" as a 3-D system, and the subsequent construction of its abstracted "dimensions" into a different structure). Although it is not representable it is still an "imaginary" construct, a projection of our symbolical function.

See the upper part of this post. I think we need to make clear what we mean by language. I was thinking of natural (human or "god-given" for believers) language and not artificial formal systems which were devised consciously and dliberately from scratch as was the case with algebra although it is largely intuitive as well. The difference may be huge, depending on the context. An African tribe may have a 10-conjugation verb system, but the average tribal doesn't have to consciously conceptualize it to be a proficient speaker of the language. This is no the case with formal algebra. You asked for examples of supra-linguistic formalisms. By "linguistic" I understood natural language.

Btw, that goes for hypospaces (?) such as the 1-D line or the 2-D plane too. None of them exists in the real world. We can imagine a dot or a line with no thickness whereas no such thing really exists. And there, perhaps, lies the metaphor (in two ways: we use an abstraction from an existing 3-D world to describe a non-existing 1-D "object", or we use a 1-D concept such as "dot" or "line" to describe 3-D objects such as a town, a road or a river on the map).

Interesting point, but I still think cognitively it doesn't work both ways. It's not an ontological issue. All metaphors are out of keeping with ontology in one way or another. But they all have to be in keeping with cognition. Simply speaking, you can draw a line, you can see in 2D, and you can feel 3D objects. Now, how exactly do you conceptualize a 1500D hyperspace? I know you can give it empty labels, but they are dead metaphors. Just like the word "instant" is a dead metaphor. See my post above - if you can't conceptualize it metaphorically it has little or no meaning. But you can represent such a space in the consciously discovered/constructed language of algebra. It's the only way to make use of this concept.

Now I think I have to give it some more thought. Thanks for the input anyway. It was a very good aspect which I need to rethink.

What is clear to me is that language, which we have built in contact with our real environment, opens to us a potentially infinite realm of "unreality," from mathematical hyperspaces to literary fictions. But once we have entered this realm as speaking subjects our only contact with the "real world" we live in (and its hypothetical Creator!) is through symbolism and metaphors.

I have no problems with your views on ontology. I think we just disagree on some minor aspects of cognition/epistemology. Maybe it's the late hour (it's 1.47 here).

If God is the creator of the "real world" we have become alien to him by learning to speak. If God is the creator of both the "real world" and "language" (as you jokingly suggested in a former post) then the "symbolical cut" (Lacan) runs through him just as it runs through us.

Exactly. I think a number of folks have already acknowledged this theological "possiblity" on this thread. If the Supreme Designer exists he is far from the picture we get from any religious metaphor invented so far. The ID metaphor is no exception. For now I believe it makes no sense to believe in his existance.

Pole

234

Intelligent Design

by Delta20 in

hey all,.

i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).

basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.

Pole

Narkissos,

Ellderwho,

If you care to answer AlanF's question, please make sure to explain how "logic" is supposed to transcend, or exceed, human language and its necessary, although partial, adaptation to its environment. My current impression is that the ID reasoning, just as the classical "proofs of the existence of God" (only in a more "modern way" perhaps attractive to Sci-Fi addicts), is an unwarranted extrapolation, extending human logic way beyond its safe validity area.

No problems with the latter statement - I also think it's "an unwarranted extrapolation" to apply one variant of logic or another to the task of proving the existence of a Supreme Creator.

You may remember I promised to give you an example of super-linguistic cognition or reasoning some months ago.

I thought at one point that all science has to conform to the same limitations of human cognition that get constantly manifested in language, such as the heavy dependence on metaphors and modality (necessity, possibility, permission, etc.).

However, I once thought about the possibilities of formal systems transcending human language or more generally - human cognition while working on one simple mathematical problem. I'm very selective about maths (translation: from time to time I have to spend a few hours trying to understand a formula which I have to implement ), so correct me if I'm wrong about the example I'm going to give.

Here it goes. It's not a complex point, as it reflects my level of maths:

In linear algebra there is the concept of a dimension. Lines and points may have one dimension. They may also exist on a two-dimensional plane - just like some more complex geometric figures. Moreover we may talk of a 3D space in which all sorts of cubes, cones, etc may exists. So far so good. All of those three (sub)spaces I have mentioned so far can be described by means of an algebraic (numerical) formalism, but they may also have some real-life, experiential interpratation, because humans can actually conceive of 1-D, 2-D and 3-D spaces. We live in a #D space - we were tuned for it.

Here is my point: in linear algebra you may apply exactly the same numerical formalism to compute the parameters of hyperspaces. For instance you may want to compute the similarity of two vectors in a 4D hyperspace using the same formalism you would use for a 3D, human-concieveable space. The only difference is that you need to compare one more pair of numbers for the 4D vector.

The vector {1,2,3} can have a geometric interpretation.

The vector {1,2,3, 4} cannot have a geometric interpretation. But it does have an algebraic one.

The point of it? It is possible to algebraically describe and analyze 4D spaces, although nothing like that exists in the real world that our brains were tuned for. The limit for human cognition and human language is IMO 3 dimensions. The formal language of algebra allows you to deal with an infinite number of dimensions in hyperspaces.

It may just be the limits of another metaphor, but it ~~doesn't~~ (corrected) does seem to be unlike any other metaphor I know because up to the level of 3 dimensions the correspondence between algebra and geometry is mathematically perfect.

So can formal systems in some cases transcend human language and standard human cognition without being just metaphors?

Pole

87

WTS Official Spin on monthly Awake: 'More emphasis on the Bible!'

by Neo in

jw
friends

the march 2005 kingdom ministry brings up a full article about the awake only being published once a month, starting january 2006. .

but the fun thing is the roundabout way this change is announced.

knowing that the news would be a bitter pill to swallow (there should be a 'speeding up' of the preaching work, not a downsizing), the watchtower only announces the move to monthly publishing by the end of the article.

Pole

I have a few questions ;@)

1. Originally, for whom was The Watchtower primarily published, and for whom The Golden Age?

2. What is the name of The Golden Age today, and what has been its purpose from the beginning?

3. Awake! has been a powerful tool in the fulfillment of what prophecy?

4. (a) What does a person need to do if he is to be concealed in "the day of Jehovah's anger"? (b) According to Revelation 14:6, 7, what does the "angel flying in midheaven" call on all to do?

5. (a) Starting with the Awake! of January 2006, what will be featured more prominently? (b) What may many be moved to do, and in fulfillment of what prophecy?

6, 7. (a) How will Awake! seek to help many to apply 1 Thessalonians 2:13? (b) How frequently will Awake! be published, and how many languages will be affected by the change?

8. How may publishers use Awake! along with The Watchtower?

9. What role will Awake! continue to play?

Pole
Pole

234

Intelligent Design

by Delta20 in

hey all,.

i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).

basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.

Pole

AlanF wrote in response to ellderwho:

You're still resorting to fuzzy, meaningless generalities. Why can't you be specific?

Ever heard of fuzzy-set logic?

Seriously though, ellderwho I have the same problem - you haven't made your point about logic yet, or have I missed it?

Pole

87

WTS Official Spin on monthly Awake: 'More emphasis on the Bible!'

by Neo in

jw
friends

the march 2005 kingdom ministry brings up a full article about the awake only being published once a month, starting january 2006. .

but the fun thing is the roundabout way this change is announced.

knowing that the news would be a bitter pill to swallow (there should be a 'speeding up' of the preaching work, not a downsizing), the watchtower only announces the move to monthly publishing by the end of the article.

Pole

Just look at the manipulative follow-up questions. They're great to make sure every dub got it "right".

Pole

8

JW in Germany have to change their byelaws on data keeping

by GermanXJW in

when i sent my da-letter i demanded that my data have to be deleted.

i got a reply that the "religious community of jw in germany" (like the ccjw this is different from the watchtower) keeps data on me like other churches, too.

well, in germany we have a governmental data protection office in each land.

Pole

LOL. Darn it, IP_SEC. I knew the WTS laywers must have dabbled with the baptism questions.

Pole

234

Intelligent Design

by Delta20 in

hey all,.

i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).

basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.

Pole

onacruse,

1) That this Designer made us (genetically) to be what we are, and we can't be anything other than what It made us to be...it's It's fault if we mess up (the no-free-will perspective);

I don't like this option, if you can tell the designer by his works...

2) That this Design(er) allows (expects??) us to act in accord with what we can be, or try to be...and It can't fault us for taking our best shot (the free-will perspective).

Ok, this is interesting, but I don't see much room for free-will here at all if you believe in afterlife. Let's fantasize. Imagine an atheist dies and... to his great surprise he meets his Maker. Will the Designer tell him: "Ok, you've seen many atrocities while living on Earth and there was no conclusive proof for my existance, but here is something I'm going to tell you which will make you change your mind completely about my design...". Will the resurrected atheist have no choice but to believe after hearing his maker's explanations? If so, isn't it all predestined?

Pole

8

JW in Germany have to change their byelaws on data keeping

by GermanXJW in

when i sent my da-letter i demanded that my data have to be deleted.

i got a reply that the "religious community of jw in germany" (like the ccjw this is different from the watchtower) keeps data on me like other churches, too.

well, in germany we have a governmental data protection office in each land.

Pole

When I DA myself (could be any time now really), I'll demand they delete my personal records too. In Poland you can't keep people's personal information without their explicit permission. I've never given them any permission.

Pole

234

Intelligent Design

by Delta20 in

hey all,.

i am currently studying the topic of intelligent design (id).

basically the id theory is the revival of the teleological argument for the existance of a deity.

Pole

onacruise,

Now, see there! That's the fascinating kind of self-revelation, and open admission, that we were denied as JWs. Life can be a simple as just saying "This is what I believe, and I believe it simply because I believe it!"

I have no problem with this line of reasoning, because it has a clearly-stated methodology.

Pole