The Science Prison

[Jasper]

First, there was everything, but it couldn't have the decency to happen in a convenient span of time.

Then, there evolved, through careful sets of probability and optimal conditions, living beings.

They did some stuff in the pursuit of jokes and snacks, a favorite being to deny this of others as a joke.

Thier intelligence was designed on cause-and-effect observations and inferential deduction. 

They were very clever.

They were smart enough to create ideas about thier ideas.

End Chapter One of The Science Prison.  The rest sort of tells itself, yes?

[LMNO]

No.

I don't get it.


Essentially, now that I know this, so what?  What next?

[Cain]

They were very clever.

I contest this.  Some were exceptionally clever, and pulled the rest (mostly being morons) up by accumulation of knowledge over generations.

[Triple Zero]

it's sort of a half-"i dont believe in creationism", half-"the machine sort of happens by itself because of intelligence" kind of rant.

the second half imo has some merit along the lines of "intelligence<->consciousness<->self-reflection is what causes the machine to happen".

could be expounded on a bit, perhaps it could form the basis of a nice controversial paradoxal argument like

"the more intelligent individuals become, the more stupid a herd of them becomes, so not even Reason itself is a key to the prison, only Thinking is" (see also: "Thinking is the key, intelligence is just a by-product")

sort of

i could word this more clearly as well.

[LMNO]

the more intelligent individuals become, the more stupid a herd of them becomes, so not even Reason itself is a key to the prison, only Thinking is

I like this.  Could use some touching up, but a solid idea.


Although, sometimes excessive thinking leads to sock-fucking in Mom's basement.  Action needs to be included in some way, in sort of a "strong mind, strong body" kind of way.

[Triple Zero]

it's sort of about how stupid animals tend to do what's best for them, cause that's what their instincts say

and when they start reasoning about what they do, they usually tend to go off that track, not always (more often not) to the best results.

> Although, sometimes excessive thinking leads to sock-fucking in Mom's basement. 
> Action needs to be included in some way, in sort of a "strong mind, strong body"
> kind of way.

yes, you need balance between the both.

but i usually do the Action thing, when not posting/reading on internet fora, though.

[Jasper]

Way to miss the point, you lot.

The material posted would be applied as an intro to explain why BIP isn't just the newest pretentious philisophical pursuit, especially to people who don't really put a lot of thought into all this business.

It's a good lead-in, effectively.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The material posted would be applied as an intro to explain why BIP isn't just the newest pretentious philisophical pursuit, especially to people who don't really put a lot of thought into all this business.

In short, a vicious, horrible lie.

[Jasper]

Problem? 

It's an intro, nothing more.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Problem? 

It's an intro, nothing more.

No, no problem.  I fully endorse lying to monkeys.

[Triple Zero]

The material posted would be applied as an intro to explain why BIP isn't just the newest pretentious philisophical pursuit, especially to people who don't really put a lot of thought into all this business.

okay, but then why this bit:

Then, there evolved, through careful sets of probability and optimal conditions, living beings.

?

this isn't the church of the flying spaghetti monster, you know. now don't get me wrong, it's just that i find this creationist-bashing fairly redundant. pointing out the painfully obvious fact of evolution is like preaching to the choir (srsly, the others IMO can't be saved, otherwise, good luck trying to write a rant that targets the ones that already bought in to the 6000 years thing), softly lulling this choir into the idea that "oh but i'm already smart, it doesn't apply to me, i already believe in evolution".
IMO any argument against creationism is a waste of breath, only draws attention to it, and leads credit to its existence.

now i'm sure that this is me missing the point again entirely, but that is what i get out of it and seeing you intend it as an introduction, i kind of wonder what the introducees will get out of it.

(also, i hope it will be obvious that this criticism is not intended as a personal attack)

[LMNO]

Way to miss the point, you lot.

The material posted would be applied as an intro to explain why BIP isn't just the newest pretentious philisophical pursuit, especially to people who don't really put a lot of thought into all this business.

It's a good lead-in, effectively.

It isn't?

What is it, then?

Also, if you choose to just drop this kind of stuff without an explaination of what we're supposed to do with it, don't bitch when we decide for ourselves how to handle it.

[AFK]

smelly pasta ITT

And honestly, I think your normal Joe would think the BIP is exactly the newest pretentious philosophical pursuit.  At least, how we discuss it here.  Though, I think the pamphlet is pretty straight forward.  But then, some said it was too straight forward.  You know what, is there anyway to win this?  Yeah, I know the answer. 

[Jasper]

Problem? 

It's an intro, nothing more.

No, no problem. I fully endorse lying to monkeys.

Which parts are you calling lies?  I'm a bit unclear on that.

[Cain]

That the BIP is just the newest pretentious philo-whatever it was you said.

Cain,
is now translator for Roger, it seems.