By removing the human element- not sure how one would achieve that, but it's the biggest culprit, IMO.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is above scrutiny?
- Thread starter SigurdReginson
- Start date
By removing the human element- not sure how one would achieve that, but it's the biggest culprit, IMO.
Altfish
Veteran Member
That's what 'peer reviewed' is supposed to correct
And it does a great job of it... Though, it isn't always the most efficient way when a new theory has to contend with a deeply entrenched theory.
Not sure a better method could be readily created, but science now vs. 1000 years from now will be different, I'd wager.
Altfish
Veteran Member
There is nothing scientists enjoy more than destroying an 'entrenched theory'; it ensures fame and fortune for themAnd it does a great job of it... Though, it isn't always the most efficient way when a new theory has to contend with a deeply entrenched theory.
Not sure a better method could be readily created, but science now vs. 1000 years from now will be different, I'd wager.
If someone sticks you with a pin and it hurts, I would not question the pain. Maybe some would assume that they are dreaming (lucidly) or hallucinating or that the pain is a manifestation of maya, but the sensation of pain is experienced no matter what.
There are those who disagree: Kabir, Ramakrishna, the Avatar in His many forms and many others.
life being alive is above scrutiny every time. life is always justified, though that may be questionable in the eyes of men. but dead men have no judgments and all men are committed to the ground. in that I'm sure you have no doubts, but if you do, then what is thy faith? what is thy expectations that would be otherwise?
Unless the person suffers with congenital insensitivity to pain. Pain is a subjective experience that relies entirely on the person who experiences it. It varies from person to person.
If I get punched, it may effect me more than if you get punched.
The human mind seems to be incredibly susceptible to fallibility. We can get an idea of what others experience, but we can never be totally certain. All we have to work with are our own experiences, as limited as they may be.
But what is life, even? Maybe there is "life" on another world that is totally different than ours, and we might even think it non-living. We don't even need to look very far to start to question if things are alive or not. Bacteria themselves straddle that brink between what is living and what is not.
Maybe we create a robot that can think and feel as we do. It dreams, it thinks, it innovates, it has desires. Is it not alive, then? At what point do we then count it as living?
ppp
Well-Known Member
There are also those who think that women should be servile, and that the Earth is flat. Mere disagreement is merely disagreement. Have Kabir, Ramakrishna, the Avatar in his many forms bring me reason and evidence and I will consider their claims.
doubting thomases are very much appreciated
so what, and beside you have a way to give the life you have unless of course you have infirmities in such things. but in general the living can give the life they have to another.
who cares about that which you can't see or do or even acknowledge as true. stay with what is at hand, that you actually have the power to do.
don't waste the power to do well on what isn't in your reach, like planet who knows what, in who knows where, that you know nothing about, that has nothing to do with you.
computers are stupid until you program them to do something. which is of your imagination, nothing more.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
You make a fair enough point - though where does one draw the line when considering something an "upgrade" versus being in a different category altogether? With the case of bows and firearms, the difference there is staggering enough for someone not to want to be caught bringing a bow to a gun fight. And in that case, specifically, your risk/reward assessment is being done on entirely real, observable facts and data about the two weapons. Such as how well/accurately the gun's parts are tooled or smithed, the amount of experience or expertise the person wielding either weapon has, the conditions you find yourself in when you are attempting to rely on putting a spark to gunpowder, etc.
As I began to allude to above (because I just knew you were getting to this - haha!), that amount of "faith" in these sorts of earthly endeavors only really amounts to a hope on a guess as to whether or not you have gauged your situation accurately. The situation itself is indifferent to your success or plight, and the gun either will or won't work the next time you pull the trigger based on very real and measurable virtues or problems with the device.
A few observations:
- The Inscrutable Exists. Humans have limits. There are certain things which are "above" scrutiny in the sense that they are simply inscrutable by humans. Asking certain questions and perceiving things in certain ways is beyond our capabilities, whether collectively as a species or as individual persons. Accepting that these limits exist is very important.
- Scrutiny is Ruinous. A lot of human experience is raw, sensual, and emotional. Putting most of our experiences under excessive and unnecessary scrutiny robs life experiences of their splendor, is bane to the arts, and can negatively impact mental health. Instead of simply enjoying something and valuing emotions, reasons are demanded and in this demand and dissection, the core of the experience is ruined.
ppp
Well-Known Member
There may be things that are beyond our capability to understand. I see no reason to accept that limit on any specific thing until that limit is demonstrated to my satisfaction. Someone merely saying that I ought to is not good enough. It should not be good enough for anyone.
Pursuing desires and fears without examination is the path to ruin. Ruinous relationships. Actions that can inflict physical or emotional harm on oneself and others.
And for my part, the dissection of the world in which I live only serves to make it more wondrous. I remember when I was 16, walking a familiar path from my dorm to class. As I passed beneath the oaks, the winds blew, the leaves rustled and the world lit up with vector diagrams. And no, there is nothing special about my brain. This was a very common experience among people interested in the natural sciences.
It may not be your type of beauty, but you are not the measure of splendor.
Then that's your path in life. I find the path of science to lead to equally increasing wonder as does the path within.
Why not? What does that say about your values? Might someone else's values be different and, therefore, such things are good enough for some people?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends. I advise caution in too strongly praising the virtues of scrutiny lest one forget the situations for which scrutiny does not serve well. No particular way of doing things is necessary or desirable in all situations. I don't think the OP hearkens to that balance enough.
Keep in mind I say all this as someone who has a tendency to overthink things. I am very well aware of how it makes me miserable as much as it makes me curious and happy. There are trade-offs. I do not put scrutiny on a pedestal. It comes at costs that I have become very personally familiar with.
Sure I am. I am in my life and you are in yours. Is that some sort of problem? Too bad.
ppp
Well-Known Member
I am not sure what you mean by 'the path within'. Something other than introspection and meditation?
People can sacrifice their lives for more than life. I'd say a lot of folks would sooner sacrifice their lives for an idea. Martyrdom has it's own word, after all.
Practical application is nice for daily life, but thinkers set the pace for that practical life. What we have now (like the computer you type on) is due to their innovation. In life, there are 2 states; do, or do not. Act, or not, and possibly be subject to the actions of others.
Well, with all due respect, why even be here then? Neither you or I are helping anyone by being here. Now, I'm a big fan of volunteering, and I am lucky enough to work at a hospital so I can help people directly every day, but everyone needs idle time to recover. Picking people's brains isn't the worst hobby to have, though I'd prefer to go on a nice long hike right now.
If you took a baby and isolated them from everything their entire lives, they would also be stupid. The information we are programmed with are our life experiences. There are computers being made now that are beginning to learn like we do. Is that what it takes to be considered "alive?"
Scientists made a cell using non living, basic materials. Is that cell alive?
What about a robot made using lab grown tissue? We are beginning to do this now. If we grew an entire robot from lab made tissue, and it was a thinking and feeling being, would it be alive then?