|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 06/05/2006 : 19:17:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by SeanSinjin
I'd like to take this opportunity to clear up a few
misconceptions that have been circulating here on this forum. The
first and foremost is the unfortunate confusion between our
website, Betterhuman.org, and the completely unrelated
website BetterHumans.com. We are in no way affiliated with the
's' society, in fact, we actually 'oppose' their collective
because they truly are the definition of a cult in that
they promise the super-natural (immortality) to their members,
which is the core of virtually all cults or religions, and
which we at BetterHuman.org vehemently deny the possibility
of.
Well, even though beskeptigal didn't give me much of a chance to do it myself, allow me to express my sincerest apologies to you, Sean, for having missed the "s" at the end of that other site's name (I also missed the .com versus .org ending mismatch, but thank you for not rubbing my nose in it too much). Welcome to the Skeptic Friends Network!
Having examined your mission a bit, I've gotta say that I disagree with the implication that all religious people are insane. Surely if I were to convince some guy, through careful lies and manipulation, that George W. Bush killed the guy's father, and the guy acted on that idea and attempted to kill Bush in revenge, if the whole story got out, few on a jury would give an insanity defense much weight. But that's precisely what happens with a lot of people with regard to religion - they get lied to and manipulated as children, and can't shake those lessons as adults, since they're reinforced by over 2/3rds of the world population (and 100% of some peoples' local populations).
I also strongly disagree with the idea that "the noblest purpose in life is to make yourself happy." It may be the most honest statement of purpose around, but nobility implies a selflessness which is absent from your main message.
I also find your "tenets" to be inconsistent with that message. For example, "Slander, jealousy, hate, denial of fact, politically-oppressive prejudice, and ostracism are all intolerable in our philosophy" is completely at odds with "the noblest purpose in life is to make yourself happy" for those among our population who thrive upon interpersonal conflict and bullying.
For an even better example, "Massive accumulation of wealth is only permitted in the light of the nobility of its eventual intended purpose, which must in some way benefit humanity as a whole, better known as philanthropy." I shouldn't even have to say this, but it is absolutely hypocritical to claim that personal happiness is paramount and to assert that philanthropy should be mandated. Instead of nobility, that "tenet" smacks of sour grapes.
"Poverty due to apathy is inexcusable and banishment is the penalty." This, too, is completely at odds with your primary message of purpose.
Well, I'm not going to go through all of the "tenets" which seem to be inconsistent with your other statements, but I'm not seeing a carefully thought-out philosophy here.
As for the "Gravity" excerpt from Meme, what can I say but what you've said on your Mission page? "When one believes wholeheartedly in fantasy, they are insane." While the concept of the "bether" might have been a somewhat useful analogy for particle physics and gravity (except for where it fails to match observations), you went the extra steps of claiming, "Bether is very much a real substance, not merely a metaphysical construct for the convenience of mathematics," and "This is not an analogy; particles are nothing more than bether that is all twisted into itself, just like our rope's loop." Unfortunately, quantum p |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2006 : 20:13:47 [Permalink]
|
Unfortunately, John, pointing out the foreword just reinforces my impressions of the work, too:Though this writing has the presentation style of the truth, it remains nothing more than a story, in the sense that there is no such thing as a bona fide, verifiable, true “fact”. Without the possibility of the existence of a fact, there can only be new theories that build on previous theories, as the whole truth about reality continues to and may forever escape the accessibility and capacity of our minds. I expect many of the theories and concepts within this book to become outdated quickly. This is desired, and I welcome evidence to reject or improve the concepts presented, but that evidence must be founded in truth and with proof. And that's a very high hurdle to jump for someone who just claimed that there's no such thing as a fact. The author is not very consistent.Hearsay, religious argument premised on an ethereal entity, arrogance, denial, etc. all fail as counter-arguments, for by their very nature, they secretly betray the necessity for this book. What if one isn't making a counterargument, but is instead criticizing your arguments, Sean?If you feel that some of the information in this book is questionable, then by all means, please, do the research and prove it wrong. This book is meant to be a catalyst for the uninhibited pursuit of knowledge, not the end of that pursuit. These last two sentences are also not consistent with each other. Your "prove me wrong" attitude says that you've ended your own pursuit of knowledge on the subject(s) you've entertained. However, it is, of course, up to you to show the existence of the "bether" (for example). Assuming it's true (and stating so outright) until it's proven wrong is the antithesis of "the uninhibited pursuit of knowledge," not a demonstration of it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2006 : 20:17:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
We'll see how many of our forum members who commented above find themselves defending the above posts or a bit red faced for following the leader. (Dave excepted as it is easy to see why he might have thought he'd already looked at the site and not bothered to look at the link in my post.)
I guess I'm one of those that B's finger is pointed at. 
My comments are certainly based mostly on the gravity excerpt of Senjin's book you linked to. Going back and re-reading it, I stand by my comments. I'm not suggesting it's woo-woo in the "aliens stole my baby" category, but to my mind, such dissertations which contain a mixture of scientific jargon and methodology, right along side those which are not, confusing if not unhelpful. I admit my physics background is fairly conventional, and I may be somewhat biased in this regard. I wish I had read the foreword first however, as it sets the stage somewhat differently:
quote:
If you were to draw an accuracy chart of all the information presented in this book, it would most likely be mottled with many gross inaccuracies and subjective liberties....
...The lines between known fact and plausible conjecture have been intentionally blurred to afford a more story-like feel to this book, so please forgive my arrogance or ignorance in regard to specific details.
(emphasis mine)
This is only some of Senjin's foreword, the full text is here. I have not sliced it up to misrepresent it's intent, and I hope that is not what I have done. I've just presented the sections that I felt best addressed my reactions. Please read the whole thing, it's only a couple of paragraphs, <400 words.
Perhaps a more politically correct response would be to say "I now understand that I am not the target audience". I certainly won't say that Senjin's work is without merit (especially as I have only read a single excerpt of the whole book), but it's certainly not my cup of tea. I admit many people like their physics with a lot more philosophising than I.
As to "following the leader", I assure you I'm quite capable of making my own judgements (including errors) independently, I rarely intentionally copy them verbatim from others.
SeanSinjin, I appreciate your comments too. The "What is BetterHuman.org" introduction (kind of mission statement-ish) is a noble goal, which I mostly agree with in principle. I think the goal for your book, Meme, may be a little ambitious:
quote:
Meme attempts to completely, logically, and scientifically explain the universe around us, and to define purpose for us.
I also think "Meme" was a poor title for your book, but again, I haven't read it all, so take that as you will. Unless of course it was meant to be "me! me!".
As an aside, just as I clicked "Post New Reply", my laptop went completely rogue, blue screening and providing me with a not incredibly informative memory dump, although I'm pretty sure it was my wireless NIC controller driver at fault. Anyway, after a reboot Firefox came back up with all my tabs in place and the text of my post 100% in tact. Ahhh, it's enough to warm one's heart even after the anti-christ has temporarily infected one's PC. I cannot recommend the SessionSaver plug-in strongly enough. It also has other uses.
Edit II: It would seem that my initial post was submitted, I've since deleted it as there were minor changes between it and this final version. This is also why Dave managed to reference my post seemingly before I made it. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 06/05/2006 21:19:51 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2006 : 20:45:33 [Permalink]
|
Turns out I should have read the glossary, too, which makes it clear that we're being treated to new definitions of old terms, and also presents more inconsistencies. From the foreword:...there is no such thing as a bona fide, verifiable, true “fact”. From the glossary:Fact – Highly unlikely to be false. Thus fudging "fact" to be used at will, even though the foreword says there are none.
Another example:Ethereal – Something perceived to be real but doesn't have a physical presence; intangible. The "bether," however, fits this definition, so far as I can tell, because it is massless and friction-free. It is defined as being ethereal.
And, of course, we're treated to a new defintion of an old and useful tool:Occam's Razor – The simplification or removal of undue complexity, for the purpose of improving clarity. This redefinition strips the Razor of its actual power. For example, by applying the real Razor, we can eliminate "bether" as an unnecessary hypothesis when our observations are compared to current physical models. (Unless Sean knows of some phenomenon which is explained by "betherdynamics" but unexplained by modern physics, of course.) In "Meme reality," though, "betherdynamics" is easier to explain than quantum physics and Relativity, so Sean's version of the Razor suggests we should ignore them, even though "betherdynamics" doesn't seem to match reality as well. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 00:32:16 [Permalink]
|
First if all welcome to SFN.
quote:
Originally posted by SeanSinjin
The second point I'd like to make is to address the
frequent references to our organization as 'also' being a 'cult'.
It seems difficult to me that our site, which is dedicated
to the eradication of cults (which of course includes all
ethereal-based religions), could inadvertently be considered
a cult; especially in the light that we do not have any
mechanism for membership, and that we promote ideals that
strongly encourage individualism.
Indeed, I think the term "cult" gets thrown about too easily. The fact that you call a transhumanist organisation and all ethereal-based religions "cults" indicates to me that you also use the term somewhat loosely when it is in your interests to do so.
The main problem that I have with your philisophical position is that it is no more based on science and logic (which is only a problem because you claim that it is) than religion is. It may (or may not) be compatible with science but that's not the same thing as being based on it. Many of the tenets of your philosophy appear to be a collection of things that seemed like a good idea at the time, wishful thinking or religion bashing. I don't see any real cohesiveness to the package and in concert with betherdynamics it strikes me as the beginnings of a complex mythology.
I'm certainly willing to revise my opinion of your site if you give me reason to. If you could demonstrate, or point me to where you have demonstrated, that your philosophy is based on logic rather than just assert that it is, that would go a long way.
To give an example of what I mean the first tenet in the list is:
quote:
Everyone has the right to pursue happiness as they personally define it, as long as it does not negatively affect anyone, including themselves
Sounds like a great idea right? But it's basically vacuous. It could mean anything, it depends on where you set the boundaries. This tenet could be used to justify absolutely anything. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 02:29:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I would guess it's the gravity excerpt from the book that sparked dv's comment.
That may have been what sealed it for me but I was already heading in that direction.
quote:
I can't remember your religious views, dv. I know we agree on a lot and disagree on some things. I would imagine any skeptic science oriented person still holding on to religious beliefs will indeed find fault with the betterhuman site.
I think that the betterhuman site makes several of the same mistakes that are common in religious thought, uncritical acceptance of dogma for example. I'm an atheist btw.
quote:
But I can understand your reaction to the gravity excerpt. I read the excerpt as one conceptualization of the Universe's composition. I didn't read it as woo woo or anything like that. But I will say again, some of the terminology used wasn't what I would have assigned to the concepts.
Yeah, the particular terminology used is irrelevant except as an aid to understanding. It might behoove him to choose terms that are less likely to evoke chuckles but the real problem is that the blether theory is (as far as I am aware) unsupported by science. |
|
|
|
SeanSinjin
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 09:27:55 [Permalink]
|
Hello again,
Thank you all for such a generous response to my letter, and for your kind reconsideration of the nature of BetterHuman.org. I truly believe that I share a great deal of intellectual/philosophical congruency with the majority of participants in this particular forum; perhaps we just needed to communicate a little more in order to make that connection more obvious.
Great feedback about my gravity excerpt. I completely agree how ‘fluffy' it seems when physics theories are inundated with ‘emotion'-grabbing terminology (e.g. love spot?), and I wholeheartedly agree that in the physics community this is an immediate disqualifier, but perhaps some background will vindicate my approach: I came up with this theory roughly 5 years ago after many years of fascinating study of the Theory of Relativity. The concept of ‘bether' that I introduce is deceptively simple, and yet a considerable paradigm shift away from the contemporary understanding of the nature of ‘space'. Though bether has the nuances of the proverbial ‘aether' theory, I assure you that it is a completely revamped approach to describing gravity and magnetism, whilst still remaining compatible with the ubiquitous relativistic speed of light (something that the historical model of ‘aether' fails to accommodate).
Some find it discrediting that I haven't included any mathematics to support my theory, but what they fail to understand is that the mathematics to describe the properties of bether already exist, simply because they are exactly the same formulas used to describe gravity in Einstein's relativity theories. I'm not attempting to redefine gravity's properties, I'm trying to explain the causative agent for those properties (e.g. not trying to demonstrate ‘what' gravity does, but ‘why')
One might think that if bether really was the correct answer, then it would seem a small matter to propel this theory into infamy by simply presenting it to the physics community and the rest would happen automatically. Not so, many attempts to get a ‘foot in the door' were always perfectly rejected, without even one second of consideration to the theory. The merits of the theory have yet to even be ‘seen' by someone inside the physics community who doesn't shut down immediately when confronted with the notion of space being ‘something' versus ‘nothing'. It seems there's just as much resistance to ‘freethought' in the scientific community as there is in religious communities; a very human trait (cognitive dissonance) that tends to be independent of perspective.
It may have been a failing in my presentation style, or more a reflection of the number of people out there that believe they have figured gravity out themselves and perpetually exasperate people within the physics community with their well-intended but misguided theories, but alas, I'm stuck with what I believe works, and very few people will spend enough time to understand it. Those very few that have taken the time, however, agree that the concept may very well be correct.
Sorry if it seems like I'm pitching more than explaining, but this all leads to my book Meme, where I felt it was appropriate to explain the forces of nature responsible for congealing this universe into its present form, and gravity of course plays a stellar role. Unfortunately, because of Meme's focal point in eliminating the ancient tyranny of religion, my target audience was typically going to be the less scientifically-endowed, and my presentation style had to change to match.
So how does one explain gravity to the mind of an ethereal addict? Well, I had to resort to concepts much more familiar to them, human emotion concepts, allowing them to bridge the gap between cold, hard theory, and warm, exciting, fresh love. By making two particles ‘fall' in love together, I believed I could more easily capture the attention of ‘faith'-susceptible people (who tend to be more emotionally-premised), whilst still instillin |
| Edited by - Boron10 on 06/06/2006 11:12:26 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 10:40:16 [Permalink]
|
| I think Dave is using the legal meaning of 'insanity' for no good reason. The word has other meanings. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 11:27:58 [Permalink]
|
SeanSinjin,
Thank you for participating in this discussion!
I have edited your two posts to shorten the links you have posted. When a link is too long, the forum text does not wrap on the screen properly. The way to prevent this is to nest your link. Try using this forum code:
[
This shows us like this:
Link
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to PM me, or you may reference the FAQ. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 11:45:07 [Permalink]
|
I shall have to read much more of the site after all these comments. I hadn't seen the 'insanity' terminology so I'll look for that. I wouldn't put ignorance into the same category as insanity but certainly people who are over the line like Robertson and Dobson come close to being mentally ill by some definitions. And many mentally ill persons have religion interwoven into their belief systems.
Then there is the question of where do you put the Tim McVeys and the Islamic suicide bombers? Are they brainwashed? Are they twisted? Were Marshall Applewhite and Jim Jones mentally ill? I would think so but then how would you categorize their followers? It is a very complex issue.
It seems I'm the one who took too cursory a look at the site to form my first impression. But I'm still interested and there is a lot there to think about. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 06/06/2006 11:48:59 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 11:51:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
I think Dave is using the legal meaning of 'insanity' for no good reason. The word has other meanings.
Actually, that was quite the minor point compared to the other problems I outlined. Used as SeanSinjin defines 'insanity', his own contention that the "bether" exists and is not a metaphorical or mathematical construct is insane. But, I must qualify that remark as I haven't yet read the nine other pages he's just linked to. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 11:55:39 [Permalink]
|
Until we have a cure, it doesn't matter much if we say that some of these people are mentally ill, does it?
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 11:59:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by SeanSinjin...
Great feedback about my gravity excerpt. [. . .]
Reading this I couldn't help but recall how we applied The Crackpot Index during our discussions with Michael Mozina and his fantasy notions about the Sun having a solid surface. SeanSinjin seems to be racking up his own crackpot points. Without digging too deeply into the above posting, I noticed he is beginning to accumulate a substantial score. Here are a few examples...
SeanSinjin: I came up with this theory roughly 5 years ago after many years of fascinating study of the Theory of Relativity.
(11) 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
SeanSinjin: The concept of ‘bether' that I introduce is deceptively simple, and yet a considerable paradigm shift away from the contemporary understanding of the nature of ‘space'.
(14) 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
(19) 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
SeanSinjin: Some find it discrediting that I haven't included any mathematics to support my theory, but what they fail to understand is that the mathematics to describe the properties of bether already exist, simply because they are exactly the same formulas used to describe gravity in Einstein's relativity theories.
(8) 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
(15) 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
SeanSinjin: I'm not attempting to redefine gravity's properties, I'm trying to explain the causative agent for those properties (e.g. not trying to demonstrate ‘what' gravity does, but ‘why')
(17) 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
SeanSinjin: One might think that if bether really was the correct answer, then it would seem a small matter to propel this theory into infamy by simply presenting it to the physics community and the rest would happen automatically. Not so, many attempts to get a ‘foot in the door' were always perfectly rejected, without even one second of consideration to the theory.
(34) 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
But of course SeanSinjin is still a rank amateur crackpot by comparison. He would have to stick around a very long time and post a whole lot more if he were ever to even come close to Mozina's score. 
|
|
|
|
SeanSinjin
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 12:41:07 [Permalink]
|
In the spirit of being thorough, I just wanted to be sure
that all points were tallied. I believe the following were
overlooked.
(1) A -5 point starting credit.
This was implied:
(16) 10 points for arguing that a current well-established
theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point
against it.
And please don't shortchange me of this prize:
(37) 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory
but giving no concrete testable predictions.
Lots of fun my friends, take care,
Sean Sinjin
BetterHuman.org Authenticity Code:
31feaa23-473e-4832-b957-dc9375487cd3 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 12:50:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Actually, that was quite the minor point compared to the other problems I outlined.
Very minor point, yes. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 06/06/2006 12:50:57 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
