Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Feb 28, 2017.
How do you explain it?
I saw a lot of truth in what you said in your post but I think its easy to confuse the biblical metaphor with the derogatory usage. It's actually a very loose metaphor and I must say, I wouldn't want to be turned into lamb cutlets or mutton broth, which is part of the industry a shepherd belongs to. We don't follow just anybody, we follow Christ because we believe there is enough evidence to justify trusting him, and of course, because we like what he stands for. This is the only reason the bible references us as sheep and I think the derogatory term sheep is an inaccurate view of how sheep actually behave. They only follow the real shepherd and only because they see reason to trust him.
I can't, you've got me there. But I don't see any way how it would work with light or sound or actual molecules from the targets stimulating sensory organs, which I guess is the normal, materialistic way of explaining perception. If anything, it's like there is a field of awareness pervading literally everything, which we can access. Btw., it's possible I literally didn't get how he explains it (not sure if I understood everything, I'm not a native speaker).
That's an interesting admission.
The Bible does give a multi-faceted picture of sheep, and there are different emphases but also an overarching pattern:
-In the Old Testament, sheep are repeatedly and explicitly portrayed as the shepherd's possession; a possession to shear, to trade, to slaughter and to eat.
-Then in the New Testament, the relationship between the shepherd and sheep is portrayed more warmly, as you pointed out, of the shepherd knowing and protecting his sheep. Sheep are, however, portrayed as confused and lacking their own guidance. There are also a couple of passages where the possession part of the relationship, and about shearing and slaughter are mentioned:
It is often repeated that a sheep of Christ must give himself up to his shepherd. And there are references to the shearing and slaughter part too (e.g. The Acts of the Apostles 8:30-33, emphasis added):
'Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.'
So despite promises of eternal life because of giving one's soul away, what happens to a sheep is shearing and slaughter. This is also shown elsewhere in the New Testament, such as in The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 8:36-37:
'As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.'
So the author admits that sheep are for the slaughter, but the twist is that the sheep are really conquerors! Nietzsche called this slave morality: that is, being weak and humiliated but trying to change this position into a virtue.
But even as the Bible often enough portrays: sheep are possessions: they are weak and stupid, and need to be protected and guided, in order to be sheared, traded, slaughtered and consumed.
[QUOTE="Nelson, post: 109510, member: 3598"But even as the Bible often enough portrays: sheep are possessions: they are weak and stupid, and need to be protected and guided, in order to be sheared, traded, slaughtered and consumed.[/QUOTE]
Then look what it means. "All who wish to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" The slaughter isn't done by the shepherd in this case.
Anyway, I am out of here. I intended to talk about the attitude "weak minded" not christianity.
Weak minded people are not those who hold to a view different to your own, but those who insult people for their beliefs because they are insecure about their own!
I thought you'd argue that angle. On face value it seems a valid point. However, if people are assumed to be like sheep and told to behave like sheep, then what does one expect in a world with wolves (and hungry shepherds too -- after all, the Xian priests are called shepherds too)...
A further point: even according to received history, the scale of polytheistic actions against Christians was minuscule in comparison to the massive scale attacks by the Church against non-believers.
No need to leave. Most of what I wrote was simply reporting what the Bible itself reports: namely that sheep are possessions; and in the OT & NT, sheep are described as weak and stupid, and therefore they need to be protected and guided, in order (at least according to the OT) to be sheared, traded, slaughtered and consumed.
And to make matters worse, there is compelling evidence that Xianity was a psy-op. Namely, that in order for a priest-class to take over, it was necessary to destroy the primordial tradition of loyalty to family and tribe.
As the Jesus character himself says:
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."
That's cute! The logic seems very simple and sound (all pulses transmitted must be received), yet it adds up to neither twin being time-dilated in the end, regardless of anyone's state of acceleration. Not the mainsteam interpretation but hard to argue against.
My head hurts.
Well I think the standard response is that the situation is unsymmetrical, and the algebra of Lorenz transformations tells us that the moving twin experiences in less time than his stay at home twin.
I think I could do the algebra for this - just about after so many years - but I don't think it is the algebra that is the issue here - it is the interpretation.
Note that Lorenz transformations 'explain' Maxwell's equations neatly. A stationary charge in one frame becomes an electric current in another frame, and that generates a magnetic field. I think it was Maxwell's equations that gave rise to SR.
However, there is something called Lorenzian Relativity which produces the same results as SR for earth based experiments, but it is based on the idea of an aether.
I'm going to read that paper to remind myself what exactly it claims.
The aether was supposedly ruled out by the famous MM experiment, but things get more complicated if the aether exists but is dragged by the earth (presumably all suitably heavy objects). I believe the aether is also ruled out by some other measurements (stellar aberration) but I suppose I wish there was less of a rush to decide theories like this - more keeping of an open mind.
I think it would be interesting to perform the MM experiment in deep space, or maybe in a highly elliptical earth orbit.
Thanks, that paper looks interesting. I've read a number of papers about Lorentzian Relativity, several of which make the claim that LR produces the same results as SR (in the simple case with a stationary 'flat space' ether and both particles and photons/EM waves as patterns of movement in the ether). Always interested in alternate takes on this. I agree that the problem with SR is not quite the maths but what the maths represents - because I think our scientific habit (mainstream since at least the 1970s) of replacing intuitive 'mental models' with raw mathematics has closed us off from some sources of intuition in the more creative aspects of our minds. To go beyond the numbers we have to have some sense of what the numbers mean (ie, point to / map onto in the larger world beyond the equations), and also what the numbers don't currently model.
I really like this phrase in Shanahan ( the paper above):
Unlike the carousel rider who sees the fairground whirling about her, but is under no illusion as to what is really happening, Buzz has suffered relativistic changes in his vital processes, and lost the means of discernment. For Buzz the LT will describe very well his altered perspective. But it would be as inappropriate to explain length contraction, time dilation and loss of simultaneity as resulting from a physical transformation of space or spacetime as it would be to describe the rotation of an object in 3-space as a rotation of space rather than a rotation in space.
Indeed the Minkowski metric should itself be seen as a kind of illusion, and as a consequence rather than the cause of this change in matter.
Exactly. Surely local changes to an object's local state-of-movement can only ever cause local effects. That is, if we want our theory of time and space and motion (as Einstein did) to be a local theory not a nonlocal one.
It's weird how SR embeds both nonlocality and observer-dependence deep into the roots of modern physics, despite Einstein's later strenuous opposition to both as they emerged in the quantum theory! He was a man of many contradictions.
The existence of psi and NDEs, of course, may well argue for fundamental nonlocality and acausality in all things. But saying 'spacetime is the explanation' seems to betray a very odd kind of lack of curiosity in Einstein's followers. Something that Einstein himself didn't suffer from.
My understanding is that the two theories would definitely diverge inouter space if it turns out that the MM experiment produced its null result because of Aether drag when on the earth.
BTW, I seem to remember that Rupert Sheldrake (or maybe someone else) commented that this experiment didn't produce a totally null result, but a very small change as the earth went round the sun - suggesting perhaps an aether that was incompletely dragged by the earth.
From the transcript:
Dean Radin also believes veridical pereptions during NDEs are best explained as clairvoyance and not as out of the body consciousness.
Dean Radin wrote: ""... the primary anomalies associated with NDEs are reports of veridical perceptions that could not have been known or inferred from the perspective of the patient ... So the OBE aspects of NDEs do not necessarily imply an actual separation from the body, and hence NDEs can be interpreted as a particularly vivid form of clairvoyance in brains that are not operating normally."
I replied to this in another thread:
Separate names with a comma.