Jump to content

DulceBASS

Members
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

About DulceBASS

  • Birthday 08/27/1985
  1. I have a couple books on philosophy from the Middle Ages. They address some pretty deep issues so to consider those philosophers primitive is absurd to me. I don't think they were a utopian era, and I still think we live in a much better era now since we're arguably more democratic. The concept of the Dark Ages is a bad historical theme carried over from post-Renaissance thinkers. The Renaissance had a lot of people challenging the positions of the past so there's a rhetorical advantage in calling the past "the Dark Ages" when you're attempting to meld Greek ideals with new thoughts like a lot of Renaissance thinkers were doing. Contemporary society tends to be more based on values that came out of the Renaissance so the idea of the Dark Ages got carried to modern times, though academia has abandoned it because they recognize that there was a lot of interesting ideas, inventions and art coming out of those times. I guess you could say it was somewhat of a conspiracy.
  2. Pretty much all of them. It's not that I think none of them are true because there's definitely secret things going on but they annoy me because people often seem to latch onto conspiracy theories for the wrong reasons. People claim to have unearthed the truth but in reality they just latched onto a position that reinforces their worldview. You see things like this all over the political spectrum. Instead of educating one's self about what's going on in the world, people flock to biased sources that tell them what they want to hear so conspiracy theory discussions end up being arguments about people's ideologies rather than what actually happened. For example, let's take a hypothetical False Flag incident: a shooter kills a bunch of people at a mall during Black Friday. Within minutes of this happening, someone like Alex Jones is gonna say Obama did it to take away your guns. Does Obama? I don't know, there's just no possible way to make this claim within minutes of the event happening since we don't know anything about it. We go from trying to figure out what happened at the shooting to arguing about gun control. Instead of figuring out the truth, anti-gun control activists and pro-gun control activists argue about their ideological differences. While my False Flag example might sound like I'm playing the right wing is the main culprit of this annoying tendency, I gotta point out that there's leftists who do the same thing about GMOs in food.
  3. Political correctness isn't censorship. It's merely recognizing that using certain words and phrases have consequences. Freedom of speech was never intended to mean you get to say everything you want to say and nobody can respond in anyway. This isn't a conspiracy, it's the reflection of our social consciousness evolving to be nicer towards minorities. Nobody is actually telling you that you can't say certain words, they're just saying if you do, you might not like the consequences. I think that's how it should be. Freedom of speech shouldn't be a shield to say things that are offensive. People have the right to respond to your speech (and you have the right to respond to their response.) You should have the right to say whatever you want but if you say something racist, I should be able to call you out on it. If people don't like that you said a racist thing, then they should have the right to not support you anymore.
  4. When I was in high school, there was some hubbub about the Total Information Awareness program which was likely the proposed precursor to PRISM. I wrote a letter to my senator about how it troubled me. He swore to me that the government would never ever violate its citizens privacy in such an extreme way. I didn't exactly feel good about the letter I got back but I do think it's funny that it basically happened. I wonder how aware the legislative branch was before these programs were put into place. I don't necessarily think they would have much to stop them but I would like to know who knew what and when they knew. It's just so troubling because I've heard of some shady things the government has done with some of the information. I read an article about how intelligence agencies were using the porn habits of suspected terrorists to try and shame them in their communities and organizations. It's not a stretch to think that sort of thing could happen against normal citizens suspected of a crime. I'm sure they could do much worse as well.
  5. I was really talking about what I'd call intelligible interaction. I mean if I see a group of ants ruining my picnic, I can't communicate to them that they ought to stop getting all over my food or else I'll pull out the bug spray. That's the sort of interaction I'm referring to. I definitely think we might be able to observe certain aspects of alien life but if they're on a whole other level of existence/intelligence, we might see those observations as supernatural, religious or other phenomenon. For example, I've seen it hypothesized that Earth is a zoo of sorts which implies that climate and weather patterns could be the result of alien interaction with our planet that we cannot understand as alien interaction.
  6. One of the reasons people are skeptical of alien encounters is the huge technological barriers for space travel. The distances and time it would take to travel to Earth from another planet capable of sustaining life is insurmountable to some. If it is possible, it's highly likely an alien race would be insanely technologically advanced. Given this technological advancement, is it even possible for us to interact with them in any meaningful way? For example, try interacting with an ant on a cultural level. We might say an ant has some level of intelligence but not nearly enough for it to understand anything we try to communicate to it nor communicate to us. This might be analogous to our potential relationship with alien life. We could be ants to them in terms of intelligence so maybe they are visiting us constantly but we have no way of knowing just like the ant might not see us observing them.
  7. Is it even possible? One of the more interesting problems I see with time travel is how we can verify/falsify the claims of a potential time traveler. We necessarily don't want to take them at face value since there are a lot of trolls who will make up stuff for a laugh. It can be pretty easy to make up some vague stuff about the future and hope people fall for it. I think it's probably highly unlikely we could verify claims about the future but it might be possible to verify claims about the science behind time travel. Hypothetically, we could ask the traveler to explain the science to us. Understanding the science could be a big barrier since it could be very advanced but science is believed to be an on going method of understanding the world so theoretically a time traveler, if we found one who was patient enough, could trace the science back to the theoretical frameworks we understand.
  8. That's one possibility I think is really plausible. Even if our existence isn't ugly, it could be insanely boring to a culture that's scientifically advanced enough to create time travel. They might have developed a way to learn all they need to learn about our time from other methods of inquiry than actually coming back. Plus, because of the Internet, we're documenting our existence in an unprecedented way. There's a reason to go back to see how a long lost civilization like the Aztecs lived because there's less information about their day to day life but modern people even post pictures of their meals online so it may not be necessary. If time travel becomes possible, it's plausible that all of the arts, sciences and cultures of future people are so advanced that it makes ours look infantile in comparison. When I was a little kid, I loved a lot of crappy cartoons that were essentially 30 minute commercials for toys but as an adult, I don't have any interest in them because my tastes of evolved and refined. The difference between a child's taste and an adult's could be a great analogy for how the future might think of our culture. It's really easy for us to think we're incredibly interesting while we're living in the moment but that's hardly an objective account.
  9. I don't know, it seems a lot more plausible that if there was a conspiracy surrounding global warming, that it would be to suppress evidence of it in order to preserve the status quo. I'll grant you that environmental concerns like that require big societal/political changes. There just seems to be more money in keeping things the way they are now, ie people consuming unsustainably buying tons of things they don't need which encourages greenhouse gases. I'm more inclined to believe that transnational organizations are interested in their profits over the short term rather than what happens over the long term and the way they treat the environment bears that out. The way the debate over global warming within the sciences has shaped up seems in line with something out of Kuhn's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" in that global warming is an accepted paradigm which is why the people who claim to have evidence to the contrary aren't taken as seriously by the mainstream. Even thinking long term, I'd assume a power grab would happen after some major disaster rather than before. Humans aren't the greatest at heeding environmental warnings. Even now where the mainstream argument is that global warming is a threat, we don't see a lot of changes to everyday behavior.
×
×
  • Create New...