All Beliefs are Welcome Here!
Perhaps a context may be in order to flesh it out.
Say, for example we approach a topical issue.
Assertion: There is life on other plants.
Would you consider the possibility of life on other planets, or would you consider this idea's dismissal?
I appreciate your approach, I think that is a good way to weed our way through a discussion like this. Take it one bit at a time.
Life on other planets?
Gheez, there's never a simple answer to something like that. What do I think?
I think it may not be impossible to find life on other planets, but I am highly skeptical, if not in complete doubt.
Let's start with the solar system we live in. To go beyond that is simply out of the question. That is where you seperate science fiction from science fact. That we may never know.
There was an experiment back in the 50's,
This was a game changer for evolution, cosmology and astrophysics. This kind of experiment is where the rubber hits the highway, and gives hope, reason, and rationality to the cause, similar to what Edwin Hubble accomplished with his telescope project.
Now, the only problem with it is, for example, what cosmologists are out there doing today, is looking to places like Mars as a planet, Titan, Europa, and some of the other 200 planetary moons, give or take a few, that they now can identify elements that could be converted to organic compounds. It takes an enormous effort just to get this far.
The eureka moment will be the finding of organic compounds, and not necessarily life itself. Just that alone will compell science to keep moving forward.
The trick is to get the tech to unravel some of it. That, in and of itself, is an extremely tall order. For all the naysayers who bastardize technology, but put up with phony unsubstantiated concepts of reality and science, I say, put it up your asses, sideways!
Money / Technology the only way we will ever settle this issue in the solar system.
But life as we know it? Sorry, I don't buy that.
Finding water simply will not be enough. They think that there is enough light distribution from the Sun out there to initiate photosynthesis, BUT finding organic compounds on alien planets or moons is one thing, but having the perfect climatic conditions, enough oxygen, for example, and all the other delicate myriads of complexity, to initiate a "life form", is, in my opinion, EXTREMELY unlikely.
But life as we know it? Sorry, I don't buy that.
That's a decent example of an idea you are not willing to entertain. What do we really know about life? Is it possible that life could exist somewhere in the vast space beyond our reach? If we can't view it, have no means to measure it, how could we ever presume to take a hard stance on it?
I think it would be a fair assessment to take an Agnostic position on this.
Book; What is Life? Investigating the nature of Life
in the age of synthetic biology.
Author; Ed Regis
Just as long as we get to the 18th before the fire does. :)
I hope that I have no ideas I would not at least consider. By that, I mean that while I may find many ideas repugnant, that does not mean I ought not "consider" them, perhaps as a thought experiment. I may reject them only after consideration, but if not considered, then by what do you make a judgement of rejection?
The whole concept of "know thy enemy" forces one to consider the ideas of the enemy (who or what ever that may be to you).
Therefore, to refuse to consider an idea, is to choose to be ignorant - but that (choosing to be ignorant) is also an idea, and one should consider it.
And one should also consider that one has ideas that have been accepted by oneself, and one should consider that those ideas are wrong. Maybe they are wrong, maybe they are not - but if one never examines those things, and thinks deeply about them, then one cannot truly "know thyself".
For example, a Christian considering the idea that it is Lucifer who is the true bringer of freedom and knowledge, whilst God was the overarching dictator who then punished Lucifer - the Prometheus of our day. Most would not dare to consider this.
David, thought experiments are fine. Look, I get your point, OK..We all have our itinerary full with that one.
I would maintain that the "choice to be ignorant" works in all directions. To have NO IDEAS that you would not consider? Really? Not even some? Can you grow to 20 feet tall? Are you considering that one? Would you welcome another Dr. Frankenstein to your world of ideas? How about Josef Mengele? Frankenstein is science fiction, Mengele being science fact.
The idea is to separate the dogma, from staunch declarations that three, and even four dimensional reality simply does not count, that is my whole point.
In my opinion, we have to be able to separate the sensationalism of science, the sensationalism of fiction, from the sensationalism of reality, and make at least some practical sense out of the so called world of ideas..
AS much as I am into metaphysics, spirituality, demonology, and the study of ancient theologies, I am just as much into science, and even science fiction.
"I may reject them only after consideration, but if not considered, then by what do you make a judgement of rejection?"
If that is what you are comfortable spending your time with, fine, excellent! I myself try to draw a line somewhere in the sand, before I waste too much of my time.
one cannot truly "know thyself".
As far as myself is concerned, I would be a much better judge of that, than anyone else.
Obviously (I hope it was obvious) there is an infinite number of possible ideas, and nobody could consider them all, however, I was talking about the capacity to consider any idea, or the willingness to shun an idea without even considering it, possible due to a current "reality tunnel" that rejects certain ideas out of hand.
My point was, if you have not actually considered an idea, how then do you judge it as something you should reject, or not? If you go on feeling alone, or some other "non-cognitive" principle, then there is a good chance you missed something, the most glaring being: "How can I argue an idea is bad if I don't understand it in the first place?" - and of course some ideas are bad, terrible, repugnant, awful - but we do not know that until we know... and we do not know until we consider - even if for a millisecond.
In my opinion, we have to be able to separate the sensationalism of science, the sensationalism of fiction, from the sensationalism of reality, and make at least some practical sense out of the so called world of ideas.
To do that requires consideration, I would say. Therefore I stand on my argument that all ideas are at least "worth" consideration, but a finite mind in a finite time-space continuum cannot consider all possible ideas.
I love RAW!
I got to meet Leary back in the 80's but never did get to see Robert.
Saw him a number of times...
Stumped him with a question once , after a talk
during a question answer period in Santa Cruz , Ca.
My friend , Peter Stafford ( Psychedelic Encyclopedia )
and other wild folk , were in the audience...
Then , he applauded me , during another question answer
period at the Pantheacon at the St. Mark Hotel in San Francisco ,
when I brought up the code , and brought into play Star Wars ,
Luke Skywalker , Light Sabres , Dakinis , Superman , Sonic Fire ,
Language Programming , the Masons , Multidimensional Thought ,
and a few other things , in a three minute time period...
A great thinker , making his grass greener on the Otherside...;)
Always thought it was funny , where he lived , when he passed
from this realm : Freedom , California !