tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5172544506230008998.post2686489097431182867..comments2023-11-03T02:46:43.561-07:00Comments on Alexander Bard: Intelligence "designed" from within rather than from the outside (was: Monist Zoroastrianism)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08049598876371994046noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5172544506230008998.post-62800000136007823012009-12-15T12:41:35.651-08:002009-12-15T12:41:35.651-08:00Technically I find this subject very interesting. ...Technically I find this subject very interesting. One way I choose to view creation is by understanding Memetics. Something I think some of you already touched on when naming Dawkins.<br /><br />I personally find this explanation more fascinating then if simply Theos (god) just magically created and designed the world then left to fall from it's past glory.<br /><br />One common problem that I also feel that you have stressed is that language and especially words represent different things to different people. Therefore when using an English word as intelligence, it can be confusing as one might have the idea of intelligence arriving from an person. Or an attribute only an person may have. And if I understand you correctly Alexander, you speak more of an functionalistic meaning of intelligence. Meaning that if the outcome is intelligent then the source is that also. Not needing a person but only a function. Something that as I have understood fits with Memetics.<br /><br />Basically, what originally made me confusing about Zoroastrianism is the fact that I had these Abrahamitic concept of the words being used, in affect hindering me to really grasp everything around Zoroastrianism. Thus I was even then fascinated by some of the concept being spoke about like emergence with in effect made for an pragmatic world view. One thing that I really didn't understand then, was how someone with insight like that could still believe in Theos and have an dualistic world view. But just altering the relationship with him (in reality ofc it would have happened the other way around), I also thought back then that as all other religions. I honestly only knew much about the Abrahamitic and Platoes views (dualism) ones vs pantheism (fysikalism or at least monist).<br /><br />I even wrote something like, take some Memetics, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Pantheism and Agnosticism mix it and you will have my view. Being an strong atheist meaning I didn't really believed in an dualistic world.<br /><br />One more thing can be confusing are the words monist and dualism, that essentially equals to believing in one aspects or of two. But what these aspects are, these words doesn't explain by themselves.<br /><br />Something that the west especially encyclopaedias like Wikipeida but other ones as well have confused themselves with regarding to Zoroastrianism. There is an tread to all this and that is by mainly reading your blogg; and it is as if all pieces all falling into place. Zoroastrianism feel more contestant and close now, and this is the point. Thank you, appreciate the blogg very interesting reading.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5172544506230008998.post-56165433902727169042009-12-15T12:39:59.636-08:002009-12-15T12:39:59.636-08:00Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com