not only doyou think of real footage but also travel back in your mind a few decades, cause thats how footage looked like in those days, the most memoral visual shots look like that, kennedy asassin etc

I don't believe you are fully qualified to make that statement

i know from long time that no one is as fanatical in his belief than the worshiper of the human mind, the so called scientist.
remember sir, your totally automated home won't shelter you from judgment day.
take care!

You obviously don't understand science in the least. Scientists don't worship the human mind. Scientists are just interested in what can be proven and understood about the world around us. There's very little 'belief' involved. No one has to 'believe' in the scientific method because it's a proven system that has delivered very reliably. No faith is required.

And, frankly, if you want to make it a contest, science has delivered in spades. Everything you have pretty much you have because of science, not religion. You are having this conversation on a world wide network because of science. You will likely live twice as long as you would otherwise because of science.

And, even more frankly, what kind of ******** god would give me a rational mind, and then condemn me to enternal torture because he never gave any proof of his existence that a rational person would accept? With gods like that, who needs friends?

The scientist [the knower; the one who is interested in knowledge and knowing] can easily see that religion and science are two essentially unrelated aspects of the human experience.

Religious fundamentalists, on the other hand, insist upon seeing everything - whether a religion or other - as religion. I don't know whether this owes to lack of imagination or whether it's because the religious fundamentalist is intuitively aware that the fundamentalist viewpoint relies upon denial of reality for its existence.

Are we nothing, non-dualistic, binary-dualistic, tripartite father-son-holy-spirit paradox, tirpartite dialectic [btw, Hegel, a very recent Euro, the most fervent proponent of the dialectic in the world? Are Germans Greek or Anglo?], earth-water-fire-air? If man is five, then the devil is six, then god is seven. Eight? Small whole-number ratios sure are fun.

i respectfully submit that you both are equating god with religion. the two are not the same, not even remotely.

whatever god is (assuming god is)... it is probably not terribly fruitful to assess it thru any of the filters or constraints of any human establishment, unless that establishment facilitates a direct experience of the divine.


gregory scott - ubk
.

Well, I was speaking more to his particular religious beliefs, not to god the concept. I was pointing out the not very reasonable logic behind his view of god the concept.

I am still waiting to find out why the Illuminati deliberately created digital to sound bad.

Is there a secret of better sounding digital and They are sitting on it?

How does good-sounding digital interfere with Their plans for world domination? How does bad-sounding digital play into it?

Was putting the big top-down centralized record companies out of business part of Their master plan or a backfire? the copies? the file sharing? Why would They want less control over the product?

Speaking of backfire, is it even possible for Them to get something wrong? Aren't They always perfectly successful at everything They try and perfectly successful at covering Their tracks?

I would also like to hear more about the Aliens

Oh man, you are asking the wrong questions. If I were you, Id' start planning a very discrete vacation right now. Get off the grid before they come.

In my experience, most fundamentalists are because it's easier to believe the shaman than understand the science. Try to explain the genetic evidence of evolution to someone who thinks the world is 10,000 years old.

My favorite dictionary is the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. There are couple of good definitions in it.

Religion:
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

God:
1a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

They may not be the same (obviously not; they are functions of one another), but each is a meaningless term without the other.

Further-down definitions for those words refer to hierarchical structures, but those structures are not innate to religion. Religion only requires one person. A personal "religion" without a god or gods as its central object(s) is not a religion; a personal relationship with god is by definition a religion.

We can carry many of the aspects of religion (superstitious fear; reverence for the ineffable sublimity of the world; servile obeisance to authority; mysterious and idiosyncratic experiences of deep connection to reality, etc.) with us in everyday life without believing in god, but these things don't add up to religion without that central object. Likewise, we can claim that our object of religion is Nature or The Wheels of Time or something, but in that case "religion" as a concept is just a poetic contrivance a la Einstein's highly self-aware use of the word as shorthand for his experience of the universe.

empiricism (scientific method) is completely flawed in large dosses......

just like democracy.....it leads to assumptions.....


its not practical to never use science or assumptions......


what seperates zumbi from the jerks is the degree to which this is done....

which can only be quantified and assumed by "taste"


like the way digital assumes the way a wave form looks/sounds.


money controls science and that can be proven with enough money/science.



I totally agree with zumbi about mindset
and i think the guy from orygun needs to read more about the
philosophical idea of deconstruction.


several loves,

Science relies upon many subsets of "proof"- with empiricism being one subset.

Science also relies upon "proof" based upon statistical significance- but what is accepted as being the baseline of what is "statistically sigificant" appears to be a fluid concept.

Empiricism can be flawed/on the other hand it may not. For instance to an epileptic seeking anti grand mal medications the trialling by a Neurologist based on his empirical experience may or may not be flawed.

Agreed- science is based on assumptions- what is statistically significant is based on assumptions, as is empirical "science".

As imperfect as science is -it is after all a human made system of logic, it is better than not attempting to formalise a set of logic ("science") to achieve best "proof".

This is an interesting aspect.

In terms of representing say nature-a mountain/cliff face etc I disagree. Give me the highest fidelity on an Imax - and that for me approximates reality of a scene from nature that is beautiful.

I think that using grainy images is very useful in movies where you are placing the viewer in a reality which would be absolutely shocking were the viewer actually experiencing those events. Every time I have been involved in truly shocking events -for me (crashing a car at 190 kph, or a situation where I was rock climbing a grade 24 (bluddy hard) and had I fallen after a run out crux I would have hit rock 80 feet below and I was so pumped and freaked I wanted to jump off to escape that momentary horror- or the time I ripped my shoulder out surfing and I was trying to stop fainting cause I did not want to drown--guess what my logical mind (ok-not that logical given these situations) did for survival-made me focus so much on survival that I only saw in black and white and an intense grainy detail- my mind did not process what I was seeing in colour).

So I think in extreme stress our minds shut down or focus receptors on only the most vital functioning to maximise survival. Hence Saving Private Ryan or Gladiator battle scenes may approximate what people actually exprience in those extreme situations.

Not sure where this fits in with music-. Leads me to another thought - has digital had a greater benefit in cinema/film/photography as compared to sound?

GJ
Newcastle/OZ

Aha! the good 'ol "the word is analog not digital" argument resurrected yet again this time with a side order of historical grievance.

Oh and "one love" everyone, because that makes any post that might otherwise seem like an attack on a person/group/culture cool, right?