For the frame below the video how about dividing it into like 4 cartesian style sections. The same as now, but making the entire frame a consistent size so the left and right side are the same height. The leftover space to the right of "submitted by ..." and the "... days ago" could be used for channel tags. You could let the video title stretch rightward further to prevent it clipping over to a new line (font size could be sized to avoid clipping based on video title maximum length).

Actually, I just noticed the video description as well. Perhaps apply the same philosophy of symmetry above but incorporate the video title somehow as well.

EDIT -

Okay how about a 3x2 frame. Those bottom top are now:

(left) video description, viewing: (list of names here)... [next line]
(right) voted up: ...., [next line] voted down: ....

Both left are right side are enforced to be the same size. The viewing, voted up and voted down are clickable items that will enlarge the list to include all names, pushing the frame beyond standard size length to show all names that apply to that list. Clicking again on them will reduce size of the frame back to standard. Similarly on the left size where, if the video description is too long, it is abridged with an 'expand' at the end.

Rubbish. It's stuff like that that makes religious people dislike atheists.

I'm not an atheist--but neither am I Christian. Nonetheless, I think it's worth pointing out some serious flaws in the argument here.

First, the literal interpretation of the Bible has never really been primary. Actually, this is almost universally the case for sacred writings. The Greek myths were to be understood as metaphor, and the Koran is considered by many Muslims to be a repository of spiritual truths which are not necessarily on the surface, and which require study to glean from the text.

Interpreting the Bible as non-literal--as metaphorical, analogical, etc.--goes back more than 2000 years. One of the first writers on the Old Testament, the Jewish scholar Philo, wrote a treatise that regarded the sacred books as almost entirely non-literal. He viewed it as encoded with revelations about Platonic truths, the structure of the spiritual world, and not necessarily a history book.

This viewpoint was carried through to the Christian period. The Church Father Origen famously interpreted the book non-literally. The 4th century Church Father St. Augustine even wrote a tract called "On the literal interpretation of Genesis," in which he excoriated the Creationists of the day, who believed the world to be flat and the sky to be a literal blue dome--and who believed, contrary to all observation, that the world was only a few thousand years old, when anyone with eyes could tell that it was clearly much older. Augustine cautioned the Christians against such interpretations because they were clearly wrong, and because they made Christians look like idiots.

Augustine instead proffered the interpretation that the world had been made all at once, in one instant. The "days" referred to in Genesis he instead took as referring to the distinct logical elements of the instantaneous act of Creation. Incidentally, Augustine claimed that this was, indeed, a "literal" interpretation--the term "literal" meant something very different in those days.

Of course, the ancients also viewed the world in a very different way. In those days, it made perfect sense to see an actual, physical object as also metaphorical or analogical in some way. A temple or a statue of a god could be, in a very real way, the instantiation of the god in the physical world. According to Aristotle, every object had its natural goal, its "telos." An object fell because it was its "telos" to be at its natural resting point on the ground. And so on. There was no such thing as dead matter, devoid of an intimate relationship to mind or spirit, in the view of the ancients.

It was not until the rise of the scientific worldview in the 17th and 18th centuries that the literal interpretation of the Bible became popular. Matter came to be viewed in Cartesian or corpuscularian terms, as pure mathematical extension in space, entirely passive unless moved from the outside. In Cartesian terms, things like the "telos" were unthinkable for physical objects.

Seeing the popularity and utility of this new viewpoint, the Protestant preachers began devising literalist interpretations of the Bible. Their goal was to vindicate the Bible in scientific terms. Their effort might have been laudable, but it became occasionally silly. Some theologians argued that Jesus hadn't actually died on the cross--he had just fainted, and then woke up in the tomb later and walked out.

Nonetheless, their efforts were genuinely honest and took the newest and best science to heart as they worked on their interpretations. Some of these theologians were scientist in their own right, making important contributions to biology and geology. However, as time went on, their efforts proved ultimately futile, leading the best theologians to gradually abandon the literalist approach the Bible.

Unfortunately, there are still a number of Christians who cling to 19th century literalist approach. So-called "creation science" comes out of this tradition, for instance. It should be remembered, though, that these Christians are not only rejecting genuine science--they are also rejecting centuries-old traditions within their own religion.

How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.

I agree; this is saying "I don't know", which I think is a legitimate answer, and the only intellectually honest one barring actual knowledge. This was my point that the atheist position is "no" to the proposition "does God exist?", which requires a justification.

As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.

This was my position as an agnostic, so I understand what you mean. It was very difficult to even define what truth could be in that mode of thinking. When I understood that truth was a tangible concept that could be grasped, it blew me away. I will say that you have a good way of knowing whether God exists. If you prayed to Jesus and asked Him what the truth is, He would show it to you.

When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.

The tension is between the objective and the subjective viewpoint. To define a universal concept such as truth, you would need an objective viewpoint. God is the only being which could have such a viewpoint, so therefore, unless God tells us, we have no way of knowing. Finite human beings are locked into their subjective bias. We cannot get outside of the Universe to look in and see what is really going on.

I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".

There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.

That you're interested in the truth, and you are open to what it could be, is a very good thing. When I was agnostic, I felt much the same way. When I found out God is real, I wasn't even specifically looking for Him. I was searching for that truth and it ended up finding me. God rewards that open mindedness, that curiosity and drive to know what is real. What I suggested above is the shortcut; just ask Him and He will show you.

By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all

I agree, and I will submit to you that all other truths are relevant to this question, and in fact, their ultimate reality could only be determined by the answer to that question. The funny thing about it is, the answer to it could only ever be yes. If it is no, you will never hear about it. The only thing you will ever hear is yes.

Your work sounds highly interesting. Could you direct me to any resources which would describe it in more detail?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Hey @hpqp, I'd like to thank you for your reply and let you know I plan to have a furthering of that discussion when I get off work (on lunch break), but I had to address @shinyblurry rock argument.
How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.
As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.
When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.
I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.
By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">
Ok, rant over! Back to work, slave!

Hey @hpqp, I'd like to thank you for your reply and let you know I plan to have a furthering of that discussion when I get off work (on lunch break), but I had to address @shinyblurry rock argument.

How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.

As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.

When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.

I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.

By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all

Ok, rant over! Back to work, slave!

Due to entropy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc, we know that there isn't such a thing as a perpetual motion machine. Everything which begins to exist does appear to end, including the Universe. For instance, the expansion of the Universe into heat death. A record player will wear out, a DVD player will break down. I believe that the temporal is temporary because it was created with a specific purpose which will end. After that, only that which is perfected and can co-exist with God eternally will remain.

Yes, talk of the eternal is intelligible. It doesn't mean we can't grasp a few concepts about it. One, it lasts forever, always has been, always will be. It never began to exist and it will never end. Two, it is essentially perfect, because it doesn't break down. It has no real flaw or weakness. It is self-contained and nothing could be added to it to make it better than it is in this sense.

Yes, you can doubt anything, but reality is orderly. It has a way which works and makes sense. I'm not sure why you believe time is only in the mind, because we can do very precise experiments on forces which show time as an emergent conception. What we perceive of time may be faulty, but clearly everything isn't happening at once; there is a logical progression to events which suggests time is more than in our minds.

As far as astronomical history you're talking about a history which is completely speculative and not based on observation, ie the origin of the moon, dinosaurs etc. If you doubt so much, why do you accept the secular narrative as truth? There are certain things such as the existence of the short period comets that proves a young earth. IE, if they're still here it means the Earth can't be that old. The secular narrative inserts the illusive and unobservable "Oort cloud" which supposedly replenishes all the comets.

Yes, I believe knowledge is certain and true, but I think you must see how limited beings with limited perceptions and knowledge take quite a bit on faith. Just in your normal life, you must see past your senses to navigate and interact with reality. You don't know everything that is going to happen, or even what you do know is even reliable, but you make the best of it. I don't see how anything could pass the "certainty" test.

I said what is spiritual couldn't be empircally proven, but I believe God has material evidence because He is a part of history. Where the rubber meets the road is the resurrection of Christ. God did interact with this world; He redeemed it. God isn't beholden to the world though, as if He needs anything..it is by Grace that He interacts with us. I will also tell you that God proves Himself. He promised to reveal Himself to those who come to Him in repentance of sin, who believe in Him and His resurrection and confess Him as Lord. To those He reveals Himself and grants eternal life. God can change a skeptic to a believer in a nanosecond, but He isn't going to show Himself to the world until the right time. What He wants is a heart willing to change, a broken and contrite heart coming to Him in total humility.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@shinyblurry
There is no logical necessity for time to have an ending only because it had a beginning. A record player spinning with no end comes to mind. There is no reason to assume the end is necessarily destruction. A comparable analogy would be would be when a DVD is over; the fact that it has ended has nothing to do with its eradication. Either is plausible. There is also no reason to assume that something eternal will arise from temporal. It isn't impossible either, mind you, just not necessarily or shown to be the case.
I don't think it is possible to think about what is more plausible about eternity. We have no idea how to predicate eternity. We don't know "Being" is a consistent idea with "Eternal". Any type of talk about eternal is unintelligible. I don't mean that in a rude way, what I mean is I have no reason to believe anything that is said. If 2 things are logically possible, and I have no understanding of what it means to be eternal, then any talk about what is the more "likely" mode of an eternal metaphysics is a fruitless debate, rife with personal bias and little else.
And once again, this whole line of thought revolves around the very subjective idea of time. I have had no compelling argument to show time to be anything more than an experience of minds any more than the color blue. I have no reason to accept time as anything more than the way in which minds alter the information of the universe to make us more successful creatures.
I don't understand, beyond bias, why you would accept data about a young earth vs an old one with any less skepticism. Assuming they are using the same dating methods, why trust 10k year old earth and not 13 billion? The detective work that goes into the methods of age aren't perfect, prone to mis-calibration, and lack true modes to calibrate with, but it never claimed to be exact, just a rough cut. When they talk about the ages of dinosaurs, it usually has 50ish million year give or takes. Even our own solar history, and the history of our moon, and of Mars speak far more about a much older universe than a 10k year old one. I also can't see the Grand Canyon being made in 10k years. But isn't is a debate on the Christion bible, but on a more basic idea.
I am not an empiricist. I believe my classification is either a existential phenomenologist, or perhaps an transcendental idealist...most likely a combination of the two great schools of rationalism and empiricism. For me, knowledge is the same as Descartes put it. It is certain, and it is true. By certain, that means it passes Cartesian doubt. More to the point, it means that it has the right stuff to have an answer to every criticism. It is the opposite of doubt, it is certain. In that, religious evidence fails the certainty test, as the main element of all the great religions isn't knowledge, but faith. So to your point, prove that it can be known, with certainty and without any doubt any of the claims you have made, you would be the first in history to do so, to my knowledge. And to say that God can not be empirically proven seems rather lonely, for it means that God does not interact with this world; as empirical study is the world as it is beholden to man. If God is not beholden to the world which man exists, then he isn't really our God.

@shinyblurry

There is no logical necessity for time to have an ending only because it had a beginning. A record player spinning with no end comes to mind. There is no reason to assume the end is necessarily destruction. A comparable analogy would be would be when a DVD is over; the fact that it has ended has nothing to do with its eradication. Either is plausible. There is also no reason to assume that something eternal will arise from temporal. It isn't impossible either, mind you, just not necessarily or shown to be the case.

I don't think it is possible to think about what is more plausible about eternity. We have no idea how to predicate eternity. We don't know "Being" is a consistent idea with "Eternal". Any type of talk about eternal is unintelligible. I don't mean that in a rude way, what I mean is I have no reason to believe anything that is said. If 2 things are logically possible, and I have no understanding of what it means to be eternal, then any talk about what is the more "likely" mode of an eternal metaphysics is a fruitless debate, rife with personal bias and little else.

And once again, this whole line of thought revolves around the very subjective idea of time. I have had no compelling argument to show time to be anything more than an experience of minds any more than the color blue. I have no reason to accept time as anything more than the way in which minds alter the information of the universe to make us more successful creatures.

I don't understand, beyond bias, why you would accept data about a young earth vs an old one with any less skepticism. Assuming they are using the same dating methods, why trust 10k year old earth and not 13 billion? The detective work that goes into the methods of age aren't perfect, prone to mis-calibration, and lack true modes to calibrate with, but it never claimed to be exact, just a rough cut. When they talk about the ages of dinosaurs, it usually has 50ish million year give or takes. Even our own solar history, and the history of our moon, and of Mars speak far more about a much older universe than a 10k year old one. I also can't see the Grand Canyon being made in 10k years. But isn't is a debate on the Christion bible, but on a more basic idea.

I am not an empiricist. I believe my classification is either a existential phenomenologist, or perhaps an transcendental idealist...most likely a combination of the two great schools of rationalism and empiricism. For me, knowledge is the same as Descartes put it. It is certain, and it is true. By certain, that means it passes Cartesian doubt. More to the point, it means that it has the right stuff to have an answer to every criticism. It is the opposite of doubt, it is certain. In that, religious evidence fails the certainty test, as the main element of all the great religions isn't knowledge, but faith. So to your point, prove that it can be known, with certainty and without any doubt any of the claims you have made, you would be the first in history to do so, to my knowledge. And to say that God can not be empirically proven seems rather lonely, for it means that God does not interact with this world; as empirical study is the world as it is beholden to man. If God is not beholden to the world which man exists, then he isn't really our God.

Vimeo:

44 wooden slats, motors, control electronics, video camera
56 x 56 x 4" / 142 x 142 x 10 cm
edition of 8

Known for his longstanding investigation of image creation – be it in response to woven fabric, stone mosaics or today’s pixel – Daniel Rozin studies the very nature of modern structure. Comprised of forty-four wooden slats arranged horizontally and vertically, X by Y takes its name from the Cartesian axes that organize a picture plane.

bitforms.com/daniel-rozin-gallery.html

The best part of Descartes was the Cartesian Coordinates

What a wonderful diatribe. But, could anyone please tell me actually how he defines these self-evident categories that he sets up? How does he understand "public religion?" And why is it juxtaposed with "personal faith?" What in the world would religion be if it was not public? Religion is social and it has found its inherent expression throughout histories and cultures precisely in public practices. It is, by its very nature, public.

The difficulty with his positions in this video is that he is blind to the limitations of his understanding of religion...probably b/c of his thoroughly modern mindset. Modernism and the rise of the individual has told us that beliefs are the core of religion and, therefore, are best seen as private or personal. And then, of course, any foray of religion into the public arena (however he would define it) is seen as overstepping its righful bounds and encroaching on others.

Both pre and post-modern understandings show us how limited this view is, and he would do well to do some more readings from centuries other than the 1900's. Religion and faith are best understood as rooted in practices and practices are always public. The real truth here is he has his own religion...and it is classic liberalism and it's patron saint...the Cartesian I.

I think if it were possible to choose what X was, then there could be much rejoicing among the pro choosey community... X could be maximum number of pages of recommended videos... Or part of the axis forces... on a cartesian plane... Or the marked place to dig for buried treasure... ... ...Me? I'd probably choose the treasure...

don't worry enoch.. i understand what you're saying even if some people can't wrap their head around taking responsibility as citizens to its logical end.

ya know MGR... ive recently concluded approval seeking and bandwagon mentality must drive the heart of this military of volunteers... and while that may be obvious to everyone else here.... i took a more cartesian route to reach my conclusion of my own experiences.... i always thought it was duty and discipline, at the start of my curiousity.

so what do they teach you in there, if not discipline or duty? how to do what you're told, when you're told?

how mature. how difficult.

anyway. just spouting off.

Pollan expands on the same idea that generated a healthy discussion in this post. It was mentioned that academia has moved on from Cartesian thinking, but Pollan shows that it still permeates our thinking in myriad ways.

"Nevertheless, cartesian dualism is universally rejected among eminent scientists. The mind/spirit/brain are all the same thing."

For what it's worth, Cartesian dualism is almost universally rejected by academic philosophers, too.

Nevertheless, cartesian dualism is universally rejected among eminent scientists. The mind/spirit/brain are all the same thing.

Nooooooooooooo

logic should not be drilled into anyone.
Fallacies my ass.
Logic is a machine that's useful to cartesian subjects, not to people.