IS

[Borachio]

Nope. I've read it again. Doesn't make more sense on second reading, I'm afraid.

And my question still stands. Call me thicko if you wish.

 

[Tahuti]

Nope. I've read it again. Doesn't make more sense on second reading, I'm afraid.

And my question still stands. Call me thicko if you wish.

My answer to your earlier question would be 'I ain't sure, though honestly, it is inconsequential either way'.

Anyway, in the hope of explaining my thoughts: Try reversing Plato's theory of forms. Rather than claiming there is an ideal somewhere in, well, heaven, think of the idea as a human invention. A purse might just be a hunk of leather, though for those who actually use it to store money, it is something more. It is that thought. You may think of thoughts as material processes, but frankly, it doesn't contradict it either, since you just as well might consider such a human invention. A useful figure of speech.

 

[Lohrenswald]

And I'd say that ideas are material processes of the brain.

And you'd be correct.

 

[Traitorfish]

If you believe that, than you would have to believe all religious ideas are material processes too. And that would render the distinction between the material and non-material completely useless.

And in fact, you do not have to believe in the supernatural to believe in the nonmaterial.

Take software: That is non-material. It is HOWEVER materially engraved on a medium of storage, yet the medium of storage that contains the software is not the software. It is right combination of material engravings that makes the software. It is an example how the material manages to create the nonmaterial.

There's a difference, I think, between saying that something is really non-material, and saying that it cannot be fully described in material terms. A no point does anything non-material actually exist, but humans have to imagine it does to apprehend the material processes in question.

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, one could notionally explain the internet using only material concepts, it would just take a long time. One couldn't theoretically do that for most people's understanding of God, or justice, for example.

 

[Agent327]

There's a difference, I think, between saying that something is really non-material, and saying that it cannot be fully described in material terms. A no point does anything non-material actually exist, but humans have to imagine it does to apprehend the material processes in question.

So language, being non-material, doesn't exist. Interesting concept. We should tell writers.

 

[Traitorfish]

It exists as neural activity. The structure and content of language is all present at meat-level, just not in ways that are familiar to us.

 

[Lohrenswald]

So language, being non-material, doesn't exist. Interesting concept. We should tell writers.

Language is very material. The most easy part of this are the sound waves through the air, hitting a drum in your ear. Then it becomes a little more complicated, but the sounds are "translated" to impulses in the brain, and the "language code" is also a pattern (more or less) engraved in the brain.

Every thought and feeling there has ever been have existed materially in people's brains.

Edit: yea what Traitorfish said

 

[Borachio]

Yes, one could notionally explain the internet using only material concepts, it would just take a long time. One couldn't theoretically do that for most people's understanding of God, or justice, for example.

I can't see why not, tbh.

I'd say that people's understanding of anything is only as good as their ability to explain it. And once they can articulate their understanding you've then got a clearly defined material thing (in theory): the brain processes that give rise to that articulation.

Am I wrong?

It's all very well (except that isn't) to say that God is ineffable and beyond human understanding (which people do say). But that's just a cop out, I think, and looks a bit like lazy and sloppy thinking to me. And the notion of something which is ineffable and inexpressible is of course a material brain process too, in any case.

Now, this tells us nothing at all about whether God exists. But part of my position on God would be that, if she exists, she must be a material being not just like us maybe, but a material entity extending into pan-dimensionality. Or maybe just like us, if we too are also pan-dimenisional material beings except that we just haven't realized it yet.

Of course, that last paragraph is just idle speculation and probably besides the point at hand.

And we seemed to have drifted off topic from IS very substantially at the moment. Fascinating though this line of enquiry is to me.

 

[Tahuti]

And we seemed to have drifted off topic from IS very substantially at the moment. Fascinating though this line of enquiry is to me.

We did however arrive here because we were investigating motivations of IS members.

 

[r16]

who are just moving around as their patrons the Saudis bomb Yemen to distract the Houthi and former leadership while El Kaide gains ground .

 

[Hygro]

who are just moving around as their patrons the Saudis bomb Yemen to distract the Houthi and former leadership while El Kaide gains ground .

interesting...

 

[r16]

why interesting ? It's the thing , Radical Islam and stuff , despite all the rationalisations , are just black flag operations as actual states re-arrange things to their liking . The Iranian nuke deal is costing dear for the Syrians , who otherwise don't have the infantry . And the Yemenis , who simply wanted a more responsible goverment , by a great majority .

 

[Agent327]

Meanwhile, a bit of a scoop on IS:

The Terror Strategist: Secret Files Reveal the Structure of Islamic State

By Christoph Reuter

An Iraqi officer planned Islamic State's takeover in Syria and SPIEGEL has been given exclusive access to his papers. They portray an organization that, while seemingly driven by religious fanaticism, is actually coldly calculating.

Full article here: http://www.spiegel.de/international...cture-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html

 

[Borachio]

Interesting.

Islamic State, though, increased its clout with a simple trick: The men always appeared wearing black masks, which not only made them look terrifying, but also meant that no one could know how many of them there actually were. When groups of 200 fighters appeared in five different places one after the other, did it mean that IS had 1,000 people? Or 500? Or just a little more than 200?

As the West's attention is primarily focused on the possibility of terrorist attacks, a different scenario has been underestimated: the approaching intra-Muslim war between Shiites and Sunnis. Such a conflict would allow IS to graduate from being a hated terror organization to a central power.

Already today, the frontlines in Syria, Iraq and Yemen follow this confessional line, with Shiite Afghans fighting against Sunni Afghans in Syria and IS profiting in Iraq from the barbarism of brutal Shiite militias. Should this ancient Islam conflict continue to escalate, it could spill over into confessionally mixed states such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Lebanon.

In such a case, IS propaganda about the approaching apocalypse could become a reality. In its slipstream, an absolutist dictatorship in the name of God could be established.

 

[Tigranes]

Meanwhile

A new video released by the self-declared Islamic State shows the murder of some 30 men, believed to be Ethiopian Christian migrants seeking passage to Europe, by Libyan affiliates of the militant group. The video's release coincides with what may prove the deadliest capsize yet of a boat carrying migrants toward Italy, highlighting that IS is only one danger on an already highly lethal migratory route.

The half-hour long video, released Sunday, shows the execution of two different sets of captives, described in the film as Ethiopian Christians. One group is murdered with guns while the other captives are beheaded. The Associated Press reports that a militant in the video says that the executions were meant to show "Muslim blood that was shed under the hands of your religion is not cheap."

The New York Times notes that the video was shot with IS signature production values, suggesting coordination between IS in Syria and Iraq and its affiliates in Libya, which had largely been assumed to be operating independently.

 

[Oruc]

They portray an organization that, while seemingly driven by religious fanaticism, is actually coldly calculating.

Why would this preclude the other?

 

[Agent327]

If you'd read a bit more through the article, you might have discovered that the former Baath officers who invented ISIS aren't religious fanatics. They never were. The whole 'Jihad!' thing is a smokescreen for their true objectives. As al Qaeda realized when they met with these officers.

 

[MacAttack]

it's all about the message, whether you believe in it or not.

Just like "promoting Democracy".

 

[Oruc]

If you'd read a bit more through the article, you might have discovered that the former Baath officers who invented ISIS aren't religious fanatics. They never were. The whole 'Jihad!' thing is a smokescreen for their true objectives. As al Qaeda realized when they met with these officers.

I did read through it so don't assume that again, Just because they're organised doesn't mean they aren't religious.