Are you a bright?

[CraigD]

Read all about brights at The Brights' Net - Home Page, if you wish, search for hypography discussions on the subject, such as 14152, then answer the poll. If you aren’t sure what a bright or a super is, discuss it here before voting.

[Thunderbird]

Read all about brights at The Brights' Net - Home Page, if you wish, search for hypography discussions on the subject, such as 14152, then answer the poll. If you aren’t sure what a bright or a super is, discuss it here before voting.

 

I would like to poll but I cannot find a link. :eek:

[sanctus]

Thunderbird you need no link it is just at the top of this page

[Pyrotex]

Woopsies!!!!!!!!!

 

I just screwed up the poll stats. After entering myself as a "bright", I visited the Brights Home Page, and registered myself. Now, I am a "Bright"!!

 

Hurrah! Now I am somebody! :)

[Moontanman]

I'm bright and shiny:hyper:

[REASON]

:)

[Thunderbird]

Thunderbird you need no link it is just at the top of this page

I guess I'm not to bright. :)

[DougF]

Bright :hihi: No unicorns in my closet.

[CraigD]

I'm bright and shiny:hyper:

I guess I'm not to bright.

Looks like there’s a need to trot out some basic bright principles, as, in a manner typical of the movement, we seem to be violating them from the get-go! :)

 

Bright in this context must be used as a noun, not an adjective. I am a bright (or, if I chose to explicitly identify myself with the website-supported movement, a Bright, with a capital :). I do not profess to be a bright person, as in smarter than the average person.

 

A person with tested intelligence so low as to be considered legally handicapped can be a bright, while a person with genius-level tested intelligence can be a super.

 

Being a bright means I have a world view devoid of the supernatural – in everyday terms, I don’t believe in God, gods, ghosts, etc. If I were to encounter a god or a ghost, this world view would lead me to attempt to explain it in natural terms – for example, as a psychological effect, such as a dream or hallucination, or a natural phenomenon external to my body.

 

Someone who is not a bright is a super. Being a super means that one has a world view including the supernatural – he believes in God, gods, and/or ghosts, etc. Belief in the supernatural implies the belief that some experiences or phenomena cannot be explained in natural terms – for example, miracles which are caused by an entity able to affect, but not be affected, by the physical universe.

 

As the current 20% in the poll indicates, some people reject the bright/super classification scheme, accepting neither noun as applicable to them, or objecting to the making of such a distinction.

 

Approached very analytically, who is and who is not a bright can be a very difficult question. For example, one can argue that a person who believe in the Genesis creation account literally, but feels that science will eventually reveal the truth of it, might be considered a bright, while someone who believes that quantum uncertainty makes certain data unknowable might be considered a super. However, kept on an intuitive level, to borrow the form of a famous quote, I can’t tell you exactly what a bright or a super is, but I know one if I see (well, actually, have an honest conversation with) one.

[coldcreation]

Is your world-view really free of supernatural or mystical forces, and entities? What about forces or entities such as spacetime wormholes, black holes, magnetic monopoles, domain walls, cosmic string-like defects, quintessence, false vacuums, Higgs particles (the God particle), supersymmetric point-like and surface-like defects imagined to be extremely stable and extremely massive, strings, superstrings, extra dimensions (in addition to the known four), non-baryonic dark matter, dark energy. Did I forget anybody?

 

Oh yes, the big bang (how could anyone forget the Mother of all events) on whom modern cosmology has pined all its hopes, renounces the explanation of its own origin. Like a new-god, this creature was of human invention, issue of human madness; like all gods. They are always looking back to the bright ages, when illusion and faith were a different question; raving of the reason was akin to god, and doubt was a sin. In the gruesome cosmological big bang singularity (or whatever it was, or wasn't) the exception has become the rule. The unattainable became reality!

 

If you believe in any of the above forces or entities, then you are, by definition, NOT a bright!

 

 

CC

[freeztar]

Science is amenable to change. Brights should be the same.

 

Until a better theory comes along, I think the BBT is a good theory that does a good job of explaining observed phenomena.

 

Do you see the difference between scientific theories and things such as ghosts and unicorns?

[Jay-qu]

I am now a registered bright :msn:

[C1ay]

Is your world-view really free of supernatural or mystical forces, and entities? What about forces or entities such as spacetime wormholes, black holes, magnetic monopoles, domain walls, cosmic string-like defects, quintessence, false vacuums, Higgs particles (the God particle), supersymmetric point-like and surface-like defects imagined to be extremely stable and extremely massive, strings, superstrings, extra dimensions (in addition to the known four), non-baryonic dark matter, dark energy.

 

If I were to encounter a god or a ghost, this world view would lead me to attempt to explain it in natural terms – for example, as a psychological effect, such as a dream or hallucination, or a natural phenomenon external to my body.

 

Yes, like Craig, I look for natural explanations. Just because we encounter things man doesn't understand yet does not mean they are supernatural. IMO, everything is natural, even ghosts if they exist. There are just some things in nature we don't understand yet but that doesn't make them supernatural.

[coldcreation]

Yes, like Craig, I look for natural explanations. Just because we encounter things man doesn't understand yet does not mean they are supernatural. IMO, everything is natural, even ghosts if they exist. There are just some things in nature we don't understand yet but that doesn't make them supernatural.

 

You bring up a very good point C1ay.

 

The natural explanation must be sought, always.

 

We could look at each one of the items listed above separately, but it would take too long and would be the subject of another thread. Lets just, for the sake of argument, compare two differing world-views; one that begins with a bright flash of light (Fiat Lux), and the other that begins with a bright flash of light (the Big Bang). Within the context of the latter (and by implication, the former) Arthur Eddington writes:

 

“The test of extrapolation to the most distant future does not' date=' I think, disclose any definite weakness in the present system of science—in particular, in the second law of thermodynamics on which physical science so largely relies. It is true that the extrapolation foretells that the material universe will some day arrive at a state of dead sameness and so virtually come to an end; to my mind that is a rather happy avoidance of a nightmare of eternal repetition. It is the opposite extrapolation towards the past which gives real cause to suspect a weakness in the present conceptions of science. The beginning seems to present insurmountable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly [b']supernatural[/b]. We may have to let it go at that…Instead of honestly facing the intricacies of our problem, we may be led to think that its difficulties have been solved when they have only been swept over the boundary. Sweeping them back and back, the pile increases until it forms an unclimbable barrier. Perhaps it is this barrier that we call “the beginning.” (Eddington, A. 1958, The Expanding Universe, 1958, p. 124, 125)

 

My bold...

 

 

 

CC

*

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

No, I don’t identify myself as a bright or a super

 

I'm a Me!

 

I like to think for myself and more importantly be myself...kinda hard to do when adopting labels...I can and will change my mind and therefore refuse to adopt titles which impede said change and impose the title of hypocrate upon my person due to the afforementioned changes;)

[Moontanman]

While I am a registered "Bright" I to have problems with labels. I am not comfortable with any label, labels are just a way to categorize people. If at any time the idea of a bright is something I cannot live with I will be out of there. So far the whole idea is to be a community of people who do not allow things that are not a part of or subject to natural laws to control your life and it's also a platform for people who want to be independent of the supernatural to contact each other and discuss the ideas we have. If at some point I cannot be a part of this group because they try to define my reality I will be gone gone gone........

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

"Yes, I’m a registered bright"

"Yes, I’m a bright, but haven’t registered with any organizing body or constituency " I have to wonder how many of the votes for these two have more to do with the positive assumed nature of the word "bright" than the assigned meaning of "bright" in this thread.

 

I consider myself a "bright" (Even "super"on occasion on those rare days when I actually kinda like myself) person Ie. intelligent, smart, etc.etc. but not a "bright" (or super) within the confines of this thread.