And in the Discussion, I Fit Where?
Offline Hey all,
So I consider myself a Deist in that I believe there is a higher power. For me, that higher power is the massive, near-infinite, incomprehensible (ultimately, by any life-form in this reality) mathematical formula that guides the physical laws of this universe. It's not a granddaddy in the sky, but a force that guides the way this universe has composed itself. My belief system also allows for the supernatural, in that I've had experiences that cannot be explained away by current science, though I feel, if they weren't stigmatized and were analyzed, they could be explained by science. I have also had minimal experience with things like telepathy and telekinesis, which I believe can also be explained by (potentially testable) electro-magnetic phenomena and the powers of the human mind, but which i fear contribute to the illusion of a "God." I won't go on and on.
Problem is, I have a hard time knowing where I fit into this discussion. Should I stay out of the forums that say "No Theists?" I find myself unable to address questions posed to theists because the questions often assume premises to which I don't hold.
Honestly asking...feedback encouraged.
Ryan
- Login to post comments
This is too vague to be meaningful. Can you expound on this without using deliberately vague language like "guiding force" and "higher power" and articulate the properties and nature of what you are attempting to describe?
Actually, since you used the word "incomprehensible" you shot yourself in the foot from an epistemological standpoint since by definition incomprehensibility precludes you from being able to say anything meaningful at all about this supposed "higher power", so in making this assertion that there is some "incomprehensible higher power" you aren't actually saying anything meaningful or important from a rigorous philosophical standpoint.
In my experience, people who say this are those who don't actually know anything about electrodynamics. Electrodynamics is a completed and organic component of modern physics. As such, your claim would be superfluous. But since I do happen to know (a lot) about electrodynamics, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I would be interested in any precise articulation you have of precisely how "electro-magnetic phenomenon" are responsible for telepathy. And, be as complex and opaque in terms of scientific and mathematical terminology as you wish.
Oh, and before I forget: Welcome to the forums. Always good to have someone new.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Wow. Okay.
The physical laws of the universe are arranged in such a way that life devolops and evolves in a particular way as a result of them. I suppose my attitude toward free will is somewhat double-sided. Yes, we can choose the path we want, but we're limited in choice at one crossroads or another by the laws by which the entire universe abides. We have no choice but to abide by them, we live here.
By "incomprehensible" I'm not trying that hackneyed theist argument that "god" doesn't obey the laws of our reality. What I'm saying is that if a being in our universe understands all the laws that make it operate, they're no longer OF this universe, because everything they do--including their proposed understanding of the laws--is governed BY those laws. It's my argument that you'd have to remove yourself from this universe to ever understand it in its whole complexity, which is impossible for life-forms of our type.
I don't really understand the science of it, either, to be honest. I'd read more if it were out there, and I have a couple books on my list. But what I suspect is that the electrical results of specific firings of neurons may project specific patterns of energy into space that other humans can unknowingly sense (testable, if scientists weren't stigmatized for attempting to look into it). Sharks have been shown to be able to sense particular magnetic fields (I can't provide a source for that, I apologize). It's no different, really, but that human culture has taught us to ignore our abilities in that regard.
R
This is an abrupt turn. When did we start talking about free will?
One of the premises in support of this conclusion is specious. There is no clear and justifiable reason you presented as to why a being which operates and exists in a universe governed by a particular set of laws cannot have a complete formulation and understanding of those laws. In fact, we are quite close to having a complete formulation of these laws. Modern physics is all about unification. The more phenomenon that can be described by less, the better. The first unification process that occured was thanks to Newton, Leibniz, Hooke and Kepler, who demonstrated that physical laws are uniform throughout the universe (mechanics which were later formalized by Lagrange and Hamilton). The next great unification occured by the work of Oersted, Ampere and Faraday, who realized that electricity generated magnetism and vice-versa. The next great unification occured due to the work of Maxwell, who showed that electromagnetism was responsible for light. The last great unification occured by the work of Glashow, Salam and Weinberg, who showed that the weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force are unified. At present, there are hence exactly three things in the universe. Electroweak forces, strong nuclear forces and gravity. That's it. Hopefully within a few years the three will drop to one. And then the work of elementary physics shall be done. Our fundamental picture of the nature of reality will be complete.
This again is too vague to be meaningful (as luck would have it, I happen to know a lot about neuroscience as well! What a fantastic coincidence). "Patterns of energy" is not valid scientific terminology, nor in this case is "project". Neurons are merely logic gates which have the capacity to encode digital signals and decode analogue ones. I have, as luck would have it, written a short but still relatively detailed (for non-scientists) introduction to the functioning of neurons in a link below. Read it in its entirety, and then you will understand what neurons are and consequently why I cannot take your claim seriously.
The fundamental principles of neuronal encoding
Also, as you may have inferred, I work in a scientific profession, molecular biology to be specific.
That's called electroreception. It has nothing to do with telepathy.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
A complete formulation of those laws? Are you kidding??? Very arrogant, not to mention naive. How could you possibly suppose, with our understanding of like .00000001% of the universe, that we understand anything? Quantum physics is in its infancy, after all. We have no idea exactly what dark matter even is. You can name all the physicists you like (and love the name-dropping paragraph, by the way). They're only human. We are so far from comprehending the total organization of the universe its not even funny. Even the greatest minds say so: the more they learn, the more they realize they don't know.
Now if the Singularity comes to be, this conversation will be decidedly different.
Your dismissal of my interpretation of how human energies might be transmitted is every bit as suspect as the theists who love to claim "the bible says so." You have already decided it's not possible, so you've stopped thinking. Hm, who does that remind you of? No one has studied it, because it's stigmatized. I hear it coming that ID has been similarly accused of stigmatization. ID is a complete crock of shit, and I think its obvious I consider things on a higher level than that.
The idea that the human brain can project energies, electro-magnetic or whatever, could explain why people believe in things like prayers being answered, karma, the Venus of Willendorf, the Beatles, speaking in tongues, evangelicals curing the disabled. It goes so far, it really would be of serious benefit to the proponents of this forum, and I'd be all for it. It could cure this country of all its superstitions. In other words, I'm on your side, but coming from a different direction.
R
Actually, the human tendency of delusion explain such phenomena far, far better than any vague "detect X energy".
While I'll leave the scientist to answer the scientific things, I'll touch on a point in your first post.
As far as I'm aware, you can post anywhere *except* Freethinking Anonymous. You can read things in that forum, just not post. Every other forum you can currently see should be open to you.
You might even be able to post there depending on how this discussion goes, but other than FA you can read and post in every forum you can see. And you can still read FA.
No. Not really. You seem to have "a complete formulation of physical laws" equated to "a complete understanding of reality". This is obviously not the case. Once electroweak gauge theory is unified with gravity, then by definition we do have a complete formulation of all physical laws and a unification of all dispirate phenomenon, but this does not translate into a suddenly completed understanding of reality any more than an understanding of the rules of chess is sufficient to have a complete understanding of the game.
Quantum physics has existed for roughly 80-100 years depending on which discovery you define as the start of quantum mechanics. It began with the formulation of the laws of black-body radiation by Plank (1900), the matter-wave hypothesis of de Broglie (1924) and the discovery of the photon (1905) by Einstein. It is an organic branch of modern physics which has been extended to include Relativity. It is most certainly not in its infancy.
That's true. But like I said, I was not suggesting that we would have a complete understanding of reality, merely a complete formulation of the physical laws that govern it. Once the three known forces in the universe are unified, there are no more disparate phenomena.
Like I said, by having a complete unified field theory which constitutes the totality of the fundamental physical laws governing reality, we are no closer to having a complete understanding of reality than someone who understands the rules of chess is familiar with endgame theory and advanced tactical combinations.
No, I've dismissed it on the grounds that
a) It doesn't actually constitute an "explanation" in any way, shape or form. The terminology you use is too vague and would never hold up in academic circles. There is insufficient rigor for your assertions to have any weight at all. You need to use rigorous scientific terms if you expect scientists to take you seriously. Given that you use nonsensical terms like "human energies" how can you possibly expect your ideas to be treated with anything but dismissal?
b) Having actually studied neurons, I can tell you that their properties do not square with the assertions you make about them. If you just read what I offered you, you will realize that neurons are integrable computing devices which convert analogue signals to digital signals. This process has nothing to do with "projecting energies".
Stop right there. Like I said before, you are using invalid and meaningless terminology. This is too vague to be considered a sound or even meaningful explanation. As someone who is fully versed in the terminology which you are mangling I can tell you there is neither rhyme nor reason in the assertion above. Any proposition which is too vague to be meaningful in a rigorous context by definition cannot "explain" anything.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Welcome to the forum smartypants!
Your third post raises some red flags for me, but it almost seems superfluous to comment on it after DG.
Anyways, I hope you enjoy your stay.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Welcome, don't let your education by DG scare you off. We're certainly glad to have you here, but you may wish to consider the possibility that what you have thought to be true by your own meditations is not. Which is to say, that you aren't necessarily as educated about what you claim as you think you are. DG is a perfect example of someone more educated. He is a true resource of information about the topics you've broached with him. If you choose to educate yourself in those topics, you'll find that he is correct. Even a glance at a wiki article can confirm he is basically correct.
I hope you enjoy yourself here. Welcome.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Kind of a pet peeve of mine. The concept of supernatural is absurd and the word should be banned from the language because any definition of it is completely illogical. If you define supernatural, then you contradict the definition of natural. People throw the term around yet they have no meaningful definition of what it means.
What does this word mean to you? If something is 'unexplained yet by science' does this mean it is supernatural? Was the appearance of comets in the sky 'supernatural' until science explained their existence and then they became 'natural' events?
So it's not so much debates of atheist vs. theist debates that are here but more like 'Theater of the Absurd'.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Hello and welcome, Smartypants! As I see, I can agree with you on most of the things. I'm very glad to have you around. I don't know an internet forum where we both would fit, but this one is good. It's a lot of very intelligent and educated people around. Christians only discusses their Holey Bible all the time, they're boring. How can they read only one book so often? I could never understand that, having myself read hundreds of them.
As for the formalities with theism or non-theism, I recommend you to compare yourself against a typical theist, Christian for example, Bible literalist, maybe. Read about the attributes of Jahweh and think if you like him and why. Consider your attitude towards science, abortion, stem cell research, and then to sin, afterlife, Hell, Satan, justice ( and specially a so-called 'divine justice' ) etc. I have come to a satisfying conclusion that I can agree with local people about all important things for the practical life, and laugh together with them when they're digging deep into a steaming heap of religion.
You may find out that you're not like a typical theist for whom this website exists. If you come from a tolerant place, you might have never thought about yourself in terms of any religion or non-religion, feeling ascended beyond these superficial labels, and feeling like letting the humankind know that there is more in the world than just theists and atheists. This website is made mainly for people afraid of Hell, afraid of it's gruesome creator (Jahweh), afraid of nonbelievers in him, and afraid that this all is a lie, which it is. This forum mostly consists of people who have been like that, but then they broke the chains of belief (often with a great effort and personal sacrifices) and became free of the fear. This great achievement made them interested in saving their fellow believers from the mind disease known as theism. This makes them in my opinion very focused on that task, and possibly different than other people you've ever met. This is why I strongly recommend you to read The Unofficial Newcomer's Guide to Skeptics.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Except that I'm not deluded. I merely started from a more or less unbelieving blank slate and reassessed things with a skeptical open mind. Unfortunately, anecdata never holds up in discussions like these, so I've felt obliged to leave mine at the door.
Thanks for getting to my basic question. Is commenting on existing posts the same as posting a new one?
R
Thank you! I hope I enjoy it, too. LOL
I am a bit curious what things caused red flags if you care to elaborate...
R
Given your logic though, then what you're saying is false as well. If he can't understand the reality of the universe to that extent, then how can you possibly know that there is a guiding life force?
Welcome to the forums! Be prepared to really DEBATE here.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
I'm a bit too seasoned in snarky interweb arguments to be scared off by this. I've come to understand the way things work by my own experience, which is of course irrelevant here. I'm in search of the materials that might support what I know to be true, I just haven't gotten to them yet. DG may be more educated in some ways, but his knowledge is narrow and closed-off in scope. Learning is probably the primary goal of my life, I figure if I stop, I may as well stop living.
Thanks for the welcome!
Quite the opposite. My first training (major at undergraduate) was in mathematical and theoretical physics. My graduate degree (doctorate) was in molecular biology. In other words, I ensured that I have in depth "knowledge" which extends into mathematics and all three major areas of science (physics, chemistry and biology), providing a tremendous leg up in any debate on scientific matters. I deliberately took great pains to ensure that I would have a firm grasp of several major areas of genuine study into reality to make my understanding as broad as possible. Hardly the work of someone whose knowledge is "narrow" and "closed off".
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Well, for lack of a better word. You're welcome to use whatever term you like. I've had some experiences that could not possibly explained by any logical means. Whether or not I was dealing with a "ghost" or whatever, I don't know. But to deny the unexplained just because science can't or won't explore it seems very counter-productive to my understanding of the universe.
R
So do you dislike that he disagrees with you or that he's asserting it, or both?
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
I think I'm beginning to understand your approach to this discussion:
I don't have the specific terminology in place for what I'm proposing, so therefore I must not have any idea what I'm talking about. This actually shows a lack in your own knowledge to not be able to interpret and address what I'm actually saying. "Too vague" is a really good way to not have to deal with it, because it invalidates what I've said, and leaves you completely off the hook analytically.
So yeah, when I say "the laws of the universe," I do mean the gigantic mathematical formula that constitutes our reality. Having chosen imprecise wording doesn't automatically negate the ideas behind them.
R
I enjoy a good debate, so I don't dislike it. But he appears to disagree with his false interpretations of what I've said as a result of his own beliefs and has a lot of rhetorical devices to make it seem like I'm not making sense when he's actually just not listening.
R
Excuse me? You use phrases like "projecting energies", then I ask you to clarify them in a rigorous and scientific fashion, you refuse to, and this is somehow my problem? And then you claim that this request constitutes an excuse for not having to "deal with" your supposed explanations? Give me a fucking break. The word explanation has a precise meaning. Even before testability, the components of an explanation must be clarified. Clarity is a prerequisite to testability. Otherwise, you don't know what you are testing! Look, I'm just applying the same standards to these assertions that would be needed in any formal scientific context. It's like a homeopath vaguely asserting that water has "memory". Not acceptable. Every theory must have a proposed mechanism. Indeed, every hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon must have a proposed mechanism. Otherwise, it won't get off the ground (if it doesn't have a proposed mechanism, it doesn't explain anything!) Saying that neurons "project energies" is most certainly not a valid, testable mechanism.
Yeah. That's what I meant as well. And actually, it wouldn't be that gigantic For example, you can fit the two complete and unified description of electromagnetism (the Jefimenko equations, the gauge solutions to the Maxwell partial differentials) onto your palm. The electroweak Lagrangian will as well.
Pretty much. Lack of coherent terminology is indicative of either (a) inability to meaningfully articulate ideas (which is your problem) or (b) lack of coherent ideas altogether (in which case you are wasting time).
I already explained to you the flaw in your feeble attempt at explanation pertaining to neurons. Are you even going to pretend to address this?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
LOL Thanks, I'm ready...as long as I haven't had a hard day at work.
Since the guiding life force of which I speak is the laws of the universe, science proves it exists.
R
Why not? Isn't 'You were hallucinating' a logical explanation? I'm not saying you were, but you have not exhausted scientific explanations, have you? Maybe science can tell if you are prone to hallucinations via a brain scan.
It's not that science won't explore it, there are scientists studying whatever phenomena you experienced. But it takes time, money and advanced technology to find the answers.
If you're open to the possibility of 'ghosts', why not try to understand them as a natural phenomena? Before modern medicine, people thought disease was caused by evil spirits or sin. Then smart people invented the tools to look at the 'spirits'(microbes) and disease became understood as a natural phenomena. Why can't your experiences be treated the same?
Why not take this approach?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
As I said before, I'm still searching for the solid materials on which to base this kind of argument, but I've not had the chance to read them yet. My book list is huge and has a lot of other topics on it as well. I'll get to them eventually.
Seriously? You're a very nasty, insulting person. I don't really care all that much, because I don't know you, but as far as a real constructive debate goes? Your remarks are condescending and arrogant when actual information would be far more useful. If you're really trying to convince me that you aren't just a bag of hot air, but trying to get into a productive dialogue with me, you're going about it the wrong way. Psychology is a science, too, babe.
You do have a very narrow view of what can be accomplished by human physiology, and as soon as you come to grips with that, your oh so profound knowledge of what you learned in college might open up to new and exciting areas.
Oh, I have no problem with the idea that these are natural phenomena, but they go against my understanding of rational cause-and-effect occurrences, so they seem foreign to me. I can't help but seek explanations outside the realms of established science, because I like things to have meaning.
R
That's because you are deliberately trying to project your failure to articulate your concepts onto me. I consider this tactic despicable and consequently will treat you with contempt unless you stop doing it and either admit inability to articulate your assertions, or actually address this by trying to propose, in a rigorous fashion, what exactly you are talking about so it can be dissected and subject to exactly the same requirements as we would have for any other scientific proposition.The problem is that vague terminology is extremely dangerous and consequently I have developed an extreme aversion to it. It is responsible for a vast number of ridiculous and silly misunderstandings. Look how many alternative medicine idiots claim that "quantum mechanics" allows for supposed "spiritual phenomenon" despite these hacks having no idea what "quantum mechanics" actually is, and selling this garbage to people who have the same problem, using a mask of pseudoscientific, vague, meaningless terminology that is incapable of being critically dissected because it does not mean anything. Having seen the danger of such nonsense in creating whole movements based on absurd misunderstandings of genuine terminology, I have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who thinks they can outfox their opponent by using terminology which means nothing.
At this moment, I am not interested in the truth value of the proposition "neurons project patterns of energy, which is responsible for telepathy". I am interested in how meaningful it is so that it becomes possible to dissect. Only once we know what this means can we say we can formulate a testable prediction for it.
You're joking, right? I'm the one who provided a link which outlined in a very precise fashion the process by which neurons work, the means by which they integrate and compute. Then I asked you to take these physiological properties into account to articulate in a meaningful fashion what "neurons projecting energy means". I am the only one in this discussion who has articulated exactly the theories and mechanisms that need to be taken into account before any assertion pertaining to supposed telapathic ability of neurons can be made. You have not stated anything that would meaningfully address this and articulate what you mean. Your claim can only be regarded as specious.
Actually, I do research, remember? So, I already happen to be engaged in "new and exciting areas", as luck would have it, the most cutting edge and advanced cell biology. The only difference is, this "new and exciting area" happens to be grounded in the most rigorous terminology imaginable, a prerequisite you seem incapable of fulfilling.
This must be the punchline, or the ironic part, where the person who has provided intense detail into the physiological functioning of neurons is accused of narrow-mindedness by the person who hasn't said anything meaningful about the subject.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Congratulations. However, the "idea that the human brain can project energies could explain [random unsupported assertions]" remark has made me skeptical. Why you ask? Because there's no evidence for this vague "project energy" thing. However, there are mountains of evidence for humans being delusional and believing in all sorts of unsubstantiated crap, like faith healing, talking in tounges, karma and answered prayers. I suppose irrational would also be an adequate terms for such beliefs. But should you present a coherent scientific case for the "project energy" thing, I would be happy to learn about it. I love learning about new aspects of reality. Key word: reality.
This is totally unproductive. You're Right and you will always be Right in your estimation. So yes, you are the master of scientific knowledge. We should all bow down to your incredible majesty. Enjoy your royalty.
R
That's it? THAT is your way out of this conversation? I utterly fail to see how my request was anything other than completely and totally reasonable. If you really had meaningful ideas that were worth discussing, then articulating them in a coherent manner where they could be evaluated and dissected without the resort to terminology which cannot fulfill the requirements needed to have a testable mechanism to explain something, would be perfectly reasonable. It might be complicated, but all modern scientific ideas are complicated. All I ever wanted you to do was put forth your idea in a meaningful framework allowing it to be dissected and discussed in a meaningful scientific context. If you seriously think this petty response will allow you to walk out of this conversation with everyone else on the forum thinking that this is not your problem, then you are seriously mistaken.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Again, I can't go there without resorting to anecdata, which is always suspect. Introducing myself somewhat controversially here has led me to think I need to do more research, so I'll post here when I have it. Logic, rationality, and evidence will always be the foremost requirements.
R
Yeah, that's it. Your responses to me from the start have been nothing but confrontational and argumentative rather than constructive or in search of some kind of universal truth. It's not the basis on which I like to have a discussion. I'm not afraid of ideas that go against my own, they help me to grow. But I'm in search of the Truth, not pushing my own personal agenda, and you and I are not on the same page where that's concerned.
Those are not mutually exclusive categories. Considering the profession I work in, I would know. In my profession, people get ripped to shreds for deliberately keeping an attempted explanation too vague to be evaluated. So grow a thicker skin, buckle down, and make some meaningful claims about reality that can be evaluated and discussed, or make no claims at all.
First of all, don't capitalize the word "Truth". It's ridiculous. As far as empirical reasoning is concerned, the notion is meaningless. Scientific truth is provisional. Contingent. I accept that just as readily as anyone else in this profession. Secondly, please don't presume to know me. I am very much wholly dedicated to pursuing the nature of reality. That's why I studied two completely different disciplines of cutting edge science. But there are certain requirements that people in my profession have, which you are refusing to fulfill, and that is the cause of the problems we are having.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
The arrogance, it's superhuman. You have to be in your twenties, I'd bet on it. If you're not, you might want to consider why I thought you were.
If I didn't have a thick skin, I'd have flounced from the interwebs years ago, and yet here I am still arguing about things.
I don't know you, that's why I'm not taking any of this personally. That doesn't stop me from thinking you think you know more than you actually do.
R
You've spent the last five posts talking about me and my character. I don't particularly care what your judgement is about my character, but I have certainly noticed that it is your substitute for addressing the ninth instance of my request about the articulation of your ideas.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Welcome!
I think it's way past too late for me to bother getting involved in this particular discussion.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
So does everyone. But why does that justify making up a meaning when you don't have enough information about something to assign it a meaning? And what now is the point of expressing your opinions with us since you believe whatever provides you with comfort, not what is true and rational. We can't take you seriously.
So maybe there should be a special category for superstitious people that believe whatever provides them with comfort.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
My thoughts exactly. I think DG has it under control.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
Smartypants, as I'm not sure you're getting the point DG is making, let me try to express it in a less scientific manner (I'm hoping I get his point too).
You currently think there is a supernatural guiding force for the universe which consists of the physical laws of the universe. Or something similar. If I'm in the ballpark, please don't nitpick this part, because it's not the point of this post.
You think the idea of the Christian god, Judaism god, Islamic god, etc, is silly. And I imagine you've talked to people who believe in the invisible sky daddy. If you've talked to them about their belief, you've probably tried to show them how properties they attribute to their god doesn't make any sense. So, in a hypothetical situation...
Them: I believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc god.
You: I understand what you're claiming this god is. Let me explain why that cannot exist and go through each property.
All good, right? You might disagree, but you know what he's claiming and you can discuss the various properties. The idea has been defined.
Now what if this happened instead?
Them: Dude, there's like totally a god.
You: What's this god like?
Them: He's like god, dude.
You: Er...can you be more specific? Tell me some concrete details?
Them: He's...god. Dude, he's god.
You: Can you please give me some specifics? Tell me what properties he has? What attributes he possesses?
Them: God.
As you can imagine, that isn't a very productive conversation for either party. From DG's perspective, you've been talking like the second person and he wants you to talk like the first person. He disagrees with your initial statements, sure. But he's willing/interested in trying to convince you otherwise, but he needs specific details, specific terminology, for the discussion to be meaningful. And hell, if you can prove him wrong on something, he'll probably thank you for doing so.
But until you can put your ideas into a scientific format that he can make sense of and discuss, nothing will happen. Currently, from his perspective, you two are trying to discuss a subject in calculus but you're talking in terms of arithmetic. He just wants you to phrase your ideas in the correct fashion so they make sense, basically. That help?
Well, simply put, I disagree with you on many things, and I thought some of your conclusions were rather rash and unsupported.
Let's take a look.
No, he's not kidding. Scientists have narrowed down all known forces into a few basic types.
Why is it arrogant? Why is it naive?
Because we do. Scientists don't assume these things; modern genetics, the periodic table of the elements, and general relativity aren't pulled out of a hat by an old man with crazy facial hair. All ideas are subjected to countless hours of meticulous research followed by uncompromising peer review at a level of science that I don't even have a chance in hell of understanding yet.
If you want to argue that scientists have not made this much progress, then, by all means, study the material. Analyze the research. Or, even better, do your own research; discover an unknown force. The responses you have made here are meaningless.
What does this have to do with DG's response?
True, but unless you can clearly explain your position, it is impossible to discuss.
*sigh*
You're starting to remind me of Arj. That is not a compliment.
If you want to be the rational individual in this exchange, make DG the "bad guy," and move the discussion along, then I suggest that you type a clearer and more detailed argument for deism and the human-brain-electromagnetism-thing. Your religion analogies aren't helping.
You claim that the human brain can project energies. What is "energies?" How does the human project them? How do you know that science is too "dogmatic" to research this topic? Etc.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Ah, I see. That means that this discussion is probably over, unless you want to post your experiences.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Essentially, yes. I have to ask these questions because I'm trained to. And I have to be acerbic in this exchange because he refuses to answer them.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I am interested in esoterics for many years, both theoretically, practically and in a company of it's experts. Esoterics provides a lot of answers about all aspects of reality, seen and unseen. Testability of them depends on our life, mind, body and consciousness, but not yet on official technology and mathemathics. There is a complex, sensible worldview with it's own terminology which is what Deludedgod asks for, but doesn't accept. These books must be read with a lot of intuition. If the text is not understood intuitively, it's understood only partially. Even in science, some of the greatest discoveries were made intuitively, and then years later verified rationally. Without that, all of the science would be only a mechanic, systematic work and processing of results, while the real life is not always like that.
It is a question, who should learn about what. Should esotericists learn about science, or scientists about esoterics? I'm of course all for the latter in the first place, because, honestly said, they're more practical. Esoteric knowledge in their hands would be quickly practically realized. The esoterics speaks of future sciences which will do things like materialization, dematerialization, teleportation, healing and rebuilding tissues with light and color, or manipulating matter and invoking energy through sound vibrations. It requires the scientists to learn out of their academic tradition, which is only one of several major methods of seeing the world. I have my reasons to believe that the esotericism of today is the exoteric science of tomorrow.
Btw, if someone wants to know what is the New Age definition "energy", I'll try. Please tell me (in %, let's say) how much it is comprehensible to a skeptical person. Specially you, Balkoth, you provided the example of a vague speech, so tell me, if this is any less vague. I'm interested in finding out how to communicate together about such a topics...
All particles and atoms does vibrate. Some particles vibrate faster, so they're undetectable by scientific devices, which are built of too slowly vibrating matter. The matter is divided into an octave of increasing vibration rate, and there is several of these distinct octaves. Life forms may consist of matter of several octaves at the same time, they live on several distinct levels simultaneously. Which levels do they perceive, depends on their consciousness. We perceive only three lowest degrees of materiality, known as solid, liquid and gaseous. But there are individuals, who's consciousness is broader and includes more degrees of matter and thus also of energy which this matter has. This matter and energy invisible and untouchable to majority of people is then, when used for things like 'spiritual healing', commonly called "energy", because it feels and looks less corporeal and more "pure", as opposed to our common, mundane and corporeal forms of energy like electricity, wind, fire, water and geothermal.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I have to interrupt because that is ridiculous. There are vast realms of science I don't understand. Indeed, the vast majority of modern science I don't understand. No one man could! I have confined my expertise to mathematical, theoretical and astrophysics (my physics education) and molecular biology, genetics, biochemistry and evolutionary biology (my biology education). I know virtually nothing about most disciplines. Not microbiology or geophysics or oceanography, or nanotechnology, or computer science or marine biology or zoology or botany or planetary science or rocket science or pharmacology etc. ad infinitum. The reason I consider what smartypants is blathering on about as unscientific garbage is because the mangling of proper terminology and the deliberate air of vagueness has all the markings of a hack.
I think, and I know you know as well, that we've had this conversation before (several times, in fact).
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
The way I see it is it is impossible to adress someones post if they are being to vague in a field that requires you to be specific. It would be like me saying there is more plant type things here than there is over there. What are plant type things? There is more biomass produced in habitat A compared to habitat B, this atleast gives you something to question. If you don't know the correct words like biomass atleast be able to discribe it, Biomass - The total amount of living material in a given habitat, population, or sample. Specific measures of biomass are generally expressed in dry weight (after removal of all water from the sample) per unit area of land or unit volume of water. Renewable organic materials, such as wood, agricultural crops or wastes, and municipal wastes, especially when used as a source of fuel or energy. Biomass can be burned directly or processed into biofuels such as ethanol and methane. Dictionary defination due to lazyness.
About New age 'energy', my friend basically told me the exact same thing... well almost. I will ask you the same questions I asked him,
1)How do you know it exists?
2)How are these people chosen, is it genetic?
3)Why hasn't one of these people won the 1 million dollar prize from the amazing Randy?
4)Why hasn't this energy cured any diseases?
Just a few basic things that would be easy to answer if it was real. I'm sure scientists would be thrilled if it were real, think of the possiblities for them.
Common answers answers
1) I have seen it ( you have been most likely tricked)
2)I don't know
3) Doesn't need the money ( then why over charge)
4) It has but science doesn't regconise it. (If something cured cancer, a not to uncommon claim, do you really think it would go unrecognised?)
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I don't mean to "understand" a science as having an academic degree of it. I mean to understand, that it even is a science. You have a good knowledge of what microbiology, geophysics etc are, so you recognize them as a sciences.
But you don't know what esoterics is. It is a science, (or philosophy) of evolution. Not an evolution of the form, Darwin summed that up already, but it's about the evolution of consciousness. Human species are physically rather complete, except of some minor improvements. But our consciousness still has a great development ahead of it. The science of consciousness evolution is here to make that development intense, faster and global. The sciences are important, but the perfection or imperfection of our consciousness decides if we use them for the good of all, or for the doom of all. This is one of reasons why the esoterics is also important.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
So am I a scientist? I spent years on shrooms and LSD reaching for a higher conscience.
Tim Leary - “Science is all metaphor.”
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."
Here are some sciences you can compare esoterics or anything you like with.
This is all just copy and past as I am lazy
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
So why are you discounting centuries of various cultures utilizing chemical keys to achieve a higher consciousness? By the way it's not the level you achieve while on them, it's your interpretation of what you learned after that's important. You and the books you read missed the point, it's obvious in your armchair dismissal.
I was introduced to esoterics back in the 80's along with drugs. I don't need a lesson.
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs