Parable on Immateriality of God

patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Parable on Immateriality of God

How can I change the following to have more impact?

-------------------------

Parable on Immateriality of God

I was sitting at my desk, and wondered out loud "could an immaterial God be a conscious creator" and my pencil answered: of course not.

I was utterly astonished because I thought it was impossible for my pencil to be talking intelligently to me. It was an ordinary wooden pencil with an ordinary lead and didn't even have an eraser on top. So, I said prove it. Then the pencil said:

  • god is immaterial and there is no way for the immaterial to be conscious or to create.
  • god has no physical senses so he can not know anything about the universe;
  • god has no physical memory so he can not remember anything;
  • god has no physical brain or any other way to process information to be able to think so he can not be conscious; and
  • god has no physical digestive system or lungs so they can't eat and drink or breath so there is no way that he can generate energy to do anything - much less create the Universe.

Of course Christians are not going to believe my testimony about this ordinary wooden pencil that talks. They will think that I am lying because they know:

  • my pencil is an ordinary wooden pencil and there is no way for an ordinary wooden pencil to be conscious.
  • pencils don't have physical senses so they can not know anything about their surroundings;
  • pencils don't have physical memories so they can not remember anything;
  • pencils don't have physical brains or any other way to process information so they can not think or be conscious; and
  • pencils don't have digestive system or lungs so they can't eat and drink or breath so they have no way to generate the energy to do anything - much less speak.

The probability that a pencil constructed or ordinary wood could be conscious is far-far higher then the probability that a being constructed of immaterial stuff could be conscious, because we do not even have evidence that any immaterial stuff exists. God is simply impossible.

Of course few Christians can comprehend the total depraved hypocrisy they use to believe in an immaterial conscious God, but not my talking pencil.

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"


DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Not that I don't admire your

Not that I don't admire your effort, but I think TJ beat you to the punch.  Excellent quote.

 

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
LOL pat ... that clever

LOL pat ... that clever pencil of yours is godly.   

Notice how "atheism" was used differently in the linguistic time of "atheistic" great Jefferson? Language evolves. I've been pushing this meme, "I am god as you, I am atheist ! No Master, all is ONE" .... thanks for posting ....


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Define material. Are

Define material. Are electromagnetic waves material? Is magnetism material?

In my opinion, the material existence has a qualities like X, Y, Z coordinates, a time dimension, and one more "dimension", which could be called, for a lack of better term, "frequence".
Objects of higher and lower frequence can occupy the same space without collision, thus, object, a living object in particular, subjectively considers a  matter of higher frequence as "immaterial", though it's material, just of a finer quality. It's a description from an observatory look, without inner understanding of these principles, thus I'm sorry if I violated any taboo.
I've seen enough evidence to consider the concept 'frequence' as a functional model, but there are some impassable limits. Beyond some value of this 'frequence', there is  nothing expressible in language or thought. Thus, God is for me hypothetic, because it's effectively out of reach of our mind tools, whatever we can say, think, remember or speculate about God, is an intrinsical quality of the low position on 'frequency' dimension, and thus not usable anywhere else, it's provincial. Just as time and space itself.

Theists are not equipped to fully comprehend not even one dimension with a different laws of physics than ours, different forms of existence, this is why there's a lot of tales about God and gods. I trust the scientists, once they intellectually grasp the crude and provisory concept of 'frequency', they'll be able in several decades do greater progress in searching for God, than theists did for millenia. There are also no parallel dimensions in the sense of alternative versions of universe. Just these segments on a 'frequency' spectrum.
I'm sorry for a metaphorical usage of scientific terms, but there are yet none of it's own, it's a laic, observatory description.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
As always good Luminon, 

As always good Luminon,  interesting writing. YES , go science. I think the first verse of the Tao sums it up pretty well.

In a resent post of yours you mentioned your previous other lives. For many of us, this makes no sense. Can you briefly simply explain, scientifically?


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:As

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

As always good Luminon,  interesting writing. YES , go science. I think the first verse of the Tao sums it up pretty well.

In a resent post of yours you mentioned your previous other lives. For many of us, this makes no sense. Can you briefly simply explain, scientifically?

I hope it won't sound much like Scientology Smiling  I can describe it scientifically, in the sense of methods and an attempt for an exact language, not in the sense that I would use any existing approved scientific study. Such a study doesn't exist, unless the 'high-frequence' aspects of world will be scientifically recognized. It should be in this century.
Such a discovery will change the concept of life thoroughly.
When this happens, the human will be recognized as a greater being existing on the higher part of the 'frequency' spectrum, while the physical body is it's temporary executive and sensoric appendage, vehicle, for a work in dense-physical part of the world.
In basic stages, the vehicle keeps a low, separated consciousness, seemingly autonomous, but in fact, enslaved by physical needs and emotionality. And the greater life doesn't have much benefit nor info from an uncontrolled vehicle. There is a reunion and information exchange only when the physical vehicle dies, so it's slow.
But as the vehicle is perfected by every incarnation, it is able to contact the greater life even if it's still "alive", so the process of cooperation of the smaller life (vehicle) with the greater life speeds up tremendously.

This is where theists gets their idea of benevolent and just God, because the smaller and greater life are in fact, one organism. But it's not God, it's usually one 'greater life' per one currently living person. I could describe it in a simile, every one of us likes their limbs, (I hope there are no Emos around) we do a work through them, we guide them, we provide them a blood with fresh oxygen, and we use our advanced senses to keep our limbs away from a harm. This is the relationship, when the communication channel between the vehicle is at least starting to be built. 


Of course, the basic problem in researching this is, that it works with a matter and energy of high 'frequence', while contemporary science uses only solid-material tools, crafted from ores, minerals, etc. The only machine (except of a few rather ignored technical devices) able to work exactly as we need, is the one which already consists of matter on multiple 'frequencies',  the human. Next, most of humans aren't yet fully functional in that sense, and if yes, most of them isn't aware of it.
It seems this is not yet enough to get an attention of scientists yet (their time is expensive) but as I mentioned, the development speeds up a lot (x several tenths of thousands times, once a certain level is reached) so within a few generations we may have enough of people to make this phenomenon of greater life, publically known and researched. But this is all too distant future.
Btw, there is supposedly some interaction of the high-frequence energies with very pure gold, silver, copper, strong magnets and crystals, but still, it's not understood well.

Note, that there is no worship... I want this to be gotten into most practical effects, like a treatment of drug addiction, tissue rebuilding, free sources of energy, solar system exploration, and other astounding projects. Extent of this all, the potential in the higher dimension, constantly puts me in awe, and even more it will the scientists, who will understand it much more than I can.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Are electromagnetic

Quote:

Are electromagnetic waves material? Is magnetism material?

Sure, why not? "Magnetism" is merely the effect that results from the vector field formed by changing electric fields (an electric field E is also a vector field. A time-invarient electric field satisfies the irrotational condition. However, a time-variant electrical field will create a magnetic field, as indicated by the Heaviside equation. Thus, fundamentally, magnetism is merely the result of moving charge, moving charge, of course, being material. If we were to make this even more fundamental then there is no such thing as magnetism, only electromagnetism, and this is fundamentally associated with the electromagnetic wave. The fact that electromagnetism propagates as a wave is relatively easy to derive from the modern Maxwell equations and the Hemlholtz theorem (fundamental theorem of vector calculus).

  Why shouldn't we consider the packet associated with an electromagnetic wave (the photon) as matter? Because it has no mass? Since when did mass have a monopoly on the property of "materialness?"

 

 

"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


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Why shouldn't we

Quote:
Why shouldn't we consider the packet associated with an electromagnetic wave (the photon) as matter? Because it has no mass? Since when did mass have a monopoly on the property of "materialness?"

But just for the hell of it, why don't we indulge the notion?  Let's say that photons are immaterial.  In fact, let's say that anything which does not have mass, but exists empirically, either as an effect, or any kind of detectable "thing," is immaterial.

This does nothing to help the woo-woo tinfoil hats or the theists, for it simply redefines the word as something that does exist.  It no longer refers to the things that cannot exist for lack of a universe of discourse.  Any argument which uses "immaterial" to refer to both photons and spirits or gods in the same category commits an equivocation.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Hi Luminon - Material stuff is

Hi Luminon

Material stuff is the stuff that the universe is made of, such as, matter, energy, time, space and so-called laws of nature.
 
Immaterial stuff is spiritual stuff that Gods and angels and demons and souls and devils are made out of.
 
We know that material stuff can be formed into systems that can sense things, and store information, and process the information and provide energy to other systems, and cause things to happen, and even think and be conscious. The existing plants and animals and people are examples of these things. So are computers, but currently in a more simplified form.
 
The point of the OP is that we do not have any evidence that there is any such thing as immaterial stuff. Even if there is immaterial stuff then, there is no evidence that it can be formed into structures that operate as sensors of the material world or memory or data processors or to provide energy to other systems. The point of the OP is that God and souls and other spiritual beings are impossible, in the same way that an ordinary wooden pencil that is conscious and talks is impossible, unless the theist can prove that immaterial stuff exists and explain how it can be used to form systems to perform the functions that a spiritual being would require to be conscious and interact with the material world.

 

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
patcleaver wrote:Hi

patcleaver wrote:

Hi Luminon

Material stuff is the stuff that the universe is made of, such as, matter, energy, time, space and so-called laws of nature.
 
Immaterial stuff is spiritual stuff that Gods and angels and demons and souls and devils are made out of.
 
We know that material stuff can be formed into systems that can sense things, and store information, and process the information and provide energy to other systems, and cause things to happen, and even think and be conscious. The existing plants and animals and people are examples of these things. So are computers, but currently in a more simplified form.
 
The point of the OP is that we do not have any evidence that there is any such thing as immaterial stuff. Even if there is immaterial stuff then, there is no evidence that it can be formed into structures that operate as sensors of the material world or memory or data processors or to provide energy to other systems. The point of the OP is that God and souls and other spiritual beings are impossible, in the same way that an ordinary wooden pencil that is conscious and talks is impossible, unless the theist can prove that immaterial stuff exists and explain how it can be used to form systems to perform the functions that a spiritual being would require to be conscious and interact with the material world.

 

It is not that there is no evidence of immaterial stuff, it is, as Jefferson put it, that the immaterial stuff doesn't exist as per its definition.  Thus, 'To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings.'.  You see, when someone uses a word like immaterial, they are using a word that describes nothing, for it has the quality of being whatever is left over after everything in existence is thrown out of the word's definition.  That is to say that immaterial has no universe of discourse and therefor cannot refer to anything.  It is meaningless jibberish.  No evidence of it could ever be found because it is ________ (nothing).  It's not comparable to your pencil.  You pencil cannot possess consciousness for wholly different and very real and material reasons.  Immaterial things cannot possess consciousness because immaterial things are _______ (nothing).

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."


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Interesting posts. Eloise

Interesting posts. Eloise mentioned "timeless models", so I found this, and sent to my Email crowd with this atheist religiously worded message,

Science best explains G-O-D, as in this informative short essay section of many. This is why me and Jesus get mad, and Buddha laughed at superstition dogmatic religion.

We are living in the part of the cosmos where time works as we observe it , but time is varied in other parts of the cosmos, where the total sum of time is One connected timeless eternal thing. This timelessness, and thermodynamics becomes the science definition of the eternal timeless infinite GOD, of no beginning nor end. God is simply what IS, as all is god, all is One, doing its ageless dance. !!! Buddha and Jesus etc knew they and god are One in the same, and so should you. No more idol(s) of separatism religious dogma. Go science, the real study of g-awe-d ....

The Timeless Universe -     by A. C. Sturt

http://www.churingapublishing.com/timeless_4.htm
 

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:It is not

Thomathy wrote:

It is not that there is no evidence of immaterial stuff, it is, as Jefferson put it, that the immaterial stuff doesn't exist as per its definition.  Thus, 'To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings.'.  You see, when someone uses a word like immaterial, they are using a word that describes nothing, for it has the quality of being whatever is left over after everything in existence is thrown out of the word's definition.  That is to say that immaterial has no universe of discourse and therefor cannot refer to anything.  It is meaningless jibberish.  No evidence of it could ever be found because it is ________ (nothing).  It's not comparable to your pencil.  You pencil cannot possess consciousness for wholly different and very real and material reasons.  Immaterial things cannot possess consciousness because immaterial things are _______ (nothing).

You're presenting a tautology here. "Immaterial" in my dictionary, means


Unsubstantial, referring to a validity
Unimportant, referring to importance
Incorporeal.
This third meaning is what "immaterial" should be perceived like, as having a quality, not identic with solid, or not identic with things which most often affects solid objects.
Both top meanings gives an impression of non-existence, but, as I and many other people across the globe perceives every day, it is not always the case. I wonder how many of them will have to make their testimony, to awaken a scientific interest. (other than psychiatric Smiling )
Then we will define new terms for a states of materiality, finer than solid-material, liquid or gaseous, to name the finer quality. We should also define states of existence different than material. It is sure, that nothing is separated, and so even these finer states of existence are sometimes able to affect our own, good old dense materiality. How exactly, it is up to a scientists to find...
Here's the difference to common laws of decorum. When a scientist claims something, he must provide an evidence, and then, if it's valid, everyone accepts it.
In area of knowledge I'm used to, there is a theory, and if a reader is advanced enough, he will read this theory, and be interested in it enough that he will find an evidence himself, or already have it. If not, he will reject this one and find another theory, for which he is advanced enough. It is, simply because practically nobody has a solid-material evidence, (and if yes, it's immovable) we don't have a scientists to provide one, but if we'd have some, we wouldn't have to do it in so complicated manner.

Anyway, if there are any finer-than-material dimensions of the world, they are a proverbial Promised land. We are in our solid dimension like trapped, all we do requires an extreme amount of energy, material and precision, knowledge, energy and material is scarce, enthropy destroys everything, inertia and friction as well, and the C speed blocks our way to stars.
But "up there" is a lot of energy, and energy of thought is one of the most powerful, no C limit for transportation, minimal inertia and friction, time becomes less obligatory, space and gravity ceases to be an obstacle, etc, etc... Yeah, and a grass is greener there. We can hardly have any these things, without discovering a laws of finer-than-material dimension of the universe. They're actually more substantial than ours.

IAGAY: good definition, man.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Here's some "Oneness" fun

Here's some "Oneness" fun for some of us. Mind boggling reality.  
     Why call the cosmos god? Well , to get rid of religion ....
Some interesting and wacky stuff, good and bad science, linguistic failures etc.

ONENESS AND THE HOLOGRAPHIC PARADIGM - 7 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB7-uySXSCk

"The Holographic Universe" , 6 mins http://www.dharmaflix.com/wiki/The_Holographic_Universe

 "Surviving the Singularity" , 20 mins mind stretcher,  xlint ending   http://www.dharmaflix.com/wiki/Surviving_the_Singularity

Evolution of consciousness and the foundations of mathematics available at

www.WhatWillBe.com
 "Mathematical Infinity and Human Destiny" - 30 mins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilDj-IqKtkY

----------------------------
Wild 'paranormal' and history/science philosophy writer Philip Gardiner.  He say's "secret" for effect I guess. I say no no, simply the unknown. Seems to me that the simple principle of defeating superstition, to then say all is one, was the gnosis ( 'secret' ) knowledge. Why call that a secret??? Go science.
   Trailer - 9 mins -   http://www.gnosisbookdvd.com/trailer.html

http://www.gnosisbookdvd.com/biography.html
Gnosis Trailer · FCKUK 2006 Trailer
Secrets of The Serpent Trailer ·

Quantum Mind of God - 4 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEZnH-AMfcQ&feature=related

 "Cultures, religions and individuals throughout history have questioned the meaning of life and the nature of existence. Author Philip Gardiner reveals the ways technology and science are changing how the question is asked and the answers interpreted. Through exploration of the SELF , Gardiner believes we can better understand the world around us, which, in turn, will have an impact on future generations."

  Umm, going to go get some party Rum now. LOL

 


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Thomathy

Luminon wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

It is not that there is no evidence of immaterial stuff, it is, as Jefferson put it, that the immaterial stuff doesn't exist as per its definition.  Thus, 'To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings.'.  You see, when someone uses a word like immaterial, they are using a word that describes nothing, for it has the quality of being whatever is left over after everything in existence is thrown out of the word's definition.  That is to say that immaterial has no universe of discourse and therefor cannot refer to anything.  It is meaningless jibberish.  No evidence of it could ever be found because it is ________ (nothing).  It's not comparable to your pencil.  You pencil cannot possess consciousness for wholly different and very real and material reasons.  Immaterial things cannot possess consciousness because immaterial things are _______ (nothing).

You're presenting a tautology here. "Immaterial" in my dictionary, means

 

Unsubstantial, referring to a validity
Unimportant, referring to importance
Incorporeal.
This third meaning is what "immaterial" should be perceived like, as having a quality, not identic with solid, or not identic with things which most often affects solid objects.

 

 

That just doesn't make any sense to me Luminion. There are a lot of things that are not solid but material.  i would say that something that can be measured or observed is material.
BTW im not so sure identic is a word. and redefining immaterial would be kinda stupid. i don't think scientist would appreciate that very much.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Luminon

Luminon wrote:

Incorporeal.
This third meaning is what "immaterial" should be perceived like, as having a quality, not identic with solid, or not identic with things which most often affects solid objects.
Both top meanings gives an impression of non-existence, but, as I and many other people across the globe perceives every day, it is not always the case. I wonder how many of them will have to make their testimony, to awaken a scientific interest.


Prove you perceive the immaterial.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah. If wisdom philosophy

Yeah. If wisdom philosophy language can't be understood by a 12 yr old, it pretty much fails in my opinion. 'Immaterial' is such a broken word. How the heck can something not have substance? ....  'Anti-matter' of science is much different.

Esoteric, as "secret knowledge, or generally unknown knowledge" is such a word I aviod. I don't like Sophism, as to use fancy confusing language. Plato talked about that in a different way ....

http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/esoteric

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Define+Sophism&spell=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

God smothered in religious definitions. Memes, Linguistics, Babel .... Fucking damn it !!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme


patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Thomathy

Wow, you point out two major problems with my OP.

First, I have confused two separate arguments - immateriality and complexity.

Second I have argued "lack of evidence" when the real problem is that immaterial consciousness is impossible, and that complex systems of simple stuff is impossible.

I will rework the OP, thanks.

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:In area of

Luminon wrote:
In area of knowledge I'm used to
There is 0 knowledge of immaterial.
Quote:
there is a theory
There is no theory of immaterial.
Quote:
and if a reader is advanced enough, he will read this[idea]
A monkey is advanced enough to evaluate this.
Quote:
and be interested in it enough that he will find an evidence himself, or already have it.
Imagination is not evidence.
Quote:
If not, he will reject this one
Done. Rejected. Zero evidence.
Quote:
and find another theory, for which he is advanced enough.
There cannot be a theory on zero evidence. 
Quote:
It is, simply because practically nobody has a solid-material[ lololol] evidence (and if yes, it's immovable) we don't have a scientists to provide one, but if we'd have some,
A good way for a scientist to loose his credibility.
Quote:
we wouldn't have to do it in so complicated manner.
What is complicated about a naked assertion? Anyone who is able to fantasize is able to imagine "perceiving" the immaterial.
Quote:
Anyway, if there are any finer-than-material dimensions of the world, they are a proverbial Promised land.
How can you possibly know if it is "a proverbial Promised land"? You just make shit up!
Quote:
We are in our solid dimension like trapped,
Now you're starting to get it.
Quote:
all we do requires an extreme amount of energy, material
Which will only react to energy and material.
Quote:
and precision, knowledge
Precision and knowledge have nothing to do with immaterial.
Quote:
energy and material is scarce
It is in abundance everywhere.
Quote:
enthropy destroys everything, inertia and friction as well, and the C speed blocks our way to stars.
So fucking what?
Quote:
But "up there" is a lot of energy
"Up there"? Huh? You mean up in the ceiling, up in the mountains, up in the clouds, or what?
Quote:
and energy of thought is one of the most powerful
Really? How many horsepower is it?
Quote:
no C limit for transportation, minimal inertia and friction, time becomes less obligatory, space and gravity ceases to be an obstacle, etc, etc... Yeah, and a grass is greener there. We can hardly have any these things, without discovering a laws of finer-than-material dimension of the universe. They're actually more substantial than ours.
Right, in your mind you can fantasize anything. Ironically your mind is material.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
aiia rocks steady. Thanks. 

aiia rocks steady. Thanks.  Hey, that's a cool tune .... defeat fear, no religion.

"Rock Steady" by Bad Company

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggLpXgJJitI


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Prove you

aiia wrote:

Prove you perceive the immaterial.

Get me under a lie detector, hypnosis, talkative juice, it will show I don't lie.
Next, if I'll have someone clairvoyant (able to see what I only perceive by touch) I could show a few interesting tricks.
But I'm only exploring my possibilities. This perception can be trained, and anyone can do it, maybe except of junkies.

aiia wrote:
There is 0 knowledge of immaterial.
There is no theory of immaterial.
etc...

It seems an imagination for you is a magical explanation for everything, whenever something doesn't fit, then these people are just making it up in their mind. Anything can be made up, years of life, sight, touch, memories, right? Oh, the power of mind. But it's not true. People can distinguish between imagination and reality by scientific methods.
You think that other people than you has no idea about a scientific method, that they can't verify an evidence, and that personal evidence doesn't exist?  But personal evidence only belongs to a person who has it, and not everyone is able to pass it to other person. Nobody says you can get a personal evidence sitting in front of computer. This requires to travel, meet with people, and try everything for yourself. 
But some people doesn't just judge and demand evidence from their safe homes, they go out and do something to get positive or negative evidence. Evidence is not a pizza and I'm not a delievery boy. In the future, when scientists will have more interest in knowledge, than academic lobby and money, and look around, there will be all sort sof studies and proofs, but until then, it's not yet around, do you get it? You seem to be a passive consumer of scientific work, already pre-chewed with just right amount of scientific studies and such an advanced evidence, that even a monkey would accept it. Then it's too early four you, but scientists should make a difference and be a trailblazers for a new technology direction.
 

aiia wrote:
Quote:
But "up there" is a lot of energy
"Up there"? Huh? You mean up in the ceiling, up in the mountains, up in the clouds, or what?
Actually, the  comma "" signifies a metaphor, I mean on a higher position in a spectrum of 'fineness' of matter. It's like a radio waves of different frequency, they occupy the same space, but doesn't collide with each other. As for the frequency, there may be "higher" and "lower" rate in Hz, this is what I mean.

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:aiia

Luminon wrote:
aiia wrote:
Prove you perceive the immaterial.
Get me under a lie detector, hypnosis, talkative juice, it will show I don't lie.

A polygraph machine only detects intentional lies not false beliefs; sodium pentothal merely induces an individual to talk about what an individual believes in. Only scientific investigation would reveal what it is that you believe you are ‘perceiving’.
 
Quote:
Next, if I'll have someone clairvoyant (able to see what I only perceive by touch) I could show a few interesting tricks.

This is absurd because clairvoyance is actually one of the “immaterial” abilities that is being investigated and is not reliable.

Quote:
But I'm only exploring my possibilities.

The word ‘possibility’ can only be applied to evidenced phenomena.
 
Quote:
This perception can be trained, and anyone can do it, maybe except of junkies.

People can be trained to stage illusions. People cannot be trained to “perceive” the immaterial when there is no evidence of the immaterial.

Quote:
aiia wrote:
There is 0 knowledge of immaterial.
There is no theory of immaterial.
etc...

It seems an imagination

Incorrect. There is nothing there for me to perceive. The word ‘immaterial’ by definition means it cannot be experienced in any manner.

Quote:
for you is a magical explanation for everything

I do not and cannot believe in anything that does not exhibit evidence.

Quote:
whenever something doesn't fit, then these people are just making it up in their mind. Anything can be made up, years of life, sight, touch, memories, right? Oh, the power of mind. But it's not true.

It is a fact that people do imagine things that do not exist.
 
Quote:
People can distinguish between imagination and reality by scientific methods.
You think that other people than you has no idea about a scientific method, that they can't verify an evidence, and that personal evidence doesn't exist?

People are able to delude themselves repeatedly until they learn, or train themselves, to evaluate all information they assimilate ratiocinatively.

Quote:
But personal evidence only belongs to a person who has it, and not everyone is able to pass it to other person.

Personal claims are not proof of truth.

Quote:
Nobody says you can get a personal evidence sitting in front of computer. This requires to travel, meet with people, and try everything for yourself.

Billions of people believe in things that has no valid substantiation. Communicating imaginary information is rampant. It’s called gossip, prattle, hearsay, fabrication, lying, and story telling.

Quote:
But some people doesn't just judge and demand evidence from their safe homes, they go out and do something to get positive or negative evidence. Evidence is not a pizza and I'm not a delievery boy.

 Look up the word ‘evidence’.
 http://www.reference.com/browse/scientific%20evidence

Quote:
In the future, when scientists will have more interest in knowledge,

Scientists have the utmost interest in knowledge now! There are millions of scientists around the globe!

Quote:
than academic lobby and money, and look around, there will be all sort sof studies and proofs, but until then, it's not yet around, do you get it?

Trillions of dollars are spent on research worldwide; the scientific community has emphatically rejected research into the immaterial. It is deemed to be an absurd quest. Any scientist suggesting researching immateriality is considered to be an incompetent.

Quote:
You seem to be a passive consumer of scientific work, already pre-chewed with just right amount of scientific studies and such an advanced evidence, that even a monkey would accept it. Then it's too early four you, but scientists should make a difference and be a trailblazers for a new technology direction.

Any scientist who pursues research into the immaterial will be branded as nut case.
 

Quote:
aiia wrote:
Quote:
But "up there" is a lot of energy
"Up there"? Huh? You mean up in the ceiling, up in the mountains, up in the clouds, or what?
Actually, the  comma "" signifies a metaphor, I mean on a higher position in a spectrum of 'fineness' of matter.

There is no such thing.

Quote:
It's like a radio waves of different frequency, they occupy the same space, but doesn't collide with each other.

Prove it.

Quote:
As for the frequency, there may be "higher" and "lower" rate in Hz, this is what I mean.

The word ‘immaterial’ is a reference to nonexistence. Everything in the universe is material and there is no ‘outside’ the universe.
 
 

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:In the future, when

Quote:

In the future, when scientists will have more interest in knowledge, than academic lobby and money, and look around, there will be all sort sof studies and proofs

What hallucinations give you the right to spew this gibberish? Have you ever spent time in a lab, written in an academic journal, conducted research, worked in cross-disciplinary projects with scientific researchers, done statistical analysis? Do you actually know anything about scientists and the community of researchers?

Quote:

I mean on a higher position in a spectrum of 'fineness' of matter.

I am unfamiliar with the quantity of "fineness" (unless of course you mean the fine structure constant). What are the SI units of the quantity? What is it a function of? What properties does this quantity have? Is it covariant, contravariant, invariant under coordinate transforms? Is it a ranked tensor? Is it an nth-order system? This is physics that you are mangling here. You cannot hide behind metaphors any more than you could if you were attempting to describe flux rates or curved spacetimes. You can articulate precisely what you are talking about, or you can go away.

"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


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:What

deludedgod wrote:

What hallucinations give you the right to spew this gibberish? Have you ever spent time in a lab, written in an academic journal, conducted research, worked in cross-disciplinary projects with scientific researchers, done statistical analysis? Do you actually know anything about scientists and the community of researchers?

I hope what I know are only false slanders. The stories of people I knew are about a haughty attitude, inability to even look at the evidence, professional prejudices, and so on. These were mostly local authorities, and as it seems, they are so good at exposing a fraud, that they can't stop it, even if they run off the fraud. I live around amazing things and people, never recognized by science, and so I became convinced that science, and our understanding of the world, is provincial.
 

deludedgod wrote:
I am unfamiliar with the quantity of "fineness" (unless of course you mean the fine structure constant). 
It is a distinctive quality. If a solidity, or a state of matter would be expressible in frequence, then solid matter would have a low frequence, liquid would have higher, gaseous even higher, and the fine matter with higher frequence would be even less solid. This is from a behavioristic point of view, otherwise I'm sure it contains a lot of fascinating data. For example, the question, why there is always seven of these similar states of matter, forming something like a world, and then again seven, forming a finer, parallel world? Why there is no interaction, except of rare ocassions, like special sound frequencies, nuclear fission, crystal-like structured materials, and so on? These are one of many questions of future, and if 20th century was unimaginable for a scientific development, so will be 21st.

deludedgod wrote:
What are the SI units of the quantity? What is it a function of? What properties does this quantity have? Is it covariant, contravariant, invariant under coordinate transforms? Is it a ranked tensor? Is it an nth-order system?
Have you ever seen any natural object to actually have these values written on it? Because this is the only way how a laic (like me) can tell them. Real life doesn't speak in such a terms, this is possible after the phenomenon is understood, but not in such an early stage.

deludedgod wrote:
This is physics that you are mangling here. You cannot hide behind metaphors any more than you could if you were attempting to describe flux rates or curved spacetimes. You can articulate precisely what you are talking about, or you can go away.
This is what you say to your specimens? "Tell me, what you are you molecule, in scientific terms, or I will wash you down the drain?" When I hide behind metaphors, it is because it's the only way how to describe what I see and touch, not understand. If I would ever found myself in a laboratory, I would be a researched subject, who communicates as a laic, not a researcher, who can speak in scientific terms. 
Aborigines, when confronted for the first time with things they don't understand, says things like "iron bird" (airplane), "magical torch" (flashlight), or "thunder staff" (rifle). And yet it makes the iron birds no less real, of course, they're of aluminium and other light alloys, and not an actual birds. You're probably too busy to think in primitive terms of commoners, but when it comes to some phenomena, you've got no other source of information. How do you interpret it, it's up to you, but the cheeky, ungrateful commoners like me will stay bitching that they're unheard and neglected, until some great scientist figures out what they mean by their primitive, metaphoric gibberish.

Can ever the bitching do the job, to awaken the interest? How does a scientist pick an object of interest? It is, I suppose, according to a boss' will, rarely anyone has a money and place to research what they want, or in this case, what commoners are talking about all the time.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It is a distinctive

Quote:

It is a distinctive quality.

If a solidity, or a state of matter would be expressible in frequence, then solid matter would have a low frequence, liquid would have higher, gaseous even higher, and the fine matter with higher frequence would be even less solid.

Basic chemistry 101. What happens to individual particles during physical changes of state?

Answer: nothing.

The only difference between material bodies in state changes is the intermolecular forces. No changes within individual particles occur. This can be and is explained perfectly in terms of VSEPR theory and the extensions into negative charge centers and the associating chemical bonds. There is absolutely no need to introduce superfluous quantities into the discussion.

Quote:

Have you ever seen any natural object to actually have these values written on it?

I have yet to encounter a quantity that cannot be described quantitatively. Insofar as the above terms are mathematical descriptions of the nature of the object, they can be be extended to include any system. There is no quantity in physics that cannot be described in this way. There are an unimaginable number of derived and defined measures in physics: Magnetic permeability, stress tensors, curvature tensors, flow rates, vorticity, flux vectors, angular momentum, kinetic energy, entropy, pressure, etc. ad infinitum. I find it hard to believe that you are giving me a quantity which has no units. If that is the case, it cannot be measured or mathematically manipulated. If it cannot be measured, it cannot be claimed.

Quote:

Because this is the only way how a laic (like me) can tell them

That's really too bad. Let me tell you a lesson that I have learned in 20 years of studying physics. Bad physicists hide behind words. Lots of words. Flowing descriptions and flowery metaphors. You see, words can be abused. They can be softened. With words we can say things which are dishonest, which are meaningless, but ostensibly meaningful. We can subtly twist definitions or say vague things that sound lucid. This is especially so in physics, and especially so in physical descriptions which are mathematically sound but counterintuitive. But good physicists delve into the applied mathematics. For example, I was never interested in attempts to explain quantum mechanical systems in words. The counterintuitive nature of the discipline would present a great obstacle. But diving straight into the mathematics makes the entire discipline perfectly meaningful, articulable and sensible. Mathematics makes you honest, for you cannot fake a mathematical derivation. There is no confusion over what a flux integral is. There is no vagueness associated with curvature tensors, or Hilbert space, or Gaussian spheres. You cannot lie and say that a set of n vectors is linearly dependant when they actually are not.

Quote:

Tell me, what you are you molecule, in scientific terms, or I will wash you down the drain

There is no need to interrogate inanimate entities. Molecules are perfectly measurable. If you articulate the quantity you are talking about and not merely the quality (actually, this is too charitable. What you are saying would never pass as "qualitative description" in the scientific setting) I would not be interrogating you.

Quote:

but when it comes to some phenomena, you've got no other source of information.

Let me see if I understand what I am saying. You can't be bothered to articulate your proposition in precise terms, because then you might be required to put in some effort and a few years to study advanced mathematics in physics. You won't elaborate on your proposition in a precise way that could be meaningfully investigated empirically, but you somehow expect your interlocutor to not only translate these confused descriptions into rigorous ones, but if he does not, he is arrogant and scornful? Give me a break. If you are attempting to discuss a yet unknown quantity, but you cannot even tell me whether this quantity is vector, scalar or tensor, then I'm sorry to say, but...you have no idea about anything at all pertaining to this quantity. Hence, you just made it up.

"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