again... I'll take the joke out.
Why doesn't baby doesn't scream for God until he's taught to?
If you can answer that, You can probably answer your own question
Question for the atheist?
- Thread starter badboyyawdie
- Start date
again... I'll take the joke out.
Why doesn't baby doesn't scream for God until he's taught to?
If you can answer that, You can probably answer your own question
the real question is would any of these individuals push the same argument if no one ever told them about it(religion).
would they still fight for such a thing only knowing bits and pieces about it.
my answer whether i know of it beforehand or not will always be no.
would they still fight for such a thing only knowing bits and pieces about it.
my answer whether i know of it beforehand or not will always be no.
Its a trained behavior,not much different than saying fuck,when you stump your toes or saying oh lawd when you see a phat ass..etc etc..
has nothing to do with asking for help,as we both knows it probably will never come,you know crying out to a fairy tale big brother for assistance.
....aiteso you think that dreams are a glimpse into alternate realities?
Never said that.
I said: "... when i'm asleep and dreaming (except for lucid dreams) that dream state is my reality ... And I only know that I was dreaming in the first place if AFTER I wake up and remember ..."
So memory (and our spatiotemporal world-view) is obviously a factor. That being said, here's a couple scenarios you can ponder on:
1) after a severe stroke and ALL past memory is lost (I mean of everything!) does the state of reality change from that point?
2) How about dissociative identity disorder?
that's all for now.
I would guess that they're all 'real' or at least one image that the brain is tricked/unable to process as such so they get split up. Kinda like when someone's drunk and sees two of everything...
It's not that the brain can't process a given image, it's because it's trying to correct the cognitive dissonance that occurs when it's trying to process multiple representations of the image at the same time. Hence the sense/feeling of the illusion. Pretty much the same process for psychological 'illusions' like riddles, etc.
2 questions:
1) So you're saying the mental images get split up. Are you implying that one thing can have multiple objective realities? Or are all real? Or is one real the rest fake? Or two real and the rest fake?.
2) Are you familiar with the Double Slit Experiment? If so, what's your interpretation of the results?
Last edited:
That's cool, I have no disagreement with this at all. Whether or not the particular course that directed early philosophical and theological thought to where we are now was inevitable, this is basically what happened. So I completely accept that. Honestly, I'm glad progress was made despite obstructions because so far we've not wiped ourselves from the planet, yet.
Not really my issue. My atheisism isn't based on some personal ax to grind against religion or theists. That's a silly reason . . . at least to me. At that point, I WOULD be on parity with religious fundamentalists. As a matter of fact, by definition I fit the description, but I'm not limited by that description either. Meaning, I'm not simply a polar opposite of a theist.
Well, a couple things. While I agree that science and religion address separate and distinct things, and that they aren't on parity with one another. I don't see the two attempting to swap roles. What I do see is religion either not staying in it's lane or attempting to dominate existential inquiry and discovery from a false premise. And when voices from that group attempt to speak authoritatively on subjects that said institution isn't suited for, that's where the problems/conflict emerges.
Beyond the negative socio-economic and political impact of religion throughout history, I could care less about it. I'm not anti-religion. If it were completely benign in secular society and industry I wouldn't give it a single thought.
Basically, beyond having a normalizing effect on society, I think religion is useless, irrelevant, and/or insufficient at doing the things science is very good at. So no, it doesn't make sense to compare science to religion or any other 'system' of thought. Because there's nothing to examine. There are no 'products' found anywhere else but in science, using the scientific method. If there is another methodology that can do the same or better, I'd fuck with that. And I don't harp on the limitations of science or humans . . . I accept them as challenges to be overcome, time and circumstances permitting . . . or not. Human ingenuity wouldn't be ingenuity if we had all the answers. But little by little we get to wherever we're going. I say wherever because in my opinion even the concept of god is too limiting and simplistic (in as far as I understand what that is) to encapsulate and define any experience of existence. Not that you are arguing for a theistic perspective, but even if EVERYTHING in religious text were true . . . it would still provoke more questions. And you said you weren't arguing for the religious perspective, so I'll end that aspect here.
Sounds like fun, but to me science simply hit a ceiling of understanding that we're attempting to break through. We may not . . . but please share with me any other method of discovery that is on parity with science or has the capacity to explain things at the quantum level.
Sounds cool, but I have no idea what that really means. What is inner space? Shit, were having a helluva time describing outer space. And how do we determine what that is. And is that REALLY some 'other' thing (supernatural), or simply an extension of the natural world that we have yet to comprehend. I simply don't have any reason to believe in supernatural things. I don't get the concept of it. To me it's ALL here. Just because something isn't immediately available to me knowledge wise, doesn't prompt me to fabricate another reality folder to store it in. And I'm not clear on how one even does that.
Not necessarily. I understand that people have beliefs and opinions that underpin their perceived purpose in life. Solipsism adequately describes these individuals in my opinion. However, to the extent that there exists an intersection where a baseline can be established, it would have to be available to all who participated. Meaning the solipsist viewpoint would be irrelevant in that situation, because examination requires tools of dissection and vocabulary to discuss causal connections to existential phenomena, that would need to be available to all participants. That is, given your scenario. And even then that would likely be insufficient. To an earlier point you made, with a universe so vast and life so varied, 'OUR' perspective is likely only a fraction of the puzzle as yet.
Perhaps, perhaps not . . . please share.
Not familiar with the Feyerabend's work, but I'm not troubled about what isn't available to empirical validation at all. Because that may be the case today, much as it was in the past but LESS SO today. History reflects many things that were at one time unavailable to empiricism. What's science without it's challenges? . . . Meaningless. The absence of answers is what give science it's purpose, but you of course know this. And who knows, perhaps Tyson is correct . . . we may be too dumb to figure it out. I trouble not over that either. Because nothing beats a failure but a try.
JG
.
Last edited:
how is the existence of a cosmic entity that spawned existence scientifically impossible, please do tell?
Nuthin against what any here believes but don't y'all think its just a wee bit arrogant for a species that only a few thousand years old to think it knows all the universe's secrets
?how is the existence of a cosmic entity that spawned existence scientifically impossible, please do tell?
Nuthin against what any here believes but don't y'all think its just a wee bit arrogant for a species that only a few thousand years old to think it knows all the universe's secrets
Let me flip this on you. Isn't it arrogant for someone to fabricate a conjecture that an entity exists that is responsible for spawning existence . . . WITHOUT supporting evidence, knowing full well that ANY other extraordinary claim made by any other 'name' would encounter more scrutiny/challenge? Not to mention having ANY capacity to understand this entity without 'describing' said entity, suggests either a base of knowledge far more vast than that of any person of said species, or a mastery of some form of magic. Because it implies that whomever made the claim has a complete enough understanding of EVERYTHING to arrive at such a speculation.
The problem is such a speculation is meaningless because as yet, existence itself is barely comprehensible. Let alone comprehended enough to place an entity at the base of it.
Btw, where'd you get the idea that humans are only 'a few thousand years old'? By what metric do you or would you base such a claim on. And by what means would you utilize to determine whether the claim was the truth or bs?
My point is, claims are easy to make . . . but try qualifying such a claim and down the rabbit hole you go.
JG
You've got it backwards. It's up to YOU to prove that it's not only possible but actual, based on something other than primitive "literature," irrational "belief" and mass hysteria.
What's really arrogant is to to ignore endless reams of scientific, biological and physiological evidence in favor of "what if" nonsense based on NOTHING but a bogus religious instruction manual.
You couldn't have gotten anything I've written in this thread more wrong. I wouldn't have thought it possible, but you've succeeded. Oh well.
JG
As far as YOU know, yes. And if there's a greater intelligence somewhere there's no reason to believe it's any more supernatural than mankind's.
Ok maybe the human race might actually be a 100 or so thousand years old... If you're suggesting older than that..... wouldn't that fly in the face of conventional scientific dogma?
That's cool, I have no disagreement with this at all. Whether or not the particular course that directed early philosophical and theological thought to where we are now was inevitable, this is basically what happened. So I completely accept that. Honestly, I'm glad progress was made despite obstructions because so far we've not wiped ourselves from the planet, yet.
Cool.
Not really my issue. My atheisism isn't based on some personal ax to grind against religion or theists. That's a silly reason . . . at least to me. At that point, I WOULD be on parity with religious fundamentalists. As a matter of fact, by definition I fit the description, but I'm not limited by that description either. Meaning, I'm not simply a polar opposite of a theist.
Cool. I didn't think you'd fall into this category I was just making a general observation.
Well, a couple things. While I agree that science and religion address separate and distinct things, and that they aren't on parity with one another. I don't see the two attempting to swap roles. What I do see is religion either not staying in it's lane or attempting to dominate existential inquiry and discovery from a false premise. And when voices from that group attempt to speak authoritatively on subjects that said institution isn't suited for, that's where the problems/conflict emerges.
I agree with the last sentence.
By descriptive science, I'm referring to the science's reductive observe, record, analyze method. and by prescriptive science I'm referring to scientific fields that try to define things like the metrics of values and rationality in decision making. Applications of Game Theory in economics, political science and evolutionary biology for example. The conflict arises because human behavior doesn't always necessarily comport to the axioms that dictate these scientific methods.
You might say that science doesn't impose these methods on people but it actually does. Through advertising campaigns and pop-culture.
Beyond the negative socio-economic and political impact of religion throughout history, I could care less about it. I'm not anti-religion. If it were completely benign in secular society and industry I wouldn't give it a single thought.
Me too.
Basically, beyond having a normalizing effect on society, I think religion is useless, irrelevant, and/or insufficient at doing the things science is very good at.
But this is exactly my point. Religion doesn't (well, ideally, shouldn't) do the things that science is good at doing. This is what I've been saying all thread.
So no, it doesn't make sense to compare science to religion or any other 'system' of thought. Because there's nothing to examine. There are no 'products' found anywhere else but in science, using the scientific method. If there is another methodology that can do the same or better, I'd fuck with that. And I don't harp on the limitations of science or humans . . . I accept them as challenges to be overcome, time and circumstances permitting . . . or not. Human ingenuity wouldn't be ingenuity if we had all the answers. But little by little we get to wherever we're going. I say wherever because in my opinion even the concept of god is too limiting and simplistic (in as far as I understand what that is) to encapsulate and define any experience of existence.
Ok, my question you regarding the above underlined statement is this:
Do you believe we know existence first and foremost through experience, or do you believe we can we know the existence of something by reason (without direct experience)?
You made some very strong statements here about the utility of religion and trivialized it to a "normalizing effect". But is that really fair? How about a mother who seeks emotional peace and solace in her religious beliefs that God saved her baby from dying from a terminal illness. Is that useless and irrelevant? Sure you can conjure up some scientific reasoning why the baby lived- call it a placebo effect correlated with the release of endorphins. But so what? What impact does that have on the persons feelings at the time? So you prove to them that it's not God but oxytocin. If they're fundamentalist they say "the devil is a liar!" curse you and start quoting religious texts. If they're not, they say God's work is manifested through science. Ok, now what?
Not that you are arguing for a theistic perspective, but even if EVERYTHING in religious text were true . . . it would still provoke more questions. And you said you weren't arguing for the religious perspective, so I'll end that aspect here.
First of all, I don't think religious texts are to be interpreted like your sophomore physics textbook. If that's how atheists chose to interpret it then provoking more questions would be a gross understatement.
Bottom line. I'm it's not my purpose here to change you or any other person's mind in here. I'm not on some kind of polemic crusade to convert atheists. To each their own.
Thanks though for at least engaging in a civil mature discussion.
Sounds like fun, but to me science simply hit a ceiling of understanding that we're attempting to break through. We may not . . . but please share with me any other method of discovery that is on parity with science or has the capacity to explain things at the quantum level.
Which, again, is exactly my point. Quantum phenomena/effects are indeterministic and probabilistic. Only PREDICTIONS can be made about PROBABLE outcomes. There are no absolute certainties. This isn't trivial.
Science hasn't hit the ceiling of understanding in this regard. Far from it. New developments and discoveries of quantum phenomena are being made every day. Until recently it was believed that quantum effects were only restricted to the sub-atomic scale but the recent discovery of things like quantum entanglement of things as large as molecules, entanglement in photosynthetic systems and quantum effects persisting on the second scale. These are all significant discoveries.
The real issues is that "the capacity to explain things at the quantum level" as you put it, is essentially limited by what INTERPRETATION (of the mathematical formalism of QM) one CHOSES. And there's a lot of them each having it's set of consequences. The "EPR Paradox", paradox of "Schroedinger's Cat", the "Measurement Problem", etc.. No need to go into detail. A simple Google search will give you the necessary information on this along with a sufficiently big headache.
The reason I bring up QM is not that it's this weird scientific theory that we can't fully understand, but that it very nature is counter-intuitive to our innate spatiotemporal thinking. Unless you're suggesting that maybe in a gazillion years our brains will evolve the ability to intuit QM. But nature wouldn't remain static waiting for us to fully understand it now would it? I don't know...
The development of quantum theory and it's auxiliaries and their coherence with the old science (classical physics) are a testimony of how our scientific thinking and 'common sense' view of the world has evolved over time. But the scientific method developed QM, not religion. The logic of your argument here is akin to a theist asking you to show how the scientific method, or any other experimental-empirical method can explain or answer metaphysical questions. You will probably say that metaphysical questions are meaningless. And i'll disagree. Like I said, modern science emerged from the metaphysical inquiry of Natural Philosophy. But again here's where our epistemic and ontological views probably differ.
Sounds cool, but I have no idea what that really means. What is inner space? Shit, were having a helluva time describing outer space. And how do we determine what that is. And is that REALLY some 'other' thing (supernatural), or simply an extension of the natural world that we have yet to comprehend. I simply don't have any reason to believe in supernatural things. I don't get the concept of it. To me it's ALL here. Just because something isn't immediately available to me knowledge wise, doesn't prompt me to fabricate another reality folder to store it in. And I'm not clear on how one even does that.
Fair enough. I don't believe in supernatural things either. I think the whole concept is anthropic. And I agree, one could say constructing multiple realities as a place holder for shit you we don't understand or possibilities not only violates Occam's Razor but also is meaningless - from a positivist view.
Not necessarily. I understand that people have beliefs and opinions that underpin their perceived purpose in life. Solipsism adequately describes these individuals in my opinion. However, to the extent that there exists an intersection where a baseline can be established, it would have to be available to all who participated. Meaning the solipsist viewpoint would be irrelevant in that situation, because examination requires tools of dissection and vocabulary to discuss causal connections to existential phenomena, that would need to be available to all participant. That is, given your scenario. And even then that would likely be insufficient. To an earlier point you made, with a universe so vast and life so varied, 'OUR' perspective is likely only a fraction of the puzzle as yet.
OK. So when you say just a fraction, you believe that there's more to the puzzle of reality beyond the collective cognitive experience? One that defines objectivity based on statistical confidence? Or are you suggesting that there's another non-human perspective?
Perhaps, perhaps not . . . please share.
It goes something like this:
The assertion that "all knowledge is based only on logical inference form observable verifiable facts", in of itself can not be verified.
Put another way; "Propositions can be assigned meaning if and only if they can be proven by means of experience."
That itself (as a proposition) cannot be proven by means of experience, in principle or otherwise. Not only does "proof by experience'' require axioms such as causality and inference to define "proof'' by experience, but no possible experiment could prove it to be correct any more than an experiment could prove induction to be correct.
It's an axiom, one of many possible, equally unprovable assertions of ways to determine truth, falsehood, or meaning
Not familiar with the Feyerabend's work, but I'm not troubled about what isn't available to empirical validation at all. Because that may be the case today, much as it was in the past but LESS SO today. History reflects many things that were at one time unavailable to empiricism. What's science without it's challenges? . . . Meaningless. The absence of answers is what give science it's purpose, but you of course know this. And who knows, perhaps Tyson is correct . . . we may be too dumb to figure it out. I trouble not over that either. Because nothing beats a failure but a try.
Nice! I'm gonna steal that last line.
But doesn't this statement of yours: "...but I'm not troubled about what isn't available to empirical validation at all. " contradict your contention about religious assertions not being amenable to the scientific method?
JG
..........
Last edited:
aite so you think that dreams are a glimpse into alternate realities?
Never said that.
Sorry if my wording was bad, I just wanted you to clarify your point; I wasn't trying to assume anything at that point.
I said: "... when i'm asleep and dreaming (except for lucid dreams) that dream state is my reality ... And I only know that I was dreaming in the first place if AFTER I wake up and remember ..."
Gotcha. Good point tho. However, if you understand that you were just dreaming when you awoke despite it being your reality while the dream was going on, then why don't you apply the same train of thought when you've 'risen' from transcendent meditation?
I'll ask tho, if you were to get high (doesn't matter which drug) and found that the state that you're in is extremely similar to your transcendent state, how (if at all) would it alter your current views on transcendence?
So memory (and our spatiotemporal world-view) is obviously a factor. That being said, here's a couple scenarios you can ponder on:
1) after a severe stroke and ALL past memory is lost (I mean of everything!) does the state of reality change from that point?
Are we talking permanent damage? Either way, you may regard everything around you as being strange and new, so in that sense I guess you can say your reality has changed. If the stroke only affected memory and left the rest of your functions intact, then your perception of reality i.e. what our brains evolved to sense, shouldn't have changed.
2) How about dissociative identity disorder?
I gotta think more about this one but for now my response is more or less the same as above^^^
that's all for now.
I would guess that they're all 'real' or at least one image that the brain is tricked/unable to process as such so they get split up. Kinda like when someone's drunk and sees two of everything...
It's not that the brain can't process a given image, it's because it's trying to correct the cognitive dissonance that occurs when it's trying to process multiple representations of the image at the same time. Hence the sense/feeling of the illusion. Pretty much the same process for psychological 'illusions' like riddles, etc.
I guess I stand corrected
2 questions:
1) So you're saying the mental images get split up. Are you implying that one thing can have multiple objective realities? Or are all real? Or is one real the rest fake? Or two real and the rest fake?.
My guess is that they're all 'real', it's a matter how brains are able to perceive them.
2) Are you familiar with the Double Slit Experiment? If so, what's your interpretation of the results?
I've read about it, not deeply enough to give a detailed opinion of it tho. What are your thoughts?
Never said that.
Sorry if my wording was bad, I just wanted you to clarify your point; I wasn't trying to assume anything at that point.
I said: "... when i'm asleep and dreaming (except for lucid dreams) that dream state is my reality ... And I only know that I was dreaming in the first place if AFTER I wake up and remember ..."
Gotcha. Good point tho. However, if you understand that you were just dreaming when you awoke despite it being your reality while the dream was going on, then why don't you apply the same train of thought when you've 'risen' from transcendent meditation?
I'll ask tho, if you were to get high (doesn't matter which drug) and found that the state that you're in is extremely similar to your transcendent state, how (if at all) would it alter your current views on transcendence?
So memory (and our spatiotemporal world-view) is obviously a factor. That being said, here's a couple scenarios you can ponder on:
1) after a severe stroke and ALL past memory is lost (I mean of everything!) does the state of reality change from that point?
Are we talking permanent damage? Either way, you may regard everything around you as being strange and new, so in that sense I guess you can say your reality has changed. If the stroke only affected memory and left the rest of your functions intact, then your perception of reality i.e. what our brains evolved to sense, shouldn't have changed.
2) How about dissociative identity disorder?
I gotta think more about this one but for now my response is more or less the same as above^^^
that's all for now.
I would guess that they're all 'real' or at least one image that the brain is tricked/unable to process as such so they get split up. Kinda like when someone's drunk and sees two of everything...
It's not that the brain can't process a given image, it's because it's trying to correct the cognitive dissonance that occurs when it's trying to process multiple representations of the image at the same time. Hence the sense/feeling of the illusion. Pretty much the same process for psychological 'illusions' like riddles, etc.
I guess I stand corrected
2 questions:
1) So you're saying the mental images get split up. Are you implying that one thing can have multiple objective realities? Or are all real? Or is one real the rest fake? Or two real and the rest fake?.
My guess is that they're all 'real', it's a matter how brains are able to perceive them.
2) Are you familiar with the Double Slit Experiment? If so, what's your interpretation of the results?
I've read about it, not deeply enough to give a detailed opinion of it tho. What are your thoughts?
Last edited:
No problem.
Never said I didn't. I actually have no choice but to. I understand that I was meditating only after I've focused back on my (or lost focus). Heck, for all I know I could have been day dreaming.
Question: have you ever had one of those situations where, like, you're driving a car (a very involved task that requires awareness of your surroundings and motor-coordination) but deep in thought about something and then after a while you get to where you're going and realize that you really can't remember how you got there. Like you were subconsciously focused on driving (automatically) and consciously thinking about some other shit?
The point i'm trying to make is that the mind isn't just this rigid static apparatus that only experiences 2 polar states, real and fake.
I'll admit though that hidden unconscious cognitive biases can also influence our behavior and how we think about reality and none of us are immune to this. It takes great effort to realize and get around it. My whole thought process right now might be the result of a concerted chain of cognitive biases for all i know.
. You've already asked me this question before in a different way. My answer is still that it wouldn't. Drugs elicit a neurophysiological responses and so does meditation. It's a scientific fact. Look in the literature. I really could care less about the means, but rather the ends.
Talking permanent damage. Complete retrograde and anterograde amnesia.
And I agree with you that in this case you've sort of 'rebooted' your reality. Like you have to re-learn everything from the start. Like a baby.
But how wouldn't it? How else do we process sensory stimuli other than through the brain? And how would we remember what was lost?
OK
No problem. At least this is what neuroscience and psychology interpret it and it makes sense to me.I would guess that they're all 'real' or at least one image that the brain is tricked/unable to process as such so they get split up. Kinda like when someone's drunk and sees two of everything...
It's not that the brain can't process a given image, it's because it's trying to correct the cognitive dissonance that occurs when it's trying to process multiple representations of the image at the same time. Hence the sense/feeling of the illusion. Pretty much the same process for psychological 'illusions' like riddles, etc.
I guess I stand corrected
OK. So do you kind of see the point I've been trying to argue all along? About real vs fake? Because if you're saying that they're all real and depends on perception then if I see something different from you in the same optical illusion then I guess the notion of an immutable objective reality is questionable. No? And perhaps objectivity is really just determined by statistics. The 'steeper' the mean distribution Gaussian curve describing the thing, the more objective. And subjectivity residing at the tail ends.
Shit, that could be a whole 'nother 10-page thread. Not sure that I wana open that can of worms. But my short answer would go something like the cliche: "there's more to the world than meets the eye"
By the way, there's a really good by Richard Feynman I remember reading that puts this discussion in perspective. I'll find it and post it.
Last edited:
What's the quote?No problem.
Never said I didn't. I actually have no choice but to. I understand that I was meditating only after I've focused back on my (or lost focus). Heck, for all I know I could have been day dreaming.
Ok
Question: have you ever had one of those situations where, like, you're driving a car (a very involved task that requires awareness of your surroundings and motor-coordination) but deep in thought about something and then after a while you get to where you're going and realize that you really can't remember how you got there. Like you were subconsciously focused on driving (automatically) and consciously thinking about some other shit?
The point i'm trying to make is that the mind isn't just this rigid static apparatus that only experiences 2 polar states, real and fake.
Cool. But for me, it isn't as much about 'real' or 'fake' as it is more to do with what our brains are capable of perceiving (preferably during our waking hours fully alert) due to our biology and people making claims seemingly to the contrary without being able to independently verify them at the very least cause me to raise my eyebrow. Basically my approach to things in life is 'be open minded about all the possibilities, but err on the side of caution when investigating them' - even if it's goin on in your head. If you're going to make exceptions then, what's the point of having such a system?
I'll admit though that hidden unconscious cognitive biases can also influence our behavior and how we think about reality and none of us are immune to this. It takes great effort to realize and get around it. My whole thought process right now might be the result of a concerted chain of cognitive biases for all i know.
I can respect that.
You've already asked me this question before in a different way. My answer is still that it wouldn't. Drugs elicit a neurophysiological responses and so does meditation. It's a scientific fact. Look in the literature. I really could care less about the means, but rather the ends.
Aight
Talking permanent damage. Complete retrograde and anterograde amnesia.
And I agree with you that in this case you've sort of 'rebooted' your reality. Like you have to re-learn everything from the start. Like a baby.
But how wouldn't it? How else do we process sensory stimuli other than through the brain? And how would we remember what was lost?
The hypothetical person may never remember what these things are, but how would their situation affect them being unable to perceive the full light spectrum for example? That's what I meant.
OK
No problem. At least this is what neuroscience and psychology interpret it and it makes sense to me.
OK. So do you kind of see the point I've been trying to argue all along? About real vs fake? Because if you're saying that they're all real and depends on perception then if I see something different from you in the same optical illusion then I guess the notion of an immutable objective reality is questionable. No? And perhaps objectivity is really just determined by statistics. The 'steeper' the mean distribution Gaussian curve describing the thing, the more objective. And subjectivity residing at the tail ends.
Interesting way of putting it, and if you think about it this is more or less the main way we determine that the guy on the sidewalk having a conversation with himself is crazy as fuck (rightly or wrongly
Shit, that could be a whole 'nother 10-page thread. Not sure that I wana open that can of worms. But my short answer would go something like the cliche: "there's more to the world than meets the eye"
[/COLOR]
I agree.
By the way, there's a really good by Richard Feynman I remember reading that puts this discussion in perspective. I'll find it and post it.
....
Last edited:
I saw a beautiful Mansion, it had the highest ceilings you could ever see. It had beautiful artwork all around, and the color scheme was something out a magazine. There were marble pillars that stood as tall as trees in the mansion, and at night the lights from the lamps lit up the room, it looked magnificent. One strange thing about this Mansion! It created itself, they say a big bang happened and it just appeared piece by piece. Although my mind tell me someone had to build such a magnificent creation, the consensus say it built itself. Go figure that!
change assume to believe and you got it
1) the mansion was built through a collaborative effort from a large number of individuals, are you sayng the same about the universe?
2) all of the people who were involved in constructing the mansion did not create themselves, and they did not always exist. Are you gonna say the same about the creator of the universe?
@sean69
1) Rejecting the notion of absolutes does not mean that all possibilities ought to be treated as though the probabilities of each of them occuring are equal.
2)I agreed with that and in that sense their reality has been rebooted. However if their sensory abilities have not changed, then they can still only perceive reality throught the limitations of their homo-sapien brain. So in that sense, their perception of reality hasn't changed.
3) Yea on the surface it is the same; except at least the device the Bluetooth guy is using can be independently tested and verified...
1) Rejecting the notion of absolutes does not mean that all possibilities ought to be treated as though the probabilities of each of them occuring are equal.
2)I agreed with that and in that sense their reality has been rebooted. However if their sensory abilities have not changed, then they can still only perceive reality throught the limitations of their homo-sapien brain. So in that sense, their perception of reality hasn't changed.
3) Yea on the surface it is the same; except at least the device the Bluetooth guy is using can be independently tested and verified...
No it doesn't.
Go play in a movie critique thread or something. Grown ups are having a discussion.
I think he's trying to say that while an individuals subjective experience and interpretation of a highly complex, beautiful and elegant universe is that it was created, the so-called objective scientific position on its is a a consensus one. By both its practitioners as well as the non-scientists who 'religiously' accept it with little to no knowledge of the science.
That last part was me.
are u seriously comparing a mansion to the universe ??
just cuz we cant explain it right now doesnt mean a Cloud guy did it give the scientist more time. just imagine what we would of accomplished thru out the dark ages wed prolly be space traveling right now. dam shame
i can believe more in a space alien that our ancestors looked at as gods, then a guy that made himself, the devil, air, and a talking snake that flooded the earth, from some dam book that everybody thru out the years added , edited left out and manipulated shit to keep order , balance and power
Last edited:
are u seriously comparing a mansion to the universe ??
just cuz we cant explain it right now doesnt mean a Cloud guy did it give the scientist more time.
NO ONE REALLY EVER EXPLAINS THE "CLOUD GUY"!!!
JG
Last edited:
Except the big bang has been so muddled in public discourse, that I figure that you would be hard pressed to find a layman who 'religiously' accepts it in the same vein as a christian would interprets the first chapters of genesis as being literally true without having a single clue about the science behind it. At best you find that people who have little clue about it would give it wary acceptance.
As the vid shows, the evidence birthed the theory, not vice versa. As a principle also, even if the theory is wrong, the replacement theory would have to account for the same evidence
Also remember, the theory is not even 100yrs old, so who knows where it'll go in time.Even if there is/are a god(s) it's existence would pose more questions than answers. If the universe is too complex and needs an intelligent consciousness to create it, then where did this intelligent consciousness come from? If you're gonna say i don't know, then why can't that just apply to the universe (for nobody can answer where did this singularity come from)? If you're gonna say that this intelligent consciousness always existed, then why not just say, that the universe always existed in some form? They're both mind bending concepts, but at least you can be pretty damn sure (unless you're a solipsist) that the universe exists. The 'god' idea, while still 'possible' (since anything is possible but not equally probable) does not deserve the weight that it has thrown around for centuries.
Last edited:
You could've fooled me. "Grown-ups" don't use GOD parables to explain the universe. They use observable evidence and rigidly tested data. GOD has always been an easy shortcut for the intellectually and morally lazy.
...@sean69
1) Rejecting the notion of absolutes does not mean that all possibilities ought to be treated as though the probabilities of each of them occuring are equal.
Never said it did. Never even remotely suggested it. But a probability is a probability regardless of degree. But the fundamental nature of stuff (at least one of the "consensus" inferences) is probabilistic.
That's why we talk about PROBABILITY DENSITY. The PD of continuous random variable like an event or even an object like a cup (which is random in the particles that make it up) describes the relative likelihood of of that variable occurring in a given region of space.
In QM, its the PD function function which describes distribution of the particle over a region of space. There are never definite positions. QM events are random. The reason why in the macroscopic world things appear as definite and events are experienced as deterministic is because of the interaction of the particles that make up those things with the environment. It's called "quantum decoherence". By observation and experience classical behavior is recovered from quantum systems. Go in the other direction, reduce degrees of freedom and isolate the system, return to QM state. Like in super conductivity is super-cooled metals. Dissipative energy transfer. Same concept. It happens in nature and in about every fucking thing we do every day. Look it up if you think i'm BS-ing.
WTF am I saying?
1) Human observation is a form of interaction with a system.
2) Observation is meaningless unless defined by EXPERIENCE.
3) Regardless of "consensus" experience people can still have personal experiences (at times even of different experiences from the same observation.
4) Since experience determines the definition of a state ... well, you get it.
Oh, and this is the consensus position by the way.
2)I agreed with that and in that sense their reality has been rebooted. However if their sensory abilities have not changed, then they can still only perceive reality throught the limitations of their homo-sapien brain. So in that sense, their perception of reality hasn't changed.
Still don't understand you here. How else do you interpret sensory stimuli other than through the brain? the brain IS the center of sensory ability. If the memory regions are completely fucked then how do you recall past representations of reality?
3) Yea on the surface it is the same; except at least the device the Bluetooth guy is using can be independently tested and verified...
Nope. Not independently. Always tested and verified against a benchmark that's always gotta be based on shit like axioms, 'self-evident truths', consensus position, etc.
I explained this to Exiledking but he just said I threw up some "deep math" theorem and never responded.
Dude disproved my so-called proof of 1+1=0 ? He said something along the lines of an arithmetic statement is incorrect if the terms in it are incongruent. But why? Why is it wrong if the terms are incongruent? I guarantee you that he, or you, or the smartest most super geniusesest mathematician can't explain prove fundamentally why. Other than "that's just the way nature is"
sean69
1) learn somethin new everyday
2)When a baby's nervous system has been fully formed in the womb, it has no experince to fall back on to perceive reality. When it is born and opens its eyes for the very first time, it has no experience of this world to fall back on either sight wise. Yes, the hypothetical person may be completely fucked as far as memory, speech, etc goes, and they will probably be a newborn like you said for the rest of their life, but even if everytime they blink its like seeing the world anew, how would that change them being unable to see the full spectrum of light or unable to hear certain frequencies?
3) Becuz humans are social animals, who need co-operation to survive. Even though our brains are unable to perveive the 'full' reality, there has to be some sort of collective consensus on what we can perceive, other wise co-operation would've been a wee bit difficult, and we probably wouldn't have made it out of the plains of africa. Not saying that personal experience should be tossed to the side, but in most cases it can argued that it shouldn't be ranked above 'collective experience' mainly for the same reason i mentioned in the last sentence. As for why it has to be this way?
1) learn somethin new everyday
2)When a baby's nervous system has been fully formed in the womb, it has no experince to fall back on to perceive reality. When it is born and opens its eyes for the very first time, it has no experience of this world to fall back on either sight wise. Yes, the hypothetical person may be completely fucked as far as memory, speech, etc goes, and they will probably be a newborn like you said for the rest of their life, but even if everytime they blink its like seeing the world anew, how would that change them being unable to see the full spectrum of light or unable to hear certain frequencies?
3) Becuz humans are social animals, who need co-operation to survive. Even though our brains are unable to perveive the 'full' reality, there has to be some sort of collective consensus on what we can perceive, other wise co-operation would've been a wee bit difficult, and we probably wouldn't have made it out of the plains of africa. Not saying that personal experience should be tossed to the side, but in most cases it can argued that it shouldn't be ranked above 'collective experience' mainly for the same reason i mentioned in the last sentence. As for why it has to be this way?
Last edited:
Similar threads
