Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

Let me know if I didn't understand what you said because I had some difficulties.

Hoffman is saying that perhaps reality consists of something more exotic than we think, given that what we perceive is really just a Graphics User Interface. This is philosophical speculation, and I'm interested to see how he could test for something like that, without just "counting the static on the screen" like the physicists.

When discussing evolution, and positing a higher power to explain evolution, that is extraneous because evolution doesn't need a higher power in order for it to function; that's what evolution is exactly about, very simple things gradually producing things of greater complexity.

So there's a subtle difference there . . . he's not speculating on panpsychism in order to explain a particular theory . . . he's speculating on it because his data seems to suggest that we are not really in touch with reality so much as in touch with the reality that evolution has allowed our brains to present to us.

I imagine that Hoffman is aware of this, but he is actually echoing the sentiments of one of the most brilliant philosophers ever, Immanuel Kant:

Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind's nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally. -Kant

1) Do you think there could be any other reason that could account for a poor short term memory? Are you a doctor?

2) When you subjectively experience heat, but your body temperature is objectively normal, then you are for sure not overheating, and what you are feeling is all in your head.

 

1.) No doctor has yet found one

2.) all I can say is

You seem to be just as determined to disprove Kundalini as you claim I am to explain it as Kundalini. You know absolutely zero about my subjective experience, and yet you quickly and very arrogantly make your decision that it's surely all in my head. I have nothing more to say to you about it.

 

Kundalini is as silly as any other new agey hooey.

 

You understood my question and quality response. I am slightly reserved in Hoffman making such philosophical speculations in an otherwise fascinating perspective on evolution. I don't necessarily object to his speculations about saying reality is fundamentally a machine but it makes my mind gravitate to the similar problem of infinite regress that is argued in regards to "God", mainly being Who made it? The conscious agents part slightly reminds me of impressions I've had on DMT as well as a few other heavy psychedelic trips, although as I contended with MeAgain I still maintain that psychedelic experiences are sense-bound experiences. As you mentioned, it will be interesting to see how/if he can develop tests for these assertions.

 

You are claiming that Kundalini raises body temperature.

Upon measuring body temperature, yours is normal.

Therefore Kundalini, if it exists, either does not raise body temperature, or you are not experiencing it. There are many ways that you can feel subjectively hot, including hyping yourself up into thinking that you do because of how badly you want to believe that you are a special cosmic flower and have discovered something that will topple the very foundation of everything we know.

Short term memory can be hindered by basically anything you like; genetics, injury, diet, drug use, mood, psychological conditions like ADHD . . .

 

Yes, please continue to make this decision. As if it changes anything about the truth of Kundalini.

 

Yes, I am "hyping myself up" about years long uncomfortability of heat and electrical prickly sensations. Case closed

Do you want me to post the article again from a Scientist who feels that we need to start scientifically studying Kundalini just as we need to begin studying NDE's?

 

If you cannot provide proof of truth in relation to it, then the truth of it is a mere by-product of your wishful-ness for it to be real.

 

Just because there's no current proof of ET's, in no way makes them not real. I didn't realize that being a Scientist meant that no evidence also meant that it's 100 percent a fact that it's not real. I've already given evidence and you scoff at it as being all in my head. It's not my problem that you're a stubborn skeptic. Enjoy yourself.

 

http://www.commonsensekundalini.com/science_spirituality/near_death_experience_and_k.html

 

I am logical, not a skeptic. There is a huge difference.

There is also no proof that Santa Clause does not exist, but do you believe in him? There is no proof that leprechauns do not exist, but do you believe in them? Do you believe in every single thing that the imagination of man has concocted whereby there is no proof that they do not exist?

 

So let me ask you, you believe that we are the only beings in the entire universe just because there's no current hard proof of ET's?

 

There are scientists who believe in the Holy Trinity. Should we launch a problem into space to search for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

Why don't you engage with the points I have presented you

Thank you. I agree that his speculations raise more questions than answers and might not be so useful; i think he was using them as a rhetorical tool to show the audience just how wide the range of answers could be.

 

Until such proof can be shown that other intelligent life in the universe exists, I will disbelieve in the existence of it. That is only logical.

And I repeat:

There is also no proof that Santa Clause does not exist, but do you believe in him? There is no proof that leprechauns do not exist, but do you believe in them? Do you believe in every single thing that the imagination of man has concocted whereby there is no proof that they do not exist?

 

Have fun being the way that you are then. I'm a lot more open-minded than that. I see it to be a highly slim chance that we are the only ones.

 

You have yet to show it.

 

Your argument is a closed loop. You ask for evidence, and when i suggest that it's up to Scientists to begin studying it more intensely, you say that there's no reason for this, as it's as out there as trying to find the father, son, and holy spirit. If scientists refuse to study it, and you continue to say that there's no evidence even when i give you evidence, then there's not much more to discuss.

 

After all, being able to accept anything as real without the proof to support it is not open-mindedness. It is mere susceptibility.

 

Oh, poor delusional me

I've already given some evidence which has been very quickly discarded and explained away. Not that I'm surprised by any of this.

 

You clearly have a misunderstanding of what evidence means and entails. If every logical being took you for your mere word that what you spew is evidence, we would still be stuck in the dark ages.