My theory of the universe

Discussion in 'Agnosticism and Atheism' started by guybob1000, Feb 1, 2009.

  1. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    But I have looked, and I do know, and your personal introspection has led you astray, because you put credence in the garbola on that site.
     
  2. plebe

    plebe Member

    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please feel free to enlighten us as to what part of that site is garbola. Please include proof that refutes what is written there.
    Incidentally, the site is just one of the sources of information that I have used to determine if what I feel during meditation is a manifestation of the mind/brain such as many neurophysicists claim or what we would, in our ignorance, call supernatural because we have no material explanation for it. Scientism is the belief that science knows all and that anything that science can't explain, just doesn't exist. You sound like a believer in scientism.
     
  3. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Re the charge of "scientism", let me quote the position on that subject that I took in a recent exchange with Lithium:
    "My problem with Dawkins is that he's crossed the line from science into scientism. Science is great, as a means of providing rigorously tested knowledge. Look at all the wonderful things its given us: computers, TVs, weapons of mass destruction. However, it operates within some limiting assumptions that preclude effective inquiry in important areas, namely: naturalism, reductionism, rejection of anything 'teleological', and a disinclination to study things that aren't readily subjectable to rigorous testing. As long as people remember that these are assumptions, not findings, science can operate effectively in its own sphere. But too often humans forget. I've heard so many atheist friends tell me about how life was created by random mixing of chemicals in the primordial ooze, or consciousness is just 'neurons firing', when there's no real empirical support for these conclusions. The notion that there will be one day is a belief in something yet unseen--one definition of faith. At least Sam Harris acknowledges that we don't understand consciousness, and don't even have a firm basis for believing it's a product of brain activity."

    So on that score, I agree that "scientism" is objectionable, and obviously disagree that I am championing "scientism". Briefly, where I disagree with the position (if I understand it) of you and your gurus are the notions that: (1) material reality is entirely and illusion; (2) the boundaries among individual and divine consciousnesses are likewise illusions; and (especially) (3) they know that, through some superior insight. Before going futher, I think I should ask: is this what you/they are saying?

    And I'm afraid I'm gonna have to get some sleep, & pick this up tomorrow evening. But in the meantime, let me leave you with another excerpt from my debate on the other site (as well as an apology for the testy tone of my earlier responses to you; it must be my period!):
    "One of the advantages of being simple minded from a rustic part of the country is that I can get through life without expending a lot of energy on things that keep the "deep thinkers" up all night. Like, 'Why is there something instead of nothing?' Philosophers of science and baryogenesis buffs can and have debated that till the cows come home. My eyes just glaze over. The okie response is 'I dunno, there just is, man. Go with it.' Santayana used the term "animal faith" (pardon me for dropping the F-word in an atheist forum), to describe the only way of making headway on some of these basic issues like: how do I know you guys exist, and that when I get replies to my 1,548 posts it's not just an hallucination or a trick by Satan, and I'm pissing away my life communicating with illusions? There are scientists and philosopers drawing large paychecks from reputable universities who think that the movie The Matrix got it right and our consciousness is just a computer simulation run by aliens or evil robots. There are others into "quantum consciousness" who believe that what we call reality is entirely subjective and that the moon goes away when we're not looking at it. When I encounter people like that, I just smile and say: "Yeah, that could be true, man. So how did you enjoy the sixties?"
     
  4. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    722
    LOL it calls itself a scientific journey! I had no Idea Scientific documents were such sarcastic ignorant pieces of shit!

    The real SCIENTIFIC community dismisses parapsychology as pseudoscience because it has NEVER produced solid evidence or replicable experiments. This is a FACT. There are so called "scientists" who have hidden agendas and are more interested in funding and pandering to a religious community rather than producing solid scientific evidence. This is why the true scientific method requires replication as proof.

    To refute a load of pseudoscientific bullshit one only needs to point out the steaming brown pile that it is.
     
  5. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Your link gave us a rather lengthy, rambling discussion of ESP-Psi phenomena and NDE by Piero Calvi-Parsietti, MD (not a household word among scientists). Dr. Calvi-Parsietti and the other thinkers you mentioned must indeed be above the pursuit of mere lucre, because they could become millionaires by proving this stuff. Skeptic James Randi has offered a reward of that amount to anyone who can do that. The discussion by Calvi-Parsietti was long on anecdotes and short on citations to books and articles. Have you checked out these?

    books and articles
    Alcock, James E., Jean Burns and Anthony Freeman. Editors. Psi Wars: Getting to Grips with the Paranormal by (Imprint Academic, 2003).
    Frazier, Kendrick. editor, Science Confronts the Paranormal (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1986). See especially the article "Fooling Some of the People All of the Time," by Barry Singer and Victor A. Benassi.
    Gardner, Martin. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1957), ch. 25.
    Gardner, Martin. How Not To Test a Psychic : Ten Years of Remarkable Experiments With Renowned Clairvoyant Pavel Stepanek (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1989).
    Hansel, C.E.M. The Search for Psychic Power : ESP and Parapsychology Revisited (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1989).
    Hines, Terence. Pseudoscience and the Paranormal 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003).
    Hyman, Ray. The Elusive Quarry : a Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1989).
    Hyman, Ray. "Evaluation of Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 10 Number 1.
    Marks, David and Richard Kammann, The Psychology of the Psychic (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1979).

    Randi, James. Flim-Flam! (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books,1982).

    websites


    Psychic Drift -Why most scientists do not believe in ESP and psi phenomena By Michael Shermer
    "The Evidence for Psychic Functioning: Claims vs. Reality" by Ray Hyman
    Culture, Psychopathology And Psi: A Clinical Relationship
    The Research With B.D. and the Legacy of Magical Ignorance by George P. Hansen
    Deception by Subjects in Psi Research by George P. Hansen
    Does Psi Exist? Replicable Evidence for an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer Daryl J. Bem and Charles Honorton
     
  6. caliente

    caliente Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    It's too bad that a thread that started out with such an interesting question turned into a testosterone fest.

    Anyway, back to the original post ...

    Even sub-atomic must follow some general rules. They cant just randomly do things can they?

    As I understand it, they're not "random" in the sense that anything can happen at any time. The possible actions may only come from a small set of clearly-defined possibilities, each with a certain probability that is itself fixed.

    In other words, if you have a bucket of uranium atoms, each of them has a certain probability that it will eject sub-atomic stuff from it. The probability can be determined experimentally and never changes. But since it's a probability, you can never say which particular atoms will eject stuff at a given point in time. And as far as anyone can tell, nothing causes it to happen. So it's "random" in that sense.

    What's really weird is that the same reasoning can be applied to energy being converted into atomic particles. There's always a certain probability that this will happen, but you can never predict when or where. So atomic particles can suddenly appear out of nothing, with nothing causing them to appear.

    I've also read that this is one idea for how the Big Bang happened ... i.e., it was a quantum event. This getting beyond me, but from what I've read about the history of science, quantum mechanics is just as important as relativity and has been proven over and over in the laboratory. Nobody knows if it's the last word on the subject, but for now it's da truth.
     
  7. jumbuli55

    jumbuli55 Member

    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of "paranormal" we all heard before, so one day I wasn't too lazy to go and search for actual available DATA on it. It was few years ago.
    And, not surprisingly, I found what I needed in a library.
    No, it wasn't fancy, colorful book you could find in walmart, nor something written by dubious PhD who lost the hope of earning decent income other than by making stuff up and selling his title.

    Actually, it was a book with concrete references to studies and researches conducted by very well known public and private institutions [results of which are available for anyone to view in public domain].
    It was dry: statistics, names of institutions, results of laboratory tests and references.

    To sum up few hundred pages, it appears as though there was a pattern of results that were beyond permissible limits [of what could be accounted for by probability], but none of the credible institutions were [as far as data and conclusions show] were able to go beyond just plainly reporting the statistical data: there was nothing they could detect or repeat experimentally to explain the "improbable" statistical outcomes in general.
    So, most of those institutions just abandoned any further research, for it was a waste of resourses without any sight of progress on horizon.
    This is a lot more obscure and less studied subject than QP.
    QP confounded many minds but also attracted some of the best minds because in QP you at very least have something to show, something more concrete, repeatable, something to observe and at least try to make sense of - even if you can't explain it, it still pays to do research , with considerable progress made in the past 100 years as a testimony to it.
    In Psi there literally is nothing.

    One prolific Polish sci-fi writer once compared "paranormal" phenomena and our attempts to interpret it to an attempt by pitecantropus to interpret the working principles of the radio.
     
  8. plebe

    plebe Member

    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I see that you didn't bother to read it either. You probably see everything as a steaming pile as it is clear your head is stuffed in the source of it. Thanks for the intelligent discussion...
     
  9. jumbuli55

    jumbuli55 Member

    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    0
    These public forums are not the right place when any sort of "discussions" take place around some subjects.
    Instead, participants should all meet at Coliseum, armed with chairs, table bases and what not.
    Let the pretence of "scientific discourse" serve as a good excuse for nice show to put up.
    I wonder how much tickets would cost?
    Sounds like a profitable idea.
     
  10. plebe

    plebe Member

    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  11. caliente

    caliente Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Instead, participants should all meet at Coliseum, armed with chairs, table bases and what not.

    Nahh ... they belong in the nearest kindergarten.
     
  12. plebe

    plebe Member

    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, I thought this WAS kindergarten. My bad...
     
  13. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    722
    I think you were looking for the Montel Williams set, boy are you ever lost.
     
  14. plebe

    plebe Member

    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    You write this:
    Faith - A conviction of ignorance in the face of opposing fact and logic.
    Religion - An organized ignorance with a common agenda based on fantasy.
    Soul - A fantasy that self exists beyond the physical brain.
    And then call me lost. Bwahahahahahahahaha, that's one of the funniest things I've ever heard!
     
  15. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    It's possible that this discussion is still salvageable. I think first of all we need to be clear what we're talking about. What does it mean to say that our material existence is an "illusion"? Does it just mean that the world "out there" is different from the world we perceive with our senses? If that's all it means, I concede the point. Kant settled that a couple of centuries ago, and Quantum Physics and relativity provide further confirmation. The sky isn't really blue, the grass isn't really green, and the ground is far less solid than it appears, especially at the subatomic level. My dog has a radically different view of reality than I do, based on more accute senses of smell and hearing, and (so I think) less acute mental powers. Or are we talking about "illusion" in the Buddhist sense: something unimportant. I'd certainly concede that the worldly quest for wealth, status, power, and sensual pleasure is "illusory" as a way to meaning.

    What I thought was at issue here is a more radical meaning of "illusion", as something that's not even there. When Plebe said on another thread that "death is just an illusion", and that "The Divine is all there is. There is nothing else" he seemed to be using the term in this more radical sense. Assuming this is what Plebe is arguing, I have problems with his thesis.

    First of all, he presents it as a statment of fact, backed up by the claim that it is based on "a boatload of evidence". If he were content to present it as simply his own opinion, based on his own efforts make sense of the confusing, ambiguous set of experiences and perceptions we call "reality" I'd be sympathetic. We're all in the same boat, and I've certainly defended a view of it many folks on this forum must think is strange. It could be that consciousness is all there is, separate consciousnesses are an illusion, we're all one, and that one is God. Hindus seem to think so, and they may be right. I've explained the basis of my own faith, and part of it relates to the uncanny, unexplained phenomena I and so many people I know experience. More rationalistic minds would explain these as coincidences which are to be expected in a universe of numerous occurrences. I have otherwise sensible friends who claim to see auras, to have wounds heal miraculously, etc. I add these reports to my X-files of unexplained events. So I'm open to the possibility that reality is a lot different from our current scientific models of it. But I doubt we can "know" what it is, even through deep meditation. I could be wrong, but it would seem to me that the meditator would still be unable to tell whether or not his/her insight was a new illusion.

    Second, I have real doubts about the evidentiary support. To say that "anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of Quantum Physics can see" the merit of his position is a bit pretentious. A "rudimentary knowledge of Quantum Physics" can be,and has been, abused by a "boatload" of New Age gurus who use it as a gloss on traditional Hindu religious beliefs and market it to a gullible public. (Can I "prove" that? No, it's a judgment based on my own perceptions and life experiences, but I've been around the block a few times, and have seen Christian televangelists in operation.) I think that web article that was presented as "a nice summary of a boatload of evidence" is weak and sketchy about the details and methodologies of the experiments mentioned. What steps were taken to eliminate the possiblity of sensory and other nonverbal cues, selection of non-random targets, fraud, etc. Psi-results (mostly from research on telepathy)have a poor history of replicability. As for Near Death Experiences, I haven't seen any evidence that can't be explained by physiological causes, like deprivation of oxygen to the brain, sensory cues, and faulty reporting of the incident by observers and the media. It would be unscientific to dismiss these phenomena as impossible, but like all scientific findings, these must be subjected to rigourous tests and peer review. Every week I can watch "documentaries" on TV about ghosts and ghostbusters, all the haunted hotels we might visit and "see for ourselves, etc. I guess some people take them seriously, or they wouldn't be showing them. But the important point is that the arguments the article does make in support of ESP/Psi and Near Death Experiences fall far short of providing substantiation for Plebe's claims about the illusory nature of reality. For Plebe to point to a sketchy summary in a journalistic article and say the burden is on us to "Refute that!" is to reverse the normal rules of proof. Of course we can still believe, on the basis of our intuition, but we need to be clear that it is that rather than compelling scientific evidence that's at play.

    Third, I can't really believe Plebe or anybody else takes the "illusion" stuff seriously and literally. My suggestion about jumping off the top of a high building was a bit flippant, I'll admit, but if a person really believed that death and physical reality were illusions, what would be holding him back? It would be like the Matrix. They do it all the time.

    Fourth, I'm also troubled by the emphasis on surrender to God's will as "the only way to be free of the illusion", especially when he thinks God's will is known to "those who can see clearly and who have no reason to lie about it." The founders of the great world religions gave us visions of a higher realm of existence beyond the material world known to our senses. I share their faith in that unseen dimension, and am grateful for it. But since the beginning of history, and probably before that, there have also been charlatans who claim to have that vision, and I think our experience with them has been such that we need to watch our wallets, avoid the Kool Aid, and steer clear of airplanes in our search for virgins. That may seem strange coming from a self-described Christian, but I think blind faith that dismisses contrary evidence as "illusion" is dangerous. I guess I have the same attitude toward spiritual claims that Reagan had toward Soviet disarmament: "Trust but verify". I'm willing to keep an open mind, and certainly don't think science has all the answers, but I'd like to see more evidence and tighter arguments before I take the plunge off a highrise.
     
  16. jumbuli55

    jumbuli55 Member

    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    0
  17. veiled1

    veiled1 Member

    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    3
    dude, what kind of weed are u smokin..
    it must be good...
     
  18. heeh2

    heeh2 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,118
    Likes Received:
    30
    i believe a world free of all but reason would hold to metaphysical tradition, simply because the universe is just so damn big you know?

    i can see how it would be hard for anyone looking at the stars to say "their is absolutely nothing in this universe but the planet earth and its citizens", but doing so in today's world is much much different.

    until reasonability is established in what is actually here to be evaluated, looking at the stars is like watching a magicians card hand while the other takes your wallet. and citizens of earth treat life as if having their wallets stolen is the way of the world; no imagination required.

    we can speculate on how things might be untill the end of time, but what good will it do the human race? how many wars have been fought over what god said or what justice and honor means, or nationalism. how many more times will history have to repeat itself before people realize that some things are just irrelevant with regards to what we are actually trying to accomplish. how many more times must i kill that little girl and her dog.

    possibility is being wasted on religion.
     
  19. veiled1

    veiled1 Member

    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    3
    youre willing to keep an open mind after an 8 inch blog???
    I studied Einsteins String Theories,
    Read Schopenhauer's The World As Will And Idea..
    that'll blow your mind...
     
  20. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Yeah. Eight inches of open-mindedness. If I were closed-minded, it would've been a lot shorter. Einstein's string theories? That must have been an interesting read! Have you checked out Newton's QM theories?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice