And in the Discussion, I Fit Where?
Offline Hey all,
So I consider myself a Deist in that I believe there is a higher power. For me, that higher power is the massive, near-infinite, incomprehensible (ultimately, by any life-form in this reality) mathematical formula that guides the physical laws of this universe. It's not a granddaddy in the sky, but a force that guides the way this universe has composed itself. My belief system also allows for the supernatural, in that I've had experiences that cannot be explained away by current science, though I feel, if they weren't stigmatized and were analyzed, they could be explained by science. I have also had minimal experience with things like telepathy and telekinesis, which I believe can also be explained by (potentially testable) electro-magnetic phenomena and the powers of the human mind, but which i fear contribute to the illusion of a "God." I won't go on and on.
Problem is, I have a hard time knowing where I fit into this discussion. Should I stay out of the forums that say "No Theists?" I find myself unable to address questions posed to theists because the questions often assume premises to which I don't hold.
Honestly asking...feedback encouraged.
Ryan
- Login to post comments
These cultures skilled in ethnobotany are also primitive, close to stone age. Higher than astral is a lower mental realm, which is related to logics and rational thinking. This higher quality is being expressed by our culture, shamanism is anachronism.
This is my information, this is as I understand it. So you understand it differently. I am curious about your information, about your point. Maybe you don't need a lesson, but according to you I probably do, so I'm listening. I think it's quite a fundamental dissent, worth discussing. Btw, who's talking about armchair? It seems to me that the group I'm in, belongs to an elite of esoteric work for this euroregion.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I'm sure you're aware that's roughly the opposite approach to the scientific method.
But you can learn quite a lot from a specialist, and if your goal is actually learning, then you may come across information that happens to be pretty well nailed down. When that's the case, people get "narrow and closed-off" about it. That's largely because it's rigorously established.
Anyway, welcome. If you're still interested in believing in psychic powers or whatever, you'll get some flak from me, but I wouldn't take it personally. I mean, it's just me.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
But holy shit, funny!
I read, "DG is a science expert". Um, what, like a ... scientist? And then, "they consider unscientific every science, that they don't understand."
No, dude, they consider anything that isn't science unscientific. Don't tell me it takes a scientist to tell the difference, because I'm not a scientist, and I can tell the difference. Usually with science, there's less pachouli, for one thing. A lot less talking about shit that doesn't make any sense, too ... and also ... oh yeah, how could I forget? SPECIFICS.
Sweet Mother of Mercy, how difficult is this? Star Wars was just a movie, for the love of Jove! You can't move shit with your mind!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
But I can sure as hell try!
''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''
I won't assume here that I have the answers or that your information is inaccurate. Drugs are dangerous and the bulk of society should avoid them.
It's actually quite simple. People tend to turn inward and question themselves, but they don't always like what they find. A side-effect is those that enter with precondition, also tend to have the worse experience. So when terms like dangerous and unhealthy are thrown out there, I have to question their experience and wonder what it is about themselves they don't like or trust. It is never about achieving some higher mental state, you don't leave your own head, that line of thinking can be dangerous in itself. It's about recognizing and dealing with those inhibitions that bind us, allowing for an alternate perspective.
My point is simple it appears the information you gathered was through other peoples findings. You speak from their view point and their authority, not your own. In my case I questioned these authorities and put this to a test, as outlined by my findings above. After all we are talking about our own minds. Do I have a lesson for you? I don't believe so, after all I found nothing mystical just some clarity regarding my own head. If I have some advice it is question any authority that is making proclamations regarding your mind, these proclamations themselves as I discovered can be the barrier in itself.
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
Btw, if you want specifics, then read this book, it's an adequate introduction and overview.
Btw, as for research of my own, I experiment with a control of bioenergy through mental focusing. This gives results, both good and not so good, but it's a fringe, specialized area of knowledge. This means I'm on my own with that, there are currently no gurus of that kind, useful for me on more than about 20%. This also means that I'll maybe have to write it all down, set the terminology, perform experiments and studies, to find out what the hell that kind of energy is and what is it good for. I meditate hoping to achieve a higher state of consciousness and intuition which will allow me to cope with that better. It's my brain I use for that, and someday I'd like to understand what's happening in there.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Shouldn't take too long, based on its output so far.
Garbage in, garbage out, as we used to say in our Fortran days ...
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
You misunderstand me. I'm not looking for comfort, but explanations. Having grown up Christian and realizing that the story of Jesus was most likely a complete fiction was not comforting in the slightest. In fact, it was quite disturbing to me. But I considered it a welcome revelation I could embrace.
What you refer to as "making up meanings" I'd consider hypothesizing possible explanations that I can now look into to flesh them out. Maybe I'm kidding myself, I don't know.
Yes, I totally understand what you're saying. Using your analogy, I'd say it's more likely the other person would resort to answering with "because the bible says this or that." I'm like the believer who hasn't ever actually read the bible, except the texts I'd reference would be scientific studies. This is all very new to me and I have a very firm theory of how I believe things work, I just haven't had the chance to research it.
I can't help thinking, however, that what passes for impeccable scientific process and debate around here is just a poor disguise for a lack of basic rudimentary social skills.
R
Thanks, I'm a n00b and everything, so it's helpful to know what I'm facing.
We might have formulated some theories that sound good, but we have explored such a miniscule little corner of the universe, I just can't accept that whatever else is out there won't change those theories in unimaginably fundamental ways.
Arrogant and naive because we're just these tiny little parasites on a tiny little rock floating around in one of however many quadrillions of galaxies. To assume we understand any of it is pure hubris.
I'll do my best to prove I'm more worthwhile in a conversation than this Arj person. S/he sounds annoying. LOL
The vagueness of my terms is due to the fact that I don't know exactly what these processes are. It's just my attempt to explain in scientific terms things I've experienced with the firm belief that I'm not crazy or hallucinating. I will certainly try to find them, but I'm not convinced the information is out there, at least not with the rigor behind it that this forum would require. I'll see what I can come up with.
R
Oh, I'd be happy to go on and on about my personal experiences, but that's been proven completely useless in any kind of debate situation, so what's the point?
Can you define each of these terms.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
1) I've experienced it countless times, which is not that different from your common answer.
2) Everyone has it, but western culture has favored the suppression of it in recent generations.
3) See #2. Plus a good deal of the people who have tapped into it probably realize there are more important things to worry about then the almighty dollar.
4) It may not be a cure-all solution, but it's been well documented that attitude affects health. Ulcers caused by stress is the perfect example.
R
Thanks for your support, I appreciate it.
R
Quite consistent with it, actually: form a theory and seek out the evidence for or against. Also, "rigorously established" in a narrow margin of understanding.
Thanks for the welcome, I intend to stick around for a while.
R
And you know this to be true because.........?
Do you see the at last two ways that statement seems very arrogant and condescending to scientists or people interested in science?
I disagree. See previous comment. To a person versed in science, you came across as rude and presumptous in your original posts. I don't think you intended that, but to many people that's how it seemed. In their eyes, it seemed you were the one lacking basic social skills.
Again, I realize that was not your intent, but that is how it came across, and it was that tone to which people were responding.
Umm, Star Wars clearly shows that with enough midi-chlorians and extensive training in the ways of the force, one will be able to move objects with their mind.
At least I cite the sources for my claims.
''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''
I didn't intend that at all. I only was trying to defend myself and felt attacked. Honestly, I didn't expect such a hostile reaction to this post, since I'd only hoped to find out what this forum was all about. Probably I shouldn't have gotten so defensive, but I'm only human, after all.
R
Sarcasm noted. And certainly if a movie approaches the subject, that HAS to mean it's bullshit.
R
Are you questioning my mastery of the force?
''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''
I understand. Three things to keep in mind: one, they were attacking your ideas, not you. Two, they were trying to help you.
Three...let's look at the first response by DG and break it down:
1. Higher power is vague. Can you be a bit more specific?
2. If you're saying God is incomprehensible, that means you can't actually say anything about God, can you?
3. From what I've seen, that sort of statement usually means the person doesn't know anything about electrodynamics. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, could you be specific about what you mean in your post, and use all the scientific jargon you want as I'll be able to understand it.
4. Welcome to the forums.
As you can see, DG's initial response wasn't a nasty attack. From there you jumped to...free will...and things headed south.
As I just noted, the initial reaction wasn't particularly hostile at all, Hopefully you found out something about the forums, though: ideas and beliefs will be questioned when presented and justification of them is expected. It is not an attack on the person, it is a questioning of the ideas.
And yes, your defensiveness did sort of kick start the going south. Just keep in mind that you personally are not under attack and your ideas are being questioned to try to help you. Remember the tagline of the site?
"Believe in God? We can fix that."
Because anyone who could move something with their mind could claim a prize for one million dollars from James Randi. One million dollars is sufficient to motivate any human being alive to demonstrate their telekinetic powers. Out of six billion people, there have been exactly zero successes.
There's also the little problem of the known forces of the universe. But whatever, that's just narrow knowledge that seems to be consistently correct, strangely.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Oh, well then ...
I'll do this one more time, but it'll be the last. If you happen to be a scientist, and you happen to have reams and reams of data that supports one idea, like the [edit: four fundamental interactions, three forces operating] in the universe, and someone comes along with the idea of a totally unobserved [fourth] force, with no data, and is COMPLETELY FUCKING HIGH ASDPOIFAFVPVE NPVA FAA;SDNOIVNNDF
...
Okay, sorry ... I just get a little rage, because ... see, when you've seen how science works to avoid these kinds of "controversies" by putting the empirical data first, and communicating as specifically and clearly as possible, it's all so clear. It's not "narrow" to ask for details about observation. It's being specific, and through being specific, we can actually know stuff ... which is good.
How exactly does one measure "bioenergy"?
You and me both, pal.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Three. Give Weinberg and Salam their due credit.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I was thinking of the fundamental interactions, wasn't I? Three! Three forces!
...
I'll come in again.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Not a perfect example at all. In fact pretty crap an example if you were aiming to illustrate a typical physiological illness.
It pays to keep up with events, smartypants. Nobel Prizes for Medicine might not be big news where you come from so you might be forgiven for lagging four years behind on that one. Luckily for you however, should you be unfortunate enough to suffer from an ulcer, doctors (real ones) are a bit more on the ball.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4304290.stm
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Ah, this is all just a matter of induction, constant conjunction, as Hume might say. Based on everything we have observed, the universe has an objective, reliable organization, so we base all our knowledge on these things. Of course, it's very possible that new evidence will arise to challenge some scientific idea. In fact, this happens all the time, and science will always analyze the data and try to adapt itself, but until that happens, it is pointless to deny the knowledge we have gained. Of course, we always have to stay open-minded, but that's as far as it's rational or meaningful for us to go based on the problem of induction. Sure, we can all be living in the Matrix, but until that's proven, we must accept that the world is as we perceive it; there is no alternative.
She probably would have responded to my previous post by calling me a Nazi, so you're doing pretty good.
DG hit you hard because your subjective experiences don't agree with our current knowledge about the world. I have not received so much scientific training (yet), but I can also testify that people have been bugging me with supernatural claims my entire life and not a single one of those claims has ever been verified. When I was younger, I even attended a Catholic summer camp where a girl's broken leg was supposedly healed by the power of God. I was understandably skeptical since I had absolutely zero evidence that the girl's leg was even broken in the first place, and I find it quite suspicious that people in many different religions with all kinds of leg problems are healed all over the world every week, but God never, ever, heals an amputee.
Edit: Last sentence.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
This is a little bit of a misleading argument. There are branches of science which purport only to investigate facets of reality which are specific to us here. My discipline is one of those. All of the biology we study is “Earth biology”, obviously, we don’t know any other biology. So you are obviously referring to those disciplines which purport to investigate reality as a whole, or fundamental principles that would hold across all physical reality. This is a remarkable idea which has only arisen in the last 500 years. It really, I suppose, begins with the first Cosmological revolution, the Copernican principle. The Copernican principle is one of several cosmological revolutions and principles which, at least on a philosophical level, are crucial to understanding the way in which a discipline like physics would be able to model principles of reality that would hold across the entire universe. Ironically, the Copernican principle (which is actually generalized by the modern version, due to the second Cosmological revolution of Hubble) is pretty much summarized by you: We aren’t special. Our location in the universe isn’t particularly special. The laws describing underlying physical phenomena here shouldn’t be particularly special. This is often used in conjunction with the principles of isotropy and homogeneity. Isotropy comes up all the time in Cosmology as well as chemistry and material science. As a general principle, it states that no direction is more special than any other. An obvious example is a beaker containing a reagent at a certain concentration M. If we examine unit volumes, we should expect there to be M moles of reagent present. Statistically, this will not be exactly the case, but we should not expect direction-dependant variance at all. That is, we shouldn't expect more reagent to occupy one region of the beaker over another. A reagent in a beaker is said to exhibit isotropy.
These principles are fundamental to all physics, because physics is an attempt to generalize laws that govern the way reality works. In particular, this gives rise to the notion of frame independence. All observers in the universe have a frame of reference, which in abstract terms can be envisioned to be a coordinate system (of arbitrary system of position) with the observer at the origin, in which the observer makes observations of events at position (x,y,z,t). In particular, observers can measure observable physical quantities and then formulate physical laws to describe how they are related to each other. People often use the phrase “physical law” in a vague way, but it has a precise meaning. A physical law must always link an observable to an observable. For example, F=ma is a physical law, but E=-grad V or B=Curl A are not, since V and A are not observable physical quantities. Furthermore, physical laws cannot violate parity and they cannot equate different types of quantities. That is, a scalar cannot be equated to a vector, nor vice-versa. A pseudovector cannot be equated to a vector nor-vice versa. This would not make any sense from a mathematical standpoint and it also wouldn't make sense from a physical standpoint. If a vector and pseudovector were equated, parity would be violated since if we set up a mirror universe where (x,y,z) becomes (-x,-y-z) then the pseudovector wouldn't flip, but the vector would, which would make no sense. Furthermore, physical quantities like scalars, vectors and psuedovectors and tensors obey certain coordinate transform laws. In other words, if we transform from a certain reference frame K to another frame K’ then the quantities must transform in a certain way. For a physical law to be meaningful, it must not change under inertial transforms. There are many physical quantities (in fact, most of them) that exhibit frame dependence. Mass, velocity, position, current, etc. etc. but a physical law which links one of these observable quantities to another cannot change under such transforms. If they did, it would be unphysical. It would exhibit a frame dependence that would mean it was no longer a law of physics. Physics is all about observation. Observers can record in their frame certain observable quantities like charge, mass and velocity. Observers may differ in their quantities recorded, but if they should ever compare notes, then the relationship they find between two observables should be the same, regardless if they are sitting next to each other, or billions of light years from each other on distant planets. The concept of inertial transform does not depend on separation (which is actually a frame dependant concept anyway). If this is the case, that the observers agree on the relationship all the time, that relationship is a physical law. Note also that a crucial proviso was included. The transform must be inertial otherwise the observer would have to introduce extra terms to account for his observation. The invariance of all physical laws under inertial transforms is called the second postulate of special relativity.In particular this is important because two observers could be studying the same object, but measure the same quantities differently due to frame dependance. To state that a particle moves with velocity v is to state that it moves with a velocity v in an arbitrary frame K. To take this proviso off would make the sentence mean nothing, as velocity is frame dependant.
The first and least general formulation of this was done by Galileo. Consider a coordinate system O which is that of a stationary observer with respect to the Earth (all our conventions here are defined with respect to the Earth’s surface). For simplicity we will discuss motion over small regions of space relative to the size of the Earth because vectors do not commute over curved space.
Let us suppose that the motion of an object from the perspective of O is such that the position vector of the object a is r(t) where t is time and the position vector points from the origin to the object. Now suppose there is another reference frame O` (O-dash) which coincides with O when t=0, as shown below:
Let us suppose that O` is moving with velocity v0 in the frame of reference of O. Thus at time t in the coordinate system of O the origin of O’ will be located at position vector v0t. Thus in the coordinate system of O’ the displacement vector of the object a, which is denoted r’(t) is simply:
r’(t)=r(t)-v0t
This is simply a consequence of vector addition (this will not hold over curved surfaces, however).
Now suppose we wish to find the velocity of object a recorded in frames O and O’, We simply differentiate to find:
dr’/dt = dr/dt-v0
What of the acceleration? Differentiate again to find:
d2r’/dt2 = d2r/dt2
This is the crucial result, for it tells us that the laws of motion are independent of choice of coordinate axes. This is famously known as the relativity principle. It is clear that if observer O concludes that body a is moving with constant velocity, and, therefore, subject to zero net force, then observer O’ will agree with this conclusion. Furthermore, if observer O concludes that body a is accelerating, and, therefore, subject to a force, then observer O’ will remain in agreement. It follows that Newton's laws of motion are equally valid in the frames of reference of the moving and the stationary observer. Such frames are termed inertial frames of reference. A more precise way to state the relativity principle is that no physical experiment can distinguish between inertial frames.
Consider, for example, a sound wave in stationary air. At STP, this will propagate at 343ms-1. Any experimenter in any frame of reference should obtain this value. An observer which is moving will measure a different value for the speed of the wave in air, but he will also measure a different value for the speed of the medium, and therefore, his result, the speed of sound with respect to stationary air, will be the same. To put it another way, any wave whose speed will be measured the same in all inertial frames must be capable of propagation without a medium; otherwise we would be able to distinguish between two inertial frames, which would violate the principle of relativity.
This principle was generalized completely by Einstein, and now it is an organic part of modern physics.
EDIT: Slight nitpick.There are believed to be on the order of 1011 galaxies in the universe, not 1015.
"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
See, you're the type of person I like arguing with. You call out questionable issues, but without all the venom.
Unfortunately, it's somewhat difficult to describe it, since I think it's near impossible for any rational being inside this reality to grasp what it is in its entirety. All I know is that we're all subservient to its laws, whether we like it or not. The vagueness is unavoidable in that regard.
I just don't like the term "God," because that seems to imply there's a person up there, which I don't believe. If I bow down to anything, it's physics, really, because everything in the universe is subjected to it.
We can say a lot about it, science has, but the incomprehensibility of it is compatible with a sense of humilty that it will forever outside our ability to understand it entirely, since our understanding necessarily has to obey its laws. I believe this is the basis of humans' resort to mystical beings to explain it away.
I don't fully understand electro-magnetism, but it seems like a good starting point. What I do know is that other creatures on the planet have evolved to sense different kinds of phenomena, senses that our culture has told us we lack. I'm not convinced that we do lack those abilities. I'd love if the tests could be done to figure out why these things happen, but I'm not sure they have yet.
The problem is, though, that I wasn't asking for a debate on my beliefs. Rather, I was asking where I stand in this particular forum because I was unsure, since I'm not a Christianazi, and I hope it's been made clear, not a Theist.
"Help" can come in many forms, sometimes unpleasant, but it does need to be based in an understanding of where I'm coming from, or else it's useless to me, and counteractive. This I've learned from the work that I do, which has considerable implications in social psychology.
I do thank you for your thoughts.
R
LOL This article is supposed to prove that stress isn't a contributing factor to people developing ulcers? Totally irrelevant.
R
I think you still have the scientific method backwards. Until you know something, you don't know it. So we know that 90% of duodenal ulcers and 80% of stomach ulcers have nothing to do with stress, they're just a bacterial infection. If we don't know what causes the other incidences of ulcers, then it doesn't mean we know it's caused by stress, it means we don't know. Could be anything. Arguing that it's stress without data doesn't really help anything.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
That "objective, reliable organization" is exactly what I consider to be the "higher power" in the universe--as much as that phrasing has caused problems here.
LOL I know way too much about interweb snafus to resort to accusations of nazism.
What I'm saying is that the person with the broken leg--if they were, in fact, afflicted--might believe they were healed for a very specific and explainable reason. The human brain might have a lot more power than we recognize, and "belief" might be the catalyst for those powers. Again, I think what the human brain can do might be testable, but I don't have the credible research to back it up, unfortunately, so I'm just theorizing.
The Catholics are really fucked up, btw.
R
LMAO Wow. You really like to hear yourself talk, don't you?
EDIT: Double post
No. If I knew I was going to get a response like that, I would not have written it. Given that this is your "response" you should not be suprised at all that you are on the recieving end of so much venom. Next time I will try to write an explanatory post that can accomodate your tiny attention span. You will notice that in the post above (which I put a lot of work into) I put no venom into the post. I hoped this would prompt more fruitful dialogue since you ignored my previous request. I see that I presumed wrong.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I'm fairly certain that mental distress has been proven to be a contributing factor to decreased immune system performance. I don't have the data to support that, but I'm sure it's out there.
R
EDIT: Double Post
All you'd have to do is read the first line: "This is a little bit of a misleading argument."
My point (to accommodate your attention span): if thinking we know anything is hubris, are you suggesting an alternative, nihilistic epistemology?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
See, again with the "I'm sure it's out there" bit. Actually, the jury's still out on that one, so it's not knowledge so much as it is hypothesis. Which means we don't know yet. Here are some actual studies (well, the abstracts - if you have access to a JSTOR account you might be able to read them):
Examples of stress increasing immune response:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10706626
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17890050
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I read the whole thing, thank you, but it was clearly self-involved and self-serving, as expected.
Everything has meaning, because it's impossible to remove ourselves from the grand design of the universe. If we do or if we don't, it's all guided by the monstrous mathematical formula of the reality in which we exist.
How was that in any way an answer to my question? Let's try again:
If thinking we know anything is hubris, are you suggesting an alternative, nihilistic epistemology?
I mean, speaking of "self-involved" and "self-serving", are you just blowing smoke?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
That would have been a shame, considering it's a pretty good synopsis of that specific vein of physical thought. If high school students just memorized that, they'd probably be better off than with most of their textbooks.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Yes you would have written it. Thinking of yourself as some kind of scientific expert gives you a boner. That's cool. I read your post, but it was more or less meaningless to me because you lack the ability to communicate with the people you're addressing. Only people with true intelligence can assess the audience they're addressing and create the appropriate rhetoric, so don't feel bad. Having studied Linguistics steadily for the past decade and a half, I can assure you that your communication skills are seriously lacking. I'm sure in your limited little circle of academic friends find you very eloquent.
Are you even aware of what I'm saying? There were two different subjects being broached here. Your quote of me answers your question.
DG's a scientist, and you're the dick.
I suppose you'd be the judge of "true intelligence", having been able to not answer my question twice.
Keep it up, champ -- you'll get that undergrad degree eventually.
That must have been the most textbook example of projection I've ever seen.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Let's recap:
...
Who's the bad communicator, here? Your assertion that we don't have the right to say we know anything based purely on ignorance of the subject matter is helpful how?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I don't need to "think of myself as some kind of scientific expert". I am a scientific researcher. That is merely a statement of my chosen career path.
I'm sorry if it appears opaque. Will seems to understand it. At any rate, if there are certain components that are meaningless, I could go through them on request.
The intelligence jab was amusing. Way to sidestep the issue at hand! The only judge of my intelligence I consider to have any usefulness at all is my ability to understand, analyze and synthesize complex concepts in my chosen field of endeavor. You, thankfully, are not the judge of my intelligence. At any rate, I invite you to have a read of some of the things I have taken the trouble to write here, such as the following piece on molecular biology in the link below, in which I take great care to elucidate everything required so as to avoid confusion for non-specialists, to see for yourself that it is certainly not the case that my communication skills are sorely lacking.
The Third Revolution
You must understand, that a certain (not very high) degree of scientific literacy is required to have a serious discussion about the basic physics concepts that will invariably crop up in this conversation. None of this extends at all beyond what is needed at high school. If you don't know what "F=ma" means or what a vector is, then it is probably not within your best judgment to attempt to engage in a conversation where physics will invariably come up, and then try to sidestep the problem by pinning it down to my "poor communication skills". You initiated this conversation, and you're the one who continues to make reference to the "laws of physics" and "electromagnetic phenomena". Given this, you can't possibly start crying foul at other people when real, serious physics, like what I wrote above, actually comes into the conversation. without looking absolutely ridiculous to everyone present. It takes sheer gall to not only do that, but then act like this is someone else's problem.
Now, I don't know about you, smartypants, but I look at this and I see a yes/no question, that demands a yes/no answer which you haven't delivered.
But let's return to the issue at hand. You asserted that we couldn't and didn't know anything about the universe. This is the only way to interpret what you have said here:
Now, as I have shown above, the Copernican principle (the fact that we are a tiny insignificant piece of reality) is in fact an argument for our ability to know and systematically learn and deduce things about reality, because all science which systematically investigates reality works with this principle. I await your reply.
"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
But that's not really helpful at all in terms of trying to establish what you are talking about, because essentially everything we experience is because of the fundamental force of electromagnetism. Chemical reactions proceed because of electromagnetism. The reason you don’t fall through the floor is because of electromagnetism. Every sound you hear is a consequence of electromagnetism (the forces that particles exert on each other by which they oscillate producing sound are electromagnetic repulsion). Your ability to see is a consequence of electromagnetism. So is everything you taste. You kick a sharp object and it hurts? That’s because of electromagnetism. With the exception of object’s weight, and the orbit of Earth, absolutely everything you do, experience, and sense, is because of electromagnetism. It’s the only force which has the necessary properties to be able to result in complex interactions and formations between atoms and molecules. The weak and strong forces are too short range. Gravity is far too weak. Also, all of those are attractive whereas electromagnetic forces can both repulse and attract, without which property nothing we see around us would exist. So to say “X is a consequence of electromagnetism” is about as general as you could get, and isn't that helpful.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I understood it, and learned some things as I haven't studied physics much.
Smartypants, although you said
I'm beginning to wonder if you realize how hypocritical you're being. DG wrote a explanatory post to try to help you and the first response you gave was a rude and venomous comment.
DG has written a fair amount here, look around and find some of his posts. You'll notice they're usually scientific and aimed at helping other people understand science. Check out a specific essay he recently wrote called "The Third Revolution." He's giving up his time to write things to try to help other people, and the response you give is "LMAO Wow. You really like to hear yourself talk, don't you?"
That's not a venom-free comment. That's not a neutral comment. That's not even a critical comment. It appears to be nothing but a vemonous and insulting statement with absolutely no value.
I realize you probably didn't expect people to question your beliefs and ask you to justify yourself so soon. That does not excuse some of the comments you've made, however.
Maybe this was just a bad start. I hope so. At this point, you can act maturely in a manner that seems more in-line with your original post...or you can continue to spout things like "LMAO Wow. You really like to hear yourself talk, don't you?"
It's up to you, and I dearly hope it's the former. Buck up, answer the tough questions, and be ready to consider that you might be wrong. Sure, we might be wrong too. We admit it, and are willing to try to find the truth. Are you?