Science cannot solve the final mystery

[cladking]

Lol.

It could have been built by any six-year old with 500 boxes of tinker toys and a PDP-10.

Original Tinkertoy Computer | X39.81 | Computer History Museum

Mine was not so complex or nearly so large. I seriously doubt mine was the first.

 

[paarsurrey]

So, basically, you are saying that people should accept myths and superstitions of astrology and horoscopes over real astronomy?

Because that’s what I am reading from your posts.

The eastern astronomy like that the western astronomy were completely unaware of other galaxies outside of the Milky Way, before 1919.

Before the invention of telescope in early 1600s, the only visible galaxies (beside the Milky Way) were Andromeda, Triangulum, Large Magellanic Cloud and Small Magellanic Cloud, and with the telescopes from 1604 to 1918, more galaxies were discovered, EXCEPT that BEFORE 1919, astronomers thought these objects were nebulas, not galaxies separate from the Milky Way.

When the late 18th century French astronomer, Charles Messier catalogues all the known objects that can be viewed in the night sky, have labelled these galaxies as nebulas, eg Andromeda Nebula (M31), Triangulum Nebula (M33), Virgo A Nebula (M87), etc.

It was Edwin Hubble, in 1919, using the largest telescope at that time, the Hooker Telescope, and discovered these nebulas were really galaxies not nebulas. All the catalogues of stars have to be revised and updated, during 1920s & 30s.

Easterner astronomers were just as clueless as Charles Messier (Messier Object, 1771), John Herschel (who published Catalogue of Nebulae and Clusters of Stars, 1786) and John Louis Emil Dreyer (who published New General Catalogue, in 1888), regarding to other galaxies.

Why would I think easterner philosophies or religions would know more about the universe, when they gave no ideas about other galaxies?

"Why would I think easterner philosophies or religions would know more about the universe, when they gave no ideas about other galaxies?"

It is a good question particularly if the eastern thought has not told the source of their thought. I deem mere existing of a thought is no enough. Right, please?

Regards

 

[ecco]

Lol.



Original Tinkertoy Computer | X39.81 | Computer History Museum

Mine was not so complex or nearly so large. I seriously doubt mine was the first.

Now you need explain how you got 500 boxes of tinker toys. Then do tell us how you got a pdp 10.

WAIT........


OK. I've put on my hip boots.

 

[gnostic]

It is a good question particularly if the eastern thought has not told the source of their thought. I deem mere existing of a thought is no enough. Right, please?

No religions (east or west), no philosophies (east or west) and no science (east or west) BEFORE Edwin Hubble in 1919, really understood the true extent and understood the nature of the universe and of the Milky Way itself.

Before Galileo in 1610, people can only do star gazing with just the naked eye, and what they saw of the Milky Way was just band of blurry light that take up the most space in the night sky, and because the distance from the centre of the galaxy to Earth, the ancient and medieval people didn’t know these hazy light were more stars on Milky Way’s spiral arms.

That’s what the Buddha, Moses (if Moses existed historically), Jesus and Muhammad would see too, just a band of blurry vision of light in the knowing it was a (barred) spiral galaxy. And though Andromeda could be seen with naked eye, no one knew back then this too was another spiral galaxy.

With telescope, Galileo was able to distinguish some more stars from the spiral arms of MW. The decades and centuries that followed, Charles Messier, John Herschel and John Dreyer, with better telescopes than Galileo’s, were able to list other objects in the sky, but misidentified galaxies as nebulas, because their telescopes weren’t powerful enough.

So between 1610 and 1918, every astronomers thought the Milky Way was the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. And no religions, no philosophers knew any better, including the Eastern thinkers.

It was Hubble using the Hooker Telescope in 1919, who have changed the way astronomers look at the universe.

Andromeda Nebula became Andromeda Galaxy, and more galaxies were discovered after 1919. All astronomers after 1919 recognized that the Milky Way was one galaxy of billions, and the universe became larger than they originally thought.

A couple of years later, Alexander Friedmann developed hypothesis in 1922 about the universe have been expanding since the universe was young, and Howard Percy Robertson (1924-25) and Georges Lemaître (1927) have independently came up with hypotheses. This expanding universe model, later became known as the “Big Bang theory” in 1948 or 49.

The Big Bang theory is still the most dominant and accepted physical cosmology, with NASA, ESA and other astronomy programme still actively researching this model.

We have better understanding of universe using science than any other religions and schools of thought (philosophies).

Accepting Abrahamic religions or Eastern spiritual philosophies/religions would be like taking 100 steps backward.

I will have to disagree with Swami about science have or need to accept Eastern spiritual thoughts, because it would be like accepting astrology.

 

[paarsurrey]

No religions (east or west), no philosophies (east or west) and no science (east or west) BEFORE Edwin Hubble in 1919, really understood the true extent and understood the nature of the universe and of the Milky Way itself.

Before Galileo in 1610, people can only do star gazing with just the naked eye, and what they saw of the Milky Way was just band of blurry light that take up the most space in the night sky, and because the distance from the centre of the galaxy to Earth, the ancient and medieval people didn’t know these hazy light were more stars on Milky Way’s spiral arms.

That’s what the Buddha, Moses (if Moses existed historically), Jesus and Muhammad would see too, just a band of blurry vision of light in the knowing it was a (barred) spiral galaxy. And though Andromeda could be seen with naked eye, no one knew back then this too was another spiral galaxy.

With telescope, Galileo was able to distinguish some more stars from the spiral arms of MW. The decades and centuries that followed, Charles Messier, John Herschel and John Dreyer, with better telescopes than Galileo’s, were able to list other objects in the sky, but misidentified galaxies as nebulas, because their telescopes weren’t powerful enough.

So between 1610 and 1918, every astronomers thought the Milky Way was the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. And no religions, no philosophers knew any better, including the Eastern thinkers.

It was Hubble using the Hooker Telescope in 1919, who have changed the way astronomers look at the universe.

Andromeda Nebula became Andromeda Galaxy, and more galaxies were discovered after 1919. All astronomers after 1919 recognized that the Milky Way was one galaxy of billions, and the universe became larger than they originally thought.

A couple of years later, Alexander Friedmann developed hypothesis in 1922 about the universe have been expanding since the universe was young, and Howard Percy Robertson (1924-25) and Georges Lemaître (1927) have independently came up with hypotheses. This expanding universe model, later became known as the “Big Bang theory” in 1948 or 49.

The Big Bang theory is still the most dominant and accepted physical cosmology, with NASA, ESA and other astronomy programme still actively researching this model.

We have better understanding of universe using science than any other religions and schools of thought (philosophies).

Accepting Abrahamic religions or Eastern spiritual philosophies/religions would be like taking 100 steps backward.

I will have to disagree with Swami about science have or need to accept Eastern spiritual thoughts, because it would be like accepting astrology.

"That’s what the Buddha, Moses (if Moses existed historically), Jesus and Muhammad would see too, just a band of blurry vision of light in the knowing it was a (barred) spiral galaxy. And though Andromeda could be seen with naked eye, no one knew back then this too was another spiral galaxy."

The truthful Religion , Quran/Islam/Muhammad makes it very clear in the very beginning :
[2:1]بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ﴿۱﴾
In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[2:2]الٓـمّٓ ۚ﴿۲﴾
Alif Lam Mim.
[2:3]ذٰلِکَ الۡکِتٰبُ لَا رَیۡبَ ۚۖۛ فِیۡہِ ۚۛ ہُدًی لِّلۡمُتَّقِیۡنَ ۙ﴿۳﴾
This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous,
[2:4]الَّذِیۡنَ یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ بِالۡغَیۡبِ وَ یُقِیۡمُوۡنَ الصَّلٰوۃَ وَ مِمَّا رَزَقۡنٰہُمۡ یُنۡفِقُوۡنَ ۙ﴿۴﴾
Who believe in the unseen and observe Prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;
[2:5]وَ الَّذِیۡنَ یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ بِمَاۤ اُنۡزِلَ اِلَیۡکَ وَ مَاۤ اُنۡزِلَ مِنۡ قَبۡلِکَ ۚ وَ بِالۡاٰخِرَۃِ ہُمۡ یُوۡقِنُوۡنَ ؕ﴿۵﴾
And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee, and that which was revealed before thee, and they have firm faith in what is yet to come.
[2:6]اُولٰٓئِکَ عَلٰی ہُدًی مِّنۡ رَّبِّہِمۡ ٭ وَ اُولٰٓئِکَ ہُمُ الۡمُفۡلِحُوۡنَ ﴿۶﴾
It is they who follow the guidance of their Lord and it is they who shall prosper.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 2: Al-Baqarah
Quran concentrates to guide humanity in the ethical, moral, and spiritual and the related issues which is the domain of Religion and nowhere interferes with the Science which has its domain in the material and the physical domain. So why overburden Science with the other aspects of life that is not its domain. Right, please?

Regards

 

[gnostic]

The truthful Religion , Quran/Islam/Muhammad makes it very clear in the very beginning :

A book (Qur’an) that adopt pagan myths of jinns, beings of smokeless fire, isn’t being a “truthful religion”.

Some passages where King Solomon can command these jinns (as well as animals, particularly birds) to fight with his army, isn’t being truthful.

That this same king can understand the languages of animals (especially birds), and talk to them, especially that to ants, isn’t being a truthful scripture.

That this same king can control winds and weather, Muhammad, the Qur’an and Islam aren’t being truthful.

A book that say a human (Adam) can be created from lifeless clay and water, isn’t being truthful.

Quran concentrates to guide humanity in the ethical, moral, and spiritual and the related issues which is the domain of Religion and nowhere interferes with the Science which has its domain in the material and the physical domain. So why overburden Science with the other aspects of life that is not its domain. Right, please?

You are correct that science isn’t religion, and religion isn’t science.

But you have Muslims often using and promoting Quranic passages and reinterpret the contents as if they agree with science or science agree with the Qur’an, say differently.

Christians do the same thing with the Bible.

Neither scriptures are science textbooks, and the contents shouldn’t be treated as science, I would wholeheartedly agree.

And yet, you have believers who do treat as science or being better than science, and that’s where I would have to disagree.

 

[paarsurrey]

A book (Qur’an) that adopt pagan myths of jinns, beings of smokeless fire, isn’t being a “truthful religion”.

Some passages where King Solomon can command these jinns (as well as animals, particularly birds) to fight with his army, isn’t being truthful.

That this same king can understand the languages of animals (especially birds), and talk to them, especially that to ants, isn’t being a truthful scripture.

That this same king can control winds and weather, Muhammad, the Qur’an and Islam aren’t being truthful.

A book that say a human (Adam) can be created from lifeless clay and water, isn’t being truthful.




You are correct that science isn’t religion, and religion isn’t science.

But you have Muslims often using and promoting Quranic passages and reinterpret the contents as if they agree with science or science agree with the Qur’an, say differently.

Christians do the same thing with the Bible.

Neither scriptures are science textbooks, and the contents shouldn’t be treated as science, I would wholeheartedly agree.

And yet, you have believers who do treat as science or being better than science, and that’s where I would have to disagree.

"But you have Muslims often using and promoting Quranic passages and reinterpret the contents as if they agree with science or science agree with the Qur’an, say differently."

They might have done it incorrectly, after all they are human beings. Quran/Islam does not claim it. Right, please?

Regards

 

[tas8831]

huh

"We have a perfectly good partially bifurcated speech center back in the mid-brain."​

That is cool - that was totally wrong, too.
Now you're a brain expert. Get that from Graham Hancock?
The 'reptilian brain' or R-complex usually refer to parts of the hindbrain, by the way. Not that it matters because you do not believe it therefore it is not real.
I know why it is in the 'middle' of the brain. Do you?

Show me this second motor speech area.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.

Your rambling diatribes are not evidence, regardless of how much it has convinced you.

And he never did...

 

[shunyadragon]

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”


Relativity, the Absolute, the Human Search for Truth: Nobel Laureate and Quantum Theory Originator Max Planck on Science and Mystery

Classic anecdotal subjective circular reasoning, and ' vague foggy 'arguing from ignorance.'

 

[tas8831]

Just reminiscing a bit...

@cladking:

This is the ONLY speech center that Homo Sapiens needed or possessed;
Wernicke's area - Wikipedia​

Me:

Wait, hold on - you jump from visual to speech centers, just like that? Well, OK - I will pull a cladking on you:

Did you not see this in your link:


"Wernicke's area, also called Wernicke's speech area, is one of the two parts of the cerebral cortex that are linked to speech (the other is Broca's area). It is involved in the comprehension of written and spoken language (in contrast to Broca's area that is involved in the production of language). "

That is the first sentence in YOUR link, a link which you just claimed as support for your claim:

"This is the ONLY speech center that Homo Sapiens needed or possessed;"

You are horrible at this.​

Ah, good times...

 

[cladking]

Just reminiscing a bit...

@cladking:

This is the ONLY speech center that Homo Sapiens needed or possessed;
Wernicke's area - Wikipedia​

Me:

Wait, hold on - you jump from visual to speech centers, just like that? Well, OK - I will pull a cladking on you:

Did you not see this in your link:


"Wernicke's area, also called Wernicke's speech area, is one of the two parts of the cerebral cortex that are linked to speech (the other is Broca's area). It is involved in the comprehension of written and spoken language (in contrast to Broca's area that is involved in the production of language). "

That is the first sentence in YOUR link, a link which you just claimed as support for your claim:

"This is the ONLY speech center that Homo Sapiens needed or possessed;"

You are horrible at this.​

Ah, good times...

I've responded to this half a dozen times and each time you simply ignore it.

Your link specifically says there are two speech centers. Perhaps the problem exists in your broca's area. Mebbe it's brocan.

My contention is the broca's area is what we have to develop individually in order to properly parse speech. For some reason you can't seem to parse this properly.

It's probably because you don't really want to rather than you have a defective speech center. The broca's area is in different places in each individual which supports the idea that it is the defining characteristic of homo omnisciencis and is what separates us from homo sapiens who lacked a broca's area since Ancient Language could not be parsed. Can you understand any of this? I could elaborate if you're getting anything at all.

 

[tas8831]

I've responded to this half a dozen times and each time you simply ignore it.

If any of those responses were not
"Wow, I totally screwed up. I honestly do not know anything about this stuff, I just like to puff up my ego by pretending that I do.",
then they deserved to be ignored.

 

[tas8831]

I've responded to this half a dozen times and each time you simply ignore it.

Your link specifically says there are two speech centers.

1. It was YOUR link. Can you not understand anything?

2. YOU wrote:

"This is the ONLY speech center that Homo Sapiens needed or possessed..."


I pointed out that YOUR OWN LINK contradicted the very reason you provided it!
You're hilarious in your desperation!

 

[cladking]

I pointed out that YOUR OWN LINK contradicted the very reason you provided it!
You're hilarious in your desperation!

You are completely and utterly blinded by your own thinking.

I've explained my opinion on this many times and that NOBODY'S opinion means much of anything at all because science doesn't even have a working definition of consciousness. You won't understand this sentence but without a working definition any talk about the nature of the parts of consciousness have no meaning at all.

What you can't understand is that I DO have a working definition of "consciousness" which is the "God" given or "nature" given characteristic that makes survival possible and desirable.

You are merely trapped by a perspective from which you must view all of reality without ever noticing you aren't seeing much of it. You lack imagination and the ability to consider alternatives to what you know. You take all human knowledge as sacred and sacrosanct despite the fact that history shows all human knowledge is continually evolving in massive leaps of punctuated equilibrium much like change in species.

Every time a new fact or new knowledge arises you believe that now, finally, we know every single thing. Homo omnisciencis. You know nothing except what you know viscerally. Experience is the only knowledge that is real and even this is dependent on factors beyond our control.

You'll understand nothing in this post so will respond to nothing in this post. After you respond to nothing don't be looking for my response because it's not going to be forthcoming.

 

[gnostic]

What you can't understand is that I DO have a working definition of "consciousness" which is the "God" given or "nature" given characteristic that makes survival possible and desirable.

The rest of your reply is just pure nonsense.

So if you have “working definition” on “consciousness” that don’t exist in science, THEN provide this definition in your next post, without your usual evasive and without excuses.

Just provide your definition, and nothing else (hence in your own words), where you don’t science have, on this matter.

 

[tas8831]

I don't see any replies...

 

[cladking]

I don't see any replies...

Perhaps because I've listed at least half a dozen definitions in the past and they were each ignored. The definition listed in the post he quoted wasn't even acknowledged. He quoted only a single line containing a definition but apparently missed it anyway!!!!!!

Frankly I don't understand how people can just not read what I write. Now this post will probably be ignored. I could write out several paragraphs about consciousness and its nature and the very next poster will act as though it didn't happen. I've got one troll who chases me from site to site asking the same questions I've answered countless times and then says I'm repeating myself before asking the same question again.

I'm sorry if you don't like my answers or my theories. I can defend them only if you read the posts.

 

[cladking]

I might add I'm losing my ability to parse bad grammar. Sometimes when I don't reply it's because I have no idea what a post even means.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I might add I'm losing my ability to parse bad grammar. Sometimes when I don't reply it's because I have no idea what a post even means.

Likewise. But it has little to do with grammar.

 

[tas8831]

Still waiting...

Still waiting:

Show me this second motor speech area.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.