Science, religion and the truth

[Native]

In fact, from what I can see, the only way to figure out about consciousness is to first develop quite a few areas so we can properly scan the brain.

So you would trust a mechanical robot to tell you about the state of your brain?

Intuition is a particularly poor way to get knowledge.

Apparently you´ll never been hit by an intuitive experience:

From - Intuition - Wikipedia

"Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without recourse to conscious reasoning.
Different writers give the word "intuition" a great variety of different meanings, ranging from direct access to unconscious knowledge, unconscious cognition, inner sensing, inner insight to unconscious pattern-recognition and the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning. The word intuition comes from the Latin verb intueri translated as "consider" or from the late middle English word intuit, "to contemplate".

 

[dfnj]

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the Universe. Under this theory, space and time emerged together 13.799±0.021 billion years ago and the energy and matter initially present have become less dense as the Universe expanded."
Universe - Wikipedia
Any better theory?What we experience does not have an iota of truth. That is why the recourse to science and experiments and not philosophy or religion.

The Big Bang was the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in previously existing space-time dimension.

God is a word needed for sitting opposite to nothingness where reality is a field of tension in a Unity of opposites is the best theory I can come with as to why anything means anything at all within the context of our language. So God is the first cause for words to have any meaning at all beyond nothingness where the law of conservation of thought comes into play. The theory of creation is ontological not physical. Since somethingness exists the only evidence we have is that it has always existed. There is no evidence nothingness has ever existed. Being and nothingness only exist in our minds. The true nature of reality is beyond our comprehension and certainly beyond the limitations of human language and experience.

Unity of opposites - Wikipedia

 

[Native]

Until we understand consciousness we will have a very weak grasp of things like truth and even experiment. I believe we can unwind consciousness pretty quickly once we have a working definition but this could be far in the future.

It really should not be that difficult, should it? What about this definition:

"Consciousness is the ability to receive everything via both physical and spiritual senses and act naturally upon the informations"?

We can´t se anything physical without the quality of LIGHT and we can´t feel anything if the electric impulses doesn´t work in our hands and brains. And even in our dreams electric impulses produces electric images and sentenses.

As the fundamental range of EM is limitless, our own EM spiritual senses can receive limitless images of cosmos, i.e. get informations of this.

Edit: BTW: This is the cause how ancient generations did make their very similar Stories of Creation.

 

[Native]

Oh, I am certainly not saying that intuition is unimportant. It is absolutely crucial for coming up with new ideas and new things to play with. Even in the 'logical' arena of mathematics, intuition is vital.

OH, so your former statement of "intuition is a poor way of getting knowledge" suddenly doesn´t count anymore?

You STILL dont get "intuition" correct and you confuse it for "speculations". "Intuition" is immediate knowledge of something and not speculations.

 

[Polymath257]

Polymath257 said: ↑
The phrase 'magnetic fields of motion' is nonsense. So, for that matter, is the rest of that sentence.

<snip>

Congratulations Now try to deal with motions in magnetic fields and then moderate your own condescending comments:

I'd point out that 'magnetic fields of motion' is a different thing than 'motion in magnetic fields'. The first is nonsense. The second is described by the Lorentz force law.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So you would trust a mechanical robot to tell you about the state of your brain?

Apparently you´ll never been hit by an intuitive experience:

From - Intuition - Wikipedia

"Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without recourse to conscious reasoning.
Different writers give the word "intuition" a great variety of different meanings, ranging from direct access to unconscious knowledge, unconscious cognition, inner sensing, inner insight to unconscious pattern-recognition and the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning. The word intuition comes from the Latin verb intueri translated as "consider" or from the late middle English word intuit, "to contemplate".

I think there is a chasm between intuition regarding some things (such as events, experiences, other humans, or what might happen or be consequential) and such regarding other things, especially that which we might project or be inherently more likely to believe.

 

[Polymath257]

OH, so your former statement of "intuition is a poor way of getting knowledge" suddenly doesn´t count anymore?

No. There is a difference between using intuition to get things to pursue further and saying that intuition is a way of getting knowledge. You get knowledge by *testing* those intuitions to see which ones actually work in practice and which ones do not.

You STILL dont get "intuition" correct and you confuse it for "speculations". "Intuition" is immediate knowledge of something and not speculations.

In that case, intuition simply does not exist. There is no 'immediate knowledge of something'. Testing is always required. Observation is always required. Even in math, proof is always required.

Can you give me an example of an 'intuition' that actually gave *knowledge* without further testing? Not just an intuition that was subsequently verified, but one that gave knowledge?

 

[Polymath257]

So you would trust a mechanical robot to tell you about the state of your brain?

Not quite yet with current technology, but perhaps in the near future.

Apparently you´ll never been hit by an intuitive experience:

From - Intuition - Wikipedia

"Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without recourse to conscious reasoning.
Different writers give the word "intuition" a great variety of different meanings, ranging from direct access to unconscious knowledge, unconscious cognition, inner sensing, inner insight to unconscious pattern-recognition and the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning. The word intuition comes from the Latin verb intueri translated as "consider" or from the late middle English word intuit, "to contemplate".

I've had a great number of 'intuitive experiences'. Some were later verified, some were later shown to be badly wrong. At the time of experience, there is no difference in how they feel. The 'certainty' is there in both cases. The latter is simply wrong.

 

[Native]

Your body has NO true "existence",
perhaps you noticed that maggots and worms eat a dead carcass when consciousness leaves it . ????

Of course the body has an true existence - all though just temporary.

 

[Native]

No. There is a difference between using intuition to get things to pursue further and saying that intuition is a way of getting knowledge. You get knowledge by *testing* those intuitions to see which ones actually work in practice and which ones do not.

"Intuition" isn´t something "one use"! It is something which comes to you as a solution when your speculative brain have given up on an insolvable problem and has become quiet.

 

[Native]

WhyIsThatSo said: ↑
Right now, you and others like Polymath257, are "UNCONSCIOUS" .
Oh, I know you think you are "aware"....and you are "aware"
BUT you are not aware of your "SELF".

Again, such is your belief and your claim. But why should I believe what you say is accurate?

You could ask yourself and try to listen quietly to your INTUITION

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Big Bang was the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in previously existing space-time dimension.

Yeah, Big Bang also must have had its cause but God (God of Gaps) is a poor explanation for that.

Of course the body has an true existence - all though just temporary.

As we perceive it, otherwise it is constantly changing blob of molecules.

I've had a great number of 'intuitive experiences'. Some were later verified, some were later shown to be badly wrong. At the time of experience, there is no difference in how they feel. The 'certainty' is there in both cases. The latter is simply wrong.

You could ask yourself and try to listen quietly to your INTUITION

Polymath has already said that he had great many 'intutive experiences', some proved right, others proved wrong.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Not necessarily In this case of "Big Bang" I just demand the same methodical principle as when I´m postulating alternative cosmological ideas and meet this claim from "standard cosmologists".

Besides all this, there is no possible "cosmological truth" before cosmological scientists can agree in ONE theory for everything.

Einstein 1915 assumed a static universe (whence his 'cosmological constant'). Friedmann 1922 proposed an expanding universe. More effectively, Lemaître 1930 was the first to realize that Relativity implied a moment of creation and in 1927 gave a reasoned account of the universe that would result and the evidence to support it. The sheer size of the universe and the sheer number of other galaxies is down to Hubble 1924. Hubble again, around 1930, discovered from the observed redshift of galaxies that the universe was indeed expanding, consistent with its having a beginning.

These theories made predictions, one of which led to the discovery / identifying of the universe's microwave background, a great mine of information about the earliest days.

I know these theories "makes predictions" - All according to a special theoretical approach mostly based on just ONE of the FOUR fundamental forces and in this sense the discoveries are all interpreted to confirm just this ONE theory.

And so on through computer modeling of the early universe and its expansion, looking for what's needed to account for all that we presently observe about the cosmos.

What you feed into a computer comes out again: Confirmations on the different assumptions in your theory based on just ONE fundamental force - which only works contradictionary to all expansive motions, as assumed in the Big Bang.

What if the standard cosmic measuring method is wrong? You probably know that cosmological science first had one velocity measurement of the assumed expansion and then they thought to have discovered that the Universe expanded with a still increasing velocity? Where on Earth - and Universe - should that increasing energy come from? Oh yes, from an unscientific invention of "dark energy".

Where's the problem, do you say? How would you go about it instead?

Everything here speaks of a wrong distance measuring method in general. Measuring cosmic distances via the luminosity of light and local "redshift" of objects is clearly incorrect as it leads to a force which isn´t there in the first place.

Cosmic light disperses on its way to the telescopes thus fooling scientists to basically believe on "the smaller sources or frequensies of light = the longer cosmic distances", which is cosmological nonsense coming from an idea of "light constants" which leads to the very idea of an rapidly and still increasing expanding Universe.

When thinking of all different luminous sources of stars and planets in cosmos, it is nonsense to pick out a special source and take this as a "cosmological distance measuring standard".

I would go about it all and state the Universe to be eternal and everywhere and claim an eternal change between formation, dissolution and re-formation in the entire Universe. A kind of a Steady State Theory which "rests in itself".

 

[Native]

Polymath has already said that he had great many 'intutive experiences', some proved right, others proved wrong.

Well then the wrong ones wasn´t intuitive enough to be right

 

[Native]

I'd point out that 'magnetic fields of motion' is a different thing than 'motion in magnetic fields'. The first is nonsense. The second is described by the Lorentz force law.

This is just oppositional nit picking just in order to be just oppositional

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Humans can do/believe things that are relative (subjective) to them. Not sure why one would then assume that the universe is involved subjectively. After all, humans are just a subset of the universe, and play a very small role if we are to accept what we know about the universe.

... The rest was good...

Hi Mock Turtle. This is also for @Polymath257
That is a case of dualism. Some of you do that a lot. You operate with a duality as a dichotomy of the universe versus subjectivity. So for now forget science as you are used to it. We now go wide as *ell.
Now I will use a very simple version of cause and effect. Everything now is caused by everything in past.
So here we go. Big Bang -> arrow of time -> time passes and we have several generations of stars -> our solar systems forms out of parts of former stars and original hydrogen and helium -> assume the development of life -> us and our subjectivity.
So as matter the universe is in us and we are in the universe. So if we are subjective, the universe is in part subjective or and now I go reductio ad absurdum. If subjectivity is not natural as a part of the universe, then subjectivity is non-natural and thus supernatural as not part of the natural.
Now choose; either you are functionally naturalists or you are supernaturalists, because the universe is not involved subjectively and thus subjectivity is in effect supernatural as not part of the natural.

Yeah, I know how to do this. I have been doing this for 25+ years now and it is one of the first things I learned to spot in some modern western humans. The duality of subjectivity versus the real objective and true universe.
Now I will explain to you what always happens: Someone subjectively to the effect of the bold above says this: I subjectively think that the objective is the really real. The joke is that the sentence is only subjectively real. It strictly speaking doesn't really exist objectively. That is another version of this kind of fun, because "It strictly speaking doesn't really exist objectively" is subjective. It is only real in the mind, because you can't show it with objective empirical evidence.

That is the game, when dealing with you as a group. Not you two, but you as a group. It has nothing to do with atheism or non-religion. It has to do with that you believe subjectively in a weird form of dualism, where it subjectively to you is really real that the subjective is not real really, because it has nothing to do with the universe.
I am a skeptic and I know how to do reductio ad absurdum. The joke is that absurdum is subjective and it always ends with you guys about what makes sense to you subjectively.
Now own that and learn that apparently that is with truth how the universe in part works.

Regards and love
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

This is just oppositional nit picking just in order to be just oppositional

No, it is requiring precision of language in a context where such precision is useful and important.

You rejected using numbers above. But you seem to fail to acknowledge that even the galactic rotation curves are only relevant because the *numbers* as calculated don't fit the *numbers* as observed. It is ultimately the *numbers* that determine whether a physical theory is correct of not.

So, simply ignoring the numbers (such as the gravitational energy in a gas cloud) ignores the *whole* point.

 

[Native]

No, it is requiring precision of language in a context where such precision is useful and important.

With your excellent PhD degree you should be able to read a text both forwards and backwards and thus have understood the meaning instead of nit picking on details.

You rejected using numbers above. But you seem to fail to acknowledge that even the galactic rotation curves are only relevant because the *numbers* as calculated don't fit the *numbers* as observed. It is ultimately the *numbers* that determine whether a physical theory is correct of not.

You easily could have come to the factual conclusion just by taking the telescopic observation seriously. And when you fiffle with numbers of an invented dark force, in order to get all numbers right in an observational contradicted theory, I don´t give a daim for your numbers of darkness.

Yes your numbers fits nicely - but the Universe shows differently all over the places and even as "dark energy" and "dark matter" is thought to fill 99.99 % of the Universe, there is not sufficient amounts of dark excuses in "Standard Cosmology" for not to understand cosmos.

 

[Native]

So as matter the universe is in us and we are in the universe. So if we are subjective, the universe is in part subjective or and now I go reductio ad absurdum. If subjectivity is not natural as a part of the universe, then subjectivity is non-natural and thus supernatural as not part of the natural.
Now choose; either you are functionally naturalists or you are supernaturalists, because the universe is not involved subjectively and thus subjectivity is in effect supernatural as not part of the natural.

IMO "dualism" is a "devilish" term invented by some poor confused individuals who have difficulties of "simultaneously looking at both sides of things and phenomena" - a skill which is needed in order to understand causes and effects.

Edit: Even ancient and historic native people all over the world perceived everything to be interconnected and unified - which says a lot of modern "educated" humans.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Hi Mock Turtle. This is also for @Polymath257
That is a case of dualism. Some of you do that a lot. You operate with a duality as a dichotomy of the universe versus subjectivity. So for now forget science as you are used to it. We now go wide as *ell.
Now I will use a very simple version of cause and effect. Everything now is caused by everything in past.
So here we go. Big Bang -> arrow of time -> time passes and we have several generations of stars -> our solar systems forms out of parts of former stars and original hydrogen and helium -> assume the development of life -> us and our subjectivity.
So as matter the universe is in us and we are in the universe. So if we are subjective, the universe is in part subjective or and now I go reductio ad absurdum. If subjectivity is not natural as a part of the universe, then subjectivity is non-natural and thus supernatural as not part of the natural.
Now choose; either you are functionally naturalists or you are supernaturalists, because the universe is not involved subjectively and thus subjectivity is in effect supernatural as not part of the natural.

Yeah, I know how to do this. I have been doing this for 25+ years now and it is one of the first things I learned to spot in some modern western humans. The duality of subjectivity versus the real objective and true universe.
Now I will explain to you what always happens: Someone subjectively to the effect of the bold above says this: I subjectively think that the objective is the really real. The joke is that the sentence is only subjectively real. It strictly speaking doesn't really exist objectively. That is another version of this kind of fun, because "It strictly speaking doesn't really exist objectively" is subjective. It is only real in the mind, because you can't show it with objective empirical evidence.

That is the game, when dealing with you as a group. Not you two, but you as a group. It has nothing to do with atheism or non-religion. It has to do with that you believe subjectively in a weird form of dualism, where it subjectively to you is really real that the subjective is not real really, because it has nothing to do with the universe.
I am a skeptic and I know how to do reductio ad absurdum. The joke is that absurdum is subjective and it always ends with you guys about what makes sense to you subjectively.
Now own that and learn that apparently that is with truth how the universe in part works.

Regards and love
Mikkel

All you seem to be saying is that life cannot exist by chance, is caused, and hence there must be a God. Not new, and you are welcome to such. But if life has arisen by accident then how is subjectivity involved, when really it just belongs in the human domain. As I said, everything just rolls on regardless of us, and no doubt will if we vanished from existence.

You are going to have to find others to play games with.