The Debate of God.

[Daviso452]

Do you mean a bit like the Terminator then?

Because if you believe what you are saying then Science fiction becomes reality.

Um, yeah. You know those communicators in the old star trek series? You know those cell phones we carry around all the time today?

That is a claim which arises from the flawed logic which confuses complex behaviour with self-awareness.

It is a claim which becomes the necessary position to take once you have dismissed the actual experience of being as mere side effect of a mechanism.

I have never heard this claim from anyone who has practiced awareness meditation. It is a claim only made by people who theorise about awareness but do not investigate it experientially.

Experiential investigation is written off as unscientific, and as a result you only accept intellectualisations about something which can only be known directly, as your own nature.

These intellectualisations lead to the proposition that machines can be conscious because it becomes a logical neccessity of the argument. And the argument is made without even making the personal experiential investigation of your nature.

You (not just you Daviso ...) do not know what the experience of samadhi is, because you have rejected direct experience utterly and replaced it with theories.

This is why I call scientism a kind of fundamentalism. It is fundamentalism because you have decided that it is the only way to gain information about reality.

As a result of that fundamentalism, you choose not to even bother verifying whether or not knowledge can be gained by direct examination of your nature in the here and now.

No. Just no. Experience is NOT fact. I'm sorry. Do you want to know why? Because the human brain is FLAWED.

Science is just the name given to how we understand the universe. Like experimentation, which many people do on a daily basis. It doesn't mean going, "group a, group b," it could be something simple like "what is quicker? driving or bus?"

What else do you propose we use for understanding our universe? You say experiencing, or in other words observing. They are good tools for forming hypotheses, which is the basis for EVERY experiment in science, but they are not fact, because our minds are flawed.

Here is an example of how our brains can trick us into believing something that isn't true. Give a person a pain pill. Tell them it will take their pain away. And sure enough, it works! Now how about I tell you it wasn't a pain pill after all? That it was just a sugar pill? This is known as the placebo effect. The brain THOUGHT it was receiving a pain pill, and so it made the pain go away.

True science, however, has a fail-safe to prevent this: peer-review. Different people analyze it, examine it, test it themselves. This ensures for something that is accurate. Granted, groups of people can have a bias. But again, because of the nature of science, anyone review and criticize it, and with the right materials, test it. Science is a self-correcting system, where opinions are not.

You say that experience should be considered when finding the truth; and it is. How else do we even start an experiment? The thing is, it isn't fact, because anyone can say anything they want. Does it make it true? No. That is where science comes in. Do you see what I'm saying?

 

[apophenia]

Um, yeah. You know those communicators in the old star trek series? You know those cell phones we carry around all the time today?



No. Just no. Experience is NOT fact. I'm sorry. Do you want to know why? Because the human brain is FLAWED.

Science is just the name given to how we understand the universe. Like experimentation, which many people do on a daily basis. It doesn't mean going, "group a, group b," it could be something simple like "what is quicker? driving or bus?"

What else do you propose we use for understanding our universe? You say experiencing, or in other words observing. They are good tools for forming hypotheses, which is the basis for EVERY experiment in science, but they are not fact, because our minds are flawed.

Here is an example of how our brains can trick us into believing something that isn't true. Give a person a pain pill. Tell them it will take their pain away. And sure enough, it works! Now how about I tell you it wasn't a pain pill after all? That it was just a sugar pill? This is known as the placebo effect. The brain THOUGHT it was receiving a pain pill, and so it made the pain go away.

True science, however, has a fail-safe to prevent this: peer-review. Different people analyze it, examine it, test it themselves. This ensures for something that is accurate. Granted, groups of people can have a bias. But again, because of the nature of science, anyone review and criticize it, and with the right materials, test it. Science is a self-correcting system, where opinions are not.

You say that experience should be considered when finding the truth; and it is. How else do we even start an experiment? The thing is, it isn't fact, because anyone can say anything they want. Does it make it true? No. That is where science comes in. Do you see what I'm saying?

So every insight every human has ever had is null and void unless approved by scientific peer-group review ?

The only knowledge that is of any use to us is scientific knowledge ?

It's time to ditch art, philosophy, meditation and instinct and hand everything over to the men in white coats ?

You don't know you exist without a scientist to tell you ?

 

[nnmartin]

Um, yeah. You know those communicators in the old star trek series? You know those cell phones we carry around all the time today?

wrong end of the stick here........since when did cell phones become self aware?

That was the point I was making.

 

[apophenia]

Meanwhile, back on the subject of the social perils of scientism ... check out the experiments of Milgram and Zimbardo.

75% of the population will commit murder if a man in a white coat says "the experiment requires that you continue"

Seriously.

Scientism (not science) is more dangerous than Hitler and Al Quaeda.

Do you also regard your conscience as inferior to science ? Are you prepared to hand over the imperative to make moral decisions to scientists, on the basis that your conscience is just your flawed brain ?

75% of ordinary Joes did just that in experiments repeated many times, and demonstrated a willingness to murder based on the conditioned response of assuming that 'scientists are always right'.

Read the research.

 

[apophenia]

Butterflies born in one place travel hundreds of miles, alighting on precisely the same trees as all their ancestors, as they migrate. No science involved.

A platypus can detect larval nymphs in swirling water at metres distance using bioelectric sensors in their beaks - no science.

Nesting birds can find their young amongst thousands of chicks by recognising their call - no science.

So are humans just way stupider than these creatures ? We have no innate knowledge like all those other creatures ?

All of the creatures that ever lived and evolved did so without science.

 

[apophenia]

Only science has empowered humans to destroy the very ecosystem which is their life, and the life of all creatures known to exist.

We stand on the verge of a planetary catastrophe by ignoring the inner promptings which served our ancestors, even our prehuman ancestors.

Funny that. When we were guided only by instinctual responses and intuition, the biosphere was not in the perilous imbalance which we have engineered in the last second of the 24 hour timeline of earth's history.

Yay science.

Actually the fault isn't with science itself, but with scientism and the abdication of trust in our innate wisdom.

 

[mr black]

With science and without science? Do you know what science is?

 

[apophenia]

With science and without science? Do you know what science is?

sure do.

assuming that was addressed to me, what is your question exactly ?

hint - use the quote feature so people know who you are addressing

 

[apophenia]

If it was addressed to me, yes I know what science is. It is the process of observation, hypothesis and repeatable tests to confirm the hypothesis.

An entirely admirable and fruitful endeavour.

Now can you make your question any more meaningful ?

 

[mr black]

If it was addressed to me, yes I know what science is. It is the process of observation, hypothesis and repeatable tests to confirm the hypothesis.

An entirely admirable and fruitful endeavour.

Now can you make your question any more meaningful ?

All things happen without science. Science is simply an attempt to understand what happened.

 

[apophenia]

All things happen without science. Science is simply an attempt to understand what happened.

and what is happening now, and what may happen in the future

but perhaps you could make your thought more clearly connected to the posts which inspired you to express it ?

in other words, how do you see your remark as relevant to a preceeding post ? it's a bit cryptic and disconnected, context-wise, as it stands

 

[mr black]

Butterflies born in one place travel hundreds of miles, alighting on precisely the same trees as all their ancestors, as they migrate. No science involved.

A platypus can detect larval nymphs in swirling water at metres distance using bioelectric sensors in their beaks - no science.

Nesting birds can find their young amongst thousands of chicks by recognising their call - no science.

So are humans just way stupider than these creatures ? We have no innate knowledge like all those other creatures ?

All of the creatures that ever lived and evolved did so without science.

Does this help?

 

[religion99]

also most atheists and the like tend to believe they are entitled to scientific proof , evidence , sources etc.. to prove the existence of God.

questions like - 'can you provide empirical evidence to support your claim of God' etc.. so utterly banal and pointless.

If an atheist can come up with a better idea for our existence I am all ears, but the usual old 'we are because of the laws of physics' etc.. just doesn't cut it.

Please refer to Jainism for original elaborate arguments against creationism.

 

[Daviso452]

So every insight every human has ever had is null and void unless approved by scientific peer-group review ?

The only knowledge that is of any use to us is scientific knowledge ?

It's time to ditch art, philosophy, meditation and instinct and hand everything over to the men in white coats ?

You don't know you exist without a scientist to tell you ?

I NEVER said it wasn't real. THAT, sir, is intellectually dishonest. The point I was making is that EXPERIENCE without FACTS cannot be taken as TRUE. No, you do not need a scientist. Say, for instance, you went tubing. And others supported that saying they saw you tubing. That's enough! But that's not to say that it isn't true without others!

If anything, please pay close attention to these examples. IF ANYTHING, the examples.

But think of that one ******* in the bar who tells all these amazing stories of what he has done, like take on 10 bears at once with just a knife. You aren't just going to believe that, do you? Then how do you know what he was telling was true? That is the point I'm trying to make.

Think of guy you meet who says that when he was 20 he climbed a mountain and took shelter in a cave. That night, he was visited from god! Now he knows for sure god exists? Are you going to believe that? I would hope not.

These are the points I am trying to make. People can be mistaken, and flawed, and you need to understand what is true and false. I am NOT saying that experience means nothing. On the contrary, had you payed the **** attention to what I said, ALL SCIENCE STEMS FROM EXPERIENCE. You cannot have science without first experiencing something.

So no, scientific knowledge is not the only knowledge to use. The point is to understand the difference between experience and fact. Because people are flawed, and don't always perceive things the right way. Agreed?

 

[idav]

And there it is again.

That is a claim which arises from the flawed logic which confuses complex behaviour with self-awareness.

It is a claim which becomes the necessary position to take once you have dismissed the actual experience of being as mere side effect of a mechanism.

I have never heard this claim from anyone who has practiced awareness meditation. It is a claim only made by people who theorise about awareness but do not investigate it experientially.

Experiential investigation is written off as unscientific, and as a result you only accept intellectualisations about something which can only be known directly, as your own nature.

These intellectualisations lead to the proposition that machines can be conscious because it becomes a logical neccessity of the argument. And the argument is made without even making the personal experiential investigation of your nature.

You (not just you Daviso ...) do not know what the experience of samadhi is, because you have rejected direct experience utterly and replaced it with theories.

This is why I call scientism a kind of fundamentalism. It is fundamentalism because you have decided that it is the only way to gain information about reality.

As a result of that fundamentalism, you choose not to even bother verifying whether or not knowledge can be gained by direct examination of your nature in the here and now.

That is tragic. A lamentable devaluation of your living experience.

I explained how it worked and thats what comes from it. We are already building neurons. Just think of yourself as a machine, what more is there to it? I keep giving the evidence and you just keep saying we can't know that.

Here is how the brain stores memory and we are able to replicate it.

Brain Channels - Memory Encoding

And we are not downing experience we are trying to find out how it all works.

 

[Daviso452]

I explained how it worked and thats what comes from it. We are already building neurons. Just think of yourself as a machine, what more is there to it? I keep giving the evidence and you just keep saying we can't know that.

Here is how the brain stores memory and we are able to replicate it.

Brain Channels - Memory Encoding

And we are not downing experience we are trying to find out how it all works.

Bit late to the party dude. We're past that. We're now discussing the validity of experience and the flaws of science.

 

[idav]

Bit late to the party dude. We're past that. We're now discussing the validity of experience and the flaws of science.

Yeah, I read through everything before I quoted. Experiences are mostly valid and science assists us in determining validity. They are a team.

 

[Daviso452]

If it was addressed to me, yes I know what science is. It is the process of observation, hypothesis and repeatable tests to confirm the hypothesis.

An entirely admirable and fruitful endeavour.

Now can you make your question any more meaningful ?

observation=experience
There is a difference, yes, but the two are incredibly similar. They both are products of our senses.

 

[religion99]

Last God wandered on this Earth some 2,500 years ago. Next God will be born in this Earth after about 24,000 years. So , you are out of luck if you want direct evidence.

There are living Gods in other Earths , but you require special powers to go there. Last person
to go there from this Earth and return was born some 1,000 years back.

Some poeple , who are born in this Earth , have come from other Earths where living Gods
are wandering right now. Some of them remember and describe their encounters with Gods in their previous lives. This is "as direct as it can get".

I don't know a living person who remebers their previous experiences with Gods ,but I certainly
know a person who died some 25 years back and has written a book about his encounter with God
in previous birth.

 

[Tiberius]

Butterflies born in one place travel hundreds of miles, alighting on precisely the same trees as all their ancestors, as they migrate. No science involved.

Why is it not science?

A platypus can detect larval nymphs in swirling water at metres distance using bioelectric sensors in their beaks - no science.

Yes, that is science.

Nesting birds can find their young amongst thousands of chicks by recognising their call - no science.

That is science.

So are humans just way stupider than these creatures ? We have no innate knowledge like all those other creatures ?

Some of us are. Those few who insist on dismissing science are.

All of the creatures that ever lived and evolved did so without science.

Evolution is scientific and explains every single one of those behaviours you mentioned.