Challenge:
Please name something that science cannot explain that something else can -besides personal revelation.
~
Printable View
Challenge:
Please name something that science cannot explain that something else can -besides personal revelation.
~
I take it this stems from a misinterpretation of my post in the "Sony/ESP" thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
That's a loaded question along the lines of "Did you ever suck a d*ck you didn't like?"
But I'll bite.
Science can't explain the spark of life or the source of consciousness (as in A.I.), while religion or spiritual teachings claim to.
Clearly you're just looking for something to pick on, so have at it!
Inspired by it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
How..? Is it not possible to say likewise to the accuser against science? What is something that can be explained by something else and not science..? Seems fair to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cusp
I'm not picking on anything - it just goes to expose some things. Notice you said claim to whereas science does not claim to. This is still not facing the challenge really.Quote:
But I'll bite.
Science can't explain the spark of life or the source of consciousness (as in A.I.), while religion or spiritual teachings claim to.
Clearly you're just looking for something to pick on, so have at it!
What am I picking at?
Does this not prove a point? If there are things that science cannot explain, then it ought to be true that there is something else that can explain!
Am I unfair for asking this...?
~
*raises hand*
I was tought this one in bible school! The answer is faith!
/thread
Not unfair. Naive.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Science is for "the people", as it were.
It deals with objective matters and describes/proves/etc. them for all to see.
Wisdom deals with objective matters on a subjective basis.
And it is naive to think you will get an answer to such a question.
The point is: it isn't that there aren't things that can't be proven by science but are known by non-science; it's that you will not be given that knowledge just for the sake of having it "proven".
"He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know."
That is the principle of non-science. It works on wisdom, personality, the mind and heart. That is exactly why it is "personal revelation" that proves such things. Because those with great wisdom are not bent on the concept of mass media.
To put it bluntly: no one owes you anything.
And do you truly think someone with great wisdom and power will share it with the public?
Therein lies the difference between faith and things truly "beyond".
Faith requires you to believe first, and then you supposedly get proof.
True wisdom and power requires you to want/need/yearn first, and then you will achieve what you desire.
And I assure you, curiosity doesn't even come close to truly wanting or needing any such things. Science is based on curiosity. And so it will never grasp that the greatest wisdom is gained through the power of the heart, through inspiration, rage, and a myriad of feelings, not the ponderings of the mind.
The ideal of science is to offer methods to reproduce subjective matters for other individuals to reach the same conclusion as the author, nay? Thus, science is subjective as well as it offers the means to subjective conclusions and experiences as others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlock
This sounds like saving face more than anything. Am I supposed to quell the question on the basis that a non-speaking intellectual refuses to share wisdom with me asking for it's plausibility because I "fail" to see the power of subjective revelation? Science offers profound subjective revelation as well, don't neglect that.Quote:
To put it bluntly: no one owes you anything.
And do you truly think someone with great wisdom and power will share it with the public?
You are saying that science is not including inspiration, rage, and other feelings including the heart? I would find that an interesting thing to tell Galileo who died in the name of it and not too mention zounds of others that would attest differently. That's a very bold statement you make about scientists here.Quote:
And I assure you, curiosity doesn't even come close to truly wanting or needing any such things. Science is based on curiosity. And so it will never grasp that the greatest wisdom is gained through the power of the heart, through inspiration, rage, and a myriad of feelings, not the ponderings of the mind.
~
no it doesn't. science can't explain feelings and emotions. science doesn't even fully understand the brain...or mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
there are scientists that have done experiments with emotions and water,plants, and human DNA. But most just discredit them. ANd say they are a hoax or whatever.
Merlock is pretty much right. Some things you need to look inside yourself to prove. Or you just have to experience them.
Science cannot and DID NOT prove lucid dreaming....you can't prove it....you can only experience it. All it says is that you become conscious during your dreaming.
And before you ever knew about lucid dreaming, if someone would have told you about it....or shared an experience with you..you probably would have just laughed them off. or thought they were crazy.
Some people are just so engulfed with the mass media. You would believe anything the mass media told you. Mass media is actually a way to keep people under control, as occultist as it might sound.
from juruara
That quote pretty much wraps it in a nutshell. He hit the nail right on the head.Quote:
how can a scientist claim to understand the mind? how can a stranger claim to understand your mind? they would first have to understand their own mind. what profession is better suited to understand the self, except the man who is self reflective? spirituality is the self reflective practice, not science.
I'm not saying science has no place in this field, it does. but science currently only cares to talk about the objective. its too chicken to get into the subjective, as things can no longer be as easily defined. problem is, our minds are experiencing a subjective reality! how much can science tell us then???
the 'science' that talks about the subjective reality is eastern practices. I called it a science because like science, it has defined things and has defined how those things relate to each other
and maybe in the future, we will recognize the science of the subjective reality
You don't have to quell anything. This isn't just about non-science either.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
The governments, wealthy people and mad scientists that discover truly powerful and renovative scientific things will keep them hidden too.
My point is: whether it's science or "beyond", such questions are naive.
You have to yearn for and take what you want to find yourself.
No one will just give you anything of true meaning just because you want to know.
The 'scientist' (Masaru Emoto) that performed the experiments with water and emotion pretty much said it was a hoax.Quote:
Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD
Sure it can and it did:Quote:
Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/articl...04A0674103.php
LaBerges research counts as well, doesn't it?
Actually science is chock full'o theories that are nothing more than "claims".Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Well, seeing as how you apparently misinterpreted what I said, I think it's only fair to me that it get cleared up.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
What I said was that science alone cannot explain everything. You took the liberty of assuming that, by that, I was implying that there was something else that could, which isn't true at all.
As I (and many scientists) had said, science is widely known as the best tool that we have for explaining natural phenomena, and the universe at large. But, scientific discovery is limited to what humans can perceive. We have to be readily equipped to detect a phenomena and its components, before we can explain it. Even if it's something invisible to our naked senses, we then have to rely on tools that we invent, to broaden our perception. Does this mean that we will ever be able to see all forces and energies that exist in the universe? No. It takes a human mind that is willing to travel down certain avenues and, in many cases, let go of dogmatic paradigms, in order to devote his/herself to such fringe areas of exploration, and even then, there is no guarantee that (being that the discovery falls upon the shoulders of the human scientist) whatever force is at work in a phenomenon will ever be discovered.
By saying that "science, by default, can't explain everything," I wasn't implying that we have a better system or tool that can. I was stating that sometimes science isn't enough, because it ultimately falls back on the will and open-mindedness of the person using science as a tool, and in many cases, that person (or those people) just do not have the perspective required to get to the bottom of something, sufficiently.
The origin of consciousness, for example, may never be fully explained. It does not mean that there is a better tool than science with which to explain it, only that - so far - human investigation and experimentation, using said science, has not been sufficient.
As an aside: A major flaw presented in why this whole thing came up (as is duplicated often) is that - when trying to dissent against psychic phenomena, the people who are dead-set in proving that it doesn't exist usually say something like "I know there is a perfectly good, scientific explanation for it." This, alone, proves bias. IF such phenomena do exist, then the explanation, no matter what it is, will be scientific, because it will likely be explained using the scientific method. Those people throw the word scientific around, as if it somehow clashes with the idea of the 'paranormal,' when in fact - should these phenomena exist - they aren't even 'paranormal'. They are just normal. They aren't 'supernatural'. They are natural. People try to discredit the possibility of their existing by constantly referring to them as such, even when evidence that they might exist has been expressly documented.
Beside "personal revelation", you really have nothing. There is nothing outside of subjective knowledge; no subjective Reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
The problem is, science just explains. What happens when it tries to explain the unexplainable? Nothing happens. There is no capacity anyway. The unexplainable is Reality itself. Science is within it like a blade of grass in the field. The grass cannot really do anything but grow, and the field needs nothing to do, and it encompasses all possibility.
What can never be explained can only be revealed; revealed As It Is. And it can only be revealed since it already Is, as radical subjective Reality. If we ask "what is the unexplainable", there is no need for science; no need for any explanation, and no challenge. :P The typical problem is that there is the illusion of the contrary, which argues the need for an explanation. If the problems were understood and dissolved, there would be Divine Revelation.
It would be foolish to say that anything can or cannot be explained by science, since in reality science is only a method of inquiry and doesn't in itself offer any explanations.
If you are asking whether or not there is any truth that cannot be arrived at using the scientific method, this to me is also a foolish question since the only answer can be "only time will tell."
If you are asking if there are any phenomena which currently are unexplained through scientific means, then you should just look around you since the answers are everywhere. Conscious experience sticks out in my mind, although perhaps you include that in "personal revelation". I'd say that objective reality as a whole stands outside of any scientific inquiry, by its very definition. As a matter of fact, this one could really answer any of the three different questions I presented here. The scientific method is a form of subjective experience, and so could never even begin to deal with any possible objective state of existence.
There is so much wrong with your post HaRd_WiReD.
Not right now, your point? There were things in the past we didn't fully understand. Parts of our body that seemed incredibly complex then are relatively simple now. How does science not fully understanding the brain or mind equate to it can't explain them at all? Given time, in the future these things have the possibility of being as simple to us as walking is now.Quote:
Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD
And yes, it can explain feelings and emotions and has. You may not like it, but its simple chemical reactions. The brain releases certain chemicals that cause happyness, anger, euphoria, sadness, rage, depression, joy, fear. The question is the stimuli, why certain things cause certain reactions. We know most of the circumstantial evidence for such things, but have yet to understand the cold hard science of it fully but that doesn't mean we won't.
Science is perfectly capable of explaining all these things.
What you've said here is ridiculously misleading. Doing experiments is part of science, and an experiment can't be a hoax unless you say you're doing something you're not. The results can be a hoax, or the results can be false based on the 'scientist' not following proper process.Quote:
Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD
Someone mentioned Emoto, the man who said that thinking positive things to a glass of water would make it form beautiful crystals and thinking negative things would make it ugly. He provided all sorts of evidence, but what he actually did was pick and chose results that fit his already decided conclusion while ignoring those that didn't follow suit. Which is NOT the scientific process.
And just as some scientists do experiments that fail, that is again not a reason why science can't explain everything. Another scientist will do another experiment eventually that works and seeks to get an answer for the question that the one that failed couldn't reach.
Again, your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin
There are many things that if you said in the past that people would of just laughed at you. If I told someone in the 1800's that, in the future, I could write with light and create 3D landscapes that I can interact with that don't really exist on a machine that displays this all on a pane of glass or glass like material, what do you think they'd say?
And science did prove Lucid Dreaming. Consciousness can be measured. The brain behaves in certain ways when conscious. The experience was what gave someone the idea to prove it. But experience isn't everything. It's part of the process, but alone its misleading. People have said they've experienced ghosts. Simply experiencing a ghost isn't enough to prove them. Your mind could be playing tricks on you, you could be seeing what you want to see, someone could be using a projector to project an image of a ghost and thus your interpretation is wrong.
That said, your point is moot. Science proved Lucid Dreaming. People had the experience of it, and some said "You can only dream that you know your dreaming, and feel that way but its not real. Its still just a dream." Basic idea. Then they stuck electrodes to peoples heads and measure brain activity and found the patterns changed when people achieved Lucidity, yet still remained asleep. They were asleep, yet conscious. This discredited any of the circumstancial evidence against it, and proved it.
Similarly, your lack of understanding of science is not enough to disprove that it can prove anything.
I think you need to elaborate slightly; are you asking if there are things which will always be outside of the scope of science, or just if they simply are at the moment?Quote:
Challenge:
Please name something that science cannot explain that something else can -besides personal revelation.
But I can answer your question anyway: no, science cannot explain many objective truths. In my opinion, science is simply one method to ascertaining objective truth about reality; namely the method of empirical observation. It has been extremely successful over the last few centuries in particular. However, there is another separate, but equally valid method: logical deduction. I place both of these methods under the general branch of philosophy, which I regard as the sum of methods for ascertaining truth. They are often used in conjunction.
To give an example of a truth which is independent of empirical evidence: Fermat's Last Theorem.
And indeed, the totality of mathematics.
Another example of something which currently lies outside of science, mathematics, and hence philosophy, is consciousness, as The Cusp suggested. We do not understand the reasons for it at all. That is not to say we shall not; I am open to the possibility that we could discover much more through science and logic.
One more example is the multiverse theory, which one can currently discover through deduction, but not through empirical observation; again, this may change.
Then again, there are many things which cannot be deduced at all, and will lie forever outside of philosophy (such as what any specific planet which lies outside of the observable universe is like).
Neuroscience is in the works. Plus, my point is that if science cannot explain it, ought something else be able to given the insinuation?Quote:
Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD
This being personal revelation which does only good to explain it to you but not everyone or anyone else.Quote:
there are scientists that have done experiments with emotions and water,plants, and human DNA. But most just discredit them. ANd say they are a hoax or whatever.
Merlock is pretty much right. Some things you need to look inside yourself to prove. Or you just have to experience them.
Again, my point is - name something science cannot explain that something else can. Psychology can still explain the manifest content of dreams.Quote:
Science cannot and DID NOT prove lucid dreaming....you can't prove it....you can only experience it. All it says is that you become conscious during your dreaming.
This is not really answering my question more or less just telling me to figure it out myself which still leads to personal revelation. So, are you to say then that the only alternative for explaining things, to yourself, is personal revelation. However, when explaining to others, it is only science..?Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlock
I was only speaking of the beginning of time. There is no way I would neglect or be ignorant to the theories of science - that's what drives it!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cusp
Don't get personal now, Oneironaut. I am simply bringing this up because I see it often said and the point is this;Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
If you say "science can't explain anything" then there ought to be something else to explain things. Otherwise, science is the only thing.
What you are speaking of is now is truly a tangent and digressive to my point. Don't take this personally, please. I am making this assertion to those that make the statement in opposition to science. I am all for the fact that science does not claim to know everything - it is always developing and integrating new data. I would hope you know that I share this position by now.Quote:
As I (and many scientists) had said, science is widely known as the best tool that we have for explaining natural phenomena, and the universe at large. But, scientific discovery is limited to what humans can perceive. We have to be readily equipped to detect a phenomena and its components, before we can explain it. Even if it's something invisible to our naked senses, we then have to rely on tools that we invent, to broaden our perception. Does this mean that we will ever be able to see all forces and energies that exist in the universe? No. It takes a human mind that is willing to travel down certain avenues and, in many cases, let go of dogmatic paradigms, in order to devote his/herself to such fringe areas of exploration, and even then, there is no guarantee that (being that the discovery falls upon the shoulders of the human scientist) whatever force is at work in a phenomenon will ever be discovered.
By saying that "science, by default, can't explain everything," I wasn't implying that we have a better system or tool that can. I was stating that sometimes science isn't enough, because it ultimately falls back on the will and open-mindedness of the person using science as a tool, and in many cases, that person (or those people) just do not have the perspective required to get to the bottom of something, sufficiently.
Right, see, this is a tangent from my challenge to those that are opposed to the ideal of science and it's humbleness.Quote:
The origin of consciousness, for example, may never be fully explained. It does not mean that there is a better tool than science with which to explain it, only that - so far - human investigation and experimentation, using said science, has not been sufficient.
In fact... you are misinterpreting me. :P
No worries, I love you.
Now I knew what path you would take and I like it. Your point will be hard for many to grasp but I got a feeling I will agree with what you will have to say here.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
I am beginning to understand you a lot better now, really. I like what you have said here and I think your point can be exposed like this; you can take the most scientific explanation and offer it to a rock and a person. The only reason the person will listen and agree is because they can perceive the offer.Quote:
What can never be explained can only be revealed; revealed As It Is. And it can only be revealed since it already Is, as radical subjective Reality. If we ask "what is the unexplainable", there is no need for science; no need for any explanation, and no challenge. :P The typical problem is that there is the illusion of the contrary, which argues the need for an explanation. If the problems were understood and dissolved, there would be Divine Revelation.
What do you think of that...?
You're right - I mean for those that are opposed to science and feel it can never explain something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
How is logical deduction not scientific..? Is it not a crucial mechanism for the scientific method and statistics..? Don't get me wrong, I completely agree, but I would still call that scientific.Quote:
But I can answer your question anyway: no, science cannot explain many objective truths. In my opinion, science is simply one method to ascertaining objective truth about reality; namely the method of empirical observation. It has been extremely successful over the last few centuries in particular. However, there is another separate, but equally valid method: logical deduction. I place both of these methods under the general branch of philosophy, which I regard as the sum of methods for ascertaining truth. They are often used in conjunction.
Oh I see, you're going to say math is not science...?Quote:
To give an example of a truth which is independent of empirical evidence: Fermat's Last Theorem.
And indeed, the totality of mathematics.
I see that you are distinguishing empirical observation from logic but I am confused as to why. Bertrand Russel and Wittgenstein who originated the structures of logical symbolism would still assert that it is a form of empirical observation as it offers means to reproduce experiences for others to have.Quote:
Another example of something which currently lies outside of science, mathematics, and hence philosophy, is consciousness, as The Cusp suggested. We do not understand the reasons for it at all. That is not to say we shall not; I am open to the possibility that we could discover much more through science and logic.
One more example is the multiverse theory, which one can currently discover through deduction, but not through empirical observation; again, this may change.
Then again, there are many things which cannot be deduced at all, and will lie forever outside of philosophy (such as what any specific planet which lies outside of the observable universe is like).
For example, whatever logical deduction you utilize, you offer it to someone else to reach the conclusion of the logical theorem.
The above is the precise definition of science to! However, science includes more methods than just logic.
What do you think...?
~
Science is the body of knowledge gained via the scientific method.
The scientific method is essentially
- Form a hypothesis
- Observe the relevant phenomena
- Interpret the observations so as to support or not support the hypothesis
Logical deduction such as mathematical proof is completely different as it involves no empirical observation of anything physical at all.
I wasn't trying to get personal. It seemed (seemed like this was a direct response to my post. I said that you apparently misinterpreted what I said, because you seemed to be implying that by my saying that "Science can't explain everything" I was asserting that there is something else that can.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I looked back at the other thread, and it seems that I misinterpreted metcalfracing's 1st point. He said "ya science can explain everything," and doing so in the same vein as the rest of his dissenting post, I figured he was committing the same fallacy as so many others; which was saying that "none of this phenomena is real. There is a scientific explanation for it." But, going back and reading someone else's post, I came to figure that metcalf was replying to someone who said "Perhaps science really can explain everything", without quoting him (so I didn't realize he was responding to someone, instead of just making a point which - when interpreted as such - fits perfectly with his dissenting viewpoint on the matter).Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
So, basically my saying "science can't explain everything" (which I stand by, but only in the context of how I'd previously explained it - as being a tool which is only as good as its user. I suppose it was a poor way to word it.) was then re-misinterpreted by you as my being one of those people expressing opposition to science and contributing to your starting of this thread, which was then re-re-misinterpreted by me as a direct dig at me. Haha. What a mess. :chuckle:
Yea. I understand where you're going with it now. :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Lol. Don't mind me. I'm just going to pretend like none of this ever happened. Carry on.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
:cheers:
My apologies if this seems like a shameless plug, but the information in the posts here may be relevant to the current path this discussion is on.
http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=72707
In point of fact, the scientific method represents the integration of rationalism and empiricism. That being the case, logical deduction is absolutely fundamental to science. For example, in order to test scientific theories, scientists must deduce specific, testable hypotheses from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
It may be an integral part, but it is also separable; the point is rationalism can be used in its pure form to obtain truths with no empirical elements at all. Such as mathematics.
What about the arguments for functionalism, as another example (or at least counterarguments against biological chauvinism)? As far as I can see they are flawless and ascertain an objective truth - that consciousness is the result of systems - but science is not, and cannot, be involved in this process.
No argument here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Of course it isn't an answer. That's the whole point. You won't get an answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
As for the latter part, not quite so. "Personal revelation" and the like can be explained to others, but only those you trust and those who trust you. Good friends and the like. Again, based on the heart, mind, feelings, ideals, etc.
Where as science has "proof", which doesn't require trust, thus easily dispersed into the masses in the form of experiments caught on tape or paperwork to corroborate them, etc.
But again, no matter who might've died for science in their day, science is still about proving something, discovering it, curiosity, etc. -- not the polar opposite concepts that make up matters of the mind and heart: ambition, desperation, vengeance, etc.
Science is used for things we "need" technically. But when do you think people turn to magic and the like? When they really need something, socially, not technically. When one needs to resurrect a dying family member or best friend and science tells them, "Not going to happen", where do you think they will turn?
And in such cases, do you really think anyone will share the knowledge they really need for their own important purpose with the public at large? Never.
Modern society is drowning in apathy and losing sight of the importance of personality, ambitions, principles and all that.
That's why this question came up in such a naive manner. You think you're entitled to just be told what you want to know for the sake of knowing. Just like many think they're entitled to "rights" and "freedoms", and entitled to a great deal of things, just "because".
But there shall always be a larger stake at play as long as society exists and doesn't become a mindless mass of apathetic cattle: purpose. True purpose. Social purpose. Not curiosity, not technical capability, but purpose revolving around things that truly matter to us as conscious self-aware beings with personalities, not beasts that just require means to an end to survive.
And as long as that purpose exists, there shall never be an ideal scientific or occult community that shares its findings for the "greater good", because if everyone suddenly started focusing on the greater good, we would have world peace...the most terrifying concept ever conceived.
That's true. Not only that, if the rock were able to perceive the offer, how would the rock respond? The point is simple regardless. We are both conscious and reasoning beings.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
When you said "everything" in the title, I understood it as: Total Reality, in its Absolute "meaning". I.e. Reality as perfectly understood by virtue of being itself. "The meaning of life", etc. Now that I think again, what did you mean by "everything"? Reality as a total singularity, as I have said, or instead, the objective universe? Understanding the Context for All Reality is not possible through science (science is part of the "content"), but radically through other means.
It is still based on objects, symbols and limitations of form. There is no maths required for "Everything" as an infinite totality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Is this a riddle?!
Science cannot explain an imaginary set of rules for an imaginary world. They are made up, and science deals purely with factual, objective reality.
So, what can explain imaginary rules for a made up world? Why, the game's rulebook of course! The imaginary world doesn't count as personal revelation if more than one person is participating in the delusion.
Give me my award.
[Edit] No, there are no real world objective phenomena that I can conceive of that can be explain by something other than science, unless the explanation is theoretical.
Science cannot explain how Invader's avatar scares the hell out of me.
Science cannot explain Chi energy.
That's a good one, actually. There are numerous overlapping systems, ancient and modern, descriptive and prescriptive, regarding the vital energies of the earth and living beings. At least millions of humans derive insight and/or benefit from them daily.Quote:
Originally Posted by grasshoppa
Why are my energies redoubled through the exercise of Qi Jong? Why, at the point of exhaustion, am I repeatedly able to come to a state of mental clarity and renewed physical energy by ritually gathering Chi from the earth?
No you don't get it.. I mean, you weren't really saying anything - you're just saying that I have to struggle with it myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlock
Don't forget that science is the ideal of offering others the ability to experience the results themselves. It's not just simply believing the word of other scientists - this is why peer reviewed journals exist!Quote:
As for the latter part, not quite so. "Personal revelation" and the like can be explained to others, but only those you trust and those who trust you. Good friends and the like. Again, based on the heart, mind, feelings, ideals, etc.
Where as science has "proof", which doesn't require trust, thus easily dispersed into the masses in the form of experiments caught on tape or paperwork to corroborate them, etc.
I agree, but I can't help but think that this is sort of an excuse for those who make these statements against science.Quote:
Science is used for things we "need" technically. But when do you think people turn to magic and the like? When they really need something, socially, not technically. When one needs to resurrect a dying family member or best friend and science tells them, "Not going to happen", where do you think they will turn?
And in such cases, do you really think anyone will share the knowledge they really need for their own important purpose with the public at large? Never.
Hang on.. I'm just after discussion, not demanding anything nor do I have any expectations. If I say something to someone, I hope for a response, but I never expect one.Quote:
That's why this question came up in such a naive manner. You think you're entitled to just be told what you want to know for the sake of knowing. Just like many think they're entitled to "rights" and "freedoms", and entitled to a great deal of things, just "because".
I hope you are not saying these things in a pejorative reference to science..Quote:
But there shall always be a larger stake at play as long as society exists and doesn't become a mindless mass of apathetic cattle: purpose. True purpose. Social purpose. Not curiosity, not technical capability, but purpose revolving around things that truly matter to us as conscious self-aware beings with personalities, not beasts that just require means to an end to survive.
You're making a desperate leap to the imagination here. Even in an imaginary world, how are things explained in the imaginary world that cannot be explained scientifically? Even in fantasy, science can still be applied. Stop encapsulating science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Invader
Those rules are still based on scientific grounds, no?Quote:
So, what can explain imaginary rules for a made up world? Why, the game's rulebook of course! The imaginary world doesn't count as personal revelation if more than one person is participating in the delusion.
Give me my award.
Well that is nice, you still fail to explain what else can explain Chi energy that is not scientific?Quote:
Originally Posted by grasshoppa
Here's the problem with Chi energy and all other energies and this challenge. The question will be utilizing a fallacy of "begging the question".
To make my point, let me use an example:
P1) Science cannot explain Klampops.
P2) Klampops are my personal colors that I do not think others can see.
C) Thus, science cannot explain Klampops but I can.
However, the problem here is that.. how can anyone know what Klampops are to disagree or argue this point? Notice that even the conclusion is reached via logic which is utilized by science!
So when you say that science cannot explain Chi energy, how can it be explained that does not still remain fallacious? Because anyone can say, "Well science cannot explain Klampops, but my friend knows what they are!"
Which.. is personal revelation.
Which.. is a nice way of saying imagination.
What do you think...?
Edit:
How is this not personal revelation..?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
This still falls parallel to the grounds of, "science cannot explain klampops, but I can". They are logically the same.
~
Unless "Klampops" have been: widespread, dialogued, written about, universally true to anyone, identified, contextualized, taught about, confirmed, attained, realized, and put into practice, there is no way to compare them with Chi energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I thought you agreed with me earlier. Without personal revelation, or rather, "revelation", what exists? Nothing. It is naive to think it is a nice way of saying "imagination". In fact, revelation usually bypasses the imagination altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Why not? Simply because it is spoken of a lot does not mean it is different in concept. Are you able to distinguish without begging the question?Quote:
Originally Posted by really
No, I do still agree. Simply, it is like another topic. I simply see science as the most utilized form of perceptual understanding. In order to understand things, we typically utilized scientific methods intuitively anyway. Otherwise, we end up stuck in circles constantly re-justifying our dogmatic beliefs rather than developing and integrating new information.Quote:
I thought you agreed with me earlier. Without personal revelation, or rather, "revelation", what exists? Nothing. It is naive to think it is a nice way of saying "imagination". In fact, revelation usually bypasses the imagination altogether.
~
If I'm going to be more serious about this,
For starters, science does not explain anything, nor does it give any answers in and of itself. It is not analogous to a religion that offers answers. The scientific method is no more than a tool that allows human beings to measure and observe objective reality with factual results. Theories and Laws arrived at through science are what do the explaining. Furthermore, because the scientific method encompasses all of objective reality, all other categories fall into the subjective realm, which equates to issues that are experienced via "personal revelation".Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
There is the scientific method, and there is personal revelation. There's nothing else. Your challenge is not actually possible, not from the way I understand it, and I'm assuming that's your point.
Chi has been widely recognized and familiar within certain practices (etc) as spiritual energy and energy flow.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi
"Klampops" - you actually just made up on the spot?
How does "revelation" become reliant on things that are potentially false, then? Something that is not existing cannot be "revealed".Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Millions of people know and understand what Chi is. Millions of people have and can feel chi energy if they wish though various exercises or rituals.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Like Taosaur, and many Qigong, Bagua, and Tai Chi masters say: Chi energy is not just 1 system. It includes circulation, electromagnetic energy, the muscular-skeletal system and many others. Chi energy can be scientifically explained, but it would be a four-foot-tall book that would require years and years of rigorous investigation.Quote:
There are numerous overlapping systems, ancient and modern, descriptive and prescriptive, regarding the vital energies of the earth and living beings. At least millions of humans derive insight and/or benefit from them daily
Although, I agree that for now, Chi is a subjective experience. However, it is a common subjective experience. Nearly the whole population of China, and millions more across the world partake in Chi cultivating exercises. Is this imagination? I don't think something this widespread and widely known is imagination..
What, like religion? You know - those mutually contradictory stories also believed by billions of people? The numbers argument doesn't work mate.
Personally I have no reason to believe in Chi. Nor have I ever recieved a proper explanation of what Chi actually is.
Still, I think there are things which lie outside of the grasp of science... O'nus has so far ignored them though which is a bit irritating. Qualia cannot be explained by reductionist methods... neither can the existence of the universe. Science observes how things are, it does not explain why they are.
Go to a local qigong place and ask. It's not about believing, it's about experiencing. Everyone can experience it thought proper exercises/rituals/dances. All it takes is good instruction and practice.Quote:
Personally I have no reason to believe in Chi. Nor have I ever recieved a proper explanation of what Chi actually is.
How about the cosmological constant? It's incredibly finely tuned. A lot of people consider that the smoking gun pointing to an intelligent creator.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
NOTE: Just because I said intelligent creator doesn't mean the bible. I wish people would stop automatically associating the idea of an intelligent creator to Jesus and the bible.
...the cosmological constant doesn't exist.
It was a kind of force which Einstein introduced so that his theory would predict a stationary universe. However he did this without any empirical justification at all - only an ancient prejudice that the universe had existed for eternity. He later called it the greatest blunder of his life.
I agree that the universe is fine tuned though. However, that doesn't really justify an intelligent creator to me (mainly because that just shifts the question of existence onto that creator, which solves nothing). I read in the New Scientist yesterday that physicists are increasingly coming round to the conclusion that there are many universes out there with different constants. They've been trying to iron out this problem by looking for some kind of set of conditions which would ensure that our universe is the only possible one, but it just hasn't worked. It's something I've always believed to true though, the multiverse theory, based upon philosophical reasoning: if there are many different universes (the estimate is an incredible 10^500), there will be a few (most likely a tiny tiny fraction) in which conscious life spontaneously arises through some process or other; and those universes are the ones you find yourself in, because it is impossible to find yourself anywhere else.
I don't think there's a local qigong within 100 miles from here to be honest, but thanks.Quote:
Go to a local qigong place and ask. It's not about believing, it's about experiencing. Everyone can experience it thought proper exercises/rituals/dances. All it takes is good instruction and practice.
I'll cover a little more Chi below, but what about the arts? Criticism in all fields of the arts supply massive explanatory frameworks to which science is irrelevant. The same applies to philosophy, the mother of science. Sci-ence, application of the intellect, has no power to address its own origins.
There's a massive literature explaining every aspect of Chi and it has been affirmed through practice by probably billions of individuals over hundreds of generation. If you dismiss any non-scientific explanation as "personal revelation," your question begs itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
If you're in the US and within 100 miles of any city larger than about 15000 people, there probably is at least one teacher of Qi jong and Tai Chi Chuan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I'm not.
:)
You pose a good point that I should have known..Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I now realize that my creation of this thread is prepositional.
I apologize.
~
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Oh god, i can't even imagine THIS universe, let alone a friggin multiverse. How in the universes can this thing be so damn big? possibly infinite....so it would be like a balloon expanding from your air pumping it up like a "big bang".:shock::shock::shock:
What do you feel when you do Chi? i wish i could not be drained all the time....Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Seems like O'nus realized the error of his ways and walked away, so I don't feel too bad derailing:Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidFlanders
The most common practice involving Chi is Tai Chi Chuan, a Korean/Chinese martial art sometimes practiced as a fighting style, but more often as an exercise regimen and/or Taoist meditation. Qi jong is essentially calisthenics for Tai Chi, warm up exercises culminating in "permeating the Chi."
I'm only a dabbler myself--I took two weeks of Tai Chi in college before having to choose between it and my night job, and I've retained a 15-minute Qi jong routine as my preferred morning exercise, though I don't do it regularly. Part of the benefit is just that it's a stretching exercise, leaving you limber for the activities of the day, but I find it also leaves me with substantial energy and a sharpened sense of my body and the space around me throughout the day. I've also found an abbreviated version of "permeating the Chi" very helpful in enduring the occasional 9am-4am restaurant shift.
It's definitely worth taking a course, though walking into anything expecting miracles is a good way to get taken for a ride.
Well, I do 'normal' stretching, Steve Maxwell's joint mobility exercises and some shadow boxing in the morning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
And I feel the same way: energized, limber, increased body awareness and find it easier to concentrate during the day.
Could it be that this is a normal physiological and mental outcome of exercising in the morning, and not due to some mysterious force named Chi?
Nothing abnormal or mysterious about Chi. It's just a useful way of looking at the energies of the body and nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer
Science can't explain the Synesthesia, which goes back to science can't explain the mind at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Nah, your conjecture is wrong. Science bases on hypotheses. It gives theses which are only valid if the hypotheses are true. Nothing keeps you from setting a bunch of different basic situations (a different reality), and foreseeing the behaviour of that system. The only difference is that there would be no way to observe things physically. But still, it is logically, and therefore scientifically possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Invader
One clear example of this is action games. Made up systems, different physical laws; but you can also analyse, experiment, and predict. Therefore science can study it. It has been done extensively. Only difference is, it isn't really useful for humans in general as compared to real physics.
Style without substance, much? In which age were you born? Science does explain the mind. And it's much more boring and simple than you imagine. I could go all the way through a rigorous, hardcore explanation, but I will keep myself down to the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD
Synesthesia is a product of learning. You are, from young age, taught and conditioned to think that fire is warm and that fire is red. The brain tends to associate similar information, in order to ease learning, but also to provide more information in response to a specific stimulus. Therefore, as you associate fire with red, and fire with warm, you tend to associate red with warm. With enough reinforcement, you may see something red and immediately think of it as warm, without passing through the interconnecting idea, which is fire. This process is usually more intense when we're young, because we are not taught with scientific rigour - we are just taught the way it'll make us learn faster.
Schemed:
(through observation)
fire -> red
fire -> warm
(brain associates information)
red <-> fire <-> warm
(with time)
red <-> warm
We could discuss this in another thread, if you really want. In any case, my point was only to illustrate just a little bit of what neurosciences know about the mind nowadays. It is a fascinating field.
To be honest neuroscience has discovered next to nothing about the neural circuits of higher cognition.
That's directly paraphrasing Henry Markram who is pretty much the worldwide leader in these things.
Science cannot explain THIS:
*does something impossible.*
lol winQuote:
Originally Posted by sloth
I didn't mean to say neuroscience has discovered it all - it's a very modern branch of science. Only because it doesn't yet explain things, it doesn't mean it's incapable of that. For the gaps there are in neuroscience, there is always psychology, which *is* an incredibly accurate field of science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
And never use ad verecundiam, it is not a valid form of argument - especially not in science. And remember there are just too many arrogant scientists out there.
Your former being already tackled, do not be so bold to say that science can't explain the mind at all - it shows an ignorance of psychology and neuroscience.Quote:
Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD
So sayeth one person. Joseph LeDoux wrote a book called "Synaptic Self" which exhausts how all thoughts and cognition are reducible. In addition, I do not think anyone would question Joseph LeDoux credibility, but credibility is never a sole reason to rely on a truth. Jean Pierre-Changeaux and his "Physiology of Truth" would also explain how all bodily functions can be reduced, including cognition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
At the end, this is the result of this thread:
- Science will not claim to explain pseudo-science, imaginary concepts, dogmatism, or other concepts that cannot be identified scientifically. This does not mean they are outside science completely, just at this time.
- Science will not claim to explain personal revelations aside from fundamental psychology. However special you think you are, there are usually many reasons, that are reducible, to your personality and your cognitive thoughts. See Dan Dennet for the further elucidation of how special you really are not.
- While concept like Chi Energy and riddles, etc. are not explained by science, they are still dogmatic and personal. They perpetuate and exist by constant reinforcement (false or true is up for debate) by many individuals that may not even utilize any methodology. To deny that fools reinforce psychic powers is to be truly naive of the human race. There are far too many people that think they can predict things and have special powers. Everyone thinks they are special and unique because you have a consciousness independent of others!
To be independent and exclusive from others thoughts does not necessitate invulnerability to quantification or qualification via scientific inquiry.
~
Love.
I know it's a chemical reaction of some sort, I'm not challenging, I'm curious :3
Psychology:Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarboy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_theory_of_love
~
It doesn't explain the cause of love, only the types. What causes the compassion?
I believe the reasons for being 'unique' or 'special' go far beyond just having a separate consciousness. It has more to do with people's individual abilities and personal choices, which are influence by the environment one grows up in and whatever genetic factors may effect behavior. Being 'special' just means having something that makes one valuable, and value is dictated by other people. Artists, engineers, writers, teachers, programmers, chemists, and so on are all valued, and if one were to break those fields down into the members that compose each one, you would find a share of individuals with remarkable talent that make them stand far apart from the others, whether that be in their approach to design or their ability to make a piece of work that can appeal to a large user base. You would also find a large share of people with no remarkable "talents" that set them apart. Where you want to draw the line with being special/unique and not special/unique is up to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
And then there are people who don't believe anyone is special or unique, whatsoever. That throws your sweeping generalization out of the window altogether.
What inspired your statement? Was it the same thing that inspired the thread topic?
This is all irrelevant to my point and digression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Invader
Do not be so eager to try and pull a "don't generalize" card. The fact is, everyone does think they are unique and special because you have your own consciousness. There is no denying this - you can only think for yourself, no one else (I mean this in the most cognitive way, not sympathetic). My point is that you are primarily concerned with you, self-preservation, selfishness, evolutionary priorities, etc. It is inevitable, you must be concerned with yourself because you are faced with your biology at every moment. As a consequence of consciousness and biology vis-a-vis, humans inevitably think themselves more important than "other" things.Quote:
And then there are people who don't believe anyone is special or unique, whatsoever. That throws your sweeping generalization out of the window altogether.
My statement here is separate from the threads creation, really. It is more concentrated on the individuals selfish ego concern and then the tools used to reinforce ego-inflation or delusions of grandeur.Quote:
What inspired your statement? Was it the same thing that inspired the thread topic?
~
Only because I understood your statement to mean something slightly different. I called this a generalization because you made it sound like every person individually internalized the belief that "I am special because I have separate consciousness". See where the misunderstanding arose? :chuckle:Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Otherwise, sure, I can agree with your elaboration.
i must admit I haven't read all the posts, but I thought i would take up the challenge...
I googled it, sorry, I was going to mention something stupid but Onus seems so intense about this and I knew he would become insensed, so yeah I'm gonna blame my suggestions on others *whimper*
yes, from
http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk//in...e_cant_explain
aside from the female orgasm, which i thought fascinating that it made the site's top ten, no. 1:
What came before and what comes after (the universe, beginning of time; end of same)
Onus, Onus, come out and play-ee-ay.... :boogie:
If you come in with the bias that everything can be explained by science and ask, "What can science not explain?" then it's a given that you will dismiss all claims. Again, this thread's question begs itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
By narrowing the field of discussion to the objective and quantifiable, you're essentially asking "What science cannot be explained by science?" and responding to everyone else with "That's not science!" What's the point? It's just a big Materialist wank party.
Science is wonderful and useful, but there are great swaths of human endeavor to which it is wholly irrelevant. How do you apply science to Finnegan's Wake, tonglen meditation or ballroom dancing? Relying solely on rigorous application of the intellect to any of the above will yield only frustration, yet there are whole bodies of investigation and explanation devoted to each, ordered less rigidly than the periodic table, but ordered nonetheless, and yielding modalities for further examination and for practice.
It's not like he's saying "that's not science" to everything. He's saying "that's not science" to things that really aren't sciences. The claim that he's just being materialist is style without substance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
History and literature study are sciences, fiy. There is a difference between science explaining something, and science being useful to something. Ballroom dancing doesn't break any scientific theory.
Science is not opinion. Science is knowledge gathered through the scientific method. You are just mistaking art for science. Science can explain everything that's real, but nobody ever claimed that it's the only thing that matters in life. The main thing the OP was aiming at was pseudosciences and religion.
Take three classes each in the study of history and literature, then come back and tell me they're sciences. Next, study at least three sources on Materialism as a philosophical position and tell me again that O'nus's position isn't Materialist. Finally, contemplate the validity of using scientific criteria to assess what "science can't explain."Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
At that point we can continue this discussion.
Regardless of what the OP "was aiming at," it exposed vulnerabilities in its position that warrant further examination.
History is a science. Literature can and can not be a science. I didn't say O'nus isn't materialist, I just said that contesting his positions with "he's just being materialist" is style without substance. It doesn't matter if he is or isn't materialist, if his points are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Of course, science can't explain dogmas or imaginary beliefs. But I think that O'nus meant real situations and facts when he said "what science can't explain". For example, aboriginal american tribes used to think lightnings were manifestations from a god. Then science comes, explains it, and it becomes clear that lightnings are no godly manifestations. Stuff like that.
And what the OP was aiming at really does matter. There's no point in contesting apples if the OP was stating oranges.
Obviously you have neglected to read the fact that I have revamped my position in creating this thread as not a serious matter but a mistake on it's provocation and prepositioning. Although I understand your point profoundly, I am insulted that you think this of me and neglect to fully read my position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
What is it with you guys? I thought that, by now, the regulars on this board would know my position. I know you guys and I find I am rather understanding of that (DeathCell being a good example). But you guys seem to eager to jump on the chance to expose a "fallacy" rather than have a discussion?!
Come on.
Are you eager for a concrete science publishing in every forum thread or are you after discussion? I do not know what made anyone think of me as being an arrogant materialist or something but I was only after a discussion. A "challenge" being a premise for discussion, not a proof. Holy crap.Quote:
Regardless of what the OP "was aiming at," it exposed vulnerabilities in its position that warrant further examination.
Taosaur, I am really disappointed with you. You seem to be so excited at the idea that I would be creating a logical fallacy rather than simple discussion. I am really disheartened to see several people in these threads try to hard to jump on abolishing perceived arguments instead of making simple discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
As a note, I am not trying to argue anything. By "challenge" I did not intend it pretentiously. When I noticed that others obviously took it this way, I apologized and discontinued. Now I am steps from locking it out of humiliation and embarrassment - the latter being with those who I thought would understand my position.
Yes, this is something I was already acknowledging when I said I realized I prepositioning.Quote:
By narrowing the field of discussion to the objective and quantifiable, you're essentially asking "What science cannot be explained by science?" and responding to everyone else with "That's not science!" What's the point? It's just a big Materialist wank party.
I truly hope that the rest of you can take stride in my posts and know that I am more often simply making discussion rather than trying to make a fundamental proof. I feel a pressure to make threads now as it seems that their are too many people too anxious to scrutinize and argue rather than take things in stride and discuss - especially after admitting the problem myself.
All I have to say is that I am very disappointed. Please read my position thoroughly before trying to argue it - you may find it to be civil and agreeable to your own. And PLEASE don't be so anxious to try and boost your ego by exposing problems in every thread at any remote possibility.
*Sigh*
~
O'nus is packing up his toys and going home....
O'nus, re-examine your most recent posts. The tone is as strongly dismissive as mine was challenging. You and I both tend to express ourselves strongly in a way that invites heated opposition. If you don't like "discussions" in this tone then why pursue them so consistently?
The post I responded to so "disappointingly" was a virtual Materialist Manifesto. I'm not saying it as an insult or to imply arrogance (certainly no greater than my own), but to correctly identify the position expressed. Admittedly I identify it to expose its limitations, but was your categorization of matters beyond science (conveniently omitting any such as art or history for which you have a modicum of respect) any less reductionist?
If I'm challenging in response to your posts, take it not as a sign of disrespect but a vote of confidence that you can meet the challenge.
Kromoh, I apologize that I was rude--you do tend to rub me the wrong way, much as Seismosaur once did. I may have to put you on Ignore for your own good.
I did not think I had such an aggressive or challenging tone. Does this post of mine sound hostile..?Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
This being in response to a point that you have been expressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
You see, that is what I hoped you would not see me as. I thought that, by now, you would know me to not be so closed minded a materialist or reductionist. Although I am certainly in their favor, I am by far not exclusively cheering for one team or the other. I enjoy the fervor of a symphony of schools of knowledge interacting to play the wonders of our lives - not just 1 instrument can express the profoundness of everything.Quote:
The post I responded to so "disappointingly" was a virtual Materialist Manifesto. I'm not saying it as an insult or to imply arrogance (certainly no greater than my own), but to correctly identify the position expressed. Admittedly I identify it to expose its limitations, but was your categorization of matters beyond science (conveniently omitting any such as art or history for which you have a modicum of respect) any less reductionist?
I am just sad that you, who I have debated with before, think this of me..
~
I think it is the default position you tend to fall back on without examining it fully or even necessarily being aware of it, as here:Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I've highlighted some areas that lend to the dismissive tone of this post, which despite your earlier admission of the OP's faults seems to revert to the same position. Perhaps more telling are the omissions, of respected fields like history, art criticism and philosophy which likewise rely on "constant reinforcement," "personal revelation" and "dogmatism," if that's how one cares to characterize the non-empirical realms of human investigation. Also omitted is any discussion of how these schools of thought and practice might complement, guide or interact with our empirical investigations, or any consideration of the nature of shared subjective realities independent of empirical validation. The strong implication of your final statement is that only phenomena open to objective quantification, now or in the future, are 'real'--the defining tenet of Materialism.Quote:
At the end, this is the result of this thread:
- Science will not claim to explain pseudo-science, imaginary concepts, dogmatism, or other concepts that cannot be identified scientifically. This does not mean they are outside science completely, just at this time.
- Science will not claim to explain personal revelations aside from fundamental psychology. However special you think you are, there are usually many reasons, that are reducible, to your personality and your cognitive thoughts. See Dan Dennet for the further elucidation of how special you really are not.
- While concept like Chi Energy and riddles, etc. are not explained by science, they are still dogmatic and personal. They perpetuate and exist by constant reinforcement (false or true is up for debate) by many individuals that may not even utilize any methodology. To deny that fools reinforce psychic powers is to be truly naive of the human race. There are far too many people that think they can predict things and have special powers. Everyone thinks they are special and unique because you have a consciousness independent of others!
To be independent and exclusive from others thoughts does not necessitate invulnerability to quantification or qualification via scientific inquiry.
This is not the first thread in which you address all things subjective and immaterial in an insultingly dismissive manner of which you seem unaware. You may recall numerous R/S threads in which I tried to point out that this tone precludes discussion with any but the most combative of religious/spiritual persons.
Now, I also take a strong (dare I say dickish) tone in many discussions, largely just from love of language and the joy of watching ideas clash. I take great pleasure in uncovering the grounds of debate--all that has been assumed and taken for granted--and sometimes, without much thought, I deploy rhetorical napalm to that end. I cannot apologize sincerely for this behavior, because I enjoy the results: at the least a great stirring-up of the mud, and occasionally revelation of truth.
Please understand there is no enmity in it, only love of knowledge and thrill of competition (sometimes too much of the latter, I know). I appreciate your contributions and respect your intellect and what I take for a good-hearted nature.
Be well.
I literally groaned out loud when I read this post, Taosaur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Seriously.. why?! Either you really do not understand what I am saying or I am terrible at stating it.
I am going to go step by step here and try to explain this as clearly (not stupidly, I am just saying you are misunderstanding my intent or that I am bad at declaring it).
Sweet baby Jesus.Quote:
I've highlighted some areas that lend to the dismissive tone of this post, which despite your earlier admission of the OP's faults seems to revert to the same position. Perhaps more telling are the omissions, of respected fields like history, art criticism and philosophy which likewise rely on "constant reinforcement," "personal revelation" and "dogmatism," if that's how one cares to characterize the non-empirical realms of human investigation. Also omitted is any discussion of how these schools of thought and practice might complement, guide or interact with our empirical investigations, or any consideration of the nature of shared subjective realities independent of empirical validation. The strong implication of your final statement is that only phenomena open to objective quantification, now or in the future, are 'real'--the defining tenet of Materialism.
Let me explain that summary you just made..
You see, an institution ought not to claim things about those things they do not understand or encapsulate.
You do not see Dream Views dictating ethics about ld4all just the same as you do not see science dictating how psychic powers work (which, in the science realm, is called pseudo-science!).
Please do not be too sensitive. When I call something dogmatic or pseudo-science it is not pejorative.
Oh my life - are you guys so sensitive to these terms that the very mention causes your blood pressure to increase?! I am a scientist. I enjoy and love science. I have terms to call other things outside of science that I will not claim to understand yet or to dictate yet. Those terms are not intended as an insult!
I apologize if my terminology seems denigrating but this is simply how I am referring to those things in my institutional set of knowledge. When I see something that claims to be science but does not employ scientific methods, I will call it pseudo-science. This does not mean I think it is stupid, wrong, or anything insulting - it is simply a term I use to describe those things that claim to be scientific but do not employ the right methodology of what they claim. The same goes for other words I am using.Quote:
This is not the first thread in which you address all things subjective and immaterial in an insultingly dismissive manner of which you seem unaware. You may recall numerous R/S threads in which I tried to point out that this tone precludes discussion with any but the most combative of religious/spiritual persons.
So.. what you are saying is.. you like trying to anger people..? I do not understand. If you are truly trying to get to the "grounds" of debate, then you are also assuming that I am always debating something when I desperately trying to tell you that I am simply trying to make discussion and not prove something.Quote:
Now, I also take a strong (dare I say dickish) tone in many discussions, largely just from love of language and the joy of watching ideas clash. I take great pleasure in uncovering the grounds of debate--all that has been assumed and taken for granted--and sometimes, without much thought, I deploy rhetorical napalm to that end. I cannot apologize sincerely for this behavior, because I enjoy the results: at the least a great stirring-up of the mud, and occasionally revelation of truth.
As a note - I thought that I spoke plainly. There is no undercurrent agenda I a have here in a guise to ruse you into a conclusion so that I can maliciously laugh at you.
Be careful of becoming a ball-hitter though.Quote:
Please understand there is no enmity in it, only love of knowledge and thrill of competition (sometimes too much of the latter, I know). I appreciate your contributions and respect your intellect and what I take for a good-hearted nature.
These are the people that will swing away at any chance they have - the type that swing at every pitch. Just because you may see a flaw, fallacy, or illogical thought in a comment does not necessitate the action of pointing it out at all times - this is how thought experiments survive.
When I am making threads for the sake of arguing or proving something - I will do my best to tell you.
When I say "challenge" in this thread - I truly mean it in stride. I do not think that it proves anything or that I would laugh at you if you could not. It's just a thought that came to my mind to start a discussion (which it had) and hoped you guys would know that I am not trying to be prepositional - just trying to be provocative.
Okay...?
~
You were the one bristling at my pointing out the Materialism of your position. My only emotional investment came at the point you said you were insulted, when that was not my intention. I did let myself be annoyed at Kromoh's ill-informed and ill-thought-out contribution, which likely muddied the waters and for that I apologize.Quote:
Oh my life - are you guys so sensitive to these terms that the very mention causes your blood pressure to increase?! I am a scientist. I enjoy and love science. I have terms to call other things outside of science that I will not claim to understand yet or to dictate yet. Those terms are not intended as an insult!
I accept and honor this as your intention, and your words betraying assumptions to the contrary, I bring them to your attention that you may better serve your stated purpose. I'm not being argumentative for the sake of conflict, but to get at the truth and advance the discussion.Quote:
You see, an institution ought not to claim things about those things they do not understand or encapsulate.
Now, if you want to discuss what places certain human disciplines beyond science's purview, I accept subjectivity as a criterion, but propose that the subjective is at least as large a realm as the objective and contains many common spaces not "reducible, to your personality and your cognitive thoughts." Revelation, or understanding, while not expressible in quanta, is testable through recognition by those who have realized it before you: as much so in a Liberal Arts thesis defense as in a Zen ashram.
Perfect answer. I cannot argue it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
~
:P Fine. *Goes off for a Universalist wank party*Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus