What are your favourite simple things that science just cannot explain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Replicon

One can argue that societies with these behaviours did not fare well when pitted against societies that care about one another. One can argue that compassion and doing well by those similar to you has evolved much like pair-bonding and nurturing (for raising the little ones).

You COULD develop a scientific model for "morality" (and I'll bet you many HAVE), but it's just not the most useful model for most people to discuss it.

---

But THIS is not science. This is a rational assumption. Science =/= rational assumption. Science is empirical proof using the scientific method. This is just hypothesis. This whole thread people are using rational assumptions and shallow explanations and calling it science. Sure, common sense says most of these explanations are right, and they are probably true, but that doesn't mean that it is science. The thread is about your favorite things that science just cannot explain, not what are YOUR favorite explanations to things that science cannot explain.

Sorry, I dropped my mouse and the above post was published before I was done with it. AND I lost my whole train of thought.

If you are a rational person you will come up with an explanation that makes rational sense to you and you will think that you now understand the subject, in this case morality, when all you have done is explained it in a way that you agree with. This is not science. This is coming up with an explanation that makes you feel good and make sense out of your world, even if it is true.
If a New Age person comes up with an explanation that makes sense to them, they will think that they understand the subject, in this case morality, when all he has done is explained it in a way that he agrees with. This is also not science. This is coming up with an explanation that makes him feel good and makes sense out of his world. Chances are, both people have some of the truth in regards to morality.

But just because you can observe that there are certain pheremones and chemical changes when someone is in love, doesn't EXPLAIN what love is. It doesn't reduce it down to materialist causes for someone who is convinced that it is beyond materialism. They could argue that love is the cause for the chemical reactions and the pheremones, that is a valid hypothesis also. So most of these explanations for things on this thread are not scientific, but just rational hypotheses, that give the illusion of understanding. This is the same error that you would point out for someone who comes up with a supernatural explanation. But we don't see the error if we agree with the explanation.

Also another problem I have with this thread is that SUPERNATURAL means "not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws" but it doesn't mean "not physical or material". For example, if someone sees a faerie fly past the window, there are two explanations possible depending. One is that a faerie did fly past the window, therefore faeries exist in nature and are subject to explanation according to natural laws whether these laws have been discovered yet or not (therefore faeries would NOT be supernatural beings, but they could be immaterial or nonphysical beings), OR the person was hallucinating. Both explanations are hypotheses. Even if one makes more sense to you than the other doesn't mean that it is true. The word "hallucination" might just be an explanation for any unexplainable phenomenon. Just like the words "random mutation" are just words meaning "mutation caused by unknown or not understood means". Just because we have words that give explanations that we can agree with and make us feel safe and comfortable with our world doesn't mean that these words have real meaning. It doesn't make any difference if we use scientific words or supernatural words or new age words, each language is just an explanation for the same phenomenon according to what the person already believes. This is not science.

Of course nothing supernatural exists, but that doesn't mean that nothing immaterial exists. And if something immaterial does exist, science will only be able to observe material effects of this, not the immaterial thing itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The speed of light, why is it set at ~300,000 km/s.

---

Universal speed constant. Going faster than this breaches the laws of physics. Ie. You can't.

What happens after death. Have fun explaining that science!!! (Don't get me wrong here, I love science I'm quite geeky)

There has only been a short time span to measure the speed of light. I'm not absolutely sure it is a constant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThePieMan

What happens after death. Have fun explaining that science!!! (Don't get me wrong here, I love science I'm quite geeky)

---

Hey, i'm actually reading a book about near death experiences. The similarities in seperate events are quite interesting. I hold a lot of value to personal reports , i guess that makes me smarter than most science worshippers.
Don't get me wrong either, nothing wrong with science. But some of you scientists are worse than christians

All hail Science!! :shadewink: Well, I suppose people have to believe in something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThePieMan

What happens after death. Have fun explaining that science!!! (Don't get me wrong here, I love science I'm quite geeky)

---

Your body decomposes.

Why the outer edges of galaxies rotate at the same speed as stars near the bulge and not slower as predicted by general relativity.

Why galaxies look like they have less mass than that is predicted by the way they gravitationally interact with each other according to general relativity.

Why space is expanding everywhere

Quantum observations in general

How life began

Scientists have been able to slow the speed of light down by shining it through frozen argon gas at near absolute zero. First they slowed it down to 30 mph, then they were able to stop it. They will soon be able to slow it down somehow without any frozen argon gas (don't ask me how) and they will use it for computer technology to make our computers much much more efficient and fast.
But even if the speed of light is a constant, WHY? I haven't heard that science can explain that besides "just because".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Your body decomposes.

---

have you died before :0 I know your body decomposes, but you don't know if there is anything more...that is what science can't prove...no one can

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erible

have you died before :0 I know your body decomposes, but you don't know if there is anything more...that is what science can't prove...no one can

---

His question was "what happens after death?" It is pure fact that your body decomposes once it dies :shadewink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Scientists have been able to slow the speed of light down by shining it through frozen argon gas at near absolute zero. First they slowed it down to 30 mph, then they were able to stop it. They will soon be able to slow it down somehow without any frozen argon gas (don't ask me how) and they will use it for computer technology to make our computers much much more efficient and fast.
But even if the speed of light is a constant, WHY? I haven't heard that science can explain that besides "just because".

---

That's awesome, I knew they could slow light down but I didn't know they could stop it lol Why the speed of light is a constant is a good question, I'd like a deeper understanding behind why the speed of light is so pivotal to how we experience space and time. I mean, according to special relativity, they're inseparable, how haven't we unified electromagnetism and gravity/spacetime yet? lol

The fact that there are still people above the age for 12 that beleive in creationism.

I will go with the variety of human tastes and the frequency of apparently unrelated preferences occurring together, producing "like minds."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

His question was "what happens after death?" It is pure fact that your body decomposes once it dies :shadewink:

---

Pure, off-topic, trolling fact. Your goat, sir:
http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/m...usu/troll4.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

His question was "what happens after death?" It is pure fact that your body decomposes once it dies :shadewink:

---

Not always. Besides preservation due to natural causes such as mummification in a dry environment, many yogis have been able to keep their bodies in a state of freshness and even smell like roses. This is a fact and has been documented. Even up to today in Western countries this happens. The yogis have an explanation how this happens and how to do it. The point for them though is not to preserve the body, that is just a side effect. But to exit the body at death through the top of the head instead of through another exit. Of course, this explanation is not scientific. I wonder what the "scientific" explanation of bodies not decomposing would be? And smelling like roses to boot?!

^ Mind posting a related link? Sounds interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Pure, off-topic, trolling fact. Your goat, sir:
http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/m...usu/troll4.jpg

---

Huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Not always. Besides preservation due to natural causes such as mummification in a dry environment, many yogis have been able to keep their bodies in a state of freshness and even smell like roses. This is a fact and has been documented. Even up to today in Western countries this happens. The yogis have an explanation how this happens and how to do it. The point for them though is not to preserve the body, that is just a side effect. But to exit the body at death through the top of the head instead of through another exit. Of course, this explanation is not scientific. I wonder what the "scientific" explanation of bodies not decomposing would be? And smelling like roses to boot?!

---

Obviously there are cases of preservation of dead bodies, but in most cases the body does indeed decompose. For those preserved, the body decomposes to the point where it can't be brought back to life while maintaining a relatively unphased body. It's the exception to the rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThePieMan

All hail Science!! :shadewink: Well, I suppose people have to believe in something.

---

The beauty of science is that it's falsifiable. A solid scientific theory is NOT something that makes itself out to be unprovable but believable. It's something that is vulnerable to being falsified, and yet withstands all experimental attempts to falsify it. e.g. The Theory of Gravity - if you can disprove it, then it will be falsified. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

His question was "what happens after death?" It is pure fact that your body decomposes once it dies :shadewink:

---

I agree with erible and Taosaur here...
Stating an obvious fact does not contribute to the conversation. I'm pretty sure that erible's curiousity was about what ELSE could POSSIBLY happen after death. I know it's important to make sure everyone knows how you feel, but I don't believe that anyone can really call another person wrong in this example.
Nobody knows what OTHER THAN DECOMPOSING happens to you once you die.

Lets say the function of the brain is to produce consciousness(which in turn enables an organism to respond to its environment)
The function of the lungs is to inhale oxygen to be distributed throughout the body.
When the body dies the lungs do not function anymore neither does the brain.
If the brain is not functioning it cannot produce consciousness and you cannot experience anything without consciousness.
So if all of the above is true, there is no experience after death.

But this all hinges on the belief that consciousness is created and maintained through material processes.
We know that when the brain is damaged in some way it affects a persons consciousness so we know that there is a least a connection between the brain and consciousness, I dont think anyone is going to argue that in this day and age taking into account the advancements in neuroscience. I guess in this sense I am somewhat a materialist. Im pretty skeptical of the belief that humans have an eternal soul, which I think when ancient cultures used the word soul they sometimes just meant what we call consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sloth

I agree with erible and Taosaur here...
Stating an obvious fact does not contribute to the conversation. I'm pretty sure that erible's curiousity was about what ELSE could POSSIBLY happen after death. I know it's important to make sure everyone knows how you feel, but I don't believe that anyone can really call another person wrong in this example.
Nobody knows what OTHER THAN DECOMPOSING happens to you once you die.

---

Well then erible answered his question already. We don't know and can't prove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThePieMan

Universal speed constant. Going faster than this breaches the laws of physics. Ie. You can't.

---

I know. My question was why that number, why not faster or slower. It was partially answered in another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I know. My question was why that number, why not faster or slower. It was partially answered in another thread.

---

It probably has to do with the operating speed of the machine hosting the program that is simulating the universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Scientists have been able to slow the speed of light down by shining it through frozen argon gas at near absolute zero. First they slowed it down to 30 mph, then they were able to stop it. They will soon be able to slow it down somehow without any frozen argon gas (don't ask me how) and they will use it for computer technology to make our computers much much more efficient and fast.
But even if the speed of light is a constant, WHY? I haven't heard that science can explain that besides "just because".

---

What they are actually doing with this is slowing the rate of absorption/remmission. The actual speed of light is uneffected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

We know that when the brain is damaged in some way it affects a persons consciousness so we know that there is a least a connection between the brain and consciousness, I dont think anyone is going to argue that in this day and age taking into account the advancements in neuroscience. I guess in this sense I am somewhat a materialist. Im pretty skeptical of the belief that humans have an eternal soul, which I think when ancient cultures used the word soul they sometimes just meant what we call consciousness.

---

To me, using current knowledge of the brain to dismiss the mysteries of consciousness is as superstitious a position as expecting to walk through a big, pearly gate and hug your grandma when you die. It's all about dismissing the question, "What am I?" rather than attaining any depth of knowledge on the subject.

Segueing back to to the topic and relating back to my first post, soul is pretty inexplicable--not THE soul, but soul, as in the recognition of a certain depth independent of surface meaning in certain experiences, activities or works of art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Well then erible answered his question already. We don't know and can't prove it.

---

Yes, which is what makes his post on-topic (notice thread title), whereas your response stated the obvious to mock the purpose of the thread and/or elicit negative responses, also known as trolling.

Once again, your goat, sir:
http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/m...u/goatride.jpg