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

I'm thinking of putting together a toastmaster speech about simple things we take for granted, that science doesn't actually have a clue as to how/why it works. I don't want to talk about complicated particle physics at the brink of our studies, but rather, really simple every day things, like "yawning"... Science has no clue as to why we yawn. And I think that's kind of cool.

What are your favourites? (these have to be observable, everyday things, not things that can be explained away like OBE, etc.)

gravity...but I guess that's not simple

Also, I thought yawning was pretty well explained? Guess not.

Dreams.

Yawning is used to quickly flush the lungs of old air and replace it with new oxygen rich air to give your brain a quick boost :P At least that what I thought :?

Attraction. I know about the chemical processes and such, but why do I find certain people more attractive than other if they're both in good physical and child-baring shape?

Consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Attraction. I know about the chemical processes and such, but why do I find certain people more attractive than other if they're both in good physical and child-baring shape?

---

And this. Except more generally: How is it that we can feel attraction at all?

Love

As far as I know, memories are kind of a pain in the ass.

Magnets, yo

Laughter. And dreaming. And consciousness. Almost seems we know far more about the world than we know about ourselves. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Yawning is used to quickly flush the lungs of old air and replace it with new oxygen rich air to give your brain a quick boost :P At least that what I thought :?

---

That's definitely the popularly-held belief, but when I searched for "stuff science can't explain" yawning was always on the list. Here, read this howstuffworks article. It goes over the common theories, and also gives examples of research that indicates that it's not because of need for more oxygen.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question572.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Attraction. I know about the chemical processes and such, but why do I find certain people more attractive than other if they're both in good physical and child-baring shape?

---

I remember reading/hearing this study did on how certain sounds affect us. They did a whole assortment of people coughing, sneezing, snoring, throat-clearing, babies crying, etc. If you were taking the test, you were to rate the sound on an annoyance scale.

The hypothesis was that as humans, we tend to rate sounds attributed to sickness as more annoying/intolerable. They say it's because we're predispositioned to finding (in a partner) the best genetic make-up possible so that when we have kids, the kids have better chances of surviving.

So, people who are fit/healthy/ generally look well, are more attractive because we know that combining our genes with theirs, our kids will have a better chance of survival.

Any one have links to journals where I could look this up? I tried doing some research before posting, and well... I'm probably just not searching properly.

I'm going to have to go with the already mentioned, consciousness.

Of those mentioned thus far, I think consciousness, dreams, and laughter are good. Science only has guesses at the latter at the moment, and the first is totally impossible to solve at the moment.

The others are already practically solved. Gravity is understood in general relativity. Call me a cynic but love can largely be explained by evolution. Everybody knows how magnets work: they contain hundreds of smaller magnets inside. Just kidding, but they are understood scientifically, by Maxwell's equations largely.

As for some of my own contributions:

- Essentially creating a coherent theory of physics, and hence, possibly, explaining the Big Bang.
- Melodies. Nobody knows what makes a series of intervals 'catchy' or not (i.e. you couldn't feed some notes into a computer and give it a 'hook factor'), or why we even appreciate melodies.
- General brain function. Nobody knows how neurons do their jobs; how do networks of neurons crunch data?

I'm sure there's more, I'll mull it over. :)

And what about memories? They don't seem to be located in a specific
part of the brain and their nature has been bothering scientists for years.

But the last study I have read about it was made 20 years ago, so I'm not sure here.

There's some evidence that it has something to do with the strength of synapses, but clearly that's very weak.

The explanations as I understand them...

Laughter: A "re-set" reaction, alerting you and others around you that something is out of the norm in a non threatening. Why we make that silly noise called "laughter" and smile, I have no idea.

Dreams: Nature's virtual reality. Plain and simple. Instead of sleep just being for body maintenance, the brain runs virtual simulations to help us adapt to waking life. Its your body's free time to simulate all kinds of bizarre situations to better prepare you, should they happen.

Consciousness: From a purely evolutionary explanation...well, its an evolution. "Consciousness" as we know it helps us understand our own mortality and limitations and all that stuff. It's a product of the senses (smells, sights, etc) and helps us live and reproduce.

Like i said, thats just some of the explanations i've gotten. Explaining consciousness is a pretty hard thing to do, i guess.

The problem there is that the first two are hypotheses without any evidence (and there are other contradictory hypotheses), and the third seems to confuse consciousness with self-consciousness. Evolution doesn't really help; it explains why we have various reactions to things, but bear in mind that these reactions are just movements of ions through membranes; the question is, why does it need a consciousness to be there when it seems like it should work perfectly well by itself, via the laws of physics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

the question is, why does it need a consciousness to be there when it seems like it should work perfectly well by itself, via the laws of physics.

---

My best guess? Because the world isn't a completely predictable place? Because the body needs a reactive and unconventional mind which can deal with unique situations? I mean, the need for voluntary action is obvious, just as the need for involuntary action is. I don't know

Just to clarify, we're not just talking about humans right?

placebo

What about your will power to do something? science does not explain it, only you do. But it's caused by evolution so maybe no to this?

Where the FUCK all my left socks disappear to!! :panic:

You have asymmetrical socks? :0

*Worships*.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

You have asymmetrical socks? :0

---

It's a gift and a curse. :?

How I only see the remote control the fourth time I look under the couch. :?

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

Regarding brain function, a blog that I loosely follow recently had a guest post on a promising new method/technology for studying brains at the neuronal level. Seems relevant:
http://ionian-enchantment.blogspot.c...e-through.html

As for my picks, I would echo others in saying consciousness and free will. There are various things about each that are puzzling, but one that we haven't often discussed is that they both are apparently functionally useless from an evolutionary point of view. Despite the objections of some philosophers, it seems patently obvious that it's easy to conceive of this complex bunch of chemical processes we call life as occurring "in the dark," free of conscious experience, and there's apparently no way for natural selection to ever favor creatures that happen to have this inner eye. Free will faces a similar problem since natural selection should be indifferent to whether an action has occurred freely or not. Whether you killed and ate the deer because you decided to or because you were somehow compelled makes no functional difference. For these inner phenomena, the only available conclusion to be made seems to be that "we just have them," which of course is not an explanation at all.

Quote:

---

Despite the objections of some philosophers, it seems patently obvious that it's easy to conceive of this complex bunch of chemical processes we call life as occurring "in the dark," free of conscious experience, and there's apparently no way for natural selection to ever favor creatures that happen to have this inner eye. Free will faces a similar problem since natural selection should be indifferent to whether an action has occurred freely or not. Whether you killed and ate the deer because you decided to or because you were somehow compelled makes no functional difference. For these inner phenomena, the only available conclusion to be made seems to be that "we just have them," which of course is not an explanation at all.

---

Exactly my thoughts.

Quote:

---

Regarding brain function, a blog that I loosely follow recently had a guest post on a promising new method/technology for studying brains at the neuronal level. Seems relevant:
http://ionian-enchantment.blogspot.c...e-through.html

---

I heard about that about a year ago in the Scientific American. They're thinking about using optical cables to study neural networks in situ; there are also membrane proteins which release light when stimulated electrically.

Interestingly that guy is doing the exact same doctorate (computational neuroscience at Edinburgh) that I'm hoping to do. It's pretty much the best there is.

Yawning isn't just for flushing the lungs of CO2, it's also for sucking colder air up into the sinus cavity to meet the blood/brain barrier and cool your frontal lobes.

Top of the list would be consciousness, although I'd say we'll have a handle on that in the next 50 years as we get closer to creating a real AI.

Laughter, dreaming, morality - there are evolutionary bases for all these.

A lot of these questions seem simple on the surface, but I wonder how simple they really are. I'll bet they mostly have fairly simple functional answers, but to be fully explained I bet would be very, very complex. You could probably just keep asking questions about them and going back further and further into the complexities of the function of nature. You speak of consciousness, you must understand how it works, how the brain works, how the molecules of the brain interact and why they interact that way. To understand that, you must understand why the atoms of the molecules cause them to behave like they do. To understand that, you must understand the subatomic particles, etc. To understand fully where the sock goes and why it went there, you have to understand the dynamics of the sock, the specific properties of the material it's made of and every material it comes into contact with including your own self; You'd have to likewise understand your own behavior, then, and subsequently all the mind and molecule stuff I just said. It makes you wonder; Could, theoretically, the entire function of the history of all nature and the universe be inferred from a single missing sock?

Fuck all this "consciousness and free will" stuff. I want to know about INSTINCT.

How does a mother bird know to guard her eggs? How do animals know how to have sex? All that stuff. How?

For those that played the first Assassins Creed, they had a good theory. Ancestors memories being transfered to the next generation. All that shit. Thoughts? Explanations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Fuck all this "consciousness and free will" stuff. I want to know about INSTINCT.

How does a mother bird know to guard her eggs? How do animals know how to have sex? All that stuff. How?

For those that played the first Assassins Creed, they had a good theory. Ancestors memories being transfered to the next generation. All that shit. Thoughts? Explanations?

---

Look at it this way: Mother birds that were less inclined to guard their eggs had them eaten by predatory species, hence they didnt have as many children, and their lines died out. Mother birds that had genes which coded for more maternal nurturing behaviour towards eggs would ensure their eggs survived maturation, so their offspring would live, passing on the genes for being more maternal to their own eggs.

Same goes for sex. Those that don't want to have sex, don't have sex and don't pass on their genes. Those that do, do. And sex is the ultimate pleasure vs pain reward system in nature. We do it because it feels good.

Assassins Creed is fiction. Your ancestors memories are not coded in your DNA.

Why I'm here. *woot*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Look at it this way: Mother birds that were less inclined to guard their eggs had them eaten by predatory species, hence they didnt have as many children, and their lines died out. Mother birds that had genes which coded for more maternal nurturing behaviour towards eggs would ensure their eggs survived maturation, so their offspring would live, passing on the genes for being more maternal to their own eggs.

Same goes for sex. Those that don't want to have sex, don't have sex and don't pass on their genes. Those that do, do. And sex is the ultimate pleasure vs pain reward system in nature. We do it because it feels good.

Assassins Creed is fiction. Your ancestors memories are not coded in your DNA.

---

Dude...i think you misunderstood me.

I know about natural selection. The best fit animals live. Its not that hard of a concept to grasp.

The part im asking about is the "coded genes" you were talking about. How does it work? How does a gene tell a bird to make a nest? How does a bird know how and why to build a nest, with no prior experience?

I don't see how genes which happen to code for instinctual behavior should be any more or less baffling than genes which code for any other feature. Behavior is biologically based just like everything else, so genes that subtly affect brain chemistry will have behavioral consequences. Coding for a specific, precise behavior isn't any more wondrous than coding for the specific, precise shape of one's ears, intestinal track, or whatever. (Although you could say, and I would agree, that both are pretty extraordinary.)

DuB, I don't think he is questioning how it comes about, I think he is questioning the actual mechanism that leads from amino acids to complex behavior. I think you might agree that this is at least a little more mysterious than a shape arising from a code.

No, I wouldn't agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

No, I wouldn't agree.

---

Then maybe you could point us in the direction of some research that correlates instinctual behavior to certain gene combinations?

Here are some good places for you to start:
Wiki entry on behavioral genetics
Institute for Behavioral Genetics

Alright. Thats what I figured you'd do. Behavioral genetics is much more complicated than the genetics of physical attributes. We have been able to splice genes that alter the animal's appearance but we have not been able to decide behavior based on gene splicing.

More complicated? Maybe mathematically. (Some pretty hardcore statistics get thrown around by those guys.) But it's the same basic process. It's no more "mysterious" than the genetics of eye color, it just takes longer. It's only mysterious to the extent that behavior itself is mysterious--which it undoubtedly is. If behavior is what you guys are talking about, then say behavior, not the genetics underlying instinctual behavior, because that's just genetics.

I'm just going to have to continue to disagree with you. The behavior is complex, no doubt about it. But the specific combinations of genes that control specific behaviors are more varied than the specific combinations of genes that control specific physical attributes. That is pretty much the definition of 'more complex'. Not only that, but there is a much larger argument for the role that 'nurture' plays in behavior than there is for physical attributes. Physical attributes are affected by the environment in early development, but are pretty much set beyond that, whereas behavior is altered pretty significantly by environment throughout development and into adult life.

The variance in relationships between gene combinations and behavior and the shifting role of environment are mathematical problems, not conceptual ones, and as I admitted earlier, no one's denying that behavioral genetics is more mathematically complex than other fields of genetics. But the point is that both can be explained using the same set of scientific tools. You're not going to find any behavioral geneticists who think that the genes they study are any more mysterious than the genes that other geneticists study, because they're not.

I can't think of anything simple that isn't just as easily explained...

But consciousness is definitely my favorite concept that we haven't fully grasped yet.

Jfk

Why dogs kill themselves by jumping off the overtoun bridge in Scotland. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtoun_Bridge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vampyre

Why dogs kill themselves by jumping off the overtoun bridge in Scotland. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtoun_Bridge

---

Hahaha that's kind of morbidly hilarious.

A lot of the traits that we see in humans are also seen in some aspect in various other animals on the planet, so why aren't there any other known species with a spoken language?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

A lot of the traits that we see in humans are also seen in some aspect in various other animals on the planet, so why aren't there any other known species with a spoken language?

---

Other animals have "spoken languages". Maybe not as complex as ours, but still generally the same thing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no-Name

Magnets, yo

---

Seconded, crazy buggars.

and Dyatlov's Pass, but that's probably not simple...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Other animals have "spoken languages". Maybe not as complex as ours, but still generally the same thing

---

Which ones? I've never heard of non instinctual sounds being used by other animals as words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

Which ones? I've never heard of non instinctual sounds being used by other animals as words.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)

Why men have nipples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)

---

Oh yeah, I remember that little guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Why men have nipples.

---

There is a book by the title of your question.
http://www.amazon.com/Nipples-Hundre.../dp/1400082315

just to add on to the gravity bit. yes we know how gravity relates to objects and such and relativity gives us an interesting picture of it...but is gravity really made that way? Is that what really causes gravity? I guess what Im trying to get at is...what part of mass produces gravity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

just to add on to the gravity bit. yes we know how gravity relates to objects and such and relativity gives us an interesting picture of it...but is gravity really made that way? Is that what really causes gravity? I guess what Im trying to get at is...what part of mass produces gravity?

---

Mass is condensed energy. Like attracts like. Mass attracts mass. I know that this is not a scientific explanation but it is still true nevertheless.

No.

Matter takes up space and thereby warps it. The folds in space that can affect other bits of matter are what we perceive as gravity.

the thing that confuses me about that is I thought space was a vacuum. so how can mass warp it if theres nothing there?

True, gravity is warped space. Space, though mostly empty, actually has particles and energies spread out through out it, but mostly it is a vacuum. However, it has dimensions, it has distance, and in the fourth dimension it is space/time, like a sheet on a water bed, that when you sit on it it sinks and a ball will roll towards you into the depression that you create. The effect of this is that mass attracts mass because mass warps space.

Ummm.. not sure if anyone has listed this yet, but I'm pretty sure they do not know why lightning strikes the Earth.

I can't really remember which it was. I think they know how electricity is generated in clouds, but they do not know how it strikes the Earth. Or why.

I think they do.
It is because the Earth gets a negative charge and the clouds get a positive charge and the lightning neutralizes the charge.

Bumblebees can fly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Bumblebees can fly.

---

Uhm. They beat their wings. Really hard. Like most animals that fly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Uhm. They beat their wings. Really hard. Like most animals that fly.

---

Actually, it has to do with the specific way their wings move. Insects do not fly the same way larger animals do. Only recently was it discovered that unlike larger animals that either fly by pushing upwards against the air or gliding, insects beat their wings in such a way that little vortices of air are created around their bodies which causes lift. It has been explained, but was a popular mystery for a long time.

Also, the 'spacetime as a rubber sheet' model is just that, a model based on relativity. This model is being challenged a bit by quantum physicists who are looking for a force carrying particle for gravity, or a 'graviton'. If they find it then it changes the rubber sheet model pretty drastically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Also, the 'spacetime as a rubber sheet' model is just that, a model based on relativity. This model is being challenged a bit by quantum physicists who are looking for a force carrying particle for gravity, or a 'graviton'. If they find it then it changes the rubber sheet model pretty drastically.

---

Damn!
How will it change it?
Why are they looking for a gravitron? I mean, what makes them think that there may be gravitrons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Damn!
How will it change it?
Why are they looking for a gravitron? I mean, what makes them think that there may be gravitrons?

---

relativistic gravity just doesn't jibe with quantum mechanics. A quantum model of gravity would require that gravity be an actual force that is transmitted just like all the other forces; through quantized 'particles'. They are looking for the graviton, basically because their model of reality is correct only if it (and a few other particles) exist. Otherwise, its back to the drawing board, so to speak. I personally believe that this will be the way of things; quantum mechanics has gotten to a turning point at which it is spawning all sorts of speculation in order to explain some of the stuff that people have a hard time wrapping their brains around; the most notable of this speculation is the whole of string theory. Science and speculation do not go well together, especially when they don't wait to verify earlier speculation before basing new speculation on their speculations. Pretty soon, something isn't going to fit and they are going to have to 'redo' large chunks of the model in order to make sense of it all again.

This page is mostly about the speed of gravity (which by observation appears to be instantaneous) but talks about the reasons why the membrane model doesn't exactly fit observation and other possibilities. I personally think gravity is in the top 3 mysteries of our time, partially because we've thought we had it all figured out at several points in history, only to realize that it still could be completely different from how we imagine it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Also, the 'spacetime as a rubber sheet' model is just that, a model based on relativity. This model is being challenged a bit by quantum physicists who are looking for a force carrying particle for gravity, or a 'graviton'. If they find it then it changes the rubber sheet model pretty drastically.

---

This is what I was getting at. Relativity is great for figuring gravity on large scales, but it doesnt actually show what creates gravity seeing as space is not a rubber sheet as such.

Why there is a Universe instead of nothing.

I would have to agree with the people who said Dreams, Consciousness, and Celeritas. Why are they? What makes them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Why there is a Universe instead of nothing.

---

Big bang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Big bang.

---

What triggered it, and where did the energy and matter originate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

What triggered it, and where did the energy and matter originate?

---

We don't know yet, and that's okay. The exploration continues!

Goosebumps. The ones you get from feelings, as opposed the kind that just mean it's cold.

^ Strong emotions can sometimes activate the fight or flight response. Goose bumps would've made us look more intimidating when we were furrier :P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

^ Strong emotions can sometimes activate the fight or flight response. Goose bumps would've made us look more intimidating when we were furrier :P.

---

Then why doesn't my cat look more intimidating when she hears a melody that moves her, or when the stray cat she has a crush on talks to her through the window, or when she just thinks about how awesome it is to have her fluffy belly rubbed?

Cause that's how my goosebumps work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Why men have nipples.

---

Because female body plan is the default body plan in human development

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

Because female body plan is the default body plan in human development

---

To attract other nipples/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

To attract other nipples/

---

Also, male lactation. Male lactation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

To attract other nipples/

---

No. To feed babies :P

Does having nipples hurt a male's reproductive opportunities? No? Then where does the selection pressure to evolve genes on the Y chromosome to make males not have nipples come from?

EDIT:

And that's of course assuming that the genetic variation exists for natural selection to act on.

Science can explain everything.

Add "yet" to the title, of course. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Replicon

I'm thinking of putting together a toastmaster speech about simple things we take for granted, that science doesn't actually have a clue as to how/why it works. I don't want to talk about complicated particle physics at the brink of our studies, but rather, really simple every day things, like "yawning"... Science has no clue as to why we yawn. And I think that's kind of cool.

What are your favourites? (these have to be observable, everyday things, not things that can be explained away like OBE, etc.)

---

Why it is, in this day and age, people can get a stack of papers from the most prestigeous institutes of learning, and yet still speak no better than a cave man, asserting that the inannimate is the animate. The dreaded beast call Anthropomorphism stalks mankind, and kills by the billions and billions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Where the FUCK all my left socks disappear to!! :panic:

---

Ever see the underpants gnomes on South Park?

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp...nomes-plan.png

Profit for underpants may have not panned out, they may have changed to left socks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Why it is, in this day and age, people can get a stack of papers from the most prestigeous institutes of learning, and yet still speak no better than a cave man, asserting that the inannimate is the animate. The dreaded beast call Anthropomorphism stalks mankind, and kills by the billions and billions.

---

Yes, we get it. Science doesn't explain anything. People utilise science to explain things.
Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Yes, we get it. Science doesn't explain anything. People utilise science to explain things.
Nobody cares.

---

Zi-lu said, "The ruler of Wei has been waiting for you, in order with you to administer the government. What will you consider the first thing to be done?"
The Master replied, "What is necessary to rectify names."
"So! indeed!" said Zi-lu. "You are wide off the mark! Why must there be such rectification?"
The Master said, "How uncultivated you are, Yu! A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve.
If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.
If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.
[The link between linguage and human will--expressed by great philosophers throughout history.]
When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish.
When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded.
When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.
Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect."
(Analects XIII, 3, tr. Legge)

One can take that quote to sum up the aim of Plato's work, the Elements of Euclid, even the point of Scripture that man needs to learn judgment. They are all one and the same idea. So, even though a few care, someone does.

Science does not explain anything. Explanation comes through the correct understanding and utilization of langauge--it is a craft. As Confucius, as many others, point out, In the Beginning Was the Word.

In b4 people are like "dude, no one knows what that means or how it relates to the topic."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Zi-lu said, "The ruler of Wei has been waiting for you, in order with you to administer the government. What will you consider the first thing to be done?"
The Master replied, "What is necessary to rectify names."
"So! indeed!" said Zi-lu. "You are wide off the mark! Why must there be such rectification?"
The Master said, "How uncultivated you are, Yu! A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve.
If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.
If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.
[The link between linguage and human will--expressed by great philosophers throughout history.]
When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish.
When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded.
When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.
Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect."
(Analects XIII, 3, tr. Legge)

One can take that quote to sum up the aim of Plato's work, the Elements of Euclid, even the point of Scripture that man needs to learn judgment. They are all one and the same idea. So, even though a few care, someone does.

Science does not explain anything. Explanation comes through the correct understanding and utilization of langauge--it is a craft. As Confucius, as many others, point out, In the Beginning Was the Word.

---

Yes, however everyone understands what is meant by the question in the OP. So it does not matter.

Oh and following on from what people have already said to you....
If you care about the correct use of language to convey ideas so much, stop writing in barely comprehensible English.

pro tip: it doesn't matter how many archaic meanings of words you use or ancient grammar systems you study. If ordinary people can't understand what you say or mean, you're doing it wrong.

There's nothing science can't explain. There are only things the current batch of scientists can't explain. BIG difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

There's nothing science can't explain. There are only things the current batch of scientists can't explain. BIG difference.

---

Baseless assumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Baseless assumption.

---

Are you going to explain why or are you just going to throw that out there and hope for the best?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Baseless assumption.

---

Baselessly assuming his assumption is baseless.

As stated, the claim is obviously wrong. Can science explain why it is morally wrong for me to murder my neighbors and steal their belongings? Cmind may not have intended his claim to encompass these sort of questions, but like I said, it does as stated, and consequently is obviously wrong.

Yes I think moral problems are beyond the scope of science. Science is an organized body of knowledge that attempts to explain and predict events in the natural world. It does not attempt to explain morality.
There are some things science cant explain but I'm not gonna throw away my hammer because it does not tie my shoe laces, science has a specific function but it is still one the most useful tools we humans possess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

Can science explain why it is morally wrong for me to murder my neighbors and steal their belongings?

---

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.

That's not an explanation for whether or not the action is morally wrong. That's simply an explanation for why the opinion that the action is wrong happens to be common among modern humans. Surely you understand the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

That's not an explanation for whether or not the action is morally wrong. That's simply an explanation for why the opinion that the action is wrong happens to be common among modern humans. Surely you understand the difference.

---

What this seems to imply is that there is some sort of objective morality in the universe. If humans don't set their own moral code (via popular opinion), then who or what does?

It doesn't imply that there is an objective morality. Let morality be as subjective as you like. Let every man have his own morality. Does that now somehow make the issue of whether an action is morally wrong a scientific question? Better yet, can science explain why there is or is not an objective morality in the first place?

Look, I'm about as enthusiastic for science as you can get--I'm working on my PhD in experimental psychology and intend to do behavioral research for a living--but if you seriously think that there is no question at all that science can't answer, I'm sorry, but you are kidding yourself.

Well, I never said science can answer everything. I'm just wondering why exactly a question on morality can't be answered using science. We have the technology to examine how the brain works, and how moral decisions are made. If morality exists in the minds of humans, we have the increasing technological ability to detect it and understand it. To some extent, we already have. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, here. We have a somewhat good understanding of how humans set moral codes, and how moral decisions are made on an individual basis. So yeah, at least in part, we have the ability to analyze morality in scientific terms.

Science gives us the tools to answer questions about how humans perceive morality. So in this sense, I completely agree that science can answer certain questions related to morality. I am interested in such questions myself. But there are fundamental questions of morality that it can't answer, because they aren't empirical questions at all. Can you or I perform an experiment that will tell us whether or not it is morally wrong to murder my neighbors and steal their belongings? Of course not. We could, in principle, perform such a sadistic "experiment" to tell us what the social and psychological consequences of such an action may be. (Good luck getting IRB approval on that one!) But at the end of the day, whether or not those social and psychological consequences amount to moral wrong-doing is a judgment call that is not within the realm of science. That's my only point, and I'm a little confused at your resistance to accept what seems to me to be such an obvious point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

There's nothing science can't explain. There are only things the current batch of scientists can't explain. BIG difference.

---

I already said that. Except you tried to refine it and made it wrong. The current batch of scientists may be able to explain it, they just haven't yet.
So it suffices to say "Scientists can explain everything given enough time"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

As stated, the claim is obviously wrong. Can science explain why it is morally wrong for me to murder my neighbors and steal their belongings? Cmind may not have intended his claim to encompass these sort of questions, but like I said, it does as stated, and consequently is obviously wrong.

---

Science can't explain why it is morally wrong. Correct. Because morals are not real.
Which is the same reason science can't prove religions wrong.

EDIT: Oh, somehow missed a few posts, I just read that you are studying to do psychology. That explains why you think science can't answer everything. You'll probably be a perfect fit for the pseudo science that is modern psychology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Science can't explain why it is morally wrong. Correct. Because morals are not real.
Which is the same reason science can't prove religions wrong.

---

I can accurately answer any question that matters.

Do you mean it? lol

Absolutely. If I can't answer it, then it doesn't matter.

Oh god....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Absolutely. If I can't answer it, then it doesn't matter.

---

What color is my underwear?

doesn't matter...

Today's scientific models are not the most useful way to explore and measure things like morality. That said, through observation, you can for hypotheses like:

- Morality is wired emotionally (that is, if I tell you to rape your grandma, your reaction won't be one of "well logically, that's not moral" but rather, completely kinesthetic (that just feels... ugh)... you'd be _repulsed_ by the thought.

- simplistically, emotions are fired off by chemicals produced by the various "free drug factories" that exist within your body.

- What controls when those chemicals fire off and how, is how you're wired, which can come from both initial conditions, and how you developed (how you were raised, nurtured, what you were exposed to, etc.)

So it all comes from the wiring you've built up over time. Think about all the morality debates you read about, be it the death penalty, or gay marriage, and realize that ALL opinions are basically feelings. The anti-gay-marriage argument is based entirely on "ewww gross" and all the rhetoric around it is just justification to cushion and justify your raw feelings about it (where ever those feelings may have come from). And when we try to use logic to justify those feelings, that's when the popcorn-eating really begins. :D

But again, that "wiring-level" stuff is just not the most useful way to have a conversation about whether it's okay to murder criminals, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dajo

doesn't matter...

---

Brilliant!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Replicon

Today's scientific models are not the most useful way to explore and measure things like morality. That said, through observation, you can for hypotheses like:

- Morality is wired emotionally (that is, if I tell you to rape your grandma, your reaction won't be one of "well logically, that's not moral" but rather, completely kinesthetic (that just feels... ugh)... you'd be _repulsed_ by the thought.

- simplistically, emotions are fired off by chemicals produced by the various "free drug factories" that exist within your body.

- What controls when those chemicals fire off and how, is how you're wired, which can come from both initial conditions, and how you developed (how you were raised, nurtured, what you were exposed to, etc.)

So it all comes from the wiring you've built up over time. Think about all the morality debates you read about, be it the death penalty, or gay marriage, and realize that ALL opinions are basically feelings. The anti-gay-marriage argument is based entirely on "ewww gross" and all the rhetoric around it is just justification to cushion and justify your raw feelings about it (where ever those feelings may have come from). And when we try to use logic to justify those feelings, that's when the popcorn-eating really begins. :D

But again, that "wiring-level" stuff is just not the most useful way to have a conversation about whether it's okay to murder criminals, etc.

---

You forgot the fact that evolution would cause us to dislike having sex with a family member because the offspring has a higher likelihood of being fucked up.
As well as the other evolutionary benefits which gave us "morals".

I touched on some of the evolutionary stuff in a previous thread, but I'm no evolutionary biologist, so I'm sure there's much, much more :)

Why do we max out and expire somewhere around the 120 year mark?

That's not really a mystery, it's just a result of statistical distributions. Somebody could live to 130, it's just so unlikely that it hasn't happened yet.

Interestingly life expectancy is increasing in a linear fashion. People always say 'it has to top out now' but it keeps going up and up; apparently there could be some selection pressure causing this, but I don't know much about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Why do we max out and expire somewhere around the 120 year mark?

---

Several causes have been determined to cause aging, but one of the most significant is the steady depletion of telomeres, which occurs during every single cell division. Telomeres are sort of like the plastic tips on shoelaces, but for your chromosomes. Once they're depleted to a certain level, your cells can no longer divide and repair themselves as efficiently. One effect of this is that skin cells not only stop dividing, but start producing compounds that break down collagen, resulting in wrinkles and other not so fun things. And then you have cholesterol building up in the arteries for a very long time and an increasing risk for cancer, just for starters. Add it all together, and with our current technology, humans have an expiration date that averages in the mid-70's to low 80's in most developed countries, and seldom exceeds more than 100 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

That's not really a mystery, it's just a result of statistical distributions. Somebody could live to 130, it's just so unlikely that it hasn't happened yet.

Interestingly life expectancy is increasing in a linear fashion. People always say 'it has to top out now' but it keeps going up and up; apparently there could be some selection pressure causing this, but I don't know much about it.

---

This makes sense but it doesn't really appear to be going up and up. I mean in the sense that centuries ago we could calculate an increase of the expectancy rate to go from 80 years to 120 years to 140 years and so fourth which would be an increase to me. When we look at supercentenarian's we don't get 130's, 140's and so fourth. People just seem to top out in the 110's with the exception of maybe a couple of 120's plus. I believe the oldest living person currently by Guinness books of world records is a Georgian (U.S.) woman 114. But we have no one in their 120's to date as far as I know. I understand the biological process of why we age but the topping out part is what I don't get.

Well, I explained that. There's no physical upper barrier, it's just a probabilistic thing. Roughly you get a bell curve.

http://www.rosshudgens.com/wp-conten...Bell_Curve.gif

That person's probably the American record. The oldest person ever was Jeanne Calment who was a woman from France, and lived to be 122.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I understand the biological process of why we age but the topping out part is what I don't get.

---

The biological process is what causes topping out. If telomeres get shorter with every replication, there must be a point were telomeres are depleted and cells can not longer divide. In a way, your maximal lifespan is determined by the lengths of telomeres at the moment of your birth, it must have some upper bound.

Personally, I find the theory of telomere lenght as the main reason for ageing and dying of old age unsatisfactory, but it's the best theory we have at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, I explained that. There's no physical upper barrier, it's just a probabilistic thing. Roughly you get a bell curve.

---

I see what you're saying but in a sense the upper curve would be the barrier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

That person's probably the American record. The oldest person ever was Jeanne Calment who was a woman from France, and lived to be 122.

---

That's correct. That Guinness record I mentioned is for the current living oldest person and not the oldest ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

The biological process is what causes topping out. If telomeres get shorter with every replication, there must be a point were telomeres are depleted and cells can not longer divide. In a way, your maximal lifespan is determined by the lengths of telomeres at the moment of your birth, it must have some upper bound.

Personally, I find the theory of telomere lenght as the main reason for ageing and dying of old age unsatisfactory, but it's the best theory we have at this point.

---

Yea I've read about the Hayflick Limit theory once before, but it doesn't really answer the question. Especially when you take into account the studies conducted on long lived seabirds back in 2003 where Scientists observed that the telomeres of Leach's Storm-petrel (''Oceanodroma leucorhoa'') seem to lengthen with chronological age. However, I agree it is the best theory we have at the moment. I guess I just want something more sound.

EDIT:

And I thought of something else. I like Professor Austad's explanation from the University of Texas who is one of the leading gerontologists. He states how we age is basically that we rust and we cook. Our cells, or the bits and pieces of organelle and metabolism contained within, are destroyed by oxygen as we burn fuel. It's a time factor basically. But what Science cannot explain is what exactly sets the speed of the clock? Damage happens for a reason and happens faster in a mouse than in a dog and faster in a dog than in a human. What exactly is responsible for these differences?

The ecological niche of humans is intelligence. This means we take a lot longer to develop than other animals, and correspondingly we have to live a lot longer to rear our own.

I like that idea but I don't think intelligence is the deciding factor, (if you're referencing that time factor scenario I gave up there). There are a number of animals currently living that would make Jeanne Calment's 122 years of life look as if she were a spring chicken.

Like the Galapagos Tortoise.

Also, Our brains shrink as we get older, I assume there's only so much shrinking it can do before it can't function anymore.
Also muscle wasting could attribute too because the muscle growth hormone slowly depletes also. So your heart would likely be affected by this.

There's probably heaps of things, not just one thing.

science is unwilling to explain how psychedelics work wonders for your mind

Life. Simple. Every being is given life. Life can easily be defined as just pure existence.

But the question of "Why is life is as it is?" cannot be explained by a theory, or the question of "How exactly does life work?" cannot be answered by a scientific law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

science is unwilling to explain how psychedelics work wonders for your mind

---

Are you kidding me. Do you know anything about the history of LSD?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeac

Life can easily be defined as just pure existence.

---

Yeah.

Wait, what? What does that even mean...

The philosophical 'problem of life' basically dissolved decades ago... go study some basic biology; cell structure, protein synthesis, evolution, that kind of thing, and you'll find life no longer requires magic.

A rock does not completely exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

science is unwilling to explain how psychedelics work wonders for your mind

---

I think you confuse "science" with "the dogma towards drugs". The latter being political, whereas science typically rates hallucinogenic drugs as not especially harmful. Indeed, several had uses in medicine in the past.

Quote:

---

However, I agree it is the best theory we have at the moment. I guess I just want something more sound.

---

Don't we all. Not only is it an interesting mystery, but a detailed understanding of the mechanisms helps with treatments and prevention.

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

I wasn't aware that I was dismissing the mysteries of consciousness, on the contrary I think our current understanding of the brain only perpetuates the mysteries of consciousness.The old questions are still with us along with new questions that have arisen from our understanding of the brain.

I get the impression that some people would rather cling onto an archaic notion of reality than come to a better understanding of ourselves no matter what the consequences. Any attempt that science makes to explain the world is instantly rejected as "explaining the world away".

I don't know. Anything which is mysterious to us today shall one day be explained, refuted or supported by science in the future. There is possibly one great mystery at the core of it all, one that we are too stupid to understand, but right now I do not believe we are close to that, if it even exists. I can't really think of anything that is not already, or will not be in future, explained by science.

There are things which we cannot explain currently, but no things which science cannot explain. Science is the mystery of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

There are things which we cannot explain currently, but no things which science cannot explain.

---

At the risk of repeating myself, this is a baseless assertion that you cannot possibly know for sure about. Technically speaking, science doesn't really explain anything (as has also been previously stated) but even taken in the loose way that this thread is using it, science 'explains' the physical world through empirical experimentation. Are you claiming to know for sure that nothing exists that cannot be explained through empirical study of the physical world?

Science is the way the world works. It's not even accurate to call it an "explanation", actually. "Explanation" implies that we are making up things to explain the way the world works. Actually, the world already has a set way it works and we are simply discovering what those ways are. So, yes, I think that things that are currently unexplained to us actually do have explanations that we just are not yet aware of, and that one day we will come to understand if we continue on our current course of progression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

Science is the way the world works. It's not even accurate to call it an "explanation", actually. "Explanation" implies that we are making up things to explain the way the world works. Actually, the world already has a set way it works and we are simply discovering what those ways are. So, yes, I think that things that are currently unexplained to us actually do have explanations that we just are not yet aware of, and that one day we will come to understand if we continue on our current course of progression.

---

I believe I know what you are saying, and I do agree to some extent.
However... (you knew that was coming)
It is quite possible that OUR scientific ability may not ever explain everything. We are, after all, three dimensional minds in an indefinitely dimensional universe. Even when we think we know, we never will.
Yes, seems to be a set way that things are, but there are also an infinite number of perspectives on each aspect of that set. It would take paragraphs to fully explain, but holograms are a good example. What is a hologram?
Is it a three dimensional image, or is it a two dimensional print of interference patterns?
Yes.

Well, I agree. I'm not disagreeing with you at all.

In fact, I do think there is a point where the human mind can no longer comprehend the way the world works. But just because we cannot comprehend the way something works does not mean it doesn't have a way that it works. Because our brains are finite, limited by bodily restrictions, there is no possible way for us to understand everything in the universe. In my first post I reference a core mystery. What I mean by that is the point at which we can understand no further. If we were infallible beings, though, we could understand that, too. Because everything has a way by which it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

Science is the way the world works. It's not even accurate to call it an "explanation", actually. "Explanation" implies that we are making up things to explain the way the world works. Actually, the world already has a set way it works and we are simply discovering what those ways are. So, yes, I think that things that are currently unexplained to us actually do have explanations that we just are not yet aware of, and that one day we will come to understand if we continue on our current course of progression.

---

Science is not the way the world works. Science is a technique whose job is to prove how the world works. A religious person could substitute the words "The Bible". The way the world works is just the way that the world works. Science is one method to discover how it works and prove it. And there are many possible explanations of a phenomenon and science is just a material explanation. But I do not argue that the circumference of our knowledge can grow indefinitely.

Science is not only defined as a technique. It's also defined as "a particular branch of knowledge", "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation", or "systematized knowledge in general" and those are just a couple definitions. Science is our knowledge of the truth of the way the world works. It is the truth, so far as we are aware, and all evidence says that we are correct. It's not just a method, and it's not just numbers and formulas. Science can also be soft, as in economics and psychology. It describes and analyses everything in our world, even our own actions, even our own emotions. Science is the way we work, the way the world works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

Science is not only defined as a technique. It's also defined as "a particular branch of knowledge", "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation", or "systematized knowledge in general" and those are just a couple definitions. Science is our knowledge of the truth of the way the world works. It is the truth, so far as we are aware, and all evidence says that we are correct. It's not just a method, and it's not just numbers and formulas. Science can also be soft, as in economics and psychology. It describes and analyses everything in our world, even our own actions, even our own emotions. Science is the way we work, the way the world works.

---

I have never been particularly bright. For me, the way to look at an arguement, is to see if the argument itself rests upon valid grounds. I look at science, religion, common discourse, all as having the same foundation. Now, imagine this, imagine that we can actually use the concept A = A. We can even speak it, A thing is not different from itself. Now, that was not so hard, yet most actually find it impossible. And others even hard to use.

Now, is language a thing? Or, is language nothing? Is langauge different from language? No.
Is one language used to describe one reality, but another a different reality? No.

When someone says that Science describes . . . . etc. They are making two mistakes. 1 it is an anthropomorphism, 2 langauge is used to describe--the same langauge set used no matter where you stand or what you claim to be.

Language does not contradict language. One language does not contradict another.

All mistakes, all misues, does not rest with the tool, because the first principles really are as simple as things get,

All mistakes rest with man, particular and general.

Don't know which Geometry is either correct or the most correct? Not the fault of geometry, its because man don't know the first principles of grammar to begin with. Geometry is just another language.

I find it unbelievable the amount of discourse today, or anyday, that tries to solve a problem by looking in the wrong direction. Like trying to shoot a gun with your head screwed on backwards.

I disagree with everything again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sloth

I disagree with everything again!

---

That is why I put that statement about not being bright in there. I knew I could get a compliment out of you some way.

Oh, hi. You again.

It's not an anthropomorphism. In fact, it is correct in the English language to say "Science describes..." because science here refers to the term "science". It is simply a grammatical shortening of "The word science is a description of ... " Whereas the second sounds dry, even awkward, the first is more active. The first is also clearer. More people will understand what you mean by the first phrasing than by the second, and being clear is possibly the most important part of speaking. Either way, Both are correct. Language describes, yes, and here I am referring to the word science, which if I'm not mistaken is a part of language. Also, language isn't the only thing that describes. But that's not what this discussion is about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

Oh, hi. You again.

It's not an anthropomorphism. In fact, it is correct in the English language to say "Science describes..." because science here refers to the term "science". It is simply a grammatical shortening of "The word science is a description of ... " Whereas the second sounds dry, even awkward, the first is more active. The first is also clearer. More people will understand what you mean by the first phrasing than by the second, and being clear is possibly the most important part of speaking. Either way, Both are correct. Language describes, yes, and here I am referring to the word science, which if I'm not mistaken is a part of language. Also, language isn't the only thing that describes. But that's not what this discussion is about.

---

You just compounded the error, now you have science, which is tacitly plural, being in the singular.

To me science are methods by which we encode information about our environment into language systems. It then becomes absurd when it is demonstrable that the foundation of language is not even known.

Except that the word science is a singular noun, and you're abusing the English language to suit your needs. I've made no mistake, I just try to stick to the known rules of English grammar.
"Science are methods" is actually the incorrect bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

Except that the word science is a singular noun, and you're abusing the English language to suit your needs. I've made no mistake, I just try to stick to the known rules of English grammar.
"Science are methods" is actually the incorrect bit.

---

I see you don't believe in noun verb agreement. Okay, is there really only one method? No matter.

I concede. However, it was an anthropomorphism.

'Kay.

You're the only person I know who can concede and continue to argue at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

'Kay.

You're the only person I know who can concede and continue to argue at the same time.

---

You only brought up a point about mass nouns that is not even settled in grammar books, why fight it? It is still a burp in the EL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savy

Science is the way the world works. It's not even accurate to call it an "explanation", actually. "Explanation" implies that we are making up things to explain the way the world works. Actually, the world already has a set way it works and we are simply discovering what those ways are. So, yes, I think that things that are currently unexplained to us actually do have explanations that we just are not yet aware of, and that one day we will come to understand if we continue on our current course of progression.

---

Your opinion has already been refuted by a much greater mind than mine;

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind,
and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by
the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality
we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the
mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the
moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of
opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some
picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all
the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his
picture is the only one which could explain his observations.
He will never be able to compare his picture with the real
mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of
the meaning of such a comparison."
--ALBERT EINSTEIN, 1938

Science can prove everything of what can be observed in some way, there's much an average non scientist doesn't have the knowledge of, which is the purpose of this question.
With exceptions that not all religions can be properly proved by science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LxANN

Science can prove everything of what can be observed in some way, there's much an average non scientist doesn't have the knowledge of, which is the purpose of this question.
With exceptions that not all religions can be properly proved by science.

---

I would have imagined that you were one to keep, and prove your own words. Apparently it was my mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I would have imagined that you were one to keep, and prove your own words. Apparently it was my mistake.

---

And what words do you believe are not proven in my post?

Magnets. HOW DO THEY WORK!?!??!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I would have imagined that you were one to keep, and prove your own words. Apparently it was my mistake.

---

Explain to me exactly what you're attempting to do here, as it says in your signature. I want to understand why you must share with everyone the principles of grammar, I would personally like to comprehend if you can word it well enough for my understanding, and I shall learn to feed off of it. I do, in a way, have abundant respect for your effort in your dedicated beliefs of your "non-invasive psycho-therapy".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LxANN

Explain to me exactly what you're attempting to do here, as it says in your signature. I want to understand why you must share with everyone the principles of grammar, I would personally like to comprehend if you can word it well enough for my understanding, and I shall learn to feed off of it. I do, in a way, have abundant respect for your effort in your dedicated beliefs of your "non-invasive psycho-therapy".

---

Oh you disappointed him! He is not even talking about grammar, although he thinks he is. He is talking about some philosophical position based on language, where the way we think is dependent on our language. This is true to an extant, but not ultimately true. Not all of our thoughts are based on words or concepts. And the deeper our thoughts are, the more language has to be flexible to convey the truth of what we are saying. we may even have to make up new words or expand the definition of existing words as our ideas evolve. That is not the same thing as grammar. Your grammar is fine, we understand you. But he is disappointed because the way you talk proves that you haven't studied Plato and Aristotle, which he values so immensely. He actually hoped that you also valued Plato and Aristotle as much as he does. Perhaps. He doesn't really make any sense, which goes far in saying how his grammar is. But even if he DOES try to explain what he is talking about, you wouldn't know it, because you would need him to explain his explanation because unfortunately it will be just as confusing and incoherent as his first statement.

Edit: you obviously didn't keep your word of Studying Plato, Socrates, and Euclid. You didn't keep your word by and you proved it by not talking like Phil.

Well Im working on reading Plato currently because Philospher8659 has backed me into a corner, he should be happy about that:cheeky:

LxANN- Don't worry you are fine, you're not doing anything wrong. But do study Plato and Aristotle. Welcome to Dreamviews, please enjoy your stay.

Whats so special about Plato and Aristotle anyway? Don't we have our own minds? Haven't we learned a whole lot more to think about now? lol

Socrates is the only one worth learning about. He was an enlightened man, the rest were just philosophers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Oh you disappointed him! He is not even talking about grammar, although he thinks he is. He is talking about some philosophical position based on language, where the way we think is dependent on our language. This is true to an extant, but not ultimately true. Not all of our thoughts are based on words or concepts. And the deeper our thoughts are, the more language has to be flexible to convey the truth of what we are saying. we may even have to make up new words or expand the definition of existing words as our ideas evolve. That is not the same thing as grammar. Your grammar is fine, we understand you. But he is disappointed because the way you talk proves that you haven't studied Plato and Aristotle, which he values so immensely. He actually hoped that you also valued Plato and Aristotle as much as he does. Perhaps. He doesn't really make any sense, which goes far in saying how his grammar is. But even if he DOES try to explain what he is talking about, you wouldn't know it, because you would need him to explain his explanation because unfortunately it will be just as confusing and incoherent as his first statement.

Edit: you obviously didn't keep your word of Studying Plato, Socrates, and Euclid. You didn't keep your word by and you proved it by not talking like Phil.

---

The only way I could express how much I like this post above and beyond clicking the like button was to quote it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Your opinion has already been refuted by a much greater mind than mine;

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind,
and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by
the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality
we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the
mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the
moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of
opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some
picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all
the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his
picture is the only one which could explain his observations.
He will never be able to compare his picture with the real
mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of
the meaning of such a comparison."
--ALBERT EINSTEIN, 1938

---

May as well say that digestion is a free creation of the stomach, and has nothing to do with food. I don't see how anyone can read that and not laugh their ass off. Only an idiot would look at a statement that amounts to knowledge is ignorance and be impressed. When someone cannot tell the difference between science and mysticism, then why do they bother? Ever hear the expression "baffle them with bullshit?" A moron such as I could refute Einstien because of the simple principles of language. See my Language and Experience.

How life began? Plenty of theories/hypotheses, but...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneiro

How life began? Plenty of theories/hypotheses, but...

---

I would imagine that it is possible that, that question is just like asking how did space begin--a violation of logic itself. If both are wrong, the myths that so called scientist create, and the myths of the religious, who in their right mind would claim that the one is superior to the other? Who in their right mind would say that one dead man was better off than another dead man because one body was older than the other?

However, it is not the same as How our life began. There is a difference between Space and a space, between Life and a life, between Love and a love--even difference between God and a god. Although every member of a class has the same definition as every other member of the same class, the member of a class is not the definition of which it is a member. A concept that Bertrand Russell was not even capable of formulating, while others don't even try. i.e. class mechanics, neither a boundary of a thing is a thing, nor is the material difference of a thing a thing, Plato wrote Parmenides so that the reader may some day realize the principles of what can and cannot be predicated of what. If one knew the elements of grammar, they can easily construct a simple table of permissible predications determined solely on the notion that A = A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I would imagine that it is possible that, that question is just like asking how did space begin--a violation of logic itself. If both are wrong, the myths that so called scientist create, and the myths of the religious, who in their right mind would claim that the one is superior to the other? Who in their right mind would say that one dead man was better off than another dead man because one body was older than the other?

However, it is not the same as How our life began. There is a difference between Space and a space, between Life and a life, between Love and a love--even difference between God and a god. Although every member of a class has the same definition as every other member of the same class, the member of a class is not the definition of which it is a member. A concept that Bertrand Russell was not even capable of formulating, while others don't even try. i.e. class mechanics, neither a boundary of a thing is a thing, nor is the material difference of a thing a thing, Plato wrote Parmenides so that the reader may some day realize the principles of what can and cannot be predicated of what. If one knew the elements of grammar, they can easily construct a simple table of permissible predications determined solely on the notion that A = A.

---

So many words, yet so little content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

So many words, yet so little content.

---

You're not the first cow to watch a train.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You're not the first cow to watch a train.

---

If by "a train" you mean "a train of self-important and incoherent thought", I completely agree.

And it can "MOO" too, how impressive.

Let me ask you a question, was the crying of babies that stopped the development of human understanding, or did it in fact promote it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Edit: you obviously didn't keep your word of Studying Plato, Socrates, and Euclid. You didn't keep your word by and you proved it by not talking like Phil.

---

You never change, spouting non-sense about things or people you don't know a wit about as if you were the first to claim that ignorance is wisdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LxANN

Explain to me exactly what you're attempting to do here, as it says in your signature. I want to understand why you must share with everyone the principles of grammar, I would personally like to comprehend if you can word it well enough for my understanding, and I shall learn to feed off of it. I do, in a way, have abundant respect for your effort in your dedicated beliefs of your "non-invasive psycho-therapy".

---

You are not the first beautiful young lady to put on a show in the pretence of innocence. If you really want to walk down that road, no one except you can change that.

Has anyone mentioned spitty-slurpy yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Your opinion has already been refuted by a much greater mind than mine;

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind,
and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by
the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality
we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the
mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the
moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of
opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some
picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all
the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his
picture is the only one which could explain his observations.
He will never be able to compare his picture with the real
mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of
the meaning of such a comparison."
--ALBERT EINSTEIN, 1938

---

Ugh. I just made a long reply that got deleted... Oh, well, I'll summarize.

Okay. I'm not saying that our theories or understandings of the world right now are 100%, without a doubt, correct. What I am saying is that, if the human mind had no limitations, science could fully reveal the workings of the world. The reason why this is possible is because the world, the universe, everything, works in a certain way, by certain laws, as a reaction to other things, etc. There may be, at the center of it all, possibly one initial thing which is beyond science and definitely beyond human understanding, but nothing else. Yes, science is a tool used by humans to decipher the inner workings of the universe, but that does not mean that it is impossible to know if it is correct or not. Would you say that you do not believe in gravity? What about the earth being round? Are those things you disagree with? Both were discovered by science. It may be impossible to ever know the real scale of the mechanism merely by observation, but the world isn't really like a closed watch. We have far more than just visual evidence to back up our ideas. However, you can be sure that there is in fact a mechanism inside the watch, even if you cannot be sure exactly how it works.

I use to say it with less words, the existence of bird droppings implies the existence of birds. Or from the foundation, effect implies cause, an application of A = A.

However, langauge does not contradict langauge, and if anyone, no matter what they wanted to believe, had an interest in understanding would first made sure they understood it before they put faith in what they did with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

May as well say that digestion is a free creation of the stomach, and has nothing to do with food. I don't see how anyone can read that and not laugh their ass off. Only an idiot would look at a statement that amounts to knowledge is ignorance and be impressed. When someone cannot tell the difference between science and mysticism, then why do they bother? Ever hear the expression "baffle them with bullshit?" A moron such as I could refute Einstien because of the simple principles of language. See my Language and Experience.

---

LOL!
I hate it when people try to baffle me with bullshit... all the time... and then accuse other people of doing the same.
What's that you say? Xaqaria is an idiot? I don't think I agree, and I think you just want to call him names.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You never change, spouting non-sense about things or people you don't know a wit about as if you were the first to claim that ignorance is wisdom.

---

I know. I hate it when people try to baffle me with bullshit... all the time... and then accuse other people of doing the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You are not the first beautiful young lady to put on a show in the pretence of innocence. If you really want to walk down that road, no one except you can change that.

---

I know. I hate it when people try to baffle me with bullshit... all the time... and then accuse other people of doing the same...
...repeatedly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sloth

I know. I hate it when people try to baffle me with bullshit... all the time... and then accuse other people of doing the same.

---

The only difference between you and Einstein, is he was clever at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

The only difference between you and Einstein, is he was clever at it.

---

You forgot to designate what "it" is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sloth

You forgot to designate what "it" is.

---

And he could sometimes follow a train of discourse.

LOL! I didn't actually expect you to make sense this time either.
I hate when people try to baffle me with bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You are not the first beautiful young lady to put on a show in the pretence of innocence. If you really want to walk down that road, no one except you can change that.

---

I'm not intending to walk down the wrong road, I intend to walk down the road which is correct. Maybe I need selected support, is all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LxANN

I'm not intending to walk down the wrong road, I intend to walk down the road which is correct. Maybe I need selected support, is all?

---

I may be your most fav boyfriend, but I am not a bra. I can speak in jest as well as anyone.

Bleh. In jest. It was funny until you edited it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Whats so special about Plato and Aristotle anyway? Don't we have our own minds? Haven't we learned a whole lot more to think about now? lol

---

"The term metaphysics originally referred to the writings of Aristotle that came after his writings on physics. Traditionally, metaphysics refers to the branch of philosophy that attempts to understand the fundamental nature of all reality, whether visible or invisible. It seeks a description so basic, so essentially simple, so all-inclusive that it applies to everything, whether divine or human or anything else. It attempts to tell what anything must be like in order to be at all."

"Plato's ethics is inseparable from his epistemology. Epistemology is, broadly speaking, the study of what knowledge is and how one comes to have knowledge. Among the many topics included in epistemology are logic, belief, perception, language, science, and knowledge."

That's, in fact what's so special about them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I may be your most fav boyfriend, but I am not a bra. I can speak in jest as well as anyone.

---

Why speak in jest like everyone?
:(