Actually, I'll point out that there are particles smaller than protons, electrons and neutrons. They are called Gluons and Quarks. That's the kind of stuff Fermilab is working on. We are a hella long way from a complete understanding of QM.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
One hundred million people believe they've been abducted by aliens.
I cite Andrew Newberg's research all the time. But to me it implies exactly the opposite of what Newberg thinks. My opinion seems to be what Ramachandran thinks it implies, but he's made a public statement to avoid becoming the next Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Steven Weinberg.
In the absence of unrpovable theories, like Gods and Free-Wills you have provable theories like Determinism.
You said you are at peace without "vortices, aliens, ghosts, loch ness monsters, bigfoot, succubi, demons, angels, Gods, fairies, leprechauns, cosmic consciousness or anything else people claim to know without providing evidence."
The problem is that you are as evangelical about your own beliefs and interpretations as anyone. You continue to try to prove that which is unproveable. The fact remains that you cannot prove your philosophies and beliefs any more than I or anyone else can prove our own.
You can go on all day about science, and yet you are interpreting far beyond known scientific fact for your particular beliefs and philosophies--which you essentially acknowledge here. Your interpretation or "beliefs" are no better than neuroscientist Andrew Newberg's or my own. You try to demonize and minimize other forms of intelligence, and frankly it doesn't work. It just proves your own personal bias.
You said:
I can name a dozen neurological conditions and experimental techniques that yield the same kind of experiences you describe. None of them transcend the brain. None of them show any sign of interaction with anything outside of the brain. All of them are a result of a badly wired brain.
You actually say "none of them transcend the brain". It's the height of arrogance, imo, to claim something as unproveable as that.
You are smug with your assertions that such things have not been proven, and yet the limits of science cannot (at least yet) prove them. This doesn't prove your point--it proves your own and science's limitations at this time.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You said you are at peace without "vortices, aliens, ghosts, loch ness monsters, bigfoot, succubi, demons, angels, Gods, fairies, leprechauns, cosmic consciousness or anything else people claim to know without providing evidence."
The problem is that you are as evangelical about your own beliefs and interpretations as anyone. You continue to try to prove that which is unproveable. The fact remains that you cannot prove your philosophies and beliefs any more than I or anyone else can prove our own.
You can go on all day about science, and yet you are interpreting far beyond known scientific fact for your particular beliefs and philosophies--which you essentially acknowledge here. Your interpretation or "beliefs" are no better than neuroscientist Andrew Newberg's or my own. You try to demonize and minimize other forms of intelligence, and frankly it doesn't work. It just proves your own personal bias.
You said:
You actually say "none of them transcend the brain". It's the height of arrogance, imo, to claim something as unproveable as that.
You are smug with your assertions that such things have not been proven, and yet the limits of science cannot (at least yet) prove them. This doesn't prove your point--it proves your own and science's limitations at this time.
The human brain is causal and the cranium blocks NA+/K+ and EM Fields from passing through. There is literally no basis for anything psychic or paranormal. All evidence suggests that the brain is autonomous and causal. That it is. You aren't just arguing with me on this point, you are arguing with neuroscience. But, it just shows your ignorance of the topic.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The human brain is causal and the cranium blocks NA+/K+ and EM Fields from passing through. There is literally no basis for anything psychic or paranormal. All evidence suggests that the brain is autonomous and causal. That it is. You aren't just arguing with me on this point, you are arguing with neuroscience. But, it just shows your ignorance of the topic.
Nice try.....until we remember that science CAN'T prove what is beyond it's parameters.
Your "all evidence suggests" stuff is a bunch of malarky.
You say having mystical beliefs shows ignorance. I say trying to prove your beliefs and the unproveable with science shows ignorance.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Nice try.....until we remember that science CAN'T prove what is beyond it's parameters.
Your "all evidence suggests" stuff is a bunch of malarky.
You say having mystical beliefs shows ignorance. I say trying to prove your beliefs and the unproveable with science shows ignorance.
Yea, you can make all kinds of speculations.
"Don't breath, because by doing so you cause global warming."
I can think of a hundred million different possible claims that cannot be proven, or have some merit but are largely speculation.
You can't believe them all, many will be in conflict with each other.
"There is life after death"
"There is no life after death"
So... you need something to base your beliefs on. I know that you like to base your beliefs on personal desire and introspection. That's a very common method, that's how we got 3,000 different religions to begin with. But.. science uses a different method. It only bothers it's self with what can be tested. I use the scientific method for my beliefs. If I cannot prove or disprove something, I need not concern myself with it.
Consider the following claims:
"Some things are determinate"
"Some things are indeterminate"
The first statement can be proven. The second statement cannot be proven. A potentially fallacious syllogism would be:
Some things are determinate
Therefor all things are determinate
But this is not what I believe. It's more like this:
Most things are determinate
No things (so far) are indeterminate
Most likely all things are determinate
The probability of anything existing which is not determinate is very slim, since all things observable thus far have been determinate. It follows that all thinks are likely determinate, at least in any matter which concerns free-will, E.g. neurons, synapses, etc.. everything involved in human cognition has proven to be causal and determinate with no sustainable support for indeterminate elements.
To say that "We don't have free-will because all observable elements of cognition are causal and determinate." is far less of a fallacy as to say "We do have free-will, because I believe that elements exist which are indeterminate, regardless of what has been observed and the law of conservation mass-energy" The first statement might be incorrect, and it can be revised in the event that indeterminate elements of human cognition are identified. The latter statement is not open to revision, it's taken on faith that elements exist which can not be proven to not exist. Just as, you cannot prove that a teapot orbits saturn because it's too small to detect, and even if you raked saturn's rings a thousand times, it could still be claimed to be there beyond your detection.
The greater fallacy is in your assumptions. Not mine, my beliefs are very well structured on scientific principles and philosophical principles. Side-by-side, there is no comparison in these systems of belief. You want to reduce my methods to reflec the weaknesses of your own, but there is no comparison.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So... you need something to base your beliefs on. I know that you like to base your beliefs on personal desire and introspection. That's a very common method, that's how we got 3,000 different religions to begin with. But.. science uses a different method. It only bothers it's self with what can be tested. I use the scientific method for my beliefs. If I cannot prove or disprove something, I need not concern myself with it.
We both base our beliefs on numerous things, including science. In the end, they are still beliefs.
Taking liberties and stating you know things for a "fact", etc. to support your beliefs is illusory. It's your subjective opinion, based on facts. I don't take issue with the facts we use for basis, or that support our beliefs. Using facts for support is fair. Misconstruing that basis as being the same as the beliefs is a distortion that does not work. For example, here you say, "I use the scientific method for my beliefs". You cannot. It's impossible. Beliefs cannot be proven. The scientific method only concerns itself with what can be proven. You've reached far beyond that, despite your denial, and it's woven in your every sentence.
The probability of anything existing which is not determinate is very slim, since all things observable thus far have been determinate. It follows that all thinks are likely determinate, at least in any matter which concerns free-will, E.g. neurons, synapses, etc.. everything involved in human cognition has proven to be causal and determinate with no sustainable support for indeterminate elements.
The problem arises when one displays a pygmalion complex. This means one believes that if others just looked at the world in the same way--through the same filters--everyone would get the "truth". It's a psychological problem to view things this way. It shows lack of insight and objectivity.
The concept of the psyche itself, as the basis of psychology can't be located it in the brain. The ego doesn't exist because we can't quantify or test it, fully. Same with the unconscious--it doesn't reside in a "place". We use all kinds of intelligences to widely agree upon, and understand such concepts as real. Even though they are invisible. You are not a very metaphorical person, and your personality type does not process human based systems well. That is about you. It's not about whether such systems exist or not. That includes more mystical/religious and spiritual topics. Because you are not disposed to this understanding or perception is, again, about you, and not about the Truth. Others perceive metaphors, and symbols and their power, and their existence, and their value/meaning in the lives of individuals. Others "see" and "get" the fact that such symbols are representative of natural life forces. Because it cannot be carved up in your world and quantified is irrelevent to me. It is irrelevent to the Truth. And it's irrelevent to many, many millions.
It's great for you to see and believe what you see and believe. Unfortunately, your problem is that you need to tear down what others see and believe, because you don't comprehend it due to your own blind spots. And frankly, it is impossible to tear down the truth of others, no matter what "back-up" you use. People will continue to see what their filters show them, as it should be.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You base your beliefs on personal desire. You cleave to certain scientific findings that agree with your beliefs and you disregard the rest. You like Newberg's research, but you never mention Ramachandran's findings, Ben Libet, Michael Persinger, or anyone else. You simply cleave to two things Niels Bohr's description of QM and Newberg's TPO findings. You don't even understand 90% of what they are talking about.
So don't give me that shit.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You base your beliefs on personal desire. You cleave to certain scientific findings that agree with your beliefs and you disregard the rest. You like Newberg's research, but you never mention Ramachandran's findings, Ben Libet, Michael Persinger, or anyone else. You simply cleave to two things Niels Bohr's description of QM and Newberg's TPO findings. You don't even understand 90% of what they are talking about.
So don't give me that shit.
Only when one is aware of the subjectivity of their view, can they appreciate what objectivity is.
Bottom line: you're as entranced by your own ego as anyone. Hence all beliefs being equal.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Our belief systems are not equal, to even call my system a belief system reduces it to the absurd description of your beliefs.
They are not comparable. If you can't see the logic that has been laid out before you. The same logic that has lead science to the top of understanding. A method that has given us magnificent things that dreams can only dream about.
Your helpless. I can't help you any more than I have already.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Our belief systems are not equal, to even call my system a belief system reduces it to the absurd description of your beliefs.
They are not comparable. If you can't see the logic that has been laid out before you. The same logic that has lead science to the top of understanding. A method that has given us magnificent things that dreams can only dream about.
Your helpless. I can't help you any more than I have already.
Suit yourself.
The interesting irony for me is that you are, on some level, aware that our programming causes us to look at the world through distorted lenses. Just like a Christian is aware that they are a sinner on some level. And yet you continue to give your ego--the flaws and distortions accumulated in your lifetime--full arrogant reign. Like the "PJ board stereotyped Christian". On one level understanding one's flaws, and on another level barrelling forward and denying them while unconsciously learning the hard way--by acting them out.
I rest assured you will awaken from that paradox in practice, someday, (beyond mere theory) given your intuition, which interestingly, is like mine--predisposed to be insightful in the invisible inner worlds. Until such an awakening, you will continue to rail against that which you act out yourself. It's par for the course.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The interesting irony for me is that you are, on some level, aware that our programming causes us to look at the world through distorted lenses. Just like a Christian is aware that they are a sinner on some level. And yet you continue to give your ego--the flaws and distortions accumulated in your lifetime--full arrogant reign. Like the "PJ board stereotyped Christian". On one level understanding one's flaws, and on another level barrelling forward and denying them while unconsciously learning the hard way--by acting them out.
I rest assured you will awaken from that paradox in practice, someday, (beyond mere theory) given your intuition, which interestingly, is like mine--predisposed to be insightful in the invisible inner worlds. Until such an awakening, you will continue to rail against that which you act out yourself. It's par for the course.
Grab a mirror.
You are the one that trust your intuition, knowing how easily it is manipulated.
There is no comparison. If you really understood.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You are the one that trust your intuition, knowing how easily it is manipulated.
There is no comparison. If you really understood.
As long as you perpetuate good/bad, right/wrong, better/worseand project that onto the real world along with power imbalances, you will continue to see such projections and respond to your own conflict and halved/fragmented perceptions. And all the while, the real world proceeds uninterrupted.
I understand much of the basis of what you say is objectively accurate. However that doesn't excuse the distortions.
I'm at peace with my views, and with all other views, as they are. Not as they "ought to" be.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
As long as you perpetuate good/bad, right/wrong, better/worseand project that onto the real world along with power imbalances, you will continue to see such projections and respond to your own conflict and halved/fragmented perceptions. And all the while, the real world proceeds uninterrupted.
I understand much of the basis of what you say is objectively accurate. However that doesn't excuse the distortions.
I'm at peace with my views, and with all other views, as they are. Not as they "ought to" be.
I doubt it. Go ahead and give me the scientific basis for believing in your cosmic God and free-will.
Your interpetation of the implications of Andrew Newberg's work is a non sequitor and the reason you couldn't be an effective contributor of philosophy.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I doubt it. Go ahead and give me the scientific basis for believing in your cosmic God and free-will.
Your interpetation of the implications of Andrew Newberg's work is a non sequitor and the reason you couldn't be an effective contributor of philosophy.
Sounds like someone's got a little conflict going on.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Sounds like someone's got a little conflict going on.
Why don't you just step-up to the challenge?
If you had eyes to see, you'd see how much your ideas are in conflict.
You say that you base your ideas on science, but you can't back it up.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If you had ears to listen, I might go there. Instead, I can accept all kinds of personal opinions and views, as they are a part of "what is".
Alright, well that's a bunch of horseshit I'm not gonna waste my time on. I'm off to read other people's well articulated ideas.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
You said you are at peace without "vortices, aliens, ghosts, loch ness monsters, bigfoot, succubi, demons, angels, Gods, fairies, leprechauns, cosmic consciousness or anything else people claim to know without providing evidence."
The problem is that you are as evangelical about your own beliefs and interpretations as anyone. You continue to try to prove that which is unproveable. The fact remains that you cannot prove your philosophies and beliefs any more than I or anyone else can prove our own.
You can go on all day about science, and yet you are interpreting far beyond known scientific fact for your particular beliefs and philosophies--which you essentially acknowledge here. Your interpretation or "beliefs" are no better than neuroscientist Andrew Newberg's or my own. You try to demonize and minimize other forms of intelligence, and frankly it doesn't work. It just proves your own personal bias.
You said:
You actually say "none of them transcend the brain". It's the height of arrogance, imo, to claim something as unproveable as that.
You are smug with your assertions that such things have not been proven, and yet the limits of science cannot (at least yet) prove them. This doesn't prove your point--it proves your own and science's limitations at this time.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The human brain is causal and the cranium blocks NA+/K+ and EM Fields from passing through. There is literally no basis for anything psychic or paranormal. All evidence suggests that the brain is autonomous and causal. That it is. You aren't just arguing with me on this point, you are arguing with neuroscience. But, it just shows your ignorance of the topic.
Your "all evidence suggests" stuff is a bunch of malarky.
You say having mystical beliefs shows ignorance. I say trying to prove your beliefs and the unproveable with science shows ignorance.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yea, you can make all kinds of speculations.
"Don't breath, because by doing so you cause global warming."
I can think of a hundred million different possible claims that cannot be proven, or have some merit but are largely speculation.
You can't believe them all, many will be in conflict with each other.
"There is life after death"
"There is no life after death"
So... you need something to base your beliefs on. I know that you like to base your beliefs on personal desire and introspection. That's a very common method, that's how we got 3,000 different religions to begin with. But.. science uses a different method. It only bothers it's self with what can be tested. I use the scientific method for my beliefs. If I cannot prove or disprove something, I need not concern myself with it.
Consider the following claims:
"Some things are determinate"
"Some things are indeterminate"
The first statement can be proven. The second statement cannot be proven. A potentially fallacious syllogism would be:
Some things are determinate
Therefor all things are determinate
But this is not what I believe. It's more like this:
Most things are determinate
No things (so far) are indeterminate
Most likely all things are determinate
The probability of anything existing which is not determinate is very slim, since all things observable thus far have been determinate. It follows that all thinks are likely determinate, at least in any matter which concerns free-will, E.g. neurons, synapses, etc.. everything involved in human cognition has proven to be causal and determinate with no sustainable support for indeterminate elements.
To say that "We don't have free-will because all observable elements of cognition are causal and determinate." is far less of a fallacy as to say "We do have free-will, because I believe that elements exist which are indeterminate, regardless of what has been observed and the law of conservation mass-energy" The first statement might be incorrect, and it can be revised in the event that indeterminate elements of human cognition are identified. The latter statement is not open to revision, it's taken on faith that elements exist which can not be proven to not exist. Just as, you cannot prove that a teapot orbits saturn because it's too small to detect, and even if you raked saturn's rings a thousand times, it could still be claimed to be there beyond your detection.
The greater fallacy is in your assumptions. Not mine, my beliefs are very well structured on scientific principles and philosophical principles. Side-by-side, there is no comparison in these systems of belief. You want to reduce my methods to reflec the weaknesses of your own, but there is no comparison.
Taking liberties and stating you know things for a "fact", etc. to support your beliefs is illusory. It's your subjective opinion, based on facts. I don't take issue with the facts we use for basis, or that support our beliefs. Using facts for support is fair. Misconstruing that basis as being the same as the beliefs is a distortion that does not work. For example, here you say, "I use the scientific method for my beliefs". You cannot. It's impossible. Beliefs cannot be proven. The scientific method only concerns itself with what can be proven. You've reached far beyond that, despite your denial, and it's woven in your every sentence.
The problem arises when one displays a pygmalion complex. This means one believes that if others just looked at the world in the same way--through the same filters--everyone would get the "truth". It's a psychological problem to view things this way. It shows lack of insight and objectivity.
The concept of the psyche itself, as the basis of psychology can't be located it in the brain. The ego doesn't exist because we can't quantify or test it, fully. Same with the unconscious--it doesn't reside in a "place". We use all kinds of intelligences to widely agree upon, and understand such concepts as real. Even though they are invisible. You are not a very metaphorical person, and your personality type does not process human based systems well. That is about you. It's not about whether such systems exist or not. That includes more mystical/religious and spiritual topics. Because you are not disposed to this understanding or perception is, again, about you, and not about the Truth. Others perceive metaphors, and symbols and their power, and their existence, and their value/meaning in the lives of individuals. Others "see" and "get" the fact that such symbols are representative of natural life forces. Because it cannot be carved up in your world and quantified is irrelevent to me. It is irrelevent to the Truth. And it's irrelevent to many, many millions.
It's great for you to see and believe what you see and believe. Unfortunately, your problem is that you need to tear down what others see and believe, because you don't comprehend it due to your own blind spots. And frankly, it is impossible to tear down the truth of others, no matter what "back-up" you use. People will continue to see what their filters show them, as it should be.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You base your beliefs on personal desire. You cleave to certain scientific findings that agree with your beliefs and you disregard the rest. You like Newberg's research, but you never mention Ramachandran's findings, Ben Libet, Michael Persinger, or anyone else. You simply cleave to two things Niels Bohr's description of QM and Newberg's TPO findings. You don't even understand 90% of what they are talking about.
So don't give me that shit.
Bottom line: you're as entranced by your own ego as anyone. Hence all beliefs being equal.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
They are not comparable. If you can't see the logic that has been laid out before you. The same logic that has lead science to the top of understanding. A method that has given us magnificent things that dreams can only dream about.
Your helpless. I can't help you any more than I have already.
The interesting irony for me is that you are, on some level, aware that our programming causes us to look at the world through distorted lenses. Just like a Christian is aware that they are a sinner on some level. And yet you continue to give your ego--the flaws and distortions accumulated in your lifetime--full arrogant reign. Like the "PJ board stereotyped Christian". On one level understanding one's flaws, and on another level barrelling forward and denying them while unconsciously learning the hard way--by acting them out.
I rest assured you will awaken from that paradox in practice, someday, (beyond mere theory) given your intuition, which interestingly, is like mine--predisposed to be insightful in the invisible inner worlds.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Grab a mirror.
You are the one that trust your intuition, knowing how easily it is manipulated.
There is no comparison. If you really understood.
I understand much of the basis of what you say is objectively accurate. However that doesn't excuse the distortions.
I'm at peace with my views, and with all other views, as they are. Not as they "ought to" be.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I doubt it. Go ahead and give me the scientific basis for believing in your cosmic God and free-will.
Your interpetation of the implications of Andrew Newberg's work is a non sequitor and the reason you couldn't be an effective contributor of philosophy.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Why don't you just step-up to the challenge?
If you had eyes to see, you'd see how much your ideas are in conflict.
You say that you base your ideas on science, but you can't back it up.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Alright, well that's a bunch of horseshit I'm not gonna waste my time on. I'm off to read other people's well articulated ideas.