Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: learningtofly]
    #14169212 - 03/23/11 10:40 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

learningtofly said:
Well that's the point i'm getting at: one may be able to experience something that there is currently no scientifically accepted way to measure.


And since there's no currently scientifically accepted way of measuring it, to believe that such experiences are somehow valid despite that fact is ludicrous.


Quote:

learningtofly said:
EDIT: I'm not saying I believe in the immaterial, I'm just saying I think it's kind of arrogant to push it aside without evidence.


I'm not sure about anyone else, but I'm not pushing it aside, only laughing at people who seem to have an emotionally-based need to believe in things that have not or currently cannot be proved via scientific investigation. :levitate:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: learningtofly]
    #14169238 - 03/23/11 10:44 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

I'm just saying I think it's kind of arrogant to push it aside without evidence.




Four years here and have yet to grok the ole 'can't prove a negative'? :rolleyes:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelearningtofly
Ancient Aliens
Male


Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14169276 - 03/23/11 10:51 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Actually my point was that it has yet to be disproven (which is the only thing the scientific method can do)
Quote:

And since there's no currently scientifically accepted way of measuring it, to believe that such experiences are somehow valid despite that fact is ludicrous.


Is that so? So a couple hundred years ago, people were never infected by bacteria because there were not microscopes yet?
Quote:

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I'm not pushing it aside, only laughing at people who seem to have an emotionally-based need to believe in things that have not or currently cannot be proved via scientific investigation.



1. the scientific method is no sacrosanct.
2. Just because the scientific community does not currently accept something as a whole does not mean it doesn't exist. I don't understand why you have this assumption (which clearly you do). And how do you know, for the sake of argument lets say that there is a common consensus (presently) that the immaterial doesn't exist, does that mean anything? No. All it means is that presently, people don't believe in it.

It isn't as if our understanding of the universe shapes reality, which is what seems to be implied here.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: learningtofly]
    #14169322 - 03/23/11 10:59 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Actually my point was that it has yet to be disproven (which is the only thing the scientific method can do



How would one disprove a ghost other than to offer more lucid explanations?

Quote:

1. the scientific method is no sacrosanct



(500th time asked on this forum with nary an answer) What alternate method has led to any understanding of the world?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelearningtofly
Ancient Aliens
Male


Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14169334 - 03/23/11 11:01 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Did I ever say there was a better method as of yet? No. I said that it isn't sacrosanct. So can you please tell me how it IS sacrosanct?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #14169352 - 03/23/11 11:06 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

I think there's more easy explanation. It's like with a puzzle...you can see the single pieces if it's in disorder, but only if you put them together you can see the picture.
The pieces are that what our physical senses sense, but we put them together in our brain, so the whole picture can be 'seen' from you, but to prove it, you would have to prove every single connection from and to every piece of the whole.
It's like predicting the future. You know the parts from the past and if you combine them in the right way you can see into the future.

(the noun 'you' is exchangeable and only stands for debate purpose)


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelearningtofly
Ancient Aliens
Male


Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #14169361 - 03/23/11 11:07 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

huh?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: learningtofly]
    #14169367 - 03/23/11 11:08 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

I just was replying to orgone's original statement.


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: Poid]
    #14170254 - 03/23/11 01:48 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

And since there's no currently scientifically accepted way of measuring it, to believe that such experiences are somehow valid despite that fact is ludicrous.





What would really be ludicris would be to rule out the possibility that some experience is valid purely because your current scientific understanding cannot explain it.

To automatically assume an experience is not valid simply because it cannot be "measured by current scientific" assumes that nothing is beyond the current scope of science and scientific tools. It is illogical to assume something does not exist because it cannot be measured, that assumes everythin that exists can be measured & even worse it assumes "current science" can measure everything that exists.

Quote:

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I'm not pushing it aside, only laughing at people who seem to have an emotionally-based need to believe in things that have not or currently cannot be proved via scientific investigation.




This is an unfair judgment and illogical. Suppose a person in the distant past developed the ability to visually sense (see) infra-red radiation. Now the infra-red produces an internal image (a colour) that is unlike any other colour, a new colour. This person swears to others that they can see all the other colours plus this new colour. At the time the "current scientifically accepted way of measuring" this type of radiation is non-existent. Does that mean you should laugh at them and automatically assume their experience cannot be valid?

Is it illogical or logical for them to assume it is valid? It is more logical then illogical to assume it exists (assuming the person is honest) because as OP has pointed out there needs to be an external "physical" cause of the experience of that colour, otherwise the person would not be sensing it. That person would receive much ridicule from people such as yourself but they would have personal conviction (via experience) that the experience is indeed real. Others who see themselves to be logically superior and more rational then others would easily conclude this person has "emotional attachment" to their position that the experience is valid. They would also likely provide an intellectual masterbation of an explaination for why this person feels the need to create these fantasies, coming up with all kinds of "theories". Similar to Dawkins and his ONE TOOL of explaining human behavior - evolutionary mechanisms."when your only tool is a hammer everything is a nail".

You should not laugh at mystics because they claim to experience things you do not and it is illogical for you to conclude those experiences are false.

It would assume science has already explained everything. How could the scientific method be applied to explain unexplainable phenomenon if you already assume those phenomenon cannot exist.


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledustinthewind13
Fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/05/10
Posts: 5,219
Loc: Being a burden
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: learningtofly]
    #14170275 - 03/23/11 01:53 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

learningtofly said:
Actually my point was that it has yet to be disproven (which is the only thing the scientific method can do)
Quote:

And since there's no currently scientifically accepted way of measuring it, to believe that such experiences are somehow valid despite that fact is ludicrous.


Is that so? So a couple hundred years ago, people were never infected by bacteria because there were not microscopes yet?






I don't think the problem is that we cannot prove the immaterial doesn't exist, but that people seem to think they don't need proof to believe it exists. The immaterial could be a different plane of existence where your soul lives, but I have no proof to make me a believer.

As far as the bacteria goes, they were infected back then. Without a microscope someone could say the devil was infecting people. There was no proof back then that he wasn't, but it still doesn't mean that he was.


--------------------
"It is the peculiar quality of a fool to perceive the faults of others and forget his own." - Marcus Tullius Cicero

"A room without books is like a body without a soul."  - Marcus Tullius Cicero

"Do not bite at the bait of pleasure, till you know there is no hook beneath it." -Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFreedom
Pigment of your imagination
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,999
Last seen: 2 hours, 3 minutes
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: learningtofly]
    #14170286 - 03/23/11 01:55 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

learningtofly said:
Why is it that if there's no scientific method to observe it, it must not exist?





Its not that it must not exist, but that subjective experience is easily biased. i.e. #3 in the OP.

This is why we use the scientific method, because our bias will skew our observation and reasoning skills.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineg00ru
lit pants tit licker
Male User Gallery


Registered: 08/09/07
Posts: 21,088
Loc: georgia, us
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: Diploid]
    #14170297 - 03/23/11 01:56 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
What is the justification for all these claims, i.e. what do you rely upon to demonstrate their validity?




Seriously, just common sense and right understanding/viewing.  You can observe it right now. Please, just for a moment, try to meet me half way and just actively consider what I'm saying without demanding evidence that nobody could ever produce.

  You see around you a material world.  That's one layer, and it's very slowly vibrating energy (e=mc^2).  You have within your body some processes keeping you alive.  I think we can both agree that this requires energy.  This energy, when taken as a whole, is not one particular substance like blood or air, but just a vital force sustaining the body.  It's only going to appear like this to you if you can drop mental concepts of how the body operates and start trusting your own experience.  When you're having gas pains cause you're stressed, that can more appropriately viewed as an energetic issue than trying to diagnose it as anything else.

Quote:

What is the distinction you draw between "subtle" immaterial things that can't be scientifically probed and other phenomena that can?  You claim there's some qualitative difference but don't explain what particularly that difference is nor how you've determined it.  If immaterial things are observable by the person, wouldn't that mean they are per se observable by other means- such as asking the person what they observe, measuring it with instrumentation, observing the reaction of the person?




So this statement brings me to the next level. This level is the mental body or mind.  These are your thoughts, the running dialogue in your head that 99% of people take to be "me."  This is your inner voice that you can choose to use.  This mental energy manifests in more ways than simply thoughts however, it interfaces with the external world and very strongly with the vital force. When you have positive thoughts, when you think optimistically, you will have more energy throughout your day than if you just sit there bitching to yourself in your head. Hopefully you know this from experience. This energy is also the energy of imagination, and is what causes any "hallucinations" or visions.  The astral plane is composed entirely of mental energy.

When you are present in your mind, that's known as intellect, when you are actively controlling the thoughts.  This is where most people are all the time, and that's why most people have a very hard time conceiving of the mind as something separate from themselves, and can't manipulate the concept of mind confidently.

Science can't observe this level for several reasons.  One, quantum mechanics shows us the role consciousness plays in the scientific method.  Due to our roles as observers, there is a barrier on what we can know about the physical world. To me, this hints that it is the observer that now needs to be observed.  Instead physics is just destroying particles trying to find one that makes it all make sense.  I'm sure that will yield something but it's quite obvious, as noted by esteemed physicist Roger Penrose in his book Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness, that no picture of the physical world is complete without including consciousness. And mind.  We simply don't have the technology yet to record thoughts in any form that is useful.  Thought is practically a metaphysical phenomenon (in fact many would say it's totally metaphysical).  And yet, through the heirarchy of energy, thought still has a direct effect on the physical world.  It's not meta-natural, just meta-material/physical. We would seriously need a squadron of Yogi/Physicist/Phds to start delving into further mysteries of our universe in a western empirical fashion.

Quote:

Seems you either have the phenomena be observable, in which case those observing it can produce data that is amenable to scientific study, or you have something that is unobservable in which case it is no different than a fictional thing as it cannot interact with the world and nobody could have a justified belief in it as no reason for such belief could be detected.  Your claim that some things are not observable yet exist seems to suffer obvious problems as if you know it exists you can measure whatever means through which you've been able to determine its existence, if you are correct in your determination of existance, and hence the phenomena becomes scientifically available.




There is plenty of data out there that meditation changes brain structure. And, I can give you empirical methods to find out about these things for yourself.  Do yoga poses every day, meditate on your breath every day, and practice self inquiry where you ask yourself questions like "who am i?" and "from where is the 'I' seen?" and try to seriously realize the answers in your heart. Eat vegetarian (better subtle energies) and start writing down your dreams every morning (better awareness of mental planes). Are you willing to do these things to find out the truth? This isn't something you can just read on your computer screen, you have to be seriously dedicated to exploring your inner and outer universe.

However, just because I can observe these things doesn't mean scientific machinery can.  These are machine of a material nature trying to measure something that is of a much subtler material.  When I say subtle, I mean it in the truest sense of the word.  It's a subtle thing to observe, just like little parts of a Radiohead song or something.  That's why a clear mind is of great importance.

So go ahead and tear this apart, ask me for evidence about the astral plane, say I'm full of shit, I don't care because I know this is all true and it's been helping me tremendously towards living a happy life.  Any artist or person of true noble achievement is spiritually advanced and self realized, even if they wouldn't use that language.


Quote:

Diploid said:
And yet, you are totally unable to communicate how you came to this 'understanding'.

He read it in a book at Barnes & Noble silly. :yesnod:




Oh yeah I forgot, you can't go down the "rabbit hole" from books you buy at a store where everybody else can get them :wink: These are open secrets mang


--------------------
check out my music!
drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: soldatheero]
    #14170361 - 03/23/11 02:05 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

soldatheero said:
Quote:

And since there's no currently scientifically accepted way of measuring it, to believe that such experiences are somehow valid despite that fact is ludicrous.





What would really be ludicris would be to rule out the possibility that some experience is valid purely because your current scientific understanding cannot explain it.


This is retarded, why would science's inability to explain something necessarily mean that that something is valid?


Quote:

soldatheero said:
To automatically assume an experience is not valid simply because it cannot be "measured by current scientific" assumes that nothing is beyond the current scope of science and scientific tools.


Agreed--now tell me, who here made this assumption? Can you please provide a quote?


Quote:

soldatheero said:
Quote:

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I'm not pushing it aside, only laughing at people who seem to have an emotionally-based need to believe in things that have not or currently cannot be proved via scientific investigation.




This is an unfair judgment and illogical. Suppose a person in the distant past developed the ability to visually sense (see) infra-red radiation.


Nobody can "develop this ability", they would have to be born with it.


Quote:

soldatheero said:
Now the infra-red produces an internal image (a colour) that is unlike any other colour, a new colour. This person swears to others that they can see all the other colours plus this new colour. At the time the "current scientifically accepted way of measuring" this type of radiation is non-existent. Does that mean you should laugh at them and automatically assume their experience cannot be valid?


No, it doesn't.


Quote:

soldatheero said:
Is it illogical or logical for them to assume it is valid? It is more logical then illogical to assume it exists (assuming the person is honest) because as OP has pointed out there needs to be an external "physical" cause of the experience of that colour, otherwise the person would not be sensing it.


Oh, so there's no such thing as hallucinations, then?


Quote:

soldatheero said:
That person would receive much ridicule from people such as yourself but they would have personal conviction (via experience) that the experience is indeed real.


I don't make fun of people who talk about their hallucinations--typically, the conviction that "spiritual" people seem to have is emotionally-based, not logically-based.


Quote:

soldatheero said:
Others who see themselves to be logically superior and more rational then others would easily conclude this person has "emotional attachment" to their position that the experience is valid. They would also likely provide an intellectual masterbation of an explaination for why this person feels the need to create these fantasies, coming up with all kinds of "theories". Similar to Dawkins and his ONE TOOL of explaining human behavior - evolutionary mechanisms."when your only tool is a hammer everything is a nail".

You should not laugh at mystics because they claim to experience things you do not and it is illogical for you to conclude those experiences are false.


It is not illogical at all--I've been around the planet for a good period of time, I am familiar with the human race and its antics. People lie, all the fucking time. People also are afraid to admit that they may be wrong about something, all the fucking time.

You're saying that the logical thing is to trust anything anybody says: that is fucking retarded, and you know it.


Quote:

soldatheero said:
It would assume science has already explained everything. How could the scientific method be applied to explain unexplainable phenomenon if you already assume those phenomenon cannot exist.


I never made that assumption that science, as it exists today, has explained everything.

The scientific method does not assume anything, not sure where you got this from--the point of the scientific method is to remove as much bias as possible.


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineg00ru
lit pants tit licker
Male User Gallery


Registered: 08/09/07
Posts: 21,088
Loc: georgia, us
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: Poid]
    #14170394 - 03/23/11 02:09 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

the heart is the seat of emotions, but it's also the seat of the soul.  Have the courage to listen to your heart.  It's terrifying actually, but it leads you in beautiful directions in life


--------------------
check out my music!
drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesoldatheero
lastirishman
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc: Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: Poid]
    #14170424 - 03/23/11 02:15 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

What would really be ludicris would be to rule out the possibility that some experience is valid purely because your current scientific understanding cannot explain it.







Quote:

This is retarded, why would science's inability to explain something necessarily mean that that something is valid?






You misread, that or you are exemplifying the flaw in your thinking, going from one opposite to the other.

I said that just because you cannot prove it is true does not mean you should rule out the chance that it may be true. You just take the neutral position and admit that it may be either but you DO NOT KNOW. Have you ever admitted that you do not know before?

Can't read the rest of your arguments atm, considering however the speed of your reply suggests they are likely of the same calibre as your first.


--------------------
..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: learningtofly]
    #14170754 - 03/23/11 03:12 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

learningtofly said:
Actually my point was that it has yet to be disproven (which is the only thing the scientific method can do)





bleh, people say this kind of stuff a lot


What basis do you have for saying this?

Counterexample:

Hypothesis: smoking causes lungcancer
Population: random people from a highschool
Experiment: 50 random people are convinced to smoke a pack a day, 50 random people are convinced to consume twenty candy ciggerettes a day, all else equal, subjects confined to dormitory for thirty years
Results:  greater lung cancer incidance in smoking group to p<0.05
Conclusion:  smoking causes lung cancer


There, that proved something.


Quote:

Quote:

And since there's no currently scientifically accepted way of measuring it, to believe that such experiences are somehow valid despite that fact is ludicrous.


Is that so? So a couple hundred years ago, people were never infected by bacteria because there were not microscopes yet?





one hundred years ago people infected by bacteria were different then people not infected by bacteria, dead, sick, inflammed.  These phenomena are easily detected, hence; how are bacterial infections allegedly immeasurable?  What does the microscope have to do with anything?  You arbitrarily add this to your question but demonstrate no clear relationship between the microscope and bacterial infections being detected

. How were the hundreds of years old people's bacterial infection not scientifically able to be tested?


Quote:

Quote:

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I'm not pushing it aside, only laughing at people who seem to have an emotionally-based need to believe in things that have not or currently cannot be proved via scientific investigation.



1. the scientific method is no sacrosanct.
2. Just because the scientific community does not currently accept something as a whole does not mean it doesn't exist.




:rolleyes:

Who argued to the contrary?  What people spoke of was something not being detectable- nothing about "understanding" was advanced.  What are you defining "understanding" to be anyways?  To a very real extent, science doesn't understand anything anyways, it just establishes efficient cause or the simplest relationships between variables.

This seems at best irrelevant, at worst an equivocation.



Quote:

learningtofly said:
Well that's the point i'm getting at: one may be able to experience something that there is currently no scientifically accepted way to measure.




a) what does "scientifically accepted way to measure" mean?  You're the only one who advanced this qualifier, so I'm wondering what special signifigant you attribute it and why you've qualifeid the class of phenomena you speak of, apparently arbitrarily, when nobody else has
b) How can it be possible for someone to experience something that cannot be scientifically investigated?  If it can be experienced, then it is interacting with you, and it can be measured.  Again, this has allready been discussed: ask the person a question, observe their reaction, tell them to let you know what they observe, whatever.  How do you get around the obvious fact that if it is experienced it is detected and is therefore able to be measured.  If your equivocating with "scientifically accepted way to measure" terminology: what the hell does that mean and what does it matter whether other people accept any random thing?  How does the lack of acceptance you arbitrarily premise your argument on have anything to do with the ability of the phenomena to be scientifically investigated?  Does the fact that some people on the earth are incorrrect about any given thing render knowledge impossible?- seems to be akin to your suggestion if I read your equivocation right

Quote:

learningtofly said:
Why is it that if there's no scientific method to observe it, it must not exist?




Nobody said this.

What people, me, have said is that if it isn't scientifically observable it is identical to something that doesn't exist and hence its belief is per se unwarranted and pointless.


GURUU:

Quote:

However, just because I can observe these things doesn't mean scientific machinery can.  These are machine of a material nature trying to measure something that is of a much subtler material.  When I say subtle, I mean it in the truest sense of the word.  It's a subtle thing to observe, just like little parts of a Radiohead song or something.  That's why a clear mind is of great importance.




Who said anything about "machinery"?  Once again it seems people are equivocating.  We spoke about things able to be scientifically detected.  You now premise your argument on what "machinery" can detect yet provide no justification for this apparently arbitrary qualification.

Simply: what machinery can or cannot do has no clear relevance whatsoever to the question of what is scientifically demonstrable/detectable.



Quote:


So go ahead and tear this apart, ask me for evidence about the astral plane, say I'm full of shit, I don't care because I know this is all true and it's been helping me tremendously towards living a happy life.  Any artist or person of true noble achievement is spiritually advanced and self realized, even if they wouldn't use that language.





:rolleyes:

cut the crap

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePoid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area Flag
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: g00ru]
    #14170773 - 03/23/11 03:16 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

guruu said:
the heart is the seat of emotions...


No, that would be the brain.


Quote:

guruu said:
...but it's also the seat of the soul.


No, there is no soul AFAIK; you're not in the mystery forum, BTW, just a little reminder.


Quote:

guruu said:
Have the courage to listen to your heart.  It's terrifying actually, but it leads you in beautiful directions in life


The only noises my heart makes is these thumping sounds. :shrug2:


--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. --  Bob Dylan
fireworks_god said:
It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineUnstoppableNewt
Stranger
Registered: 03/23/11
Posts: 6
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: Poid]
    #14172718 - 03/23/11 09:26 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Poid said:
Quote:

guruu said:
the heart is the seat of emotions...


No, that would be the brain.





Quote:

source: http://www.heartmath.org/research/science-of-the-heart/introduction.html
After extensive research, one of the early pioneers in neurocardiology, Dr. J. Andrew Armour, introduced the concept of a functional "heart brain" in 1991. His work revealed that the heart has a complex intrinsic nervous system that is sufficiently sophisticated to qualify as a "little brain" in its own right. The heart’s brain is an intricate network of several types of neurons, neurotransmitters, proteins and support cells like those found in the brain proper. Its elaborate circuitry enables it to act independently of the cranial brain – to learn, remember, and even feel and sense. The recent book Neurocardiology, edited by Dr. Armour and Dr. Jeffrey Ardell, provides a comprehensive overview of the function of the heart’s intrinsic nervous system and the role of central and peripheral autonomic neurons in the regulation of cardiac function. The nervous system pathways between the heart and brain are shown in Figure 2.

The heart’s nervous system contains around 40,000 neurons, called sensory neurites, which detect circulating hormones and neurochemicals and sense heart rate and pressure information. Hormonal, chemical, rate and pressure information is translated into neurological impulses by the heart’s nervous system and sent from the heart to the brain through several afferent (flowing to the brain) pathways. It is also through these nerve pathways that pain signals and other feeling sensations are sent to the brain. These afferent nerve pathways enter the brain in an area called the medulla, located in the brain stem. The signals have a regulatory role over many of the autonomic nervous system signals that flow out of the brain to the heart, blood vessels and other glands and organs. However, they also cascade up into the higher centers of the brain, where they may influence perception, decision making and other cognitive processes.

Dr. Armour describes the brain and nervous system as a distributed parallel processing system consisting of separate but interacting groups of neuronal processing centers distributed throughout the body. The heart has its own intrinsic nervous system that operates and processes information independently of the brain or nervous system. This is what allows a heart transplant to work: Normally, the heart communicates with the brain via nerve fibers running through the vagus nerve and the spinal column. In a heart transplant, these nerve connections do not reconnect for an extended period of time, if at all; however, the transplanted heart is able to function in its new host through the capacity of its intact, intrinsic nervous system.





As for material evidence of the immaterial, how about visible light? Yeah, stars are material, but then you come into the whole correlation=/=causation thing. Meaning, you've gotta look at visible light as its own phenomenon, independent of its conceived source. Can you explain the mechanism of light in definite terms? Please say photons, because then you're acknowledging the scientific viability of the immaterial.

There's this disturbing trend I've noticed with people who consider themselves scientifically minded, but who, in my reckoning at least, use a hackneyed understanding of science as a thin veil for condescension. I'd urge everyone to try and remember that all scientific discovery is made on the frontier of ignorance. The know-it-all attitude is little more than an ego trip.

The big x-factor here is quantum physics, which has utterly shattered the myth of objective understanding, or even the sovereignty of matter. What's really interesting, though, is when you draw corollaries between quantum physics theories and age-old spirituality from across the world. The Hindus were saying that the universe is all energy thousands of years ago; we didn't figure that one out til circa 1932. So, maybe there's something to this "mysticism". Maybe it's about as mystical as a cell phone would have been fifty years ago, eh?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledustinthewind13
Fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/05/10
Posts: 5,219
Loc: Being a burden
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: UnstoppableNewt]
    #14172812 - 03/23/11 09:42 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

1) Guru was not talking about the "heart brain" you are talking about. He was being metaphoric and not scientific.

2) Photons are Elementary Particles

3) Quantum physics is science BTW.


--------------------
"It is the peculiar quality of a fool to perceive the faults of others and forget his own." - Marcus Tullius Cicero

"A room without books is like a body without a soul."  - Marcus Tullius Cicero

"Do not bite at the bait of pleasure, till you know there is no hook beneath it." -Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineUnstoppableNewt
Stranger
Registered: 03/23/11
Posts: 6
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: dustinthewind13]
    #14173118 - 03/23/11 10:30 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

1) I was addressing Poid more so than guru. That article goes on to say that the hormone releases that cause the visceral experience of emotion are triggered by the heart brain, so the heart actually is the seat of emotion.

2)Yeah, and elementary particles are in part defined by wave-particle duality, meaning the sovereignty of matter-centered models is compromised.

3) Not saying it isn't science. What I'm saying is that the Aristotelian model and Newtonian physics, which have utterly defined the tone of science up to around the 1920s or so, are rendered basically irrelevant by quantum mechanics.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* When a skeptic becomes an evidence and logic dodger!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Ego Death 9,843 113 02/07/05 05:51 PM
by Ego Death
* Evidence that OBE's do not relate to the physical world?
( 1 2 all )
PHARMAKOS 1,777 22 05/22/04 12:46 PM
by Zero7a1
* Feelings As Evidence
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 2,531 59 04/29/05 01:35 PM
by soulmotion
* can there be free will in a material world?
( 1 2 all )
Malachi 2,312 25 11/25/03 01:33 AM
by ZenGecko
* Evidence of UFO's V2
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Ego Death 8,027 95 02/27/04 07:00 PM
by Atomisk
* Neurological Science And Evidence Of The Non-Existence Of A Soul
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
DiploidM 11,781 134 06/04/05 09:28 PM
by psyillyazul
* Materialism
( 1 2 all )
Swami 3,632 30 01/08/04 09:09 AM
by fireworks_god
* So evidence obtained by torture of foreigners is now admissable.
( 1 2 3 all )
JacquesCousteau 2,688 48 12/06/04 01:49 PM
by Phred

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,307 topic views. 3 members, 2 guests and 20 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.