Home | Community | Message Board

Mycohaus
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: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   Left Coast Kratom Premium Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: Proof of reality [Re: sudly]
    #21847765 - 06/23/15 08:56 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
The double slit experiment only shows that we don't have a full understanding of quantum behaviors.





That's right. :thumbup:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: Proof of reality [Re: Feemer] * 1
    #21848294 - 06/23/15 10:59 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Yeah, Newtonian physicality died with relativity, even before the discovery of quantum mechanics.

OP reads like a scientism sermon, highlighted by the fact he shallowly uses the bible as the only claim to "god" humanity uses and his rejection of the Christian definition of God as a sweeping rejection of all things spiritual.

Just because you reject a definition doesn't mean the matter is settled.
Due to the obvious denial or ignorance of other spiritual texts, poems, and experiences, as well as believing newtownian mechanics as the upper limit of what reality is, despite relativity and quantum theory, the entire post is a fallacy.


Illogical at best.


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.


Edited by hTx (06/23/15 11:15 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,807
Re: Proof of reality [Re: hTx]
    #21848384 - 06/23/15 11:19 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

I'd like to hear what other claims there are for god other than the bible or simple faith.

There are claims like miracles, prayer, 2000 year old testimonies, personal experiences etc. All of which have been disproven including the bible.

Miracles have been explained through science.
Prayer does not work, evident by the fact that it doesn't work.
personal experiences are of no merit, people claim to have been abducted by aliens, able to speak to the dead, able to heal and all have no evidence.

Read the first few pages of the bible and it's evident to any reasonable person that it's full of shit.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,641
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 3 days, 5 hours
Re: Proof of reality [Re: hTx]
    #21848390 - 06/23/15 11:21 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

http://viral.buzz/video-checkmate-atheists-scientists-discover-god/

VERY RECAMENDED WATCH for EVERYONE here!!! god exists in a dimension we cannot perceive much like the second dimension can't see the third we can't see the fourth. it cannot fit in our perception. doesn't mean consciousness without matter. just unobservable consciousness... but wait isn't that what consciousness is? unobservable.


--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,641
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 3 days, 5 hours
Re: Proof of reality [Re: tryptkaloids]
    #21848403 - 06/23/15 11:24 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

that video will show you where god is hidden


--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: Proof of reality [Re: sudly] * 1
    #21848439 - 06/23/15 11:33 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
I'd like to hear what other claims there are for god other than the bible or simple faith.

There are claims like miracles, prayer, 2000 year old testimonies, personal experiences etc. All of which have been disproven including the bible.

Miracles have been explained through science.
Prayer does not work, evident by the fact that it doesn't work.
personal experiences are of no merit, people claim to have been abducted by aliens, able to speak to the dead, able to heal and all have no evidence.

Read the first few pages of the bible and it's evident to any reasonable person that it's full of shit.



Where to begin.
Rumi, Buddha, the Vedas, emerald tablets, Sumerian texts, Alan Watts,, Ram Dass...just to name a few.
All things spiritual have not been disproved with science..in fact, one could say they have been revived with science.
Most quantum physicists become quite mystical in their musings on the universe, and then back it up with math.

...there remain many things unexplained by current science. And if you actually pay attention to science and remain unbiased in a quest for truth, you will realize we have opened more doors than closed them.
Consciousness actually poses the biggest question and the biggest debate amongst modern scientific circles.
if a scientist tells you its settled, he probably isn't a scientist.

Case and point: your prophet Richard Dawkins


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: Proof of reality [Re: hTx]
    #21848488 - 06/23/15 11:49 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

If one studies the similarities between different cultures and the development of religion versus genuine spiritual experience, it becomes obvious that the spiritual experience is a genuine happening.
And that these experiences and knowledge thereof became esoteric in the beginning of civilization as a means to control populations..pushing the buttons so to speak and claiming their deity did it.
This becomes especially evident when such experiences can be induced with psychedelics.
even if its all in the mind..the mind is a powerful thing.
a spiritual experience catalyzed by lsd, or psilocybin, has lasting positive and beneficial effects..

The same could be said for genuine spiritual experiences (not that psychedelic experiences arent genuine) and i believe these experiences are keeping the whole thing of organized religion afloat and gave it such power to begin with.

When we realize we can do it ourselves, they will lose power.

As what almost seemed tp happen in the 60s


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,807
Re: Proof of reality [Re: tryptkaloids]
    #21853553 - 06/25/15 02:08 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Wow, just wow.

His assumption is that the laws of nature somehow equate a personified entity through relation to the bible because it says there was a beginning.

Quantum fluctuations do not fit under the definition of god.
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed. The big bang theory is that all energy and matter were compressed to a point of explosion aka, the big bang.

Schroeder gives nothing but an assumed hypothesis without facts.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,807
Re: Proof of reality [Re: hTx]
    #21853568 - 06/25/15 02:16 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

hTx said:

Where to begin.
Rumi, Buddha, the Vedas, emerald tablets, Sumerian texts, Alan Watts,, Ram Dass...just to name a few.
All things spiritual have not been disproved with science..in fact, one could say they have been revived with science.
Most quantum physicists become quite mystical in their musings on the universe, and then back it up with math.

...there remain many things unexplained by current science. And if you actually pay attention to science and remain unbiased in a quest for truth, you will realize we have opened more doors than closed them.
Consciousness actually poses the biggest question and the biggest debate amongst modern scientific circles.
if a scientist tells you its settled, he probably isn't a scientist.

Case and point: your prophet Richard Dawkins




one could say anything but science has most definitely not revived spiritualism in any form. For the past few centuries science has disproved numerous spiritualistic claims of the unknown
e.g thunder, precipitation, disease, reproduction, evolution, astronomy.

There still remain things unexplained by science but that doesn't mean the god of the gaps argument takes hold. So far all claims to mysticism, magic and the supernatural have been disproven and there is no reason to think science won't discover further reasons behind the unknown.

The debate about consciousness is how it evolved from our ancestors, not where it came from, we already know this and it's evolution.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,807
Re: Proof of reality [Re: hTx]
    #21853581 - 06/25/15 02:25 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

hTx said:
If one studies the similarities between different cultures and the development of religion versus genuine spiritual experience, it becomes obvious that the spiritual experience is a genuine happening.




Religion developed all over the world in countless cultures, that's why historians have cataloged over 2,700 different deities/gods.

Genuine spiritual experiences? What defines a 'genuine' experience over a non genuine one? People claim to have been abducted by aliens, seen big foot, spoken to the dead, come back from the dead themselves, seen angels, spoken to god, seen the devil/demons etc. None of their claims are seen as genuine, why on earth should the ramblings of ancient, uneducated and primitive cultures be taken as genuine?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,641
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 3 days, 5 hours
Re: Proof of reality [Re: sudly]
    #21854579 - 06/25/15 10:50 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

the issue is you're trying too hard to find the exact truth. you need to accept the fact that god doesn't want us to ever find him. think about it. if you created an entire species of 7 billion self righteous fuckheads and they have demonstrated an incredible ammount of greed and over confidence thinking that they have the mindset to do anything, knowing that they just take and destroy you would always want to be two steps ahead.

the main point that stuck with me is that we cannot perceive anything outside this universe. I think this 'existance' was created by a fourth dimensional being. i use the word existance because universe means all so if there is the inconceivable outside of this universe that means the inconceivable is part of the universe. so god is outside this existance.

Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

hTx said:

Where to begin.
Rumi, Buddha, the Vedas, emerald tablets, Sumerian texts, Alan Watts,, Ram Dass...just to name a few.
All things spiritual have not been disproved with science..in fact, one could say they have been revived with science.
Most quantum physicists become quite mystical in their musings on the universe, and then back it up with math.

...there remain many things unexplained by current science. And if you actually pay attention to science and remain unbiased in a quest for truth, you will realize we have opened more doors than closed them.
Consciousness actually poses the biggest question and the biggest debate amongst modern scientific circles.
if a scientist tells you its settled, he probably isn't a scientist.

Case and point: your prophet Richard Dawkins




one could say anything but science has most definitely not revived spiritualism in any form. For the past few centuries science has disproved numerous spiritualistic claims of the unknown
e.g thunder, precipitation, disease, reproduction, evolution, astronomy.

There still remain things unexplained by science but that doesn't mean the god of the gaps argument takes hold. So far all claims to mysticism, magic and the supernatural have been disproven and there is no reason to think science won't discover further reasons behind the unknown.

The debate about consciousness is how it evolved from our ancestors, not where it came from, we already know this and it's evolution.





all of these things you stated are just uneducated definitions made by ancients who didn't have the technology to define them to the caliber we have. I would hardly call these spiritual. what I want to see them look into is the use of native plant species for anything.. beleive it or not the ancients knew their shit about plants. in haiti they use herbs to make people lose their will and they basically turn into your zombie slave. i don't care what you say there's definatly things that seem unexplainable because science hasn't tried to explain them yet. like why a son who has never met his father has the same exact personality qualities. or how the chinese use chi or (hidden energy) to do all sorts of incredible things such as controlling wild animals into a calm, relaxed state from a distance to amazing feats such as knocking someone out with very little contact or even putting most of their body weight on a blade on the soft spot of their neck right above the collar bone. have you never felt the energy of another person or hidden within a peice of stone? someone very close told me about this time where she met with a shamen woman who had her lay down in a candlelit room and she placed stones all over her body and all of a sudden she was transported to egypt and was looking at the pyramids, just for a few seconds. then she was back. i don't understand your close mindedness. science is a great way to understand the world around us but that doesn't mean science has all the answers. new things are discovered every day all i want to say is science is funded by all the wrong people in all the wrong areas.


--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,807
Re: Proof of reality [Re: tryptkaloids]
    #21861762 - 06/26/15 09:36 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

So you want me to just copout of even trying and just accept that god cannot be proved?
Evolution, agriculture and technological advancements created the 7 billion humans we see on earth today.
There is no point in your hypothetical argument. You’re asking If I was god, wouldn’t I want to hide myself??
True, we don’t know about things that aren’t in the universe.
A fourth dimensional being… like a square circle? Because that’s absurd and rationally impossible.
You are assuming that the inconceivable exists outside of the universe,
The inconceivable is inconceivable within the universe, this means the inconceivable is not a part of the universe in fact it means the complete opposite that the inconceivable is not a part of this universe. It means that god is inconceivable and outside of this universe which is a good standpoint to say that he does not exist as he is inconceivable within the universe.
The inconceivable is not a part of the universe because it is inconceivable!
All you’ve stated is that god is outside of the conceivable universe, that is not evidence that he exists, it is the complete opposite.

The things I state used to be spiritual entities for those that did not know how or why they occurred, they are not anymore because science has studied them and shown the real cause and method for them occurring.
Ancients learnt how to use their native plant species through generational testing, they would use the plants as either food or medicine, if they didn’t die or become ill, they would continue to use it. If they did die, they would stop using it.
You don’t care what I say even though I am explaining what you claim to be unexplainable… wow.
A son is very likely to share personality traits with their father because they share genetics and are therefore genetically predisposed to the traits of their father. It’s very likely with all fathers and sons that they will have similar traits whether or not they have met.
Animal domestication is nothing new, it’s been done for thousands of years.
Someone can be knocked out rather easily if specific pressure points on the body such as the solar plexus are struck with sufficient force to do so.
They can put their body weight onto sharp objects like blades because they do so with extreme caution and focus. People can walk on eggs if they are patient and know how to spread their weight evenly over the eggs as not to break them, the same goes for holding yourself against a blade.
I have felt emotional connections and sexual tensions with people because of empathy, desire and love but I have never felt the energy of a pebble.
A man I met on the street told me about this time when he was 10 when his brother hit him over the head with a spade and killed him, he said he revived himself in a bathtub and now believes he is a living zombie.
If not believing such stupid superstitions or claims is close minded that I am guilty of doing so.
Science is great at understanding the world around us and it has done so since we first starting using it. Science does not have all the answers but it strives to find them and has answered so much of what we thought was unanswerable. Science discovers new things every day which is why we are able to live in the world we live in today with longer life spans, good health, wealth, freedom and enjoyment.
If you’d be happier with less funding for science then how about you throw away everything that the funding for science has given you, you know the pc/laptop/smartphone you’re using right now? You can thank science for that as well as every other appliance, medication, clothing item and belonging you have.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Edited by sudly (06/26/15 09:42 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: Proof of reality [Re: sudly]
    #21862550 - 06/27/15 03:02 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

You speak of inconceivable as if human perception were infallible.
In fact, we cannot conceive many, if not most of the happenings around us within and around the universe.

We perceive maybe one percent of the electromagnetic spectrum...a very narrow reality given the many signals all around, which are there and yet unperceivable.
And then, on top of all this, the brain filters reality even narrower such that even perceivable signals are filtered and we experience "reality" as a biased and subjective whole experience which we arrogantly believe to be objective truth.

Your logic is filled with fallacys and yet you are and will likely remain blinded to them.
For one, you cannot rationally compare a fourth dimensional being with a square circle.
Its a logical fallacy.
for two, to claim because something that is inconceivable means it doesn't exist in the universe is another fallacy as explained above, the inconceivable exists all around us.


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,641
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 3 days, 5 hours
Re: Proof of reality [Re: hTx]
    #21863750 - 06/27/15 10:54 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

"So you want me to just copout of even trying and just accept that god cannot be proved?"
yes, discussion is one thing, i encourage asking for opinions and exploring ideas but getting worked up over something we are not ready as a species to understand is just bad for you.

"Evolution, agriculture and technological advancements created the 7 billion humans we see on earth today." very true you'd think we would be able to keep our own fed, clothed and sheltered as well as given a chance to thrive and do something for the team...

"There is no point in your hypothetical argument. You’re asking If I was god, wouldn’t I want to hide myself??"

the point is this is a never ending discussion. and yes that is the question.

"A fourth dimensional being… like a square circle? Because that’s absurd and rationally impossible."
where on earth are you getting this? picture all of time happening at once.. god i wish my friends were a part of this discussion.. look at more theories on the fourth dimension.


"You are assuming that the inconceivable exists outside of the universe,
The inconceivable is inconceivable within the universe, this means the inconceivable is not a part of the universe in fact it means the complete opposite that the inconceivable is not a part of this universe. It means that god is inconceivable and outside of this universe which is a good standpoint to say that he does not exist as he is inconceivable within the universe.
The inconceivable is not a part of the universe because it is inconceivable!
All you’ve stated is that god is outside of the conceivable universe, that is not evidence that he exists, it is the complete opposite."

I am saying that if anything exists then it is part of, or rather within the universe. period. we cannot conceive of anything outside this universe, much like a two dimensional being cannot conceive of the third dimension. they would also say that a third dimension is absurd and rationally impossible... we cannot identify god, however we can identify the energy that created this present universe, i theorize this is only a fraction of that creation force.. it is HIGHLY debatable to say that this force has a consciousness. the evidence is in the energy. chances are we will never know where this energy came from.

what makes you think i don't care what you have to say? now you're making assumptions. one could easily say the same about you.. i bet you'll just shrug off what i have to say..

"Ancients learnt how to use their native plant species through generational testing, they would use the plants as either food or medicine, if they didn’t die or become ill, they would continue to use it. If they did die, they would stop using it." duh.. I'm saying there's a lot of things that are believed by tribes that deserve a second look from science.. too much is just shrugged off much like the cannibal hobbit monkey people in indonesia that they "discovered" recently. that was my only point. that there's a ton of amazing things that would benefit society that science hasn't tried to explain.

"A son is very likely to share personality traits with their father because they share genetics and are therefore genetically predisposed to the traits of their father. It’s very likely with all fathers and sons that they will have similar traits whether or not they have met." ACTIONS ARE NOT BASED ON GENETICS!!!

REALLY?!?! Domestication?? thats ridiculous.. I saw a man go to a buffalo ranch and talk to the owners who said they have never been within 20 feet of one. this man stared down the Buffalo until they calmed down and they even all laid down!! that just doesn't happen. then he proceeded to approach these buffalo and sit with one. keep in mind he has never seen these particular animals before and the ranchers have never seen anything like it. he also went to an alpaca ranch and made every last one lay down.. the alpha is very protective and will never lay down when everyone else is sleeping but he got her to do it anyway.. this isn't about domestication it is about the connection between the claim and the proof.

I am by no means knocking science. you don't need to prove science to me. I just don't think we look deep enough into certain things and too deep into others.. definitely depends on what field. most times things are funded to get more money, not a better world.. i just think we need to get our priorities straight. technology disconnects us. it allows us to communicate easier not better. that's what we need, better communication. we are getting farther and farther away from each other and that is incredibly dangerous.. and it's technology's fault. I enjoy the lux aries but we are already far enough in the smart phone world.. they come out with a new one every year.. where's the new more efficient space travel? where's the terra forming? where's the insuring there's suitable environment for generations to come? technology helps us advance in incredibly selfish ways, while there are a few out there working for the greater good a vast majority odo your part to maf people are only doing anything for themselves. if we all worked for HUMANITY life would be much better for everyone.. too bad there's soo many people who want nothing but to sit around all day and get fucked up.. there's not enough will to help. because technology hands everything to anyone.. survival of the fittest was a wonderful thing for many great reasons and certain technological advancements is why we are overpopulated and lots go starving.. I think if you can't keep yourself alive then you don't deserve to live. also if you aren't willing to contribute to society and do your part to improve it then I don't think you deserve to be a part of society. for the most part people who would do the worst at keeping themselves alive are the people who could keep many alive just based on income.. imagine if we took that money from worthless people and gave it to struggling people with heart. the world would be soo much better if all the wealth was redistributed. in 2012 alone five times more money was spent on war than it would take to end world poverty. and you're telling me we are funding all the right areas? i don't get it.. imagine what we could do with that money if it wasn't wasted on weapons spending and researching newer more deadly weapons. the same goes with cancer. the reason it hasn't been cure is because all that money that people selflessly donate to cancer research is going into treatment. not finding a cure.. how can you know this and be okay with what is happening to this money? have you actually looked at your country's budget? I gotta tell you I am not pleased with mine..

Quote:

hTx said:
You speak of inconceivable as if human perception were infallible.
In fact, we cannot conceive many, if not most of the happenings around us within and around the universe.

We perceive maybe one percent of the electromagnetic spectrum...a very narrow reality given the many signals all around, which are there and yet unperceivable.
And then, on top of all this, the brain filters reality even narrower such that even perceivable signals are filtered and we experience "reality" as a biased and subjective whole experience which we arrogantly believe to be objective truth.

Your logic is filled with fallacies and yet you are and will likely remain blinded to them.
For one, you cannot rationally compare a fourth dimensional being with a square circle.
Its a logical fallacy.
for two, to claim because something that is inconceivable means it doesn't exist in the universe is another fallacy as explained above, the inconceivable exists all around us.




:whathesaid:  :logic:  THANK YOU


--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetryptkaloids
Learner
I'm a teapot


Registered: 02/08/15
Posts: 12,641
Loc: Exact Center
Last seen: 3 days, 5 hours
Re: Proof of reality [Re: tryptkaloids]
    #21863958 - 06/27/15 11:40 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

sudley.. sounds like you suffer from a calcified pineal gland..


--------------------
"Remember, kids, the difference between science and screwing around is writing it down" -adam savage
Flowchart for Recommended plan of action.
Learn the tried and true way to grow mushrooms
Use the Damn search engine
After you know what you're doing, take a break 
Pick a book, Make some chips!
Josex said:Don't take the site seriously bro, ain't worth it.
 


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: Proof of reality [Re: tryptkaloids]
    #21865649 - 06/27/15 07:09 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Another thing, humans and pretty much all living things are fourth dimensional beings, seeing on how the fourth dimension = time


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,807
Re: Proof of reality [Re: hTx]
    #21866617 - 06/27/15 11:00 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

As humans there are light wave lengths we cannot see and sound waves we cannot hear, our technology however can.
While humans alone do not perceive these, our technology is most definitely able to perceive them which is how we know they exist.
Both fourth dimensional beings and a square circle are inconceivable to a human mind. Please explain how that is a fallacy?
A square circle is inconceivable, are you claiming that a square circle does in fact exist?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,807
Re: Proof of reality [Re: tryptkaloids]
    #21866619 - 06/27/15 11:00 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

I am going to try and find the truth because faith is inadequate to me.
I can accept that there are things we do not have answers to, I don’t accept that faith is the way to know the unanswered.
Yes, many of us are able to thrive and take responsibility for ourselves.
If I was a god, hiding myself would be a pretty poor way of showing my existence so no I wouldn’t hide myself.
A fourth dimensional being (god) which is consciousness without matter is a rationally impossible idea, as is a square circle. I don’t understand the point of picturing all of time happening at once, I see no point in that statement.
Something inconceivable such as a square circle or consciousness without matter is not within the universe. What does exist exists and what doesn’t exist does not, a square circle does not exist, consciousness without matter does not exist.
How does identifying background radiation energy from a perceived big bang hint towards a fourth dimensional omnipotent all-knowing super being? (god)
“I don’t care what you say there’s definitely things that seem unexplainable because science hasn’t tried to explain them yet.” – tryptkaloids
You said you didn’t care what I said… I’ve read and have been trying to respond to all of your points. Anything I haven’t responded to I haven’t found a point in.
Science has already studies numerous ancient cultures, geographers, botanists and historians have worked for years collecting data on these cultures and have been able to discover lots including many plant based medicines. Many tribes do have tribal beliefs, take native Australian Aboriginals for example, they have a vast knowledge of plants within their ecosystem for medicine, food and poison. They also had tribal beliefs and creation myths such as the rainbow serpent which have no basis to be studied or taken seriously by science which is why they aren’t.
If tribal communities had something to offer that would benefit society we would use it, do you know of any tribal ideas that might benefit society economically, socially or environmentally?

In actual fact plenty of behaviours are attributed to genetics that create instinct.
A fine example is a weaver bird experiment. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1964.tb04624.x/abstract
In the experiment a weaver bird was bred for several generations.
In the first generation the bird was given nesting materials and allowed to build a nest specific to its species.
The next few generations of this species of weaver bird were raised by another kind of bird and were not given nesting materials to weave their own nest. After several generations of this the 5 generation of the weaver bird was finally given nesting materials and instinctively weaved a nest specific only to its species through instinctual behaviours embedded in its genes.
It’s not impossible for a buffalo to not react aggressively, if someone has studies the animal and is familiar with certain body movements as not to startle the animal it is far more likely they can be approached.
A researcher and gorilla conservationist called Dian Fossey did exactly this by slowly introducing herself to a group of wild gorillas and was able to sit next to them because of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dian_Fossey
Better communication between people is dependent on how socially inept an individual is.
Many of us live a great distance from each other which is why communicating from a distance through technology is so helpful at bringing us together. Sparing use of technology for communication is vital to healthy sociability.
Newer and more efficient space travel is still being designed because it is a very complicated subject, progress is being largely inhibited in America because of senators such as Ted Cruz who have been largely reducing funding to scientific industries such as NASA which play main roles in advancing mankind’s technology.
Poor countries don’t have economic stability and therefore struggle to run themselves and maintain equality and health for their people. Many countries also struggle because of poor land fertility and access to natural goods or even clean water. Technology such as water filtering devices have already been very beneficial around the world in developing countries. We are not in a state of poverty because our countries have developed sufficient technology to sustain our populations.
Distributing the world’s wealth would be a nice fairy tale but it’s not going to happen because many economies would collapse if it happened.
It’s the American government that spends over 50% of their budget on military expenses, not scientific communities. The government’s choice to invest in military technology has nothing to do with many other disciplines of scientific research such as biology, chemistry, medicine, ecology, mathematics or physics. The reason cancer hasn’t been cured is because it is an extremely complicated genetic disease that is hard to predict and ever harder to reverse. Developing methods of reversing cancer or removing it is not a quick or easy process.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Proof of reality [Re: hTx]
    #21866845 - 06/28/15 12:31 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

hTx said:
You speak of inconceivable as if human perception were infallible.
In fact, we cannot conceive many, if not most of the happenings around us within and around the universe.

We perceive maybe one percent of the electromagnetic spectrum...a very narrow reality given the many signals all around, which are there and yet unperceivable.
And then, on top of all this, the brain filters reality even narrower such that even perceivable signals are filtered and we experience "reality" as a biased and subjective whole experience which we arrogantly believe to be objective truth.

Your logic is filled with fallacys and yet you are and will likely remain blinded to them.
For one, you cannot rationally compare a fourth dimensional being with a square circle.
Its a logical fallacy.
for two, to claim because something that is inconceivable means it doesn't exist in the universe is another fallacy as explained above, the inconceivable exists all around us.




Sudly's concept of an empirical "proof of reality" does not follow from some principle of contradiction in something. That's all that needs to be said. It's hyperbolic. Why would this even seem to be logical?

It is prominent allusion to make, even a fundamental to a "philosophy" (Namely Karl Popper's "Logic" and modus operandi) of science which comes hand in hand more or less consciously with the general idea of Anglo American, or "Analytic" thinking.

To Sudly's "logic", I think in principle, it makes the most sense to address this thinking on its own terms. To that the first fallacy you pointed to, I think you have to admit it was a not a strictly logical comparison, but clearly an analogy, which you'd have to grok. Its namely an ontological assumption (concerning an understanding of being or beings), where Sudly was talking about the inconceivability of entities being understood beyond spatial extension in the cartesian sense (as res extensa).

The second fallacy you point to, is not strictly logical either. At best its a conclusion you are yourself making about the openness of the universe to certain considerations of yours. These considerations would either be based in certain manners of extended (theoretical) induction, or what you would maybe otherwise have to endorse as a phenomenological argument. But I would say it is clearly not "logical" that the universe does or does not have an electromagnetic spectrum. That may be part of your logic, probably more than his, in short.

In logical provisions Sudly does not seem to be incorrect in these cases, (though maybe in certain unnamed ways he is or isn't), and what I would say is clearly it is a more general philosophical difference you are appealing to.

But to logic? To common ground? Maybe that is an idea.

Quote:

It is wise for those who hear, not me, but the universal Reason, to confess that all things are one.

Heraclitus of Ephesus




I would endorse Heraclitus's statement that logos (or argument) speaks for itself, and this is to be distinguished from a meta-statement, or the typical way of speaking above logic, and calling its general subject logical.

Statements like of how it is "logical" "that birds should fly", or that "extended forms in space and time have dimensions and substance", could certainly be considered as assumptions made beyond the scope of a strictly logical articulation. I think that is essential to point out. Someone could even say "be logical" to you, whatever that means, (and frankly I feel like people have made this oblique statement to me all my life), and really it would be as if you were at a physical precipice, and ostensible judgements would be made about that. All they could mean by the logic to either jump or not to jump, could depend entirely on what's on the other side of the precipice. It is ridiculous on any practical, and all accounts to think of situations like this, namely physical ones as fundamentally fitting logical analysis.

If logic is not as "general" to physical reality as this (if it is not universal "law" or "rule" in that sense) then logic can easily become the modus operandi of thinking, or one logic among others, in other words. I think namely that is what happened in the 20th century, when certain bright (and pretty uptight) thinkers conceived an idea of "logical analysis", of "contingent propositions" which make "sense". (The sense of a proposition is Frege's concept sinn, that is ostensibly both logical and empirical "sense".)

This little bit of indoctrination was brought about in the great consolidations of positions at the beginning of the 20th century, and is now embedded as the only way of doing things, especially for Anglo American people. (By the way if you understand which "side" won the great conflict; you maybe have an inkling of what consolidated position primarily stands as the "state of affairs" of philosophy... Well in any case, consider philosophical dialectic doesn't always move itself, because it would be naive to think so)

In short we live under the assumption and fundamental belief that language (ie. linguistic propositions) intersects reality.

I think Heraclitus's remark, (the fragment quoted) begs the question. How can we talk about logic of our language, if we don't have a prescribed universal frame of reference to appeal to? Isn't he, like some Greek Lao Tzu, just contradicting himself? Would thinking about Sudly's logic, on its terms, by its own principles, as "a" logic or as a way of thinking, find a contradiction of Heraclitus' principle, which suggests logic as "universal reason"?

When I think of what is possible to understand or lay bear in conventional terms about the universe, and how it makes sense, I think there are basically two "logical" concepts, which are on the cusp of many minds.

One idea, would be that all the sciences, Bio-logy, socio-logy, and all the different method-ologies all ideally work together achieving the same thing, as though, in other words, they were equally founded in uncovering ostensible "rules" or "law" of the physical universe. That would be one conception of the logos, which is not completely out of the question, (although I don't think whether this question or dogma is "true or not" is as considerable as how uptight assuming this can make a person)

2) On the other hand could logos be more like a general platonic "idea" of reality in a sense, as undermining as this may seem? It is hardly idealism in one sense, and this would be much more "undermining" than falsificationism, in that it would potentially lead us to think think that these domains of entities are really based on their own fundamentally projected concepts, or assumed frameworks, which in relation, are bubbles that grind into each other, and just as much erode and overthrow themselves, through history...or again, down to the physical. That is a very different story to tell, much more based on an actual history of science, than the ideal of its constructive "progress", that is projected, with nervous vigor and red faced morality today.

As far as I can see, I don't know what is going on, and I am pretty sure most of us don't really know shit. Epistemic vacuity touches the modern culture in different ways, from laughable bits of uptightness and anxiety, to moments of recognizing there really is no fundamental ground of being and beings, and letting this whop you once in a while.

I would say clearly that nobody has suggested there is logic to physical reality, or its dimensions. Whether you follow Kant's phenomenological way of thinking in terms of dimensions of "space and time" or some empiricist talking about uncovering whatever is the next fundamental "particle", (funny to think atomism etymologically is derived from a-tomos what is not cut or in other words not reduced. Kind of begs the question, are some people arguing for what they want to believe by material reduction? Most certainly.

There is not even close to a unified logos. I would guess this is mainly the unspoken assumption of Sudly's, which in a way, is consistent within certain assumed means and ends. I think what Sudly is saying - here from the beginning - is clearly a hyperbole. What does disproving a concept of god have to do with proving reality? It is vacuous. I would think its not mainly a "logical" contradiction, that his sought confirmation, and positive proof of reality is clearly not there.

All of this unspoken assumption would seem to rub on phenomenological considerations the wrong way too, I think; especially if not everyone is clear, or namely no one is. Phenomenologists like Kant put the domain of the universe, and "space and time" in a pretty different way, maybe as a form of question. Heidegger asked "how can we let that what shows itself be seen in the very way that it shows itself from itself?" I would definitely say I am on the phenomenological side of things, but I'd definitely stand for recognizing the difference to do that.

A rhetorical question: What is "the" universal reason, or "the" logos which Heraclitus spoke of? Is it something of "confessed" by the agnostic, or the openness of the phenomenologists who allow beings to show themselves from themselves? Or is it confessed in the harder, interrogative challenging forth into the universe, which the empiricist describes?

I would say this is a fault line, and gap, that may be a matter of philosophical difference.

So to a logic? The logical principle of Heraclitus (like the principle of contradiction) is clear, that once you step into the logos, you could find a principle of contradiction on its terms whatever they happen to be. I agree with his point not to follow what is spoken from human mouths, and let arguments stand for themselves, however they do. If this is not the kind of overall meaning we might seek, it is lucid.

Another fragment
Quote:


"it is necessary to follow what is common. But although the Logos is common, most people live as if they had their own private understanding."





I think difference in ways of thinking, philosophical paradigms, are much more at issue than any strict contingence of logic in these discussions. I'd say to find a common way to say this: The way these ideally analyzed propositions hang in the air (to be falsified, or await to be found there essentially in some people's cases) doesn't necessarily mean anything, to the openness of phenomenologists' considerations. That is a different "space" of appearance, so to speak.
On their own terms, to positivist empiricists, this projection really doesn't mean anything that won't likely be flipped over and turned inside out at some point, by empiricists of the next century.

Ultimately there is no confirmation, or proof, only pragmatic and free adoption of these terms of reality.

That conception is culturally dominant. Personally I don't think that philosophy is up to date with reality at all, as much as it appeals to an idea of progress of sciences. The methodology appealed to is itself clearly mechanical, treating the physical phenomenon like a jack in the box. But what most scientists have on their minds aside from prescribed domains or fields of research, is not any fringe of the already fringe place of thinking of philosophers, but something almost entirely culturally informed; an institution and economy that is much more expediently established according to consumeristic values of a technophelic, engineer driven society. And I say fuck that Deux Ex Machina shit.


Edited by Kurt (06/28/15 01:49 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,807
Re: Proof of reality [Re: Kurt]
    #21866894 - 06/28/15 12:56 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

"What does disproving a concept of god have to do with proving reality?"

Good point, in hindsight I shouldn't have named this 'proof of reality' and instead should have gone something along the lines of 'Can we claim the existence of god?'.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



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

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   Left Coast Kratom Premium Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Proof that faith is a crock?
( 1 2 3 all )
GoBlue! 3,981 57 01/11/03 06:47 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Burden of Proof
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Sclorch 7,882 81 01/16/03 05:22 PM
by Sclorch
* Finally! Proof of Gods Existence!!
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Mad_Buhdda_Abuser 7,987 87 03/03/10 04:27 PM
by Evolution
* Faith Instead of Reason - An Article, Political
( 1 2 all )
usefulidiot 4,641 31 11/02/04 12:53 PM
by BlueCoyote
* Reality vs. the mushroom
( 1 2 3 4 all )
AbstractSoul 10,549 64 02/18/02 03:36 PM
by AbstractSoul
* Reality Test
( 1 2 all )
Swami 3,405 34 02/16/02 05:19 PM
by ArCh_TemPlaR
* Faith.
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Phluck 4,891 63 01/03/03 04:42 AM
by Phluck
* Proof of God undermines Faith in God
( 1 2 all )
Sclorch 2,953 30 03/26/03 03:33 AM
by Swami

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,399 topic views. 1 members, 11 guests and 5 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 0.031 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.