|
Khancious
da Crow



Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
|
|
Quote:
liquidlounge said: You're a prime example of what OC was pointing out in the OP.
-------------------- I am that, which is.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,807
|
|
Quote:
Coincidentiaoppositorum said: Science is full of scientists who have interest in their theory being the accepted one, they will fight tooth and nail to defend their science even if its obviously wrong, science is full of credit hungry grab-tailing weasels desperate for funding, its lost its objectivity. Theory is defended as sacred fact and to say anything to oppose the all mighty accepted scientific theories is seen as blasphemy....but I suppose you would have to be close to scientists and involved in the scientific community to know this.
-E. Borodin
Science changes as new evidence is discovered.. that is a fundamental part of science. If someone produces evidence contradicting a theory, it is studied and discussed, if it fails to meet scrutiny or is disproven, it is not used.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,807
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
#21889356 - 07/02/15 06:22 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
It is technically 'possible' that a moon could be made of cheese, it's astronomically unlikely but it is not impossible and that's my point. Our moon is not made of cheese and we know that because we have evidence of it's material.
"Square circles are rationally impossible unless you do the equation within a new set of dimensions, a square circle is still impossible."
They are plausible in a theoretical dimension but in this universe, they are still impossible.
Square circles and consciousness without matter alike are impossible within our dimensions. Until someone or something comes along that gives evidence for the existence of new unseen dimensions, these things can be denied.
No, it could not be argued that rocks and cheese are the same. Sure you can they they have the same source components being subatomic particles but that by no means indicated they are the same on any level above the subatomic.
I know what I know and I don't know what I don't know, because of that I will make claims on what I do know until evidence is produced for the things I do not know that disprove my claims.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,863
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
#21889433 - 07/02/15 06:36 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
another "rational impossibility" that turned out to be more rational than people thought:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052
Quote:
Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma. Future test plans include independent verification and validation at other test facilities.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa] 1
#21889558 - 07/02/15 07:04 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Sudly - What is rational or not though is based upon something that is not concrete and factual. It is based upon your culture and environment. Flying to the moon was rationally impossible to cave man. But now is rationally possible. To some cultures right now it is rationally possible to have out of body experiences and interact with other/Multics dimensional beings and so on based on knowledge and the open mindedness to accept the idea that at some point science may catch up to prove these cultural/religious beliefs. Rationality is a very subjective thing. A poor measure of shared reality timeliness of peoples lives. It is useful for allowing a belief to qualify itself in your brain to help explain possibilities and unknowns.
The belief that your private reality is the same as the shared reality which is therefore the same as someone else's private reality, is a little naive. Open your imagination and open your mind up brow.
--------------------
The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,807
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
#21889755 - 07/02/15 07:57 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
It was rationally impossible until evidence was produced indicating otherwise. My entire point is that I don't believe the rationally impossible unless evidence is produced to claim it's existence. In this case there was.
In the case for square circles and consciousnesses existing without matter within our dimensions, there is as of yet no evidence.
If there is any evidence beyond personal experience, please produce it.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,807
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: nuentoter]
#21889773 - 07/02/15 08:00 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Science may catch up with spiritualism and outer body 'experiences' once evidence is produced to solidify the claims.
I don't choose what reality is, I simply follow the evidence. I have imagination and I use it often, the difference is that I don't take what I imagine as evidence for what reality is.
I would say to close your mind a bit and stop imagining things that aren't real.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Often, when discussing matters of a religious or metaphysical nature, a debater runs out of ammunition and becomes like a petulant child.
If you are unable to explain how you came to your position and why you hold on to it, then it is most likely programming, wishful thinking and/or imagination, and not factual in the slightest.
Swami: How do you know consciousness exists outside of the body and continues after death?
Mystic: I know because I know! 
Okay here's a general response. I don't know of any "knowledge of knowledge". It seems to me there is no certainty in any domain of consideration. Yet there is something philosophers call "the understanding of knowledge", or epistemology (Literally, episteme; logos) that may be worth talking about.
Orgone Conclusion; it doesn't seem to me like what "often" strikes you is very well instilling the economy of distinctions that you are (at least ostensibly) appealing to as a closely considered subject of epistemology, anymore than what you represent.
Is this what the "mystic" says?
I was reading your last thread, something like "abortion causes weather patterns" (or whatever), and was wondering.... I am sure you have been asked for:
Why do you only propose some obviously bunk subjects to consider? Whether it is obvious to yourself, to me, or to everyone; what is this simulacrum of propositions you are appealing to? (Why do you want everyone to think alike?)
A question that you might consider more direct; how does a manner of theoretically challenging propositions as sentences and arguments, relate to anything ostensibly describable as "empirical", such as what is found in "experiment", "trial and error" or sensory experience; in other words what at all points you are in an gesturing to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not a purely simulated effort?
It seems to me you are generally mistaking the theoretical practice of enframing and analyzing propositions (which might be essential to empiricists in a certain implied context) for consisting in actual empirical practices. I think you are just assuming the conventional overgeneralized notion of an analyticity of propositions, in a manner which is actually a gross misrepresentation of what you appeal to.
What would actually be making a proposition?
I don't know, but maybe it would be worthwhile to propose a genuine subject matter for discussion. You could perhaps imagine something which is a burden to your own insight, something hypothetical, or what you think that is actually supposed to be like, if you could emulate this somewhat crucial facet of empirical research in discussion as well as you emulate simulated gestures.
Generally, I am not saying that any "genuinely" conceived subject of knowledge would be anything other than something that represents the naturalistic assumptions of someone actually making a proposition, but that could stand for a lot more than simulation. In such provisions, "genuinely" posed subject matters are undermined and falsified all the time, and that is what historically results in our standing of empirical models of knowledge.
I don't know, maybe open a book, or look outside or something. Generally I'd propose that the modern epistemologist must him or herself be genuine, or intellectually sincere, and begin with some self confident, if fallible suggestion of a subject of knowledge. Empiricism would have to be found in these provisions, to be considered useful in any conventional sense.
|
Hippocampus



Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
#21890788 - 07/02/15 11:48 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Were you here when OC was away for a while? 
I like celebrating and laughing at the absurdity. Comic philosophical relief from a like-minded poster while I wait for a thread to show up worth responding to.
Besides, I haven't seen any of your great threads.
Ask not what your P,S&P forum can do for you, but what you can do for your P,S&P forum.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
#21890925 - 07/03/15 12:29 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: It was rationally impossible until evidence was produced indicating otherwise. My entire point is that I don't believe the rationally impossible unless evidence is produced to claim it's existence. In this case there was.
In the case for square circles and consciousnesses existing without matter within our dimensions, there is as of yet no evidence.
If there is any evidence beyond personal experience, please produce it.
I'd say it's clear that our knowledge of the moon as a planetary body didn't come out of nothing, and it didn't come in any ideal way out of rational inference or propositional logic either.
You can pretend to tell a story of science as if it was all found a posteriori, in branching propositions, one to the next. This unity has been sought, more than found.
Modern epistemologists from Kant to the analytic philosophers have discussed an ideal "propositional reflection" (sort of like how you talk about a branching guidance of rational possibilities) that would be seen as riding this cusp of progressive knowledge, and yet the various suggestions which have been made have not achieved basic lucidity.
Like Orgone conclusion, you are in the rational or logical realm of empiricism, that vests in a generalized analysis of propositions, that is not fundamentally founded. You have described a certain kind of proposition, somewhat clearly. I wouldn't deny that what you call a "rational possibility" is useful to scientific research. Basically it describes an induction. Still this is by no means comprehensive in describing either what goes on in the world, or even a methodological approach to understanding of it.
Broader analyses than the various ones which regard in one way or another the implied value of propositions (Rationality or probability, etc) have indicated that methodological progress itself, and what it suggests of the world or cosmology, moves in a way which is much more irrational or plainly erratic than we can ascertain.
For instance in "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Thomas Kuhn describes that in a history of science, scientific progress is sometimes found in "non-cumulative developmental episodes in which an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one." The phenomenologist Heidegger writes in a similar manner: Quote:
"Scientific research demarcates and first establishes areas of knowledge in a rough fashion...The resulting "fundamental concepts" comprise the guidelines for the first concrete disclosure of the area. Whether or not the importance of the research always lies in such establishment of concepts, its true progress comes about not so much in collecting results and storing them in "textbooks" as in being forced to ask questions about the basic constitution of each area, these questions being chiefly a reaction to increasing knowledge in each area.
The real "movement" of the sciences takes place in the revision of these basic concepts, a revision which is more or less radical and lucid with regard to itself. A science's level of development is determined by the extent to which it is capable of a crisis in its basic concepts. In these immanent crises of the sciences the relation of positive questioning to the matter in question becomes unstable."
Edited by Kurt (07/03/15 01:30 AM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Hippocampus]
#21891110 - 07/03/15 01:36 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Hippocampus said: Were you here when OC was away for a while? 
I like celebrating and laughing at the absurdity. Comic philosophical relief from a like-minded poster while I wait for a thread to show up worth responding to.
Besides, I haven't seen any of your great threads.
Ask not what your P,S&P forum can do for you, but what you can do for your P,S&P forum.
It was nothing personal... Sheesh.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,807
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
#21891116 - 07/03/15 01:41 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
"I'd say it's clear that our knowledge of the moon as a planetary body didn't come out of nothing, and it didn't come in any ideal way out of rational inference or propositional logic either."
It came through science, what's your point?
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Hippocampus



Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
#21891124 - 07/03/15 01:45 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I couldn't understand what you were talking about, so I just went for the bold bits.
|
Coincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic


Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
#21891355 - 07/03/15 04:57 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
Coincidentiaoppositorum said: Science is full of scientists who have interest in their theory being the accepted one, they will fight tooth and nail to defend their science even if its obviously wrong, science is full of credit hungry grab-tailing weasels desperate for funding, its lost its objectivity. Theory is defended as sacred fact and to say anything to oppose the all mighty accepted scientific theories is seen as blasphemy....but I suppose you would have to be close to scientists and involved in the scientific community to know this.
-E. Borodin
Science changes as new evidence is discovered.. that is a fundamental part of science. If someone produces evidence contradicting a theory, it is studied and discussed, if it fails to meet scrutiny or is disproven, it is not used.
This is what you would think, and this is the way science should be, but in reality this is not the case. Try to publish anything that disagrees with the accepted theorys, no matter howcmuch evidence you have, they will try to discredit and silence you using every dirty underhanded tactic they can. Try to Publish something that disagrees with the big bang, or the dinosaur extinction, or the age of human civilization, and see how objectively science treats your findings, if you disagree with the sacred accepted theory your a blasphemer who will be dealt with....
Trust me theory is defended as sacred fact in the scientific community, people have built their lives and careers based upon these theorys, so they are not going to let the truth destroy that....
-E. Borodin
|
Coincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic


Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
#21891366 - 07/03/15 05:14 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
...because everything that is outside of currant science is immaginary! Yes that makes perfect sense! Everything is exactly what it appears to be and nothing exists outside of my perceptions of human existance! My experiances were just misperceptions! My consciousness never left my body! (Though litterally it did, the eyes go blank, the body goes limp, no response to outside stimuli, the consciousness was not in the body) all of human history that people have been talking about spirituality and conscoiusness they were all just ignorant troglodytes who couldn't tell the difference between reality and obvious misperceptions! Science answers every question! Thank you for closing my mind and showing me the truth!
...seriously though, do you really think I would consider these possibilities without empirical evidence?
And to not even acknowledge that these things are possible is not scientific.
Obviously if something is outside of physical matter existing in 3 dimentional time and space science cant describe it, it doesn't mean that its not real.
-E. Borodin
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,807
|
|
Evidence produced must hold up to scrutiny if it is to be accepted otherwise it is not classified as 'evidence'. If it's as stupid a claim as creationism and only comes from the bible, it will not be considered evidence.
Science is not easy, it is not simple. Boo bloody hoo if it doesn't accept stupid ideas, maybe that's because they are stupid ideas.
By all means scientist are open to be proven wrong, if evidence holds up to scrutiny then maybe an idea is changed, if it isn't it is ignored. If one fossil from the wrong geological era was discovered, evolution could be disproven, to date that has not yet happened because no one has found evidence to the contrary.
Science is open to be disproven by evidence but won't be if no evidence is produced. I'm sorry to inform you but personal experience isn't accepted as proof in science.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,807
|
|
Wtf no?! We simply have no reason to believe in that that does not have evidence behind it, unicorns are a nice idea but we don't believe in them because there is no evidence for their existence!
Ever thought that maybe you just went unconscious because you were on drugs?
"all of human history that people have been talking about spirituality and consciousness they were all just ignorant troglodytes who couldn't tell the difference between reality and obvious misperceptions!" - damn straight, you got one thing right.
Science has answered every mystical, magical, spiritual claim so far. What empirical evidence do you need to show you that our consciences do not leave our body??
"Obviously if something is outside of physical matter existing in 3 dimentional time and space science cant describe it, it doesn't mean that its not real." since when does something not being possible means it exists? Whatever you're smoking please share it.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Coincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic


Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
#21891448 - 07/03/15 06:25 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, creationism and taking the Bible as literal are stupid, I'm not disargreeing with you there, there are several absurd challengers to the all mighty science, but that doesn't mean every challenger is a jesus-freak or wing-nut.
There is ample evidence for conscious existance outside of the human body, there's actually a good deal of evidence for all the possibilities I consider, I'm not a soft-headed fool who believes what ever he is told, ive spent many sessions contemplating these issues in depth....whats the meaning of life? Is there life conscious existence after death? Are there sentient beings in other dimentions? Science cant answer these questions, it doesn't mean their subject matter isn't "real".
Which is hard to define as it is...is the world bank real?...I mean what is "real?" Regardless, I KNOW there is more to existance than existing in a human body in 3 dimentional time and space, I KNOW that science is unable to even think about describing these things in its current state....give it time, /n 5,000 years science will be on my side when it comes to spirituality and conscious.
(Organized religion is a scam, its a political hierarchy furled by dogma and exploitation of natural human fears, I don't preach that the Bible is fact or that God created the universe......all though the big bang which States for no reason at all all of existance just burst into being.....I know we can re-wind the CMB to a near finite point, but the reasoning behind it is just as absurd....
I work within the scientific community, so I see all the internal politics that govern this thing, and its made me loose all hope in science, not scientific method, but the established "science" composed of shifty credit hungry professors, manipulation of evidence for funds or to discredit opponents, its not the objective method most think it is....like I said you can come up with all the evidence you want, if it goes against the sacred dogma of established theory your getting discredited and your evidence is getting surpressed....
At the end of the last ice age the ice cap was aas low as southern Spain, the Solutreans could have followed the ice cap across the Atlantic, we find tools identicle to the Solutreans in the new world, there's evidence that the Solutreans crossed the Atlantic met with those crossing the bearing-strwight land bridge into the new world and formed the Clovis culture....this evidence is supressed and the theory discredited because it foes against the all-mighty dogma in place...
-E. Borodin
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,807
|
|
"I know because I know!" - GG
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Coincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic


Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
|
Look at Ebin Alexander, a neurosurgon, his brain was shut-down by bacteria, no function, yet he came back with these amazings stories of where his consciousness was.
I have evidence that you can seperate your conscious-being from the physical-body, its called dreaming, or dimethyltryptamine, or even being knocked-out, you awareness or consciousness is not always in your body, this should be obvious as well.
Look at Buddhism, they are scientific, they are basically "enlightened nihilists" yet they are able to realize that there is SO much more to existance than what your experiance in your currant human state.
You really think that when you die consciousness ends? ...and you don't see how saying "its not possible is not objective or scieintific? As a scientist you have to consider the possibility until evidence arrives, you cant deny things due to lack of evidence, it just means science has not aquired it.
You placing science in the place of the never wrong all mighty universal force....its bust like the creationists with their God, only your God is science.
-E. Borodin
|
|