The answer to Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
POSTED BY: BadgersHat
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 22:38
VIEWED: 15283
PAGE 1 of 2
Here's the simplest solution to a rather simple problem:
God is the ultimate engineer. he created us as single cell organisms, knowing we'd eventually evolve into what we are today.
He did it like this because he knew exactly what he wanted us to be, perfections and flaws and all, and knew that the human mind he wanted us to have is beautiful and extremely fragile.
So, had we been created as we are now, from day one, we'd be different, less of the human species we are now.
Therefore, he knew he had to create us one step at a time, to slowly evolve, both physically and mentally, in order to become what we are.
Sure, he could've skipped it all--he IS God, you know--but it would have meant skipping all the changes, all the different ways we were, which, I believe, he found no less beautiful than what we are now. But this model is the one he ultimately was going for.
So, like any good engineer, he designed the prototypes first, and slowly upgraded and improved them, so that we'd have the time to grow into what he wanted us to be.
Simple, huh? Not sure why I'm the only one who sees this...
--Jefé The Hat
***************************
(pretty freakin obvious when I spell it out for you, huh?)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually it could go further back than that.
Why couldn't God have kicked off the big bang knowing exactly where it would lead?
Who says we're the ultimate end to gods plan?
That if humans are mearly a step?
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Exactly.
I didn't bring the Big Bang in, because the thread I was originally responding to was strictly about Evolution and Intelligen Design.
But your statement goes exactly with what I was saying.
Ever see those nylon things, they're folded up to like a 3 inch box, you pull a string, throw it in the air, and it suddenly goes FHHWUMPH!!!! and expands into a 7 foot tall tent, complete with flaps, doors, windows, etc?
I think God made the Universe in pretty much the exact same way, folded it up REEEEEEEEEEEEAAALLLLYYY tiny, and then made it go FHHWUMPH!!!! and start expanding into the Universe (which is still expanding, the noise people think it quasars and stellar radiation is actually the ongoing FHHWUMPH!!!! of the tent expanding... trust me, I looked it up).
--Jefé The Hat
***************************
Brilliant, no?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That noise (I assume) is white noise?
It is (so we believe) in fact left over radiation from the big bang, alluding at flucuations in the 'energetic soup' of the early universe.
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The trouble with that argument is that it pleases neither side. The theists would point out that it contradicts Genesis which very clearly states six days to create the world and everything on it. The scientists would point out that you're adding a level of complication where none is necessary (i.e. why bring an omniscient being into it when you can explain it all naturally).
The theory of "intelligent design" exists solely for the purpose of getting God into evolution somehow. It's also a very American problem in that most countries are quite happy teaching children evolution in biology classes and Genesis's account in RE. If you believe in God, Genesis supersedes evolution (or you could take it as a metaphor). If you don't, then you have an explanation as to why there's life on earth.
Plus I rather hope that we've still got a few evolutionary steps yet to take. After all, homo sapiens sapiens has only been around for 100,000 years or so, I don't think the story of us is quite finished yet.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
The trouble with that argument is that it pleases neither side. The theists would point out that it contradicts Genesis which very clearly states six days to create the world and everything on it. The scientists would point out that you're adding a level of complication where none is necessary (i.e. why bring an omniscient being into it when you can explain it all naturally).
Ah, but we mystics find it perfectly acceptable and slightly more accurate than the either/or of more narrow-minded theorists.
You know, there are a lot of folks who actually know the answers to these questions, folks that don't have to theorize. The trouble is, the information is purely experiential, very difficult to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it for themselves; it's like trying to describe the color blue to someone who's never seen it. But people try--oh, how they try! (That's where all the bibles and sutras and self-help books come in.
)But it's not exactly like trying to explain "blue," because all of us, all us conscious beings here, contain the memory of what we are and where we come from within us. It's just really buried for a lot of folk. When we find a book or a religion that touches these memories, even just a little, we tend to fixate on it and tell the world that we've found "the one true path," etc. But there are at least 6.4 billion ways to awaken these memories, sometimes they even come into awareness seemingly by their own volition.
Yes, science can deny the presence of trans-human consciousness, because science is totally unsuited to measuring or observing it. Science is fundamentally concerned with mechanically repeatable phenomena and consciousness is too willful, moody and mercurial to get down on a petri dish and wait around to be noticed. Nonetheless, modern science is beginning to nibble around the edges of mysticism with all that quantum mechanics and chaos theory the kids are so keen on nowadays.
But you're quite right:
Quote:
The theory of "intelligent design" exists solely for the purpose of getting God into evolution somehow.
The controversy has nothing to do with phenomenology; it's purely a battle of political factions who want to maintain control.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't see the problem with putting God in the evolutional theory.
Most arguments I've seen against Intelectual Design is that it involved God.
The dutch minister of education wanted to start a discussion about Intelectual Design but got completely shot off by our parlament.
The politicians talked about it that Christians are just creating it to hide the embarrasment from the evolutionary theory..
Also one favor of the ID theory. In the book of Genesis it also says that Kaïn was fearful poeple would kill him because he had murdered. But if you take the creational story litterally there were no poeple there to kill him. Besides the early world in Genesis seemed to have grown quite fast anyway and often mentions stuff that could't have happened if the story should be taken litterally.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Time was hard to measure back then. Six days could really stand for a million years or whatever. God has a lot of projects he's workin' on, and a million years to him is like a hiccup.
Originally posted by SimonWho:
The theists would point out that it contradicts Genesis which very clearly states six days to create the world and everything on it.
Thing is, a bathroom break is longer than a hiccup, and when he gets off the can and sees how we turned out, well, I just hope he doesn't terminate the experiment...
Blasphemous Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You know, there are a lot of folks who actually know the answers to these questions, folks that don't have to theorize. The trouble is, the information is purely experiential, very difficult to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it for themselves; it's like trying to describe the color blue to someone who's never seen it. But people try--oh, how they try! (That's where all the bibles and sutras and self-help books come in.
You're right in that science disregards for the most part non-repeatable, purely perceptional data. It does this for one simple reason: it's not very reliable.
People are stupid animals. We, by and large, believe whatever our brains want us to believe. Feeling "touched by God" could be a genuine theistic event. Or it could just be someone needing to feel special, or having a minor blood clot, or just pure and simple faking it.
Oh, and Quantum Physics has nothing to do with mysticism, it's just been hijacked by certain groups who half read a few of the books and decided that it was "beyond science". It is a science, bound to the same principles as all the other ones; theories backed up by data from repeatable experiments. The fact that it bears no resemblence to physics as we knew it is neither here nor there.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think there is something beyond us, more than us, like god, and Im really have a problem with understanding why the big bang and evolution precludes such existance...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Western thinking, citizen. The need to disect and compartmentalize. Even as a teenager, I used to think, why couldn't God have come up with evolution? I mean, people can buy Noah's Arc, but not the notion that God designed all living things from the molocule up?
If there is a God, wouldn't all existence be the manifestation of God itself? Without thinking duelistically, aren't we and everything we see and touch and think, and more than that, God?
And if the Devine exists, who are we to presume to say that God couldn't create a 'Big Bang' to begin each new universe with?
The cells of our skin can repair a cut, do they have to be told how? They know how, just as the Universe (God) knows how to create itself.
Shepard Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The feeling of "more than us, bigger than us, the unknown, the unity" is mysticism. Not to split hairs, but Christian fundamentalists aren't mystics. They know exactly how everything works because god told them all, exactly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
You're right in that science disregards for the most part non-repeatable, purely perceptional data. It does this for one simple reason: it's not very reliable.
Is love reliable? Can you rely on your best friend's sense of humor to make you laugh?
Take the most moving scene from a great film. Will everyone in the audience cry? No. Will a whole bunch of 'em cry? Yes. Will most of them feel moved? Yes. How is it that the filmic image of someone suffering can affect us as strongly as a close friend's pain? What's happening there? What is being transmitted from the actor through the film to the viewer? Anything? Something unreliable? Is it simply that we're "stupid animals?" And is love purely perceptional? I don't think so. Human emotion is perfectly real, but it doesn't follow physical laws; and yet we make sense of it every day.
Quote:
People are stupid animals. We, by and large, believe whatever our brains want us to believe. Feeling "touched by God" could be a genuine theistic event. Or it could just be someone needing to feel special, or having a minor blood clot, or just pure and simple faking it.
Wow. One thing that is not reliable is the emotion communicated in posting over the internet. You say, "People are stupid animals." I'm a little taken aback by your sudden...what? Vitriol? My sense is that you're not familiar with the kind of spiritual experience I'm talking about. Have you ever experienced what you would call a "genuine theistic event?" (I'm guessing, no, 'cause you prolly wouldn't call it that if you had
) Belief really isn't an issue with real mystical experience; anyone who tells you it is--they're the ones who are faking, you can bet on it. Nobody has to believe. You don't have to believe in a sun in the sky, or that people tend to have five fingers on each hand. I don't have to believe that I regularly receive the thoughts of other people without them saying anything or that I sometimes know what's going to happen before it does.
Free will is interesting. You can absolutely know what will piss your girlfriend off, as if she were wired with an anger button; but then, one day, you push her button and she just smiles. She's changed; same person, same history, same baggage, but a different result. Not random, not unreal, but willful. She made a choice that changed the way she sees you.
Consciousness does that. Consciousness is real, but it does not produce good lab results.
Quote:
Oh, and Quantum Physics has nothing to do with mysticism, it's just been hijacked by certain groups who half read a few of the books and decided that it was "beyond science". It is a science, bound to the same principles as all the other ones; theories backed up by data from repeatable experiments. The fact that it bears no resemblence to physics as we knew it is neither here nor there.
Well, see, there, you don't know what you're talking about because you don't credit mystical experience. We over here, on the mystical side, have been "beyond science" from the start. We read your quantum physics and your chaos theory with your attractors and such and we say, "Hey, they're actually getting kinda close with that stuff--you know, if you squint." How can you say quantum physics has no bearing on mysticism, when you don't credit mysticism in the first place?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The feeling of "more than us, bigger than us, the unknown, the unity" is mysticism. Not to split hairs, but Christian fundamentalists aren't mystics. They know exactly how everything works because god told them all, exactly.
Why SignyM, do we have a non-believer in the fold?
Come with me, son, over to this here river. That's it, now step in with me, I have to hold your head under sos you'll understand The Lord. I know the truth of it. You'll see the light. Or maybe a fish...
Them that tell they know are funny people, no?
Chrisisall Book
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:"Instruments register only that which they were designed to register, [the universe] still contains vast unknowns." - Spock
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
How can you say quantum physics has no bearing on mysticism, when you don't credit mysticism in the first place?
My earliest Shepard Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Baptism. Drowning. Near death experience. Understanding the lord. I get it !
Why SignyM, do we have a non-believer in the fold?
Come with me, son, over to this here river. That's it, now step in with me, I have to hold your head under sos you'll understand The Lord.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Has anyone ever paid attention to my tagline? I came up with it almost 20 years ago, trying to describe to a friend how I see the world.
We do not directly perceive the world around us. Arguing about Evolution or Creation (or ID) is not arguing about reality. It's arguing about patterns of comprehension. It's almost like arguing that Greek star constellations are right, and Chinese star constellations are wrong. The stars remain, and don't care one whit how we name them. It's arguing about which pattern of thought we are going to teach our children to use to filter their experiences through.
It's like having a heated debate over which travel guide is better - the Michelin Guide to Vienna or the Vienna Eyewitness Travel Guide, and never going to visit the city!
Yes, I believe one pattern fits better than the others. But that is a lens I choose to use to see the world around me, and it is not the world itself.
MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And my tag-line as well.
I believe there is only one universe. And it is not confused, we are. The universe doesn't agonize over wave/particle. Then, now, later. Entropy and work.
It is what it is.
And we know with our senses geared to certain energies and geometries and scales. And so our answers, indeed our questions, must probe into arenas we will never comprehend.
But intellect tells us that if we can use our models to accurately predict features and events, they surely must be related to the workings of the unknowable universe, and in some way are better than those which fail us.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DarkJester:
Has anyone ever paid attention to my tagline? I came up with it almost 20 years ago, trying to describe to a friend how I see the world.
We do not directly perceive the world around us. Arguing about Evolution or Creation (or ID) is not arguing about reality. It's arguing about patterns of comprehension. It's almost like arguing that Greek star constellations are right, and Chinese star constellations are wrong. The stars remain, and don't care one whit how we name them. It's arguing about which pattern of thought we are going to teach our children to use to filter their experiences through.
It's like having a heated debate over which travel guide is better - the Michelin Guide to Vienna or the Vienna Eyewitness Travel Guide, and never going to visit the city!
Yes, I believe one pattern fits better than the others. But that is a lens I choose to use to see the world around me, and it is not the world itself.
MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."
Very well said.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
originally posted by Chrisisall:
Western thinking, citizen. The need to disect and compartmentalize. Even as a teenager, I used to think, why couldn't God have come up with evolution? I mean, people can buy Noah's Arc, but not the notion that God designed all living things from the molocule up?
If there is a God, wouldn't all existence be the manifestation of God itself? Without thinking duelistically, aren't we and everything we see and touch and think, and more than that, God?
And if the Devine exists, who are we to presume to say that God couldn't create a 'Big Bang' to begin each new universe with?
The cells of our skin can repair a cut, do they have to be told how? They know how, just as the Universe (God) knows how to create itself.
Shepard Chrisisall
Chrisisall, you just said just what I was trying to say, albet in a more verbose and indeed actually understandable way...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Is love reliable?
Does anyone here think love is reliable? *points to 50% divorce rate*
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Wow. One thing that is not reliable is the emotion communicated in posting over the internet. You say, "People are stupid animals." I'm a little taken aback by your sudden...what? Vitriol? My sense is that you're not familiar with the kind of spiritual experience I'm talking about. Have you ever experienced what you would call a "genuine theistic event?"
People are stupid animals. We demonstrate it again and again and again. Granted, we also demonstrate great feats of intelligence but that's what allows us to see that our stupidity is so commonplace.
I have experienced what you would call "a genuine theistic event", more than once but I can more readily explain them in ordinary mundane terms rather than God deciding to speak to me in a very obscure manner.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Well, see, there, you don't know what you're talking about because you don't credit mystical experience. We over here, on the mystical side, have been "beyond science" from the start. We read your quantum physics and your chaos theory with your attractors and such and we say, "Hey, they're actually getting kinda close with that stuff--you know, if you squint." How can you say quantum physics has no bearing on mysticism, when you don't credit mysticism in the first place?
What I meant was that quantum physics has no need or place for mysticism. It's another of those "insert God into science here" attitudes. There is no need for an omnipotent deity in any of quantum mechanics.
I have no problem with people of faith claiming to be "beyond science", in fact I welcome it. Just as long as they stay there, well away from science. Unfortunately, that's not the case in America these days.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Oh, and Quantum Physics has nothing to do with mysticism, it's just been hijacked by certain groups who half read a few of the books and decided that it was "beyond science". It is a science, bound to the same principles as all the other ones; theories backed up by data from repeatable experiments. The fact that it bears no resemblence to physics as we knew it is neither here nor there.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Well, see, there, you don't know what you're talking about because you don't credit mystical experience. We over here, on the mystical side, have been "beyond science" from the start. We read your quantum physics and your chaos theory with your attractors and such and we say, "Hey, they're actually getting kinda close with that stuff--you know, if you squint." How can you say quantum physics has no bearing on mysticism, when you don't credit mysticism in the first place?
I'd forward that its virtually impossible to understand these things without experiencing them. I myself would likely have a very different outlook if it werent for the fact that I have had dreams that 'come true' from a very young age...
It doesn't much matter to me whether you or anyone believe me or not, I know it to be true, and it has forced me to think of things in a very different way to the current scientific theories.
I have experienced the future before it has happened (albet I have no control over when where etc...). So I think there has to be some mechanism for casting data of future events back through time, and QM does allow for this...
If a particle had negative mass it would be (as far as I understand from my knowledge of Reletivity) incapable of traveling SLOWER than the speed of light. As such its subjective time would run in the opposite direction to the flow of time in the rest of the universe...
QM has shown, experimentally, that two particles can effect each other instantaneously irrespective of distance or any disernible connection, so why couldn't that explain farseeing, for instance?
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I have no problem with people of faith claiming to be "beyond science", in fact I welcome it. Just as long as they stay there, well away from science. Unfortunately, that's not the case in America these days.
This is roughly what I was going to say. To attempt to 'prove' the necessity of a God is to undermine the entire concept of faith.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
This is roughly what I was going to say. To attempt to 'prove' the necessity of a God is to undermine the entire concept of faith.
Ahh, the old babel fish argument
.Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
This is roughly what I was going to say. To attempt to 'prove' the necessity of a God is to undermine the entire concept of faith.
Ahh, the old babel fish argument
It's not the babel fish argument at all.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That was kind of a joke Grounded...
But I'd still contest that the Babel Fish Argument in Hitch Hikers is very similar to the point you made...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry, didn't quite pick up on that. And yes I see the similarity, but it's still not relevant. I wasn't arguing one way or the other - I was commenting on the contradictory nature of the arguing itself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
Here's the simplest solution to a rather simple problem:
God is the ultimate engineer. he created us as single cell organisms, knowing we'd eventually evolve into what we are today.
He did it like this because he knew exactly what he wanted us to be, perfections and flaws and all, and knew that the human mind he wanted us to have is beautiful and extremely fragile.
So, had we been created as we are now, from day one, we'd be different, less of the human species we are now.
Therefore, he knew he had to create us one step at a time, to slowly evolve, both physically and mentally, in order to become what we are.
Sure, he could've skipped it all--he IS God, you know--but it would have meant skipping all the changes, all the different ways we were, which, I believe, he found no less beautiful than what we are now. But this model is the one he ultimately was going for.
So, like any good engineer, he designed the prototypes first, and slowly upgraded and improved them, so that we'd have the time to grow into what he wanted us to be.
Simple, huh? Not sure why I'm the only one who sees this...
--Jefé The Hat
***************************
(pretty freakin obvious when I spell it out for you, huh?)
I realize I'm a little late, but here are my two cents...
This theory is called Theistic evolution, or Evolutionary creationism.
I myself have been preaching this logic for years:
Consider the divine, and let us bypass ignorance, as the divine does consists of separate deities, to separate faiths. The singular absolute truth amongst faiths is that God is absolute, that being omnipotent, omnipresent.
Omnipotence: If God is all powerful, and all knowing, then there is no basis for one of God’s creations to fully understand the greatness of God. If one could know God, then one could understand God, then one could be God. Our existence is Teleological, it exist to satisfy a purpose. I believe that our end goal is to seek perfection, not as individuals but as a species. Perfection will never occur, as we are not God, but it is God that moves us forward, both intellectually and biologically.
Omnipresence: If God was God at the beginning of time, and shall be God at the end of time, God then must exist in all times, at all times, therefore to God there is no time. We think of things completely temporal, yesterday, tomorrow, next year. This is because we are imperfect, and in the shadow of a supreme entity that is not held to the laws of space and time as we understand them. The biggest mistake I feel is the six day argument. Why are we still arguing about this? Before the universe there was no time. You can’t measure time when there is no time. God exist outside of time, therefore if God were to create the Universe in a set number of days (or any measurement for that matter) then it would make him subject to the laws of time, which would make him imperfect.
I have so much more, but I have to take a break, I’ll come back tonight or tomorrow.
Go sign my Guest Book, http://www.geocities.com/thisbrownhouse
Then download Serenity, http://homepage.mac.com/rocketplane/FileSharing8.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you.
You're pretty much saying what I've had in my own chaotic head for a long time, except that you're managing to say it all articulate-like.
--Jefé The Hat
***************************
--Don't bother trying to predict, figure out, second guess, criticize, or suggest anything that comes from the mind of Joss Whedon, for you shall usually be wrong, and shall find out the Truth and Purpose in due time.
(This is the Truth of Whedoning)
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'd forward that its virtually impossible to understand these things without experiencing them. I myself would likely have a very different outlook if it werent for the fact that I have had dreams that 'come true' from a very young age...
It doesn't much matter to me whether you or anyone believe me or not, I know it to be true, and it has forced me to think of things in a very different way to the current scientific theories.
A big problem with communicating this kind of experience to folks who haven't had any of their own, is the false equation of personal experience and subjectivity. If only a small sector of the population experiences a thing, the rest of the community tend to discount it out of hand. Even though most of what we take for granted we have on faith from experts. Ooh, does that drive me nuts!
One thing that my personal experiences has taught me is that belief systems across the board tend to cloud reason. As soon as you say, "That can't be true" you've given up on reality and retreated to something more comfortable. Which is not to say that delusion and wishful thinking do not exist, but we don't safeguard ourselves against them by puting on blinders.
"Belief" itself is such a vague, melancholy force. You don't have to believe what you already know. Implicit in belief is always doubt, evidence to the contrary, wishful thinking. But people find comfort in belief systems. God knows why.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the problem here is that people do not truly understand the logic behind "faith" in God or divinity.
Consider Abraham,
Abraham is told by God that his son will bring about the kingdoms of earth, that through Abraham the kingdoms of earth will become populated with people.
God then commands Abraham to murder his son.
The quandary is how can Abraham kill his child and still foster the kingdoms and peoples of earth.
Abraham does as God commands and takes his son to be killed. God delivers a ram for Abraham to slaughter in stead of his son.
However this is more complicated then it looks at first glance. Why would Abraham kill his son if God said essentially that his son would populate the earth? Wouldn't that mean that God lied to him? Could it be that God was testing his love for his son, or his love for his God?
No on both accounts, you see God was testing Abraham’s faith by reason of the absurd.
That being that Abraham must believe that he WILL kill his son, and that his son WILL populate the kingdoms of the earth simultaneously.
This is basically one of the many philosophies postulated by Kierkegaard:
That there are three stages that all people experience, or categories that they belong to.
The three stages are Aesthetic, Ethical and Religious. For a person in the Aesthetic stage, life is only a series of sensory experiences such as animalistic lust. This individual is enthralled by temporal society, where in television and music may be a lifestyle, regardless of this persons actions, life experiences are to serve the whims of the individual. Life is simply broken down into boring and interesting.
For someone in the Ethical stage all actions are done publicly to serve the common good. All of their actions are for the betterment of the whole, and can be thought of as the highest form of life that can be understood. However a person in this stage may in the face of grand decision, make decisions that serve only the ethical purpose, without faith.
The highest of the three is Religious; this is where the individual has a private relationship with God. This is where Faith can be truly understood by reason of the absurd. That being that two complete opposites can coexist harmoniously through the grace of God.
...Like divinity and science I might add.
Go sign my Guest Book, http://www.geocities.com/thisbrownhouse
Then download Serenity, http://homepage.mac.com/rocketplane/FileSharing8.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This pretty much ignores other religions that are populated by multiple gods (and goddesses) who are powerful but still limited and flawed. Someone needs to do more research on comparative and ancient religions. www.religion.ucsb.edu/faculty/thomas/classes/rgst80a/lectures/lec1.htm
Consider the divine, and let us bypass ignorance, as the divine does consists of separate deities, to separate faiths. The singular absolute truth amongst faiths is that God is absolute that being omnipotent, omnipresent.
l
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
The theists would point out that it contradicts Genesis which very clearly states six days to create the world and everything on it.
I believe that the universe is right around 14 billion years old, that the earth is about 4 billion years old, that life has existed on the planet in some form for about a billion years, and intelligent life for right around 50,000-75,000 years.
I believe that the universe began with a big bang and that the whole thing has been expanding ever since.
I believe that over the course of the last billion years, there's been a dramatic increase in the number and complexity of species.
I believe it all because science has shown it to be true.
And I'm a theist follower of Christ who believes that the Bible is truth. The only point that I quibble with science on is whether the increasing number and complexity of species can be explained naturalistically.
Theology is the interpretation of scripture, and science is the interpretation of nature, but God is the author of both. If theology and science contradict one another at some point or other, then either the interpretation of scripture is faulty, or the interpretation of nature is faulty. The task at that point is to re-evaluate the interpretations critically to find the error and correct it.
I say all this because I'm sick and gorram tired of Christians being portrayed in the light of the strict 24-hour literal day creationists. Not all Christians (or theists for that matter--there is a difference) believe in 24-hour day creationism.
______________________________________________________________
Edited to add: all figures above are approximate--don't feel like digging through my library for all the specifics.
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:This pretty much ignores other religions that are populated by multiple gods (and goddesses) who are powerful but still limited and flawed. Someone needs to do more research on comparative and ancient religions. www.religion.ucsb.edu/faculty/thomas/classes/rgst80a/lectures/lec1.htm
Consider the divine, and let us bypass ignorance, as the divine does consists of separate deities, to separate faiths. The singular absolute truth amongst faiths is that God is absolute that being omnipotent, omnipresent.
l
Let's not be silly, your borderline rude postulation defies the fact that i am speaking about contemporary religion. I must apparently add that those who believe in polythestic religions foster an "absoulte" that each diety comprises an absolute knowlege and power that has been segmanted into varies entities.
Go sign my Guest Book, http://www.geocities.com/thisbrownhouse
Then download Serenity, http://homepage.mac.com/rocketplane/FileSharing8.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ImEarly:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:This pretty much ignores other religions that are populated by multiple gods (and goddesses) who are powerful but still limited and flawed. Someone needs to do more research on comparative and ancient religions. www.religion.ucsb.edu/faculty/thomas/classes/rgst80a/lectures/lec1.htm
Consider the divine, and let us bypass ignorance, as the divine does consists of separate deities, to separate faiths. The singular absolute truth amongst faiths is that God is absolute that being omnipotent, omnipresent.
l
Let's not be silly, your borderline rude postulation defies the fact that i am speaking about contemporary religion. I must apparently add that those who believe in polythestic religions foster an "absoulte" that each diety comprises an absolute knowlege and power that has been segmanted into varies entities.
Yes, Signy can be pretty harsh about religion (I still haven't gotten over the "universal imaginary friend" line from a month ago--Signy, that was priceless, seriously funny), but Signy's right. Y'know, you can be pretty rude and a little willfully ignorant yourself, ImEarly. Native American spirituality/shamanism does not play this game you're talking about. The omnipotent/omnipresent fixation is distinctly Euro-American and reflects a cosmology that is authoritarian, absolutist and, to my mind, missleading and counter-intuitive. Power is so completely decentralized in Native American thought that it's almost unrecognizable to the western mind. Consider this, and think of it as religious doctine for a minute: Coyote created humans because he was bored. When he saw them fighting and acting nasty to one another, he threw up his hands and walked away. He comes back every now and then to mess with us. See, you prolly consider that to be folklore or even a joke, but it has serious implications religiously. There is a reason why there is no such thing as a fundamentalist shaman.
I'm sorry. I realize that I'm coming way out of left field here; that people prolly aren't all that interested in my excentric views, but, y'know, it irks me when people go mouthing off about what they consider to be "contemporary religion" and ignore the spiritual perspective of well over a million people in this country (myself included).
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I'm sorry. I realize that I'm coming way out of left field here; that people prolly aren't all that interested in my excentric views,
Don't assume that, HK. While I have no claim to being any kind of expert on Native American culture, I have been to my share of sweat lodges run by Native Americans (thanks to Kathieisall), and I highly respect the faith. (plus, in my last sweat I was one of two, beside the Medicine Man, who stayed for the full-on heat and steam! Maybe he just wanted to see how far we'd go; even the NA dudes bolted at some point!!)
Roasted Buddah-like Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wasn't "borderline" rude, I WAS rude. Sorry. But when I consider all of the religions that ever existed and currently still exist.... even from my admittedly meagre knowledge... it seems unhelpfully limiting to paint ALL religions with the characteristics of the few that we're familiar/ comfortable with.
HK alludes to an interesting progression of religions. In decentralized societies, religions have many gods. In centralized ones, there is only one, and in fact the histories of Greek and Egyptian beliefs record increasing centralization. In patriarchal societies, the god(s) are male while in matriarchal ones they are female, and in the link I provided the legend records the transition between the two. In more egalitarian societies (which to this date have been primtive) the gods are natural features, while in more "developed" societies they tend to be anthropomorphised. More than anything, religion seems to trace the rise and fall of various powers in society.
But what I find more fascinating than any religious practice, babarity or belief is the set of cities that occupied the Indus valley about 2500 BC. Unlike most ancient cities, they had no fortifications, temples, palaces, or armories. Funerals were simple. The only evidence of a possible religion was a scattering of clay figurines of unknown significance, most often found in trash pits. These cities existed for 500 years. I'll have to look up the names (I read about them in National Geographic). One of them may be Harappa. It provides an indication that people may not always develop or need religion, and societies may not require them as organizing principles.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:WHOA! I don't see evidence of intelligent life- do you???
...that life has existed on the planet in some form for about a billion years, and intelligent life for right around 50,000-75,000 years.
Couldn't resist!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I'm sorry. I realize that I'm coming way out of left field here; that people prolly aren't all that interested in my excentric views,
Don't assume that, HK.
I thought for sure I wrote "most." I meant "most." These discussions sure can bring a body down, eh, Chris? all the pessimism and rage people walk around with thinking it's "reality."
Quote:
While I have no claim to being any kind of expert on Native American culture, I have been to my share of sweat lodges run by Native Americans (thanks to Kathieisall), and I highly respect the faith. (plus, in my last sweat I was one of two, beside the Medicine Man, who stayed for the full-on heat and steam! Maybe he just wanted to see how far we'd go; even the NA dudes bolted at some point!!)
Roasted Buddah-like Chrisisall
Ah yes, white man always have something to prove! LOL! Naw, you prolly were carrying more grief than the folks that left before you. Or you had business with the stones nobody knows about but you. How long has it been since your last sweat, my son?
That'll be 3 hail Coyote's and 2 our Grandfather'sHKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:WHOA! I don't see evidence of intelligent life- do you???
...that life has existed on the planet in some form for about a billion years, and intelligent life for right around 50,000-75,000 years.
Couldn't resist!
Yeah...I wondered if someone might comment on that. I really did expect more comment on the whole "don't paint me as a creationist" thing, but hey--the thread goes where it will.
On an unrelated note--I think we're making progress Signy: we're not screaming at each other any more. My, but does it ever beat the alternatives.
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I wasn't "borderline" rude, I WAS rude. Sorry. But when I consider all of the religions that ever existed and currently still exist.... even from my admittedly meagre knowledge... it seems unhelpfully limiting to paint ALL religions with the characteristics of the few that we're familiar/ comfortable with.
HK alludes to an interesting progression of religions. In decentralized societies, religions have many gods. In centralized ones, there is only one, and in fact the histories of Greek and Egyptian beliefs record increasing centralization. In patriarchal societies, the god(s) are male while in matriarchal ones they are female, and in the link I provided the legend records the transition between the two. In more egalitarian societies (which to this date have been primtive) the gods are natural features, while in more "developed" societies they tend to be anthropomorphised. More than anything, religion seems to trace the rise and fall of various powers in society.
But what I find more fascinating than any religious practice, babarity or belief is the set of cities that occupied the Indus valley about 2500 BC. Unlike most ancient cities, they had no fortifications, temples, palaces, or armories. Funerals were simple. The only evidence of a possible religion was a scattering of clay figurines of unknown significance, most often found in trash pits. These cities existed for 500 years. I'll have to look up the names (I read about them in National Geographic). One of them may be Harappa. It provides an indication that people may not always develop or need religion, and societies may not require them as organizing principles.
Now you're talkin' my language, Signy! A good book on these weaponless valley cultures is The Chalice and the Blade.
This really gets to the heart of everything we're dealing with today. How can egalitarianism flourish in a fundamentally hierarchical system like our modern civilization? With Gods like Jehova and Alah running the show, how can we achieve peace?
I find it very interesting that the constitution of the United States was derived in part from the Iroquois Confederacy. A federal system that respected the autonomy of the individual states (clans) and the separation of powers into three branches of government, these ideas are straight out of the Iroquois constitution. If the Prime Minister of England wants to suspend free speech in time of war, there's nothing saying he can't do that, but in America we have that freedom written into the Bill of Rights. Our very American concept of individual freedom is indigenous. United States culture, from the beginning and at it's heart is multicultural. After the civil war and the centralization of power in Washington that followed, our government became much more European in style. By the end of the 19th century most of the Indians were gone. New immigrants from Europe had no contact with our indigenous culture and our government has gotten more centrist and more invasive and more hierarchical ever since. The gods of Europe have eclipsed the gods of this land, or so it would seem.
How's that for hijacking the thread?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh yeah, my Robot can beat your robot!!!
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Ah yes, white man always have something to prove!
It was probably grief, yeah.
My wife (longtime aquantaince of said MM) told me he respects the ones who last as long as he does.
We were supposed to jump in the cold lake right after, but that kind of a transition smelled like a heart attack for me ( heat I can take; cold is my Kryptonite). Wow, it was a few years ago now.
I wish more western minds could let go of the 'this is exactly' and 'that is precisely' stuff when it comes to religion. Setting any faith in stone makes it a 'dead faith', as far as I see it. We need more 'living faiths', whatever those particular religions might be.
Christ was prolly a very flexable dude Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Huh,
This link was just posted...
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050811_scientists_god.html
Of course this survey includes "social scientists".
Fivver
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well that was bracing! I would have thought the % of believers to be WAY lower!
But I did expect the non-traditional leanings for those that do grok some God or other...
Stranger in a stranger land Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Science is the study of the natural world.
God or gods or godlings or spirits or ghosts or other such entities are in the realm of the supernatural. Any proposal that is founded on the supernatural is scientifically useless, by definition.
Science exists because the statement, "It's God's will," explains not a gorram thing in the 'Verse.
So we're all done with this foolishness now, right?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Besides, we all know the answer was revealed years ago: 42. Crikey, do people forget important facts quickly around here!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Science is the study of the natural world.
God or gods or godlings or spirits or ghosts or other such entities are in the realm of the supernatural. Any proposal that is founded on the supernatural is scientifically useless, by definition.
Science exists because the statement, "It's God's will," explains not a gorram thing in the 'Verse.
So we're all done with this foolishness now, right?
I will never understand why some people are so offended by the mere fact of a discussion that they have to enter into it only to squelch it. You don't like the conversation? Move along.
Furthermore, your logic is
. It boils down to this: what is not already acknowledged as scientific fact is therefore unscientific. Same logic the church used to persecute Galileo. Science at its core concerns itself with observable reality. I, personally, have observed most of the items on your list, numerous times and with witnesses. If I am to study the natural world, I must, therefore, include them.You haven't experienced any of these things. From where I sit, your denial of their reality is a little like a virgin denying the existence of sex.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I thought that humans "homo sapiens" have been in their current form for around 25,000 years. And mutations are still occuring ; ).
The time has come the walrus said to talk of many things of shoes of ships of sealing wax of cabbages and kings and why the seas are boiling hot and whether pigs have wings.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Science at its core concerns itself with observable reality. I, personally, have observed most of the items on your list, numerous times and with witnesses. If I am to study the natural world, I must, therefore, include them.
For the reasons you cite above, I have to agree with NeutrinoLad, sort of.
What I agree with is that Science in no way addresses, or even admits the existence of, the supernatural. But, it's in many ways a confusion of terms (perhaps on my part?). As you point out, HK, anything observable is part of the natural world and therefore something science must acknowledge.
This is something that's always been a stumbling block for me when it comes the whole concept of the 'supernatural'. If a phenomenon is observable, if it can affect us in any way, then it is part of our natural world. If it can't affect us in any way, direct or indirect, then the reality of its existence is moot. Maybe I'm looking through a very narrow lens, but I see no way for anything 'supernatural' to have any meaningful existence.
This is where mystics always usually lose me. They insist on defining certain phenomenon as supernatural. I really don't know what to do with that unless I recast it to mean, "something we don't yet understand with science", but that's not the same thing.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
This is something that's always been a stumbling block for me when it comes the whole concept of the 'supernatural'. If a phenomenon is observable, if it can affect us in any way, then it is part of our natural world. If it can't affect us in any way, direct or indirect, then the reality of its existence is moot. Maybe I'm looking through a very narrow lens, but I see no way for anything 'supernatural' to have any meaningful existence.
This is where mystics always usually lose me. They insist on defining certain phenomenon as supernatural.
Okay, hold it right there. You the one "insisting on defining certain phenomenon as supernatural." I ain't telling you anything is "supernatural."
You say, "If it can't affect us in any way, direct or indirect, then the reality of its existence is moot." What phenomena are you referring to here? I've been in a house where everyone there saw a ghost and heard it scream; an ex-girlfriend of mine was physically attacked by what certainly looked like a demon, suffering three clawed rents above each knee; a group of small humanoid critters with oversized hands and feet and very large ears turned on a sprinkler system under my feet; angelic "guides" have given me information about a client that I had no way of knowing innumerable times.
The trouble is, you haven't experience any of this stuff. None of these kinds of things have affected you. My best explanation is that these phenomena seem to function a lot like emotions. We see people deny emotion all the time. Some people never cry. Some people drink instead of feeling grief. Such people have no idea what they're missing. These emotions happen to people all around them--you'd think they'd be able to extrapolate from the experiences of these other folks, but they don't. In extreme cases people redefine these emotions which they don't experience in very self-serving terms. Some men see tears as an expression of weakness or an indication of homosexuality instead of the psyche's way to balance itself. Some people when they finally allow themselves to experience grief without self-medicating feel exactly as if they were dying.
Sometimes whole cultures agree to these avoidant fantasies. Somehow the thought that so-called "supernatural" creatures may have any existence in the world is totally unacceptable. These beings threaten a whole cosmology for some folks. Does that seem right to you? I gotta wonder: what's the big deal?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I dunno, HK. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics here. But it seems like a lot of people want to have it both ways. They want to say something is real, but if you try to treat it like it is, they tell you it's 'supernatural'.
Now, I'm not dismissing anything in particular here, least of all your personal experiences. I'm just trying to figure out what people mean by 'supernatural'. Because in my mind, if it's real, it's natural. Maybe not common, or even comprehensible to our minds, but part of the whole of reality and at least approachable by science.
I say that with the recognition that for many things science may not be the best way to understand them. Emotions are the best example, you can describe 'love' with all the psychology books in the world at your disposal, but until you experience it, you never really understand it.
I am curious though, how would you characterize the experiences you mentioned, were they 'supernatural'? If so, what does that mean to you?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Calling something "supernatural" to me is just like puting quotes around it--the meaning is "this here thing is questionable." I'm happier with the term "paranormal." Also, "non-ordinary" is nice.
Science is best at dealing with dead things, physical things; things that remain the same when you take them out of their natural context; things that can't change their minds on a whim; things that aren't conscious. I would go so far as to say that anything to do with consciousness is very unlikely to yield to scientific study because of the phenomenon of volition.
Emotions are an aspect of consciousness. They come and go by their own rules. It is very hard to "measure" them. Laboratory results can be scetchy because people have emotional reactions to the laboratory experience itself. The act of analysis changes the kind of data produced. Psychic phenomena are exactly the same way, only more so. Why should people therefore make the leap to "THEY DON'T EXIST?" Laziness? What people call the "supernatural" is a catch-all for these beings and experiences that I would term phenomenologically "shy;" they only appear under certain conditions--conditions which science has heretofore been unable to quantify.
Rupert Sheldrake is making headway though with his morphic field theory. You should check him out.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HKCavalier: The reason people make the leap to 'psychic phenomena don't exist' is not out of laziness, but out of logic. People claim to have been abducted by aliens, but for someone outside the experience there is no reason to believe this is true. The same is true of paranormal phenomena - they may indeed be real, but there is currently no reason to believe they are.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
HKCavalier: The reason people make the leap to 'psychic phenomena don't exist' is not out of laziness, but out of logic. People claim to have been abducted by aliens, but for someone outside the experience there is no reason to believe this is true. The same is true of paranormal phenomena - they may indeed be real, but there is currently no reason to believe they are.
That's some strange, arid, inhumane logic that discounts the testimony of millions of people over the course of decades, the vast majority of whom have absolutely nothing to gain from lying other than the eternal scorn of folks like you. Sure they may not have all the details right after suffering such trauma, they may be entirely wrong in their analyses, but to presume that all of these folks over the years experience nothing out of the ordinary defies credulity. Is it all just a conspiracy of publicity hounds?
There's all kind of reason to believe people when you haven't experienced what they have--it's called gaining an education. I'm not certain of this, but I'd bet that you're pretty selective indeed with this logic of yours; I'll bet you regularly and without thinking accept the existence of phenomena without personal experience thereof because you respect the source and because it doesn't challenge your cherished beliefs. That you have such far-reaching disrespect for so many of your fellow humans looks a lot more like arrogance than logic to me.
And please, spare me if you will the typical misanthropic pseudo-justifications of the "humans are stupid animals" and "humans are like squalling babies who'll do anything for attention" variety.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Rupert Sheldrake is making headway though with his morphic field theory. You should check him out.
I'll look him up. Maybe I've just constructed an artificially narrow definition of 'supernatural' for myself. What you're talking about seems to be very much a part of the 'natural' world, just not something that lends itself to traditional scientific investigation. Is that a fair assessment?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
HKCavalier: The reason people make the leap to 'psychic phenomena don't exist' is not out of laziness, but out of logic.
No, Its out of shortsightedness. Quantum Mechanics allows for some pretty strange things to happen, farseeing, telepathy etc. Theres no reason to assume that some day what we presently call supernatural will one day be natural and explained by science.
Once even the rising and the setting of the Sun was a supernatural event, the changing of the seasons were controlled by gods, but now they are simply scientifically explained natural phenomena.
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
(which is still expanding,...)
Not just expanding, but contrary to popular belief...accelerating. That's true too and you can look that up as well.
--Jefé The Hat
***************************
Brilliant, no?
10 out of 10 people statistically die in their lifetime.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
HKCavalier: The reason people make the leap to 'psychic phenomena don't exist' is not out of laziness, but out of logic. People claim to have been abducted by aliens, but for someone outside the experience there is no reason to believe this is true. The same is true of paranormal phenomena - they may indeed be real, but there is currently no reason to believe they are.
That's some strange, arid, inhumane logic that discounts the testimony of millions of people over the course of decades, the vast majority of whom have absolutely nothing to gain from lying other than the eternal scorn of folks like you. Sure they may not have all the details right after suffering such trauma, they may be entirely wrong in their analyses, but to presume that all of these folks over the years experience nothing out of the ordinary defies credulity. Is it all just a conspiracy of publicity hounds?
There's all kind of reason to believe people when you haven't experienced what they have--it's called gaining an education. I'm not certain of this, but I'd bet that you're pretty selective indeed with this logic of yours; I'll bet you regularly and without thinking accept the existence of phenomena without personal experience thereof because you respect the source and because it doesn't challenge your cherished beliefs. That you have such far-reaching disrespect for so many of your fellow humans looks a lot more like arrogance than logic to me.
And please, spare me if you will the typical misanthropic pseudo-justifications of the "humans are stupid animals" and "humans are like squalling babies who'll do anything for attention" variety.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
If you re-read my post you should see that I was careful to word it in a manner that I hoped would not offend you, since you'd mentioned previously to have had experiences of the paranormal. I'd appreciate it if you offered me the same courtesy and didn't make sweeping - and offensive - assumptions about my character.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, if I do believe in God (which at the moment I'm not altogether sure about - I'm still forming opinions on that point) I certainly think he did it by starting off the Big Bang - knowing what would happen. Although this does completely destroy ANY credibility in Genesis really. But I disagree with it completely anyway - it was written by some random men who had no idea how God created the universe and thought they'd make themselves more powerful by villifying women - anyway, I'm not going to go into a whole frminist rant, but I just dislike Genesis anyway.
So yeah - if there's a God - I think he started the Big Bang.
Thoughtful FLF(well ish)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
God and the universe may not be seperate of course. Theres nothing to say that God is not the universe and therfore the universe is infact god...
As for Genesis I agree. I believe as I always have that religous texts are stories that give you a guide as to how to live your life, not a literal explination of the beginnings/workings/endings of the universe.
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
If you re-read my post you should see that I was careful to word it in a manner that I hoped would not offend you, since you'd mentioned previously to have had experiences of the paranormal. I'd appreciate it if you offered me the same courtesy and didn't make sweeping - and offensive - assumptions about my character.
Hey, Grounded, I appreciate you writing me, even though I was rude to you. I see that you did not intend to offend me with your post. Only problem is, you really did. On the one hand you seem to credit that I have had paranormal experiences (
) and yet in your previous post you said that it is not logical to believe people who make such claims (
). I presumed that you consider yourself a logical person, so what you were saying in essence, after sifting through your nonconfrontational abstractions of "people" this and "people" that, is that you think it's logical to disbelieve me. So after several thoughtful posts explaining the logic of my position, I didn't take your dismissal very kindly. I certainly could have been more diplomatic about it, but I was feeling a little besieged.You know, if you have to carefully word a post not to offend someone, chances are they'll know what you're doing, and feel offended anyway.
Getting back to the very intelligent and yet evolving conversation at hand (sorry, couldn't help myself): to me it is perfectly logical to believe folks that claim to be abducted by aliens because of the obvious traumatic nature of these experiences which they describe. I've talked to some people who "claim" to be abducted and it's not cool or pretty or a badge of honor, it's a really disgusting and disturbing memory that they dearly wish were not true. I've worked with ordinary rape survivors as well (I am one), and the experiences seem to have a lot in common. People do not tend to make up rape stories. Certainly, some do, but such antisocial individuals are in the extreme minority of rape cases. These kinds of experiences scar a person; the last thing a rape survivor wants is to be a rape survivor. It would be illogical for me to dismiss their claims without very good reason.
In my experience, people don't lie unless there's something to be gained by lying. Those people who make up outrageous adventures to amaze their friends and members of the press are usually pretty easy to spot.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
In my experience, people don't lie unless there's something to be gained by lying. Those people who make up outrageous adventures to amaze their friends and members of the press are usually pretty easy to spot.
So, not to be flippant or a smart-ass, but how do you spot them?
Or, more generally, what kinds of stories would you be unlikely to believe? Are we unreasonable to ever disbelieve claims of the paranormal?
Again, I'm not trying to poke at you here, HK, but I'm curious where you draw the line. You seem to be offended that people doubt claims of the paranormal in general. I'm not sure that's fair.
Granted, if you've experienced something that people will discount on the face of it, I can see how that would be very frustrating. But can you really blame people for assuming such claims are likely to have naturalistic explanation?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
In my experience, people don't lie unless there's something to be gained by lying. Those people who make up outrageous adventures to amaze their friends and members of the press are usually pretty easy to spot.
So, not to be flippant or a smart-ass, but how do you spot them?
Couple things: Sergeant, hey, I can tell you're sincere and curious about something of which you don't have a thorough-going understanding. First of all, 'cause you say so. More than once. You're direct. Mostly consistent, but not overly so. It's stuff like that which tells me a person is being honest. Beyond that, I have found that I have a sensitivity to sound. This is more or less in the area of intuition, but lies often have an odd, telling "sound" to them.
Are you aware of the phenomenon of reversed speech? If you play a recording of a person's voice in a heightened state of emotion backwards, very often you will be able to discern very clear words and phrases, usually when they contradict what the forward speech is saying. I had a neighbor who was hugely into this stuff and he played some of Bill Clinton's testimony during the Monika Lewinsky scandal for me. I remember hearing Clinton's voice, utterly dejected and defeated saying, "I'm sorry." It was the saddest most pathetic "I'm sorry" I've ever heard. Interestingly, people have found that when you reverse the "speech" of preverbal children you will often get fully articulated sentences. I heard a recording of a child playing with his father while he took a bath. He was just making baby noises, but when it was played backwards I heard clear as a bell, "Get my ball, Robert." It was uncanny. One reversal I heard which was fascinating was a recording of a man yelling, "There's a fire!" in a dentist office where there was, you know, a fire. When the recording was reversed, the word "FIRE!" was repeated twice. Very interesting stuff.
I know, I know! It sounds really improbable, but I was there. Most of the time when you play a recorded voice backward, you get the meaningless backward sounds that you'd expect. But, apparently, in moments of intense emotion or dishonesty something of the truth is imprinted in the voice; something the subconscious mind hears. Sensitive people, children and animals seem to pick up on this stuff.
Quote:
Are we unreasonable to ever disbelieve claims of the paranormal?
Of course not. People make stuff up all the time.
Here's a thing: the enemy of intuition is desire. If you want something to be true, it's a lot harder to get any reliable intuitive information about it. That's why it's generally difficult for psychics to read themselves; there's too much at stake to get a clear picture most of the time. Belief systems have a lot to do with the desire of the believers. So if you don't want paranormal phenomena to be real, it will be harder to discern if any of it is. Conversely, if you do want paranormal phenomena to be real, that too will cloud your judgment. A lot of people I know dearly want this kind of stuff to be real, they dearly want it to happen to them and they will believe any damn thing.
In reality, everything has its upside and its downside. Nobody I know who really deals with nonhuman consciouses or clairvoyance or telepathy is getting high off the stuff. Like everything in life, it ain't all it's cracked up to be.
Quote:
Again, I'm not trying to poke at you here, HK, but I'm curious where you draw the line. You seem to be offended that people doubt claims of the paranormal in general. I'm not sure that's fair.
Whenever I have a really profound psychic insight, or experience a really intense manifestation like that thing that attacked my girlfriend, a part of my mind really thinks I must be going insane. The materialistic/literalist/logic-obsessed part of my mind that thinks it's the only thing keeping me alive and sane wants very
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK:
With your obvious knowledge of this subject I was wondering if I can run something by you.
I mentioned elsewhere in this thread I believe that I have had what would be considered supernatural experiences, although nothing on the scale you've experienced.
I've seen documentries where people have had dreams that have come true. They are almost exclusivly of the very open to interpretation type. I beleive one mans was along the lines of dogs running through the woods, which apparently predicted a plane crash (I saw the program sometime ago and my memory may not be perfect tho).
The dreams I have had, and continue to have are very different, they are precise, like memories of an event, but more vivid and before it actually happens. When I was younger the period of time was measured in years, but the interval between dream and event has shortened.
I remember one particular instance, where I had a dream of myself walking across a concreted area toward a group of people, and then I felt a strong pain on the side of my head, I didn't recognise the place or people, but somehow knew that it wasn't just a dream. Years later, after I had started secondary school, I was leaving a class room and walking across the concreted area of the playground toward some of the teachers at my school. I was then hit on the side of my head by a stray Basketball.
The big thing is that most of these 'premonitions' are of fairly mundane events, and that I can control, to a degree, my actions/thoughts during the dream itself, but not during the event.
I realise this doesn't lend anything to the discussion but I really never had the chance to speak to someone who has experinced something 'in the same vein' as this. I was wondering if you can shed any light on this at all, or at least point me in any directions, you know. Just interested is all...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey, Grounded, I appreciate you writing me, even though I was rude to you. I see that you did not intend to offend me with your post. Only problem is, you really did. On the one hand you seem to credit that I have had paranormal experiences (
Ok I'll try and clarify by means of example. A friend of mine lives along the street and his father has a background in engineering. His father also claims to have seen a ghost. Now I've always respected him, and I still do, but I don't believe he saw a ghost. Whatever he saw, in that moment, I'm sure it felt totally and completely real to him for his brain to interpret things the way it did.
Now from what you're saying, you're telling me that, because I respect him, I should believe his claim to be the most likely explanation?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
(At this point I feel the need to politely apologize to BadgersHat for hijacking his thread. Please feel free, BH, to redirect the thread any time.)
Greetings Citizen! The kind of documentary you're talking about is all too common. Why these documentarians can't seem to find better subjects than they do, I've never understood.
All kinds of people I know have dreams like yours. I've had dreams like yours. That quality of memory that you mention really rings a bell; that odd feeling that you're remembering something that hasn't happened yet.
The apparent triviality of the typical premonition also rings true for me. I once was really downhearted about getting some shoes. I kinda hate the traditional male uniform of blues and browns and black; the ever-lovin' sameness of all menswear departments in this country. So I kinda hate shopping. Anyway, I needed some shoes and just wasn't finding what I wanted in any stores. So I had a dream where I went into a shoe store and they had all these bizarre moccasins with neon lights sewn into them that blinked and flashed. They were outrageous. Back in the corner of the store though, they had these other moccasins that were more like boots and they were plain and very well made with rubberized soles, kind of futuristic and primitive at once (kinda like me). Next day, I'm out shopping, there's a tiny shoe store with a huge going out of business sign (without the sign I would never have noticed it). It was their last day. Anyway, at the back of the store, in a big box that they were already packing things into I found a pair of the exact shoe from my dream. They were made by Nike, of all things! They were literally, the shoes of my dreams!
Of course, my first thought after buying them and leaving the store was, "How is it that I can manifest freakin' shoes, but the rest of my life is such a mess? Why can't I manifest a lasting relationship, or a good job, or a landlord that isn't a total nut?" Etc.
The best answer that I've come up with is that we order reality in some pretty erroneous ways. These premonitions, deja vu, that kind of thing aren't so subject intensive as we assume them to be; but are markers on the way, like landmarks that, for whatever reason, call attention to themselves to help us navigate through our lives. You know the drill, "Go fifty miles until you get to the tree that looks like it's got a big face on it." The tree itself may be fascinating but the traveler who knows where she's going is naturally more focused on the journey. Thing is, we've all but forgotten the road, our purpose and our goals, so when these psychic landmarks come into view, we tend not to have a clue what they mean. At least not on a conscious level.
On what I'd term a superconscious level, they're part of a feedback loop of some kind. These moments mark when we have realized some part of "the plan." These moments are on "the map." What I've taught myself to do at such moments is to be mindful of where my attention is, what thoughts occur the moment before; because the thoughts, what we're thinking, what our conscious purpose at that moment is--these things are cues to what we're really here for; these are moments when our superconscious purpose and our conscious lives resolve into a single reality.
You might be able to remember your train of thought as you crossed to those teachers, what you wanted to say to them, or what particular mission you were on that day, or how you felt. Sometimes we have a fleeting thought that triggers these moments and we lose it under all the incredulous noise our minds spew to cope with so much meaning (it's this constant white noise of disbelief in the face of meaning that keeps so many people from realizing their true destiny; the presence of nonhuman consciousness tends to make us all at least a little hysterical). These events are clues to our higher purpose, clues to where we're really headed in this life. Or so I've come to understand.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
Ok I'll try and clarify by means of example. A friend of mine lives along the street and his father has a background in engineering. His father also claims to have seen a ghost. Now I've always respected him, and I still do, but I don't believe he saw a ghost. Whatever he saw, in that moment, I'm sure it felt totally and completely real to him for his brain to interpret things the way it did.
Now from what you're saying, you're telling me that, because I respect him, I should believe his claim to be the most likely explanation?
No, I'm not saying that you should believe your friend's dad, only that disbelieving him may not be the most logical reaction (of course, on the other hand, it might be).
Um, Grounded, we seem to be at cross purposes, you're certainly misunderstanding what I meant. You told me that disbelief is logical in and of itself. I was trying to refute that.
Your friend's father may or may not have seen a ghost. If you base your conclusion that he did not see one on an assumption that ghosts do not exist, then you're not dealing with logic, but with the limits of your belief system. If however, you base your conclusion on evidence that his dad was lying or confused by something, then you might have a logical argument. There are a lot of details to the story that you're leaving out. I get the feeling that you don't believe in ghosts. Do you?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK, once a few years back I had a kind of 'waking dream', where I was apparently awake, but with my eyes closed. And then the view of the room faded in; I was intrigued, you see, my eyes were still closed. I looked around the room, a little amused, thinking I must still be asleep, dreaming...until I opened my eyes fully awake, and was now seeing what I had already been seeing with my eyes closed. Weird. I closed my eyes and layed back down, and suddenly I was seeing, and feeling that I was standing in cold rain, my feet in mud to my ankles. I was standing next to what appeared to be a battering ram on wheels, or maybe on a big cart. My companions were Asian, in similar brown garb, like poor, dirty, rag-tag soldiers. The emotions of defeat and disgrace filled me. And a single thought flew through my mind, " Might never see home again".
I opened my eyes, fully awake. And somewhat unsettled.
I feel that I was experiencing a flash of a previous (and possibly partial) life my energy had been connected to.
No funny on this one, what do you think?
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In a strange way a lot of what you've said makes alot of sense to me.
I can't remember my train of thought for any but the most recent of events, but the recent ones focus largly on where I am, where I'm going and sometimes, to a degree how this fits in with a group of people I met not to long ago. Which is why I say it makes sense to me as my train of thought at the time seems to be me thinking about where my life has come from, and where it is going.
My thought processes then move on to trying to consiously change what is happening half-way through the event, something I consitently fail to do I may add. Though I think that has more to do with my desire to see if I can change things, as I said I seem able to change things during my dreams, but not during the event.
Anyway, thanks HK for your reply, you have given me a great deal to think about and I will endeavour to look more into this subject.
I think that I see the supernatural in a different way to many people. For instance I would see your previous example with your girlfriend being attacked as maybe some rogue element of her own psyche manifesting something physical.
I assume the ussual interpretation could be that what attacked her was some sort of devil or evil spirit.
I dunno...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I sense the good in you, FLF. The Patriarchal Anglo-Saxon belief systems have not driven it from you fully...
Originally posted by fantasticlaughingfairy:
I'm not going to go into a whole feminist rant, but I just dislike Genesis anyway.
Luke Chrisiswalker
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Princess Leia? I intend to but not until we've been properly introduced...
Sorry, couldn't resist...
*Returns to letting chrisisall do the funny*
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Your friend's father may or may not have seen a ghost. If you base your conclusion that he did not see one on an assumption that ghosts do not exist, then you're not dealing with logic, but with the limits of your belief system. If however, you base your conclusion on evidence that his dad was lying or confused by something, then you might have a logical argument. There are a lot of details to the story that you're leaving out. I get the feeling that you don't believe in ghosts. Do you?
HKCavalier
There's that phrase 'belief system' creeping in again where it doesn't belong. I'll try and be clearer still: if someone came up to me tomorrow with compelling and reasoned arguments that support the existence of ghosts/paranormal phenomena etc. and backed them up with evidence that was not purely anecdotal, then I'd be more than happy to believe them. I do not use the word 'believe' in the sense of having faith in someone or something. As I said before, I'm not stating categorically that paranormal phenomena don't exist.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
In a strange way a lot of what you've said makes alot of sense to me.
One of the principles of my psychic work is that a psychic is unable to tell you anything that you don't already know is true; all we psychics do is confirm and bring out information that is already available to you. This is a built-in safeguard against charlatans, by the way; if what someone tells you doesn't ring true, it's probably not. On the other hand, you may not be particularly honest with yourself and so miss the truth of a thing--but still, you get to decide what to believe and what not to. We're only ready to hear what we're ready to hear (our readiness is the result of a whole developemental process which is unique to each individual). Be that as it may, on some level you know these things, we all know these things, but we have errected cyclopean systems of denial and self-distrust to keep this knowledge out of circulation. Why? Fear. Fear of our own power, to be precise. I think Nelson Mandela said it best:
Quote:
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us; it is in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I think that I see the supernatural in a different way to many people. For instance I would see your previous example with your girlfriend being attacked as maybe some rogue element of her own psyche manifesting something physical.
I assume the ussual interpretation could be that what attacked her was some sort of devil or evil spirit.
I dunno...
Ah, but see, you do know, Citizen. For those "in the know" your opposing interpretations are both understood to be true at the same time. You can find this information in the primary Goëtic text, The Key of Solomon. (Goëtia is the branch of ritual magic principally concerned with demonology and demon control. Oh, my lordy, I'm footnoting--make it stop!) The inner western traditions have understood for centuries the phrase "as above, so below" to mean that the outside world is a mirror to our inner world, and vicy-vercy.
(Straying back to the original topic of the thread for a moment, the evident process of evolution is the external manifestation of the inner process we call creativity--hey, I just defined God: God is creativity.)
Put another way, demons can be thought of similarly to how we understand psychotropic drugs. We know that the only reason LSD etc. work is that they mimic existing brain chemistry so closely. Interestingly, in practice, demons tend to manifest physically or externally only when they are losing control and being expelled. Most of the time they function exactly like a personal psychological compulsions, so exactly in fact, that that is exactly what they are.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK,
I have a question for you, tho I realize the answer may be that I am not what I appear to be and think I am.
How is it that I make lights turn off? Parking-lot lights, street lights and the like. I walk close by and, bhhzzzzt, they go out. It happens most when I am concentrating on something from the day, usually a knotty technical or union problem, or a conflicted conversation. Sometimes I joke to myself - well, it's just the luminosity of my extremely pale skin reading as a bright light to the sensor. But I still wonder, why .... And I admit, it happens enough that it does perturb me somewhat.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How is it that I make lights turn off? Parking-lot lights, street lights and the like. I walk close by and, bhhzzzzt, they go out. It happens most when I am concentrating on something from the day, usually a knotty technical or union problem, or a conflicted conversation.
Hey Rue,
That's an easy one (and you practically answered the question yourself, naturally). Anger. Highly focused yet powerfully suppressed anger. Anger shoved far far away and out. Which is not to imply that you don't also express your anger, just that you got a heck of a lot more of it than you might realize. (How's your blood pressure? Keep an eye on that for me, will ya?
) Something to do with the electromagnetic field of the body, aka your aura. I know a couple women, good friends of mine, who have the same tendency. One of them tends to break electrical devices pretty regularly as well. For whatever reason this sort of thing is most common in women and it can be particularly intense in teenage girls (one of the paranormal side effects of patriarchal conditioning, perhaps). Much of what gets called poltergeist activity--stuff falling off of walls, lights suddenly going out, furniture thumping around, small objects being moved about the house--can be traced back to the suppressed fury of a teenage girl living in the house. It's actually not too far off from the demon-as-rogue-element-of-your-own-psyche that Citizen mentioned.You ever see the film Olivier, Olivier? The daughter in that movie has this affect and the film goes a long way toward showing exactly how she developed it. Very remarkable film.
And Rue, I mean it about the blood pressure.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Briefly excerpted: please note that the self-stated goal of the Discovery Institute (the machine behind ID) is to abolish science as we know it and replace it with traditional Christian beliefs.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html
The "Wedge Document"
NOTE FROM LENNY FLANK: The Wedge Document is an internal memorandum from the Discovery Institute (the leading proponent of Intelligent Designer "Theory") that was leaked to the Internet in 1999. The Discovery Institute later admitted to its authenticity. Since then, Discovery Institute hasn't talked very much about the document, or the strategy it outlines.
The Wedge Document is reproduced here, in full.
CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE
INTRODUCTION
The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art.
The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards ... undermined personal responsibility ... and spawned a virulent strain of utopianism.
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.
FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY
We are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism.
Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. In Phase I we are supporting vital witting (writing ?) and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.
Phase II. We seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in pnnt and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. (The) combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being "merely academic." Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians.
Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.
GOALS
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
******
NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING HERE FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO EXPAND SCIENCE INTO AN INQUIRY OF THE RARELY OBSERVED. IT IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO EXPAND SCIENCE, BUT TO ABOLISH IT AND REPLACE IT WITH CHRISTIANTIY.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
These are generally lengthy articles from which I culled short excerpts. They may not be active anymore, you might find secondary sources by searching on extended quotes.
While some scientists (even rarer prominent ones) believe in God, they rarely confuse religion with science:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html
Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science
By CORNELIA DEAN
"It (faith) should not be a taboo subject, but frankly it often is in scientific circles," said Francis S. Collins, who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and who speaks freely about his Christian faith.
Although some scientists embrace religious faith, they also embrace science as it has been defined for centuries. ... This belief in science - that scientific ideas must be provisional and capable of being overturned by evidence - sets them apart from those who endorse creationism or its doctrinal cousin, intelligent design, both of which depend on the existence of a supernatural force.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
ID proponents attack what they think are weaknesses in evolutionary theory, but the theory is far more fruitful than ID, which so far has failed to advance ANY testable proposals:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/national/22design.html?th&emc=th
In Explaining Life's Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash
By KENNETH CHANG
The proponents of intelligent design, a school of thought that some have argued should be taught alongside evolution in the nation's schools, say that the complexity and diversity of life go beyond what evolution can explain.
It is an argument that appeals to many Americans of faith.
But mainstream scientists say that the claims of intelligent design run counter to a century of research supporting the explanatory and predictive power of Darwinian evolution.
The theory has unlocked many of the mysteries of the natural world. For example, by studying the skeletons of whales, evolutionary scientists have been able to trace the history of their descent from small-hoofed land mammals. They made predictions about what the earliest water-dwelling whales might look like. And, in 1994, paleontologists reported discovering two such species, with many of the anatomical features that scientists had predicted.
But nowhere has evolution been more powerful than in its prediction that there must be a means to pass on information from one generation to another. Darwin did not know the biological mechanism of inheritance, but the theory of evolution required one.
The discovery of DNA, the sequencing of the human genome, the pinpointing of genetic diseases and the discovery that a continuum of life from a single cell to a human brain can be detected in DNA are all a result of evolutionary theory.
........
Dr. Behe (ID proponent) said that if he was correct, then the E. coli in Dr. Lenski's lab would evolve in small ways but never change in such a way that the bacteria would develop entirely new abilities.
In fact, such an ability seems to have developed. Dr. Lenski said his experiment was not intended to explore this aspect of evolution, but nonetheless, "We have recently discovered a pretty dramatic exception, one where a new and surprising function has evolved," he said.
ID has been more successful as a well-funded political movement of conservative Christians than it has been as a science:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?th&emc=th
Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive
By JODI WILGOREN
SEATTLE - When President Bush plunged into the debate over the teaching of evolution this month, saying, "both sides ought to be properly taught," he seemed to be reading from the playbook of the Discovery Institute, the conservative think tank here that is at the helm of this newly volatile frontier in the nation's culture wars.
Mainstream scientists reject the notion that any controversy over evolution even exists. But Mr. Bush e
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Didn't have time to read the entire thread, it's too late here. Couple comments.
@CITIZEN:
"""Quantum Mechanics allows for some pretty strange things to happen, farseeing, telepathy etc"""
QM says no such thing.
@HK:
People don't believe in ghosts, etc because it isn't a repeatable event nor has it been documented in any reliable way. If that changes, so will peoples minds.
Please note that I'm not saying that these things, don't exist nor am I saying that they do. I'm just saying that current documentation states that there is nor reasonable evidence for stated that they do exist. Also, I have had a couple "experiences" in my day. But, I do accept the possibility that there is another explination for them.
And yes, the Aboriginal religion is quite pretty. I enjoyed learning about it in my world religion course.
And now, sleep.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for the links Rue. If there is consistency about right-wing arguments, it is:
They are not open-minded. Don't imagine for a second that the right wing is interested in an exchange of views. Arguments are always part of a larger strategy.
They are not spontaneous, grass-roots movements. While they may take advantage of "popular" notions (like the widespread gullibility of the US population) they're initiated from the top.
They're well-funded. Corportations like Coors spent a fortune setting up right-wing think-tanks twenty years ago, and this is the result.
One of the reasons why I'm "all science all the time" - and pretty harsh about religion- is because the US never really hears the "other side". They get religion from the pulpit, and they get "Touched by God" or "Ghost Whisperer" from TV, or some sort of "moderate" scientist apologizing that while he performs science he ALSO believes in God. The US is so unused to the notion of testing ideas against reality that they are vulnerable to snake-oil salesmen of every stripe, including corporations, Bush&Co, and televangelists. It's no accident that in this nation where religiosity exceeds all other developed nations and matches that of the Middle East, brand-name loyality is also highest. All of this stems from a severe lack of critical thinking. So while I respect and enjoy our open-minded discussions here, I also think the left-of-center hasn't a CLUE about how the right-wing operates. The left wants to respect and understand reality. The right really doesn't give a crap about the truth- all they want is control. By the way, I think the only thing that's pretty freakin obvious about Badgershat's opener is its fatal logical flaw.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm surprised you got the gist so well with what I quoted. As I mentioned, the articles were much longer, filled with convincing detail.
And the sum is this: 'Intelligent design' is not the issue. It's merely one tool - a wedge - the religious right has selected for their war on civil society.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As to the larger question of the role of religion, I don't have a good answer.
Personally, religion stopped making sense for me at a young age - if there were, are and will be multitudes of religions claiming to be 'the one and only', it's less likely that only one is right, than that all are right or all are wrong.
About 5 years ago I literally dreamed an ethic of 'just enough', which makes sense to me as a real principle of life that can free the heart of anxiety and greed, secure life, and heal our planet.
It also doesn't depend on a(the) god(s) reward and punishment for motivation. I suppose it is closer to Confuscionism - right thought leading to right action and right outcome, except the right thought is "just enough".
In between there were literally decades of pragmatic living - striving for financial security while at the same time treating others ethically, and expecting ethical treatment in return. (Which BTW can be a mistake if adopted as an invariant rule, as there will be the occasional sociopath who, in this society, cannot be treated like everyone else.)
I've met three people in my life whose personal dignity, integrity, and tolerance seemed to be enhanced by formal western religion. And there are many on this board who seek spirituality outside of standard western religion. Perhaps my dream was the culmination of some silent search for meaning.
What I think you are reacting to is religion as a manipulative tool of those who seek power over you. These people want to turn your sense of cooperation and interest in others well being and happiness against you. They want to use your own best feelings against you and twist you inside. If you had accepted their religion, their war on you would be over - you would be waging it on yourself inside every minute of every day for the rest of your life.
So in the landscape, I see rare examples of those enhanced by religion, those who seek spirituality outside of 'mainstream' religion, and those who parted with religion. On the other side I see a vast majority for whom religion rationalizes their own worst impulses (those of greed, power, hate, fear etc) and those who cynically manipulate those impulses in the name of god.
Who will be reached by your message against religion? I don't see it having a large effect on people, except those who share your vision of religion as a destructive tool.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First of ALL religions AFAIK contain three components to a greater or lesser degree: A system of ethics (a list of rules or precepts), an impulse to control the uncontrollable (disease; sun, rain, and game) and a system of beliefs- a reference to the unproveable and unknowable (spirits and gods).
It's systems of belief that I have an issue with. When you get down to it, ALL belief systems are equal. While some are more socially acceptable than others, Moloch is just as valid as Santa Claus because you CANNOT- by the very definition of belief- test or prove either one. (If you could it wouldn't be belief.) Religion forces people to be intellectually dishonest. On the one hand, they are forced to acknowledge the existance of reality every day. If they don't, they cancel out themselves- and their beliefs-pretty quickly. (In fact, I know someone who believed so strongly in spiritual light as nourishment that she was found starving and hallucinating near the Seattle bus terminal and had be to forcibly fed.) But then on the other hand, they turn around and deny the material world. They pray to God for blessing, which has a far lower success rate than flicking on a light. They live mentally divided lives... it's socially promoted craziness.
I know that you're right. Most people will never adopt a strictly material view of the universe. And there are people who actually seem to make religion attractive: you and HK, for instance, who seem to be perhaps more deeply or inutitively in touch with reality than I- you both reach very deep insights that generally rather escape me.
But hey, you know, SOMEBODY'S gotta hold down this end of the discussion spectrum! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi SignyM
I appreciate the kudos. I feel however that HK is insightful, you are logical, and I am pragmatic.
I get that belief is defined as intrinsically what you are left with absent physical tesing. And that belief in the non-real is an insanity that divides people's minds - on the one hand they must live in the physical world, on the other hand they must deny it.
I can't speak for HK, but I think that HK's world is more complicated than mine and perhaps yours as well. (My experiences of the unexplainable have been exceedingly rare - except for the 'lights' thing.) And so HK has to go beyond explanations based on the simply testable.
As for myself, I'm not religious. My paradigm is (what I think is) an inevitable outcome of one concept.
So out of the ethics/control/belief triad, I have my ethic, control is a matter for science and technology, and belief doesn't enter into the equation.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Perhaps one of the (but certainly not the only) failures of science is that it blocks insight, inspiration, vision. Science is a very "rejecting" process. As we have discussed, it can only disprove hypotheses. It doesn't offer any reliable forward-looking path, but depends on that mysterious AHA!!! moment when observations gel to insight.
To get to that moment one must be in an accepting, waiting, still frame of mind. You need to let the universe speak to you. As your signature says, you can see anything with the right filters. Science is a rigorous filter that screens out what is "not" (at least by current thinking) but it can't point out the possibilities.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@CITIZEN:
"""Quantum Mechanics allows for some pretty strange things to happen, farseeing, telepathy etc"""
QM says no such thing.
Erm no, your right, no where in Quantum Mechanics does it say, farseeing telepathy etc are explained by this or that...
I didn't say it did either.
What I said is it allows for some pretty strange things, that, given a mechanism for our brains picking them up, could explain farseeing, telepathy etc.
QM has shown that information can be transmitted between particles with no 'physical' link faster than the speed of light, for instance.
I didn't say QM says anything.
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When I was pre-teen to early teen I used to dream poems, parables and chants. Here are a few examples:
(the picture is the world in space, the voice is a woman's gentle voice with the depth of the voice you hear in your head)
Spin yourself some magic
That you can call your own.
Spin yourself a dream,
And the world can spin alone.
(the picture is an arid, rocky sun-drenched Middle-East setting, the voice is a medium-register neutral man's voice)
A man looked upon the world and its various ways, and became confused.
He asked his god - what way am I to follow that's good?
And his god asked him - do you till your field? The man answered - yes.
And his god asked him - do you know your field? And the man answered - yes.
Then his god said - I say to you, you do not know your field. You must go into your field and turn stones, until you know the shape snd shuttle of each stone.
And the man was content from that day.
(the picture is a ridge top with some dead grasses and a bent, twisted evergreen with snow blowing on it, and a dreary sky; the chanting voice is that of an old, old woman)
Snow blows over the hill,
Wind hits cold against my back.
Long as it's winter, I won't look back.
Oh mercy me -
the Joshua tree.
My days be gone,
My friends be dead.
Wrinkled, dry, without a tear.
Here I am, and I won't look back,
Oh lonesome me -
The Joshua tree.
Wind blows over the hill,
Snow hits cold gainst my back,
I don't see far,
But I won't look back.
Oh mercy me -
The Joshua tree.
Since then, these dreams have gotten rarer, but longer, more complete and more freighted with meaning and insight. And they culminated (I feel) in the 'just enough' dream.
I have always wondered where those dreams came from.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow. Your last poem kinda wants to make me cry. If you promise to post your "just enough" dream. I'll post my "sanyagoing" one. Or maybe my nomads one. Or maybe the one that begins "When we were young we tussled like puppies playing in the tent."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not sure that my 'just enough' dream is readily understandable. It didn't have events, it was a setting. I think understanding the setting depends on being able to truly envision a better world. Without that basic act the dream itself loses its essence.
But there is something about the "When we were young ..." beginning that intrigues me. Could you post that anyway? The language, the wording, the image - I see Middle East nomad.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@CITIZEN:
"""Quantum Mechanics allows for some pretty strange things to happen, farseeing, telepathy etc"""
QM says no such thing.
Erm no, your right, no where in Quantum Mechanics does it say, farseeing telepathy etc are explained by this or that...
I didn't say it did either.
What I said is it allows for some pretty strange things, that, given a mechanism for our brains picking them up, could explain farseeing, telepathy etc.
QM has shown that information can be transmitted between particles with no 'physical' link faster than the speed of light, for instance.
I didn't say QM says anything.
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
You're going to have to re-iterate what you are saying as your use of grammer is preventing me from getting that.
"""
QM has shown that information can be transmitted between particles with no 'physical' link faster than the speed of light, for instance.
"""
And this is just plain wrong. QM says that information can not travel faster than the speed of light. If you want to get into details, I can post an excerpt from a QM book I have (if you understand LaTeX that is).
----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry about the poor grammer, my Brain tends to work quicker than my typing and I'm dyslexic, so things can get a little, *ahem* hard for people to understand sometimes.
My point was:
If there is a mechanism for our brains to exploit them QM allows the possibllity for farseeing and telepathy.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
"""
QM has shown that information can be transmitted between particles with no 'physical' link faster than the speed of light, for instance.
"""
And this is just plain wrong. QM says that information can not travel faster than the speed of light. If you want to get into details, I can post an excerpt from a QM book I have (if you understand LaTeX that is).
Nope, your thinking of special relativity. Special relativity says that the speed of light is the 'speed limit' to the universe. QM as far as I know says nothing about maximum speeds of information, at least.
As a side not General Relativity does allow something to travel between two points in less time than a ray of light would take.
Now as for information traveling faster than the speed of light in QM, I refer you to entanglement. Information about the particle states is being transmitted, although 'classical' infomation can't be transmitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, I had thought the same thing - that so-called "paired" quarks could (theoretically) be separated by large distances, yet when the spin of one of the quarks is altered, the other switches instantaneously. Of course, it's been 5+ years since I've read any QM, and I could be a bit fuzzy.
"Be ashamed to die before you have scored some victory for humanity." -- Horace Mann
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Entangled pairs can know about each others states instantaneously irrespective of distance. This has been proven in the lab.
You can't send meaningful data, as far as I know, but it does open interesting questions as to the nature of this link, and whether it could be harnessed in some way?
Or you could get in to some more bizarre stuff like the EPR bridge (wormholes)...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And the sum is this: 'Intelligent design' is not the issue. It's merely one tool - a wedge - the religious right has selected for their war on civil society.
Wow... That's just the perfect way of putting it! You do definitely have a way with words
Onto the religion thing.
I think that when I look at religion, I must always draw a line between the religion and its implementation.
I noticed something about religions while I studied a number of them. They all have basically the same moral/ethical standards (ie indiscriminant killing is wrong, etc), but they go about getting people to behave "properly" differently.
For instance, using the killing issue above, Christanity puts fear into you by saying, if you do it then you'll burn forever in eternal damnation. The Wiccan rede on the other hand states, "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will" coupled with the law of three. Both don't want you to kill, but one uses fear and the other just states the consequences of the actions and you make the choice.
Now as for implementation, Wicca is rather the same as its religion as it is mostly solitary practitioners or small groups.
Christanity is in large groups with a definite figure head that yearns for more and more control.
For these reasons, I don't take issue with religion. I take issue with organized religion.
----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree entirely Sigma...
Our views on religion are almost identical .
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If I've missed any point you've made, let me know.
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Sorry about the poor grammer, my Brain tends to work quicker than my typing and I'm dyslexic, so things can get a little, *ahem* hard for people to understand sometimes.
I do it to sometimes (though the wife thinks it more than I do).
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
My point was:
If there is a mechanism for our brains to exploit them QM allows the possibllity for farseeing and telepathy.
If/then. You can't just state an if/then, without some sort of evidence/proof. Just because you say it's true, doesn't make it so.
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
"""
QM has shown that information can be transmitted between particles with no 'physical' link faster than the speed of light, for instance.
"""
And this is just plain wrong. QM says that information can not travel faster than the speed of light. If you want to get into details, I can post an excerpt from a QM book I have (if you understand LaTeX that is).
Nope, your thinking of special relativity. Special relativity says that the speed of light is the 'speed limit' to the universe. QM as far as I know says nothing about maximum speeds of information, at least
As a side not General Relativity does allow something to travel between two points in less time than a ray of light would take.
Now as for information traveling faster than the speed of light in QM, I refer you to entanglement. Information about the particle states is being transmitted, although 'classical' infomation can't be transmitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
Sorry dude, it's time to bring out the wife (Theoretical Physicist in Quantum Information Theory).
"""
You're right that the 'speed limit' comes from SR and not QM. Note, though, that the speed of light is not a universial speed limit. It just means that you cannot accelerate something beyond the speed of light. In principle, things can move beyond the speed of light.
But, new research in QM confirms that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. If you think of the experiments called teleportation, there's always a classical information channel included which requires information transfer at sub-luminal velocity.
Now for entanglement. This is quite tricky and any attempt to describe it in plain english will probably lead to misunderstandings. If you read the wikipedia entry carefully though, you will not find the statement that "Information about the particle states is being transmitted" since this is exactly not what is happening. Entanglement tells you something about the information you can extract from a system by measurement on one of its parts. But, to assume that, triggered by the measurement, information is transmitted to another part of the system is not justified. This is usually caused by thinking classically about a quantum system.
Concerning your "my point was...", QM does not exclude farseeing and telepathy. But, it does not predict them either. And there are other parts of our physical/scientific worldview that do not exactly support these things. However, it's a valid wild speculation. It reminds me of Penrose who thinks that since we don't understand the brain, and Quantum Gravity, both must be somehow connected. Interesting, but a little far fetched.
"""
I add: Just because two things aren't understood, doesn't mean they are correlated.
----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I agree entirely Sigma...
Our views on religion are almost identical
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
At least we agree on something
----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
If/then. You can't just state an if/then, without some sort of evidence/proof. Just because you say it's true, doesn't make it so.
Okay, I see what your saying, but your taking my statement out of context. It was a rebuke to the assumption that these things cannot possibly happen because science says so. QM says no such thing, as is stated later in your post, and to my knowledge neither does any other current theory. I go on to say:
"Once even the rising and the setting of the Sun was a supernatural event, the changing of the seasons were controlled by gods, but now they are simply scientifically explained natural phenomena."
Which puts my point a little better no?
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You're right that the 'speed limit' comes from SR and not QM. Note, though, that the speed of light is not a universial speed limit. It just means that you cannot accelerate something beyond the speed of light. In principle, things can move beyond the speed of light.
Yep thats why I put speed limit in quote
. You probably know this already but I'll state it for others:You can't accelerate anything with a finite rest mass beyond the speed of light because of the mass/energy coefficent. When a body accelerates to relatavistic speeds its mass increases, requiring more and more energy to continue accelerating it, and at some point this energy becomes infinte.
In order for a body to travel FTL wouldn't it require that body to have a negative rest mass? Isn't that the basis for the theoretical Tachyon?
As I said General Relativity allows for FTL, as it does not prevent objects from moving between two points in space in less time than it would take a ray of light. The Alcubierre warp takes adavantage of this for instance.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
But, new research in QM confirms that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. If you think of the experiments called teleportation, there's always a classical information channel included which requires information transfer at sub-luminal velocity.
Yep I know about Quantum Teleportation, and I noted in my post classical information cannot be sent.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Now for entanglement. This is quite tricky and any attempt to describe it in plain english will probably lead to misunderstandings. If you read the wikipedia entry carefully though, you will not find the statement that "Information about the particle states is being transmitted" since this is exactly not what is happening. Entanglement tells you something about the information you can extract from a system by measurement on one of its parts. But, to assume that, triggered by the measurement, information is transmitted to another part of the system is not justified. This is usually caused by thinking classically about a quantum system.
As I understood it the Bell Lab had distingiushed that it was not a 'local variable' that allowed the correlations to exist. This led me to believe that there must be some form of information sharing existing between entangled pairs about each others states. If this is wrong I stand corrected, my knowledge of QM is far more 'in passing'.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Concerning your "my point was...", QM does not exclude farseeing and telepathy. But, it does not predict them either. And there are other parts of our physical/scientific worldview that do not exactly support these things. However, it's a valid wild speculation. It reminds me of Penrose who thinks that since we don't understand the brain, and Quantum Gravity, both must be somehow connected. Interesting, but a little far fetched.
I see the point on farseeing, but not necessarilly telepathy. If I may digress for a moment:
The brain kicks out EM radiation, we can pick it up on ECG, so its scientifically proven that it exists, no? Why couldn't someone elses brain pickup the EM signals from anothers brain, and whats to say th
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just wish the whole discussion would be left out of public schools, I don't see it having any real bearing on a students career life outside of being a handy icebreaker topic at the water cooler.
Let parents teach creation if they choose and let professors or someone teach the evolution.
Aux
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HOW DARE YOU BRING US BACK ON TOPIC!
only joking... yeah, not sure you'll find much opposition to that, how could anyone see ID as a science that should be taught?
But then I'm biased...
Really I see our present understanding as a step... the thing is 'most' religous people see their opinion as absolute...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060406231032.htm
Using new techniques for resurrecting ancient genes, scientists have for the first time reconstructed the Darwinian evolution of an apparently "irreducibly complex" molecular system.
How natural selection can drive the evolution of complex molecular systems -- those in which the function of each part depends on its interactions with the other parts--has been an unsolved issue in evolutionary biology. Advocates of Intelligent Design argue that such systems are "irreducibly complex" and thus incompatible with gradual evolution by natural selection.
"Our work demonstrates a fundamental error in the current challenges to Darwinism," said Thornton. "New techniques allowed us to see how ancient genes and their functions evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. We found that complexity evolved piecemeal through a process of Molecular Exploitation -- old genes, constrained by selection for entirely different functions, have been recruited by evolution to participate in new interactions and new functions."
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME