Debunking New World Creationism 201 (Intermediate) -1

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by b11ngoo
And that post was bad manners. Did you look at my point's you quoted ? Or is this the grammer forum. (;(-

Like I said in my post, I normally don't attack spelling, but I made a special case in this instance. I've never seen somebody attack spelling in these forums, so I think it's safe to say this is not the grammer forum. It was funny because your misppelling simply added irony(Imperical evidence, hehe) to your post.

I did look at the points of that you pointed out, and I even spent enough time to look at your "theory of every". I politely decline to address any points of your "Theory of Everything" and I would not care to spend to time debunking it, as no doubt you, as am I, are firm in your beliefs.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Karma or Self Evaluation

Originally posted by Deeviant
I'm sorry, I normally don't attack spelling, but if you can not spell empirical, I doubt you have the ability to actually gather empirical evidence. . . .

Hmm, What experiment have you done. . .

Polly might say it's bad karma.

However, if you are correct, what should we conclude about your ability to experiment?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Polly might say it's bad karma.

However, if you are correct, what should we conclude about your ability to experiment?

Uhh I think the word is actually expirment LW. The ultimate in irony.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Fliption
Uhh I think the word is actually expirment LW. The ultimate in irony.

The act of expiring?

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
The act of expiring?

exactely so. As in his logic is quickly expiring

 

[Deeviant]

You have to admit. Imperical evidence sounds funny.

 

[Polly]

Hello FZ+ and Zero,

How are you? Although you and I must be very different, I have always enjoyed your posts in the forum. As I always say to myself, intelligent, very intelligent men these are.

And don't get me wrong, I am a fan of science and technology and I believe science will have everything figured out in the future. The biggest question for us in the forum though, is will we ever live to see that day.

This is where I must beg to differ from your view. Now in the study of the law, we know that general rules, exceptions to the general rules and exceptions to the exceptions of the general rules are always made in every area of the law to cater for every eventuality in human lives for justice (or its watered down notion of fairness and reasonableness) to be done. My view is, shouldn't science, if it is serious about the quest for truth, in the like spirit make certain exception to the general rule of objective and "empirical" evidence in some special cases? The initial stage of exploring another faith or discipline seems to me to be a perfect candidate in all fairness. For how can anybody judge the veracity of anything before he has a good grasp of it?

In fact this is the very approach that both the group of neuroscientists and psychiatrists and His Holiness the Dalai Lama have been taking in their every two year Mind and Life Conference. His Holiness would listen to the presentation of the speakers on evolution, cognitive psychology, developmental neurobiology, cosmology, AI, QM etc just as the scientists would listen to His Holiness' explanation of "subtle consciouness" and "chakra". Though I dare say the scientists must be mystified and His Holiness completely dumbfound at times by each other, they listen on. This is, in my view, the true spirit of science - the unbiased and objective attempt to understand something completely before pre-empting it, and perhaps the best way to go about finding out the truth about life if we ever aspire to know the answer in our life time.

On a personal level, I have never done well in maths, use to have to memorise all the steps for exams and tests. But I have always thought it is my problem, not the problem of the subject itself or of the mathematicians.

Let us keep talking with and listening to each other.

Warm regards,
Polly

 

[Polly]

It is my understanding that there is at least one major difference between Taoism and Buddhism. Taoism believes men can live forever and as such alchemy was historically a feature of its practice. Buddhism on the other hand aims at liberation from the six realms.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Polly
Hello FZ+ and Zero,


This is where I must beg to differ from your view. Now in the study of the law, we know that general rules, exceptions to the general rules and exceptions to the exceptions of the general rules are always made in every area of the law to cater for every eventuality in human lives for justice (or its watered down notion of fairness and reasonableness) to be done. My view is, shouldn't science, if it is serious about the quest for truth, in the like spirit make certain exception to the general rule of objective and "empirical" evidence in some special cases? The initial stage of exploring another faith or discipline seems to me to be a perfect candidate in all fairness. For how can anybody judge the veracity of anything before he has a good grasp of it?

Polly

As soon as science ceases to require theories to be validated by observation empirical evidence, it ceases to be science.

So yes, there are situations in which it would be right to do exactely as you say, however, doing so would not be considered an application of science but of philosophy.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by b11ngoo
I gave empirical evidence. It was a postulate. The postulate was the geometric point, and how it was created. In turn made it a digit.

This digit is the basis for a post big bang.
Because the digit is processed by the clock that the big bang started.

I stated that since this is considered true. As a postulate. Intelligence that is formed with digits and run by that powerful a processor, can create a life like man. If we evolved by the sea. It makes as much sense to see it happening with the intelligence made by digits, run by a powerful processor, too.

If this intelligence was made and run by the clock of the big bang. It is everywhere the clock is. And can use the clock to create intellectual stimulation, or create stuff.

And since this big bang only needs 4 dimensions to run. The use for infinite space and string theory is useless. And this life the big bang started and is. Is the only God(powerful one). And we are his creation.

This intelligence can hone itself to perfection. It would seem, since it's like A.I. by the use of digits being it's life.

God said he first made wisdom. He's called wisdom by the woman wisdom.
So he made his wisdom, then the woman wisdom. Then they planned and measured the way the digits would be used in the big bang. So we see the moon and sun water food, etc...

I think your just being stubborn. Look at my theory of everything. I redid a few bits. It explains what I'm saying exactly.

To put it quite simply, a postulate is not empirical evidence. I will restrain myself from commenting on your postulate's validity.

 

[Polly]

Originally posted by Deeviant
As soon as science ceases to require theories to be validated by observation empirical evidence, it ceases to be science.

So yes, there are situations in which it would be right to do exactely as you say, however, doing so would not be considered an application of science but of philosophy.

Hello Deeviant,

Thank you for your reply.

I am not at all asking for any evidence-validating observation to be ruled out. No no no, that would be unfair. In fact one of the things that His Holiness and the scientists agreed to do in the conference was the observation of the energy level of a monk in deep meditation. Having said so however one must also make allowance for the fact that the eastern practice has not been developed to fit into western scientific analysis and experiments do take time to be properly thought out and put together, perhaps more so when data involves "subtle consciousness".

So you see things are being done. We do want to advance our claim from testimony and anecdote to evidence and we do want to be convincing as a science. All I am saying is, in the mean time, shall we listen to each other with an open mind and give each other the benefit of doubt?

Yours sincerely,
Polly

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Polly
Hello Deeviant,

So you see things are being done. We do want to advance our claim from testimony and anecdote to evidence and we do want to be convincing as a science. All I am saying is, in the mean time, shall we listen to each other with an open mind and give each other the benefit of doubt?

Yours sincerely,
Polly

In this case I would warmly agree.

 

[Les Sleeth]

[zz)]

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Polly
Hello FZ+ and Zero,

How are you? Although you and I must be very different, I have always enjoyed your posts in the forum. As I always say to myself, intelligent, very intelligent men these are.

And don't get me wrong, I am a fan of science and technology and I believe science will have everything figured out in the future. The biggest question for us in the forum though, is will we ever live to see that day.

This is where I must beg to differ from your view. Now in the study of the law, we know that general rules, exceptions to the general rules and exceptions to the exceptions of the general rules are always made in every area of the law to cater for every eventuality in human lives for justice (or its watered down notion of fairness and reasonableness) to be done. My view is, shouldn't science, if it is serious about the quest for truth, in the like spirit make certain exception to the general rule of objective and "empirical" evidence in some special cases? The initial stage of exploring another faith or discipline seems to me to be a perfect candidate in all fairness. For how can anybody judge the veracity of anything before he has a good grasp of it?

In fact this is the very approach that both the group of neuroscientists and psychiatrists and His Holiness the Dalai Lama have been taking in their every two year Mind and Life Conference. His Holiness would listen to the presentation of the speakers on evolution, cognitive psychology, developmental neurobiology, cosmology, AI, QM etc just as the scientists would listen to His Holiness' explanation of "subtle consciouness" and "chakra". Though I dare say the scientists must be mystified and His Holiness completely dumbfound at times by each other, they listen on. This is, in my view, the true spirit of science - the unbiased and objective attempt to understand something completely before pre-empting it, and perhaps the best way to go about finding out the truth about life if we ever aspire to know the answer in our life time.

On a personal level, I have never done well in maths, use to have to memorise all the steps for exams and tests. But I have always thought it is my problem, not the problem of the subject itself or of the mathematicians.

Let us keep talking with and listening to each other.

Warm regards,
Polly

Hi, thanks for sucking up, now it is time to tear you to shreds, ok?

You've got the whole idea of science backwards in your head. We never start with an explanation, and then look for signs. We look for signs, measure them, and then try to figure out why those signs occured. I don't have an open mind to "chakras" or "subtle consciousness", and I don't need to ever have an open mind to that sort of thing. What I am open to is evidence, even if that evidence contradicts my preconcieved notions of the world.Show me something based on some "holy" principle that I can measure, and I'll measure it as fairly and accurately as circumstances and equipment allow. For instance, show me someone levitating, and I don't have to believe anything...I'll be able to see it with my own eyes. Show me someone who can generate some sortof previously unknown energy, and can use it to perform an otherwise impossible feat, and it won't matter what I think of his philosophy, his results will speak for him.

Until that time, I am close-minded to teh idea, but always, always open to new evidence that might change my mind.

 

[Polly]

Ha ha you saw through me. Yes I am beginning to see now science is not unlike a court of law which promises precedural justice rather than substantive justice (no offence intended whatsoever to judges and scientists alike). I guess those of us who want to convince the scientists just have to work harder on the evidence. Thanks.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Polly
Ha ha you saw through me. Yes I am beginning to see now science is not unlike a court of law which promises precedural justice rather than substantive justice (no offence intended whatsoever to judges and scientists alike). I guess those of us who want to convince the scientists just have to work harder on the evidence. Thanks.

Hey, no problem...lawyers often have a hard time with the scientific evidenciary standard, versus the legal standard. I guess it is the difference between using data to sue someone, and using data to build a bridge that cars are going to drive on.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
We never start with an explanation, and then look for signs. We look for signs, measure them, and then try to figure out why those signs occured. . . . What I am open to is evidence, even if that evidence contradicts my preconcieved notions of the world.Show me something based on some "holy" principle that I can measure, and I'll measure it as fairly and accurately as circumstances and equipment allow. For instance, show me someone levitating, and I don't have to believe anything...I'll be able to see it with my own eyes. Show me someone who can generate some sortof previously unknown energy, and can use it to perform an otherwise impossible feat, and it won't matter what I think of his philosophy, his results will speak for him.

Until that time, I am close-minded to teh idea, but always, always open to new evidence that might change my mind.

You enter discusions with certain assumptions already in place. One assumption of yours is a common one here at PF, and that is the assumption that everything worthwhile which exists has some observable aspect to it which can be measured. Logically derived from that assumption is that if it can't be measured it isn't worthwhile and probably doesn't exist.

That assumption is why your statement "What I am open to is evidence, even if that evidence contradicts my preconcieved notions of the world" is not true. No one has proven that evidence must be measurable to be evidence; all that's proven is that measureable evidence gives us measurable facts.

When I see a mind with such strong filters in place, I suspect it is for the purpose of rejecting everything which isn't what it wants to hear. So it seems to me that what your "openness" amounts to is a way to keep believing what you want to believe; it is not a true avenue for a two-way discussion about the nature of reality (as you imply).

 

[Nereid]

LW Sleeth wrote: *SNIP
One assumption of yours [Zero]is a common one here at PF, and that is the assumption that everything worthwhile which exists has some observable aspect to it which can be measured.
*SNAP

So, logically, everything else would seem to be EITHER:
1) worthwhile things which are observable but not measurable, OR
2) worthwhile things which are not observable

Taking the second one first, if it's not observable, how can we have a sensible discussion about it?

Then the first one, what sort of things could these be? Do you have examples?

 

[Zero]

LOL, of course evidence can be measured in some way, shape, or form, or else it isn't evidence. I don't see where the confusion lies. What I do see is that people like to denigrate rational thinking, which is a shame.

Now, if someone says "I believe in X because I feel Y", there is nothing there for me to say, except that I disagree. On the other hand, when someone says "X is a fact about the world which is true for everyone", then they have to back it up with some real measurable evidence. It is just that simple and rational, and I don't understand why people have such a hard time dealing with that.

There is a difference in the quality of certain claims, depending on context. If you make the claim "I feel that there is a guardian angel watching over me", there is no need for evidence(although I might ask anyway) because that is describing a feeling. If you say "Angels absolutely exist", then you have to show evidence beyond your opinion. After all, I feel like the darned traffic lights are out to get me when I am running late for work, but if I claim there is an actual conspiracy of lights against me, I'd be rightly treated like a psychopath.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nereid
So, logically, everything else would seem to be EITHER:
1) worthwhile things which are observable but not measurable, OR
2) worthwhile things which are not observable

Taking the second one first, if it's not observable, how can we have a sensible discussion about it?

Then the first one, what sort of things could these be? Do you have examples?

To me, those sorts of discussions have the same value as discussing which flavor of Jello is the best...completely subjective, completely opiniion-based, and fun but mostly worthless.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Zero
To me, those sorts of discussions have the same value as discussing which flavor of Jello is the best...completely subjective, completely opiniion-based, and fun but mostly worthless.

Did Zero just agree with what Nereid said (sorta), or is it far too late and Nereid should go get a good night's sleep? [?]

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Nereid
So, logically, everything else would seem to be EITHER:
1) worthwhile things which are observable but not measurable, OR
2) worthwhile things which are not observable

Taking the second one first, if it's not observable, how can we have a sensible discussion about it?

Then the first one, what sort of things could these be? Do you have examples?

The issue was "observable and measurable." The usual meaning of observation is the use of the senses to detect information about something. Measureable is self-explanatory.

Now, we do have an inner life, aspects of which are neither observable by the senses nor measurable. Is it real? Is any of it worthwhile?

My point is, the standard of "observable and measureable" appies to external objects, and normally that which has mass. It has not been shown to be an effective way to evaluate internal qualities of consciousness, for instance, which do not appear to have mass.

Then you ask, "if it's not observable, how can we have a sensible discussion about it?" There is that assumption I was talking about. You have it in place already, it is part of the demand of how to contemplate things. It is my opinion that part of what goes on with the physicalists is they frame every debate in terms that eliminate all non-physical issues. How can that be done? Why, insist all aspects of reality to be discussed be observable and measurable. Also effective is to characterize all human inner sensitivity as hormonal or emotional; that's because the aspects of reality some of us want to consider possible are only known through the sensitivity of one's inner being.

Can one have a sensible discussion about that? Not if external proof is the goal. Personally, I don't consider the internal stuff provable to others. However, with open minds and sensitivity undulled, I do consider it possible show inner stuff is reasonable.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
To me, those sorts of discussions have the same value as discussing which flavor of Jello is the best...completely subjective, completely opiniion-based, and fun but mostly worthless.

You continuously forget or refuse to accept that nothing you experience and know is other than subjective. There are no other possibilities for consciousness, humans have no "objective" experience. That is a fact and undisputable, so why not accept it once and for all? The question is, what sorts of subjective experiences are you open to?

Every experience you have is the result of your sensitivity to information. You can say you are only open to that information which comes through your senses, which can made provable to others. Others will say they are also open to information that originates within. Sensitivity is sensitivity, but you seem to insist that that which cannot be extenalized and made provable to others has no validity. That might be the state of your inner life, but it isn't necessarily the case with everyone.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nereid
Did Zero just agree with what Nereid said (sorta), or is it far too late and Nereid should go get a good night's sleep? [?]

I dunno, what time is it there? It is 2 in the afternoon here, which means it is almost nap-time...

 

[Zero]

Last time I checked, nothing originates completely inside of your brain except you. We can discuss "you" all you want, and there's a certain pleasure in it. However, claiming to be able to determine the external without consulting external evidence, simple doesn't make any sense to me.

Why don't you tell me an example of what you consider "internal" that has some sort of existence, and we can discuss that specifically.

 

[Iacchus32]

Is consciousness measurable? And in what way is it material? It certainly is aware of that which is physical but, does that make it physical? And where does it go when we sleep? It's certainly not aware of any physical reality at this point. And where do we go when we dream? Why do dreams seem to take on a reality of their own? Are dreams to be considered material as well? Or, is there another possibility that we seemed to have overlooked, that we have an immaterial part of ourselves called "a soul?" And why is it so irrational to even consider such a possibility?

So here it is we have this questionable nature of consciousness and yet, the very thing which allows us to measure anything at all ... Go figure?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Last time I checked, nothing originates completely inside of your brain except you. We can discuss "you" all you want, and there's a certain pleasure in it. However, claiming to be able to determine the external without consulting external evidence, simple doesn't make any sense to me.

Why don't you tell me an example of what you consider "internal" that has some sort of existence, and we can discuss that specifically.

I am trying hard to understand why we can't agree about things that seem very obvious to me. I can't understand why, for instance, you said, "claiming to be able to determine the external without consulting external evidence, simply doesn't make any sense to me." I have consistantly said (in past threads) that I think information about externals must come from externals. So, if you think I am trying to argue one can know external things without reference to the external object/event one is trying to understand, that isn't so.

I am saying that there are a set of internal conditions present inside you that exist independent of what's external. You already know this because those conditions do not cease to exist when you are deprived of external input.

Now, have you ever taken the time to do nothing but pay attention to those basic conditions? I mean, turn your attention away from external input, and then focus on the neutral sensitivity inside you that waits at the ready to respond to stuff? That is a "you" most people know very little about because they are so busy thinking and being stimulated by externals to feel it.

And then, how does it feel to directly experience that sensitivity anyway? Is it worth focusing on? Is there a benefit? Trying to answer that question is where I think our discussion breaks down because you seem convinced only externals are worth experiencing, and there is no possible way for me to "prove" the value of getting to know that unfettered self.

 

[Deeviant]

What really separates your internal from external? If they were on a completely different level of existence, then life would be quite hard without a physical world in which to sustain us.

So we know that our inner self, conciousness, soul or whatever the heck you want to call it is similar enough with the physical world to allow them to co-exist, suggesting to two would have similar rules governing them(laws of physics).

Even if there is some sort of untapped aspect of the human psyche, does it really require some sort of mythological power to explain?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Deeviant
What really separates your internal from external? If they were on a completely different level of existence, then life would be quite hard without a physical world in which to sustain us.

What separates light from space it travels through? Space does not seem to need light to exist, yet it accommodates light quite well.

Originally posted by Deeviant
So we know that our inner self, conciousness, soul or whatever the heck you want to call it is similar enough with the physical world to allow them to co-exist, suggesting to two would have similar rules governing them(laws of physics).

No, all you know is that consciousness can handle its interaction with physicalness. Anyway, why assume if they do have something in common it will be the laws of physics? Maybe the laws of physics are a concentration of the more subtle thing.

Originally posted by Deeviant
Even if there is some sort of untapped aspect of the human psyche, does it really require some sort of mythological power to explain?

Who said anything about a mythological power? To tell you the truth, I am not really trying to explain the how or why of the untapped thing. I have been trying to say that an untapped thing exists, that it can be directly experienced, and that it can never be investigated by any of the observation/measurement methods used to study the physical world.

 

[Zero]

Actually, we don't exist without external input; literally, your brain doesn't function without learning from the external world. So, there is no way to claim that anything inside you doesn't come from outside first.