Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The Covert Messiah


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Covert Messiah Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/5/2013 6:50:23 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
So I was saying was that my personal experiences supported the validity of a certain claim. I'm not claiming that my experiences proved the claim.

I didn't see that coming.....

In your world does knowledge even exist?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I'm open to the possibility that my interpretation of my experiences is erroneous, though I am yet to see a more compelling interpretation that the one I currently hold.

You are forwarding the obvious interpretation of your experiences, I'll agree there. The problem is that these experiences are hallucinations and you're not open to that documented reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Equally, there is no honest way that my statement can be construed as making a "claim of knowledge".

Only as long as you don't know what the word knowledge means.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 461
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/5/2013 9:21:27 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Godel's Theorems proved certain limits apply to logical systems. Theoretically*, science is system structured and guided by logic.

Taking a whack at this and relying shamelessly on this YouTube presentation of a lecture given at the University of Sydney by Mark Colyvan.

Mathematics and Logic are much like chess because their manipulations are governed by a set of rules. The doing of each requires strict adherence to the rules. So they are consistent systems. Gödel, as I struggle to understand it is a paradox that shows consistent systems have "blind spots."

The scientific method is a collection of strategies whose main consistency is the requirement for some fashion of reality check. In math and logic human thinking is forced into a maze of algorithmic imperatives just like a computer program. But human beings don't think logically in real world operations. They deal with probabilities, hunches, biases, insights, etc. These frailties underlie or corrupt real world science. A variety of methods are devised in the search for a reality check, some forms of evidence more acceptable than others, much creativity in the design of experiments and observations. Difficult for me to accept that real world science methodology is consistent and therefore subject to Gödel.

I agree there are limitations and flaws in doing real world science. Because there are flaws in human thinking. The scientific method provides some self-correcting strategies for dealing with the flaws in human thinking, but is not always successful. To a great extent due to the emergence of Big Science with big money, big committees, and big instruments. Por ejemplo: I am not enamoured of the Higgs Field as an explanation of inertia. Somewhere I saw an analogy to different types of fish reacting differently to water. So, it depends on how the particles react in the Higgs Field. Thus, inertia depends on the particles (fish) in the field. Reminds me of the quest for the ether. Where are Michaelson and Morely when I need them? So what will be proven by finding a piece (boson) of the Higgs Field? And who can afford another Cern collider anyway? I have a similar gripe with climate change science by committee and super computers. Is it any wonder that us wee folk are more easily persuaded by pseudoscience and superstitions? I have no surprise that science is seen negatively through the framework of scientism (even though I think the latter is a throw back to criticisms of Positivism) The God Particle?? Come on, man!!!

It is foolish to believe that science is unlimited in its quest for knowledge. But, it has a record of adding to our understanding of ourselves and our environments, and more importantly a record of expanding our view and overcoming limitations. I know of no other method that can match that history. As Dawkins said: it works. Well, he was less polite.

Godel? The relevance escapes me.

Best . . .




< Message edited by vincentML -- 11/5/2013 9:22:12 AM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 462
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/5/2013 10:25:37 AM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I'm open to the possibility that my interpretation of my experiences is erroneous, though I am yet to see a more compelling interpretation that the one I currently hold.


You are forwarding the obvious interpretation of your experiences, I'll agree there. The problem is that these experiences are hallucinations and you're not open to that documented reality.



Begs a question. Are all "these experiences" hallucinations? You appear to be giving a guarantee that they are; that documented reality. Has anything ever been (scientifically) documented to be ~real yet later shown to be erroneous? All it takes is one.

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 463
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/5/2013 3:19:03 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
Has anything ever been (scientifically) documented to be ~real yet later shown to be erroneous? All it takes is one.


Has any supernatural anecdote ever been shown to be correct?

There isn't even one.

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 464
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/5/2013 4:21:50 PM   
deathtothepixies


Posts: 683
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

But I'm sufficiently convinced that individual consciousness, although normally coincident with the physical body, can nevertheless function independently and separate from it.

what do you have other than what you think or hope to make that statement credible?

Well nothing, of course. How could I?

K.


Thanks

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 465
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/5/2013 5:25:03 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

Thanks

You're very welcome, and thank you too. I'm always grateful when those who are blessed with a knowledge of the True reality are kind enough to drop into threads like this bringing light to the unfortunate who live in darkness.

K.


(in reply to deathtothepixies)
Profile   Post #: 466
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/5/2013 5:32:41 PM   
deathtothepixies


Posts: 683
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline 		I am not
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

blessed with a knowledge of the True reality

K.

[/font][/size]


which is why I keep asking for proof, I want to know what has sufficiently convinced you that individual consciousness, although normally coincident with the physical body, can nevertheless function independently and separate from it.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 467
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/5/2013 5:39:50 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
DO

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

asking for proof

 Ignore (everything)

LOOP




< Message edited by Kirata -- 11/5/2013 5:53:26 PM >

(in reply to deathtothepixies)
Profile   Post #: 468
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/5/2013 5:44:39 PM   
deathtothepixies


Posts: 683
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline 		loop indeed, I ask for something that has you sufficiently convinced that individual consciousness, although normally coincident with the physical body, can nevertheless function independently and separate from it and all you keep doing is posting links to me asking for something that has you sufficiently convinced that individual consciousness, although normally coincident with the physical body, can nevertheless function independently and separate from it.

So what exactly is it that has you sufficiently convinced that individual consciousness, although normally coincident with the physical body, can nevertheless function independently and separate from it?



edited for bad copy/paste, not to change the meaning



< Message edited by deathtothepixies -- 11/5/2013 5:52:41 PM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 469
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/5/2013 5:45:56 PM   
deathtothepixies


Posts: 683
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

I am not
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

blessed with a knowledge of the True reality

which is why I keep asking for proof

DO
   Ignore (everything)
LOOP



ah ha, the old message edited by Kirata trick....nice

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 470
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/5/2013 5:57:28 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

loop indeed

Yep, yep, yep. But hey, as long as you're having fun that's all that's important.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4573290
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4573861

Stop me when those start to look familiar. We're up to at least three times now.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 11/5/2013 6:12:46 PM >

(in reply to deathtothepixies)
Profile   Post #: 471
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/5/2013 9:34:24 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

I am not
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

blessed with a knowledge of the True reality

K.

[/font][/size]


which is why I keep asking for proof, I want to know what has sufficiently convinced you that individual consciousness, although normally coincident with the physical body, can nevertheless function independently and separate from it.


I was going to venture that in my own case, my personal experience is the reason why I feel that consciousness may exist beyond the limits of the physical body. However GotSteel, who knows absolutely nothing about my particular experiences, has kindly assured me that my personal experiences are "hallucinations".....

It is such a comfort to know that out there in the almost limitless domain of cyberspace, there is a disembodied voice telling me what happened to me, a voice that (miracles of miracles!!!) knows more about me than I know.

Apparently this is not an "hallicunation" or magical thinking and I'm sure GotSteel is far too modest to call himself a guardian angel. Nonetheless ...... Where do I pay my tithe?

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 11/5/2013 10:05:55 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to deathtothepixies)
Profile   Post #: 472
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/6/2013 12:40:44 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Godel's Theorems proved certain limits apply to logical systems. Theoretically*, science is system structured and guided by logic.


It is foolish to believe that science is unlimited in its quest for knowledge. But, it has a record of adding to our understanding of ourselves and our environments, and more importantly a record of expanding our view and overcoming limitations. I know of no other method that can match that history. As Dawkins said: it works. Well, he was less polite.



There is very little in your post that I could take issue with. Even your observation about Dawkins politeness or lack thereof. Dawkins doesn't come across as the most modest, politest or most subtle of people.

Certainly I agree that generally science is self correcting methodology, and it does work, usually work very well, most of the time. I would point out that science, as a research method is far more suitable and successful in some areas than others. I find it sad that these types of discussions here tend to end up as Science vs Religion arguments. I don't see this as either necessary or productive.
.
With respect to the issue of consciousness, which is at the very heart of this discussion, the questions in dispute here are:
*Is the scientific method the only possible and/or admissible research methodology to generate a deep accurate understanding of consciousness?
*Are the overall limits on the scientific method applicable or relevant in this area?
My answers to these questions have been outlined in detail already previously.

However it is not clear to me why those answers are being interpreted by some as an attack on Science. To acknowledge the limits of Science is not to insist on eliminating Science as a handy research tool. It is not to declare Science irrelevant or cover for a full frontal assault on Science . It is not an excuse for validating any crackpot superstition.

From where I sit, it is a recognition of things the way they are, and a realisation that if we are ever going to arrive at a profound understanding of consciousness, we may need to look in some places where Science cannot go.

_____________________________



(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 473
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/6/2013 2:37:08 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
However it is not clear to me why those answers are being interpreted by some as an attack on Science.

Because it is?

You made claim that is certainly within the realm of scientific investigation Kirata has helpfully trotted out various attempts at exploring the phenomena. You have started making claims that Gödel says that we cannot understand the brain consciousness relationship with absolutely no idea what Gödel actually meant or how it could not possibly apply in this situation.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 474
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/6/2013 3:08:39 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline 		Yyyyyaaaawwwwwnnnnn

_____________________________



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 475
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/6/2013 3:09:34 AM   
Dramb


Posts: 1
Joined: 11/4/2013
Status: offline 		Hey

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 476
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/6/2013 3:13:55 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I find it sad that these types of discussions here tend to end up as Science vs Religion arguments. I don't see this as either necessary or productive.

With respect to the issue of consciousness, which is at the very heart of this discussion, the questions in dispute here are:
*Is the scientific method the only possible and/or admissible research methodology to generate a deep accurate understanding of consciousness?
*Are the overall limits on the scientific method applicable or relevant in this area?
My answers to these questions have been outlined in detail already previously.


I don't think it has to be an argument between religion and science, but if there are any limitations here, I think it has to do with our technology and inability to measure this thing called "consciousness." We've come quite a long way over the past 50-100 years in developing technologies to see just what's going inside the human body: X-rays, MRIs, CT scans, EKGs, EEGs, etc. Religion has been around for thousands of years, but science has only barely gotten started trying to figure this stuff out.

To put it plainly, if there's any dispute between religion and science, I think we can all agree that religion started this dispute. So, if those who favor science over religion tend to come off a bit harsh towards religion and spirituality, there are good reasons why.

quote:


However it is not clear to me why those answers are being interpreted by some as an attack on Science. To acknowledge the limits of Science is not to insist on eliminating Science as a handy research tool. It is not to declare Science irrelevant or cover for a full frontal assault on Science . It is not an excuse for validating any crackpot superstition.

From where I sit, it is a recognition of things the way they are, and a realisation that if we are ever going to arrive at a profound understanding of consciousness, we may need to look in some places where Science cannot go.


But how can we look at places where science cannot go? If science can't see it, how can anyone else? Whatever we do, it will remain in the area of conjecture and speculation. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as long as it's truthfully labeled as such.

I've had a similar experience which might be perceived as an "out of body experience," although I can't honestly say that I know what it was. It was probably a hallucination, but I can't say for certain.



(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 477
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/6/2013 6:32:01 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline 		Here's the thing Tweak, your claims easily testable. This has been explained to you:

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle If it's real then you should be able to make an observation that would be physically impossible. Do that and you get $1 million from the JREF.


Heck this claims testable in the privacy of your own home. This isn't an area where we need to give up on science and "look within ourselves" so you can't expect that argument to be found compelling. There's no need to try and carve out a special exception for your easily testable claim using personal attacks and a creationist apologetic, just go test it.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 478
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/6/2013 11:11:30 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

*Is the scientific method the only possible and/or admissible research methodology to generate a deep accurate understanding of consciousness?
*Are the overall limits on the scientific method applicable or relevant in this area?

Given that we have been discussing OBE and NDE I thought the issue has been the locus of consciousness not a "deep accurate understanding of consciousness." You yourself have referred to the locus of consciousness. Are you now moving the goal posts? Neuroscience has measured the depths of consciousness but not the subjective quality. (Recall the discussion on orgasm) There are a number of subjective experiences that will probably forever be beyond the scientific method except science can show that they originate in the brain is the best explanation for them. Here we can turn to literature, music and visual arts as vehicles for discourse on those subjective experiences.

With respect to the overall limits of the scientific method let me repeat without being a foolishly optimistic utopian that science has a remarkable history of pushing back those limits as they are known in any age. So, who is to say?

quote:

However it is not clear to me why those answers are being interpreted by some as an attack on Science. To acknowledge the limits of Science is not to insist on eliminating Science as a handy research tool. It is not to declare Science irrelevant or cover for a full frontal assault on Science . It is not an excuse for validating any crackpot superstition.

The Discovery Institute, which is fully committed to placing creationism into the biology classroom (now under the guise of ID) has enunciated a "wedge strategy." It has been their attempt to drive wedges into Darwinian theory as a way to get their agenda established. Forty to fifty present of Americans disclaim Evolution but assert the reality of the Devil as Evil incarnate. In 21st Century America science is perceived as evil. Add this current situation onto the past four hundred years of ecclesiastical pushback against science (after the good fathers and pastors were done with burning witches) and you will start to see why some science-philes are extremely sensitive to any perceived attempt to diminish science. There is a war on science from the religious right in America so our guard is constantly up which explains why Dawkins is rude, Harris is more stylishly aggressive and into mindful meditation in a big way, Dennett uses too many damn words to make his point, and sadly Hitchens has passed. But Christopher now has the answers!!

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 479
RE: The Covert Messiah - 11/6/2013 2:11:12 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

There is a war on science from the religious right in America...

Two problems arise coincident with the effort to oppose religion. The first is that it all too commonly manifests in attacks on persons; as deluded, ignorant, hallucinating, or worse. The second is that religion, qua religion, is not opposed to science. So while the effort enjoys styling itself as a noble endeavor in the service of all that is good and true, it is in practice more often than not just a self-serving excuse for running around making shit up and insulting people.

Kudos for being specific. Unfortunately, you are the exception.

K.


(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 480
Page:   <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Covert Messiah Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109