An idea worth censoring: 'The Science Delusion'

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by Kashai
Given the existence of God, thoughts resulted in the creation of reality can you prove otherwise? If you cannot then how can you define yourself as a realist?

Any thoughts?

Asking for proof of a negative? Can you prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create us all with a touch of his noodly appendages? No.

Ramen.

Some have claimed there are inconsistencies with the assertion of creation by FSM, but the Gospel of the FSM addresses some of these inconsistencies quite well, so it really is hard to disprove:

Source: The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, page 51

Five Thousand Years Ago: The Beginning
THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER created the universe
and a bunch of planets, including Earth. No one except
Himself was around to see it, but we suspect it was rather
dull. The initial creation, obviously, must have been spectacular, but He
then spent the next ten to one hundred years painstakingly preparing
the universe to appear older than it actually is. Photons were placed individually,
en route to earth, ostensibly emitted millions of years ago
from stars across the galaxy. In reality, we know that each photon was
divinely placed and red-shifted1 appropriately to make the universe appear
to be billions of years old. We are still finding His camouflage
methods at work today; each time scientists discover apparent evidence
of a billions-of-years-old universe, we can be assured that this is just
more elaborate preparation He put in place.

Earth was created in approximately 0.062831853 seconds and was
similarly disguised to appear much older. We can be certain that the
FSM spent even more time preparing the earth, because, being all-knowing,
He was well aware that soon enough there would be nosy people
poking around everywhere. Known as "scientists," these nosy
people have a sick need—probably sexually motivated—to figure out
how things work, and so it was even more important that our apparent
reality be well designed to hide the truth.

Actually I find much more logical consistency in these creation claims than I do in the "quantum consciousness" claims, so while it's hard to disprove either one, the FSM creation actually stands up to scrutiny better. All the evidence about how the Earth and universe appears to be much older than 5000 years old is explained.

In contrast, nothing in quantum consciousness theory explains the claim in the video Kashai posted that quantum entanglement postulated across a 25 nanometer distance within a microtubule can also be manifested across a distance over ten million times greater than this within a brain, especially when noted scientists have pointed out the problems with this idea, especially decoherence.

Originally posted by mbkennel
It is unwise to make an unsupported analogy about computing hardware and then believe it has anything useful to say about biology which is profoundly different.

Ah.. How exactly are biology and computing hardware different? I've seen a bunch of arguments in here on how we could recreate someone by just putting the right connections together. We are mechanistic, except when we aren't. We are like computers, except when we aren't. We are deterministic, except when we aren't. Always interesting to see that there are always exceptions when it's convenient.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


I'll get back to you in a couple of days we're burning the midnight oil on the customer equipment and I won't get a break till then, it's hard to reply in detail on a cell phone.

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by mbkennel
It is unwise to make an unsupported analogy about computing hardware and then believe it has anything useful to say about biology which is profoundly different.

Ah.. How exactly are biology and computing hardware different? I've seen a bunch of arguments in here on how we could recreate someone by just putting the right connections together.

I haven't seen that argument about recreating someone, who said that?

But we have already replaced humans with robots in many places. I've been in those factories where there's not a single human worker left...completely automated, except for the worker who repairs the robots, and the robots generally do a better job than the humans did since they are more consistent, don't get tired, etc.

Regarding the difference, isn't self-repair an evident difference of biological versus non-biological machines?

That's not to say it's impossible to design machines with some self repair capability, but it's a lot easier to just have a person fix them than to have them try to repair themselves. Someday though, who knows? Machines might do that too. They might even reproduce and create other machines, copies of themselves. They are already producing other machines, though usually not copies of themselves, but they could be programmed to do that I suppose.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Well sure. Repairing is one thing, but that doesn't restore information. If your hard drive breaks down, you can let it be fixed, but the information that was lost in the process, you won't it back, despite it being fixed. In general, the idea that our minds and memories are only in the brain, gives us a lot of problems in certain areas, where if we assume that it's not limited to the brain, we still have problems, but a lot less of them...

Let me throw this thread in here, regarding a psychic parrot. Anyone can feel free to explain it.
Psychic parrot

And of course, we have this particular anomaly, if you view it from the perspective of materialism:
Top neurosurgeon ‘spent six days in heaven’ during a coma

reply to post by vasaga

The brain is complicated, but the idea of repairing damaged connections to areas where information is stored, or even building new pathways to those areas, is not such a complicated idea, so I have no idea why you find that difficult.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by vasaga

 

The brain is complicated, but the idea of repairing damaged connections to areas where information is stored, or even building new pathways to those areas, is not such a complicated idea, so I have no idea why you find that difficult.

You're assuming that the area where information is stored was undamaged, and I'm clearly talking about information that has been lost, not just the pathways. Just... Never mind....

reply to post by vasaga


What do you get from believing or positing that the mind exists outside of the brain? You know that doesnt immediately seem like it would be correct. So im wondering what motivates you or leads you to believe that it is the truth. Why cant the mind exist in the brain according to you? (I dont know if you saw my response to the one reason you thought it couldnt, but thats still my response)

reply to post by ImaFungi


I don't necessarily believe it's the truth. I just see it as an equal possibility of it being extended beyond the brain. Thus I strongly oppose the paradigm that we already 'know' it's just a by-product of our brain activity. There's such a thing called 'the hard problem of consciousness for a reason. Science doesn't really have anything to show what mind, consciousness, awareness, experience and so on really are. They are just assumed to be by-products of our brain due to the materialistic perspective, and thus the research into what they actually are barely gets done. Which is exactly what Sheldrake argues.

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

I don't necessarily believe it's the truth. I just see it as an equal possibility of it being extended beyond the brain. Thus I strongly oppose the paradigm that we already 'know' it's just a by-product of our brain activity. There's such a thing called 'the hard problem of consciousness for a reason. Science doesn't really have anything to show what mind, consciousness, awareness, experience and so on really are. They are just assumed to be by-products of our brain due to the materialistic perspective, and thus the research into what they actually are barely gets done. Which is exactly what Sheldrake argues.

Ok I see. I think it comes back to the idea of energy and matter. Its a very tough topic, is the brain like an engine which churns out consciousness, matter is constantly broken down and burned as energy which fuels the flame of consciousness? Have you ever been knocked unconscious, or gotten anesthesia? By knocking the hardware hard enough, or by administering chemicals which 'block or turn off?' areas of the hardware associated with the mechanism of conscious awareness, consciousness, or you, can be turned off. I personally dont know if its necessary to resort to consciousness existing outside of the brain, when it has not fully been comprehended how consciousness could exist at all, what it could be, what could be causing it, what is the brain doing to produce and maintain it, how does it work. After that effort has been exhausted, when we have turned over every stone with the greatest scientific precision and study, and the greatest minds to theorize what consciousness actually is and how the brain can create it and use it, how the molecules and physical environment could have built and/or harnessed the potential of consciousness, then I think maybe research and those thoughtful efforts could be broadened to, what if consciousness exists outside of the mind, with that hypothesis, I wouldnt even know where to begin to study or think or look, I dont know, doesnt seem likely to me.

Russell Targ speaks out

“In cancelling the TEDx event in West Hollywood, it appears that I was accused of ‘using the guise of science’ to further spooky claims (or some such),” said physicist Dr. Russell Targ in “The debate about Rupert Sheldrake’s talk” on TED Conversations. (Targ was/is scheduled to speak on “The Reality of ESP: A Physicist’s Proof of Psychic Abilities” at ExTEDWestHollywood.)

“People on [the TED Conversations] blog have asked what I was going to talk about . That’s easily answered. I was co-founder of a 23-year research program investigating psychic abilities at Stanford Research Institute. We were doing research and applications for the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, Air Force and Army Intelligence, NASA, and others.

“In this $25 million program we used ‘remote viewing’ to find a downed Russian bomber in North Africa, for which President Carter commended us. We found a kidnapped U.S. general in Italy, and the kidnap car that snatched Patricia Hearst. We looked in on the US hostages in Iran, and predicted the immanent release of Richard Queen, who was soon sent to Germany. We described a Russian weapons factory in Siberia, leading to a U.S. congressional investigation about weakness in U.S/ security, etc.

“We published our scientific findings in Nature, Proc. IEEE, Proc. AAAS, and Proc. American Institute of Physics. I thought a TED audience would find this recently declassified material interesting. And no physics would be harmed in my presentation.”

reply to post by BlueMule


From your source:

Pseudoscience’ is their phrase of denigration. When I said that Marianne didn’t fit in the science category, they mentioned a concern lest speakers talk about spirituality. When I assured them that her talk would not be about God or the like (?), they challenged my knowing that speakers weren’t going to veer off into subjects like that.

Why do they fear a convergence of spirituality and science? If spirituality exist, then truth cannot be found without it. By forbidding spirituality, they are effectively forbidding true science.

Truth = Everything
Truth ≠ Everything - Spirituality



Dr. Targ is essentially telling them, "look, it's real. you want to know reality - I have some extra pieces to the puzzle".

If they do not want to know the truth, they shouldn't practice science.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
Why do they fear a convergence of spirituality and science?

Science doesn't encompass everything, nor does it try. It merely encompasses the objective. Some things are subjective.

Truth = Everything
Truth ≠ Everything - Spirituality

If you're trying to put science in context, I'd rewrite that and say science covers the objective:

Everything = objective + subjective

The objective is covered by science. The subjective isn't. Two different people can pick two different religions, and science can't tell them which is right, if either one is.

This also raises the question of how you determine what's true. The two different people who picked two different religions may each feel that their religion is the one true religion. How do we know which is right, if it's subjective instead of objective? Science can't say without objective measures, and the truth is hard to determine without them. It doesn't mean there isn't a bigger truth, but even if there is, how will we know it if it's not measured objectively?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Is that an April fools joke?

Truth is subjective, and unobjectionable, and history, and mathematics, and physical science, and life science, and religion, and spirituality, and psychology, and parapsychology, and scholarship, and philosophy, and every other subject conceivable.

True science is the study of all the conceivable subjective categories. It is a method of divide and understand, in order to conquer the problem of: what is truth? But if we ever hope to achieve a unified theory based upon unobjectionable truths, we must put all subjects back into the one true subject, and look at them subjectively, before we can find any semblance of real truth.

If you are unwilling to study any subdivided portions of the true subject, then you are unwilling to practice true science.

There is no talking your way out of this. Logic dictates that there is only one truth by which all truths originated; and so you must ask yourself: what good is science, if it isn't good for finding the truth? Would you like to find just enough truth to automate your "physical" life? Then what of the nonphysical? Leave that to everyone's subjection, with never any scientific study? Nah, that's not science or "ideas that matter in any discipline", that's giving up.

more

WHAT IS TED?

TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design -- three broad subject areas that are, collectively, shaping our future. And in fact, the event is broader still, showcasing ideas that matter in any discipline. The format is fast paced: 50+ talks over the course of four days (to say nothing of the morning and evening events). This immersive environment allows attendees and speakers from vastly different fields to cross-fertilize and draw inspiration from unlikely places. This is the magic of TED.

I guess spirituality and God don't matter.
And what magic do they speak of? The black kind?

Lol...yes I understand that it's their rodeo, and that they can showcase whatever they please, but blacklisting or separating any speaker [because of their subject] is not righteous - and it sure as heck isn't true science.


source of externally quoted text


eta: I should have just said: If science exists at all, then it exists for all.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by Kashai

 

"The differentiation of our structure (cells, molecules, atoms and so on) is assumed to have something to do with us but this effectively could be a developmental issue."

I think you need to reel it back just a little bit. If everything is considered to be controlled by perceiver, then how can we know that inanimate objects such as rocks, water, etc, do not perceive, and aren't the real controllers.

If perceiver controls all, then we cannot know if we are being somehow manipulated by rocks, by them moving the world around themselves.

I think we should say that something else is in control of animate and inanimate, and our mind/bodies are only in partial control of our own interpretations. [i.e we do not control the fact that we collapse the wave function - God did that to us]

edit on 3/30/2013 by Bleeeeep because: added the i.e in brackets to better explain partial control

I am not speaking of some current type of internal control. The way I see it is since we cannot experience reality except for these internal representations. We are not seeing all that there is to reality and therefore whatever capacity does exist today beyond the plain relates to some capacity to perceive reality outside the common senses

One way of understanding how prophets were about to do what they did is because they had greater access (as a result of favorable mutations. When I referred to "us" I speaking of the evolution of mankind. By "some time in the future" I was talking about 10s to 100 of millions of years (even billions of years) from now.

Say for example you are looking at a rock. You are looking at a representation in your brain of what that really looks like. If you were had the ability to perceive the rock in relation of any state that it is represented in (like the rock made of quarks and leptons), there would be differences that are innate to the rock. In relation to the common sense's these differences while not perceivable are real and inherent.

As living things we also express these differences. In relation to psi ability what I am suggesting is that part of us has the capacity to interact and generate its own representations in the mind), which some percentage of human kind can experience to some extent.

Time is a form of communication
consciousness transcends all states
that can be perceived as matter
matter communicates its existence to
consciousness though time

Juan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Ima nice to hear from you

I would agree that the respondent did not consider Plank Length. Given his body language I doubt he really was prepared to respond in that regard.

I regard in that sense your point as very relevant.

Hey Bedlam,

What I am saying is that it is conjecture either way Proving God exist or does not cannot be established without complete comprehension of reality. Given the recent findings, in relation to what is now being called the "Cold Spot," that, potentially became a lot more complicated.

Sorry you could not see the videos friend, they show what essentially was the beginning of the end for materialist modeling in relation to addressing issues of consciousness. In the lab I am certain anyone looking at such modeling would consider that it would be effective in treating real patients.

But in the field that turned out to be quite a different story and the results were inhumane treatment by any standard I am sure you and I would find intolerable. The fact of the matter is that as of today there no real way to develop modeling, that treats a human, solely as a biological construct. Providing care in relation to that individuals awareness in real life with materialist modeling fails consistently.

This is evidence of something beyond essential Biology in response to consciousness.

Hi Arbitrageur,

Not all people who maintain a belief in God think the Earth or for that matter the Universe and/or Multiverse was created less that 7000 years ago.

There are even those that essentially treat evolution as a part of Gods plan.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


If you do not accommodate for what we already are, then why give credence to what we will become?

Is what we are now, not eligible? Can we not know truth by what we already are? If not, then why do you think it will ever happen?

What will be enough?

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by Kashai

 

If you do not accommodate for what we already are, then why give credence to what we will become?

Is what we are now, not eligible? Can we not know truth by what we already are? If not, then why do you think it will ever happen?

What will be enough?

Have you ever heard of the case of Rilya Shenise Wilson? A year prior to that case beginning I began a discussion with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, in relation to every detail needed to arrest
and convict the persons responsible.

For reasons that are axillary to this particular issue (another investigation) my input was confirmed by investigators respective to the above mentioned department.

This was not by any means an experience related to personal knowledge due to contact in the norm.

I was able to comprehend from no other source except in relation to my Psi ability.

There are also court records respective to another investigation where I present several issues that either were in the process of happening or had not happened yet, but already did.

The court records are from 2007 and the truth is the recording that was taken, is much more interesting than the transcript.

Otherwise the whole subject in general is for me incredibly fascinating and I cherish my upbringing. Especially due to the axillary investigation I was involved in when I realized all the details of Rilya Shenise Wilson's life.

reply to post by Kashai


I hope you didn't get those ideas from my thread, because it's out of order and needs to be fixed. If God exists then the other steps are only there because he used them to create this reality.

What you can or cannot do is because you have faith that you can or cannot do it. You aren't evolved into having more faith, by some "natural" evolution. You just lack the doubt that paralyzes most others.

Jesus spoke of the power of faith long ago - it is not some new age thing that is evolving by "nature". Think of those with out psi as "Doubting" Thomas - not some lesser evolved beasts.

No offense. It's just that I don't think it's okay to claim faith byway of evolution alone. You must know that God has given us this strong faith - it is what separates us from the evolution of beasts.

I think.

eta: ah you altered your post and now mine won't make sense to others; but I'm sure you understand it.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


As a person who was also raised by an indigenous culture I would say that the differences between animals and humans is a slippery at best.

Have you ever traveled with the wolves and have you ever considered that a wolf can travel with you?

reply to post by Kashai


It's not slippery, it's strong faith; and with enough faith, you can tame any beast - even the serpents.

If we had little to no faith, we would be indistinguishable from them.