I tried to reply to replies to my posts and the thread is now closed so I wanted to start a new one because my comments really do not fit in that post anyway.

I had posted that I watched Dawkins TED talk and was disappointed because he used the tired debate of atheists vs. fundamental religion. I already know that all religion is BS so I had hoped for more than this. He simply gave his opinion and it was all based on the argument above which, there is no need to fight. I just hoped for more.

Some replies that came in to me where just as frustrating. One poster said something about mythological beings. I never said anything about mythological beings, god, Jesus, joseph smith, none of them. I would just like to see better debates than what is out there now.

Disclaimer: I do NOT believe in religion. I doubt there is a god. I just would like to find more investigation into this topic WITHOUT the religion part...Has anyone ever thought that conciseness may survive death but has nothing whatsoever to do with a god? I don't know. No one really does, but I would like to see more of this debate.

Good on you for advocating the expansion of the dialogue.

I too have always wondered if my consciousness up and dies when I do.

I would welcome any conversation regarding the points you have raised.

rgg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I had posted that I watched Dawkins TED talk and
> was disappointed because he used the tired debate
> of atheists vs. fundamental religion.

He's an excellent writer but the worst debater ever, if you ask me. Any two-bit creationist can kick his ass with a few rethorical tricks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2014 02:01PM by rt.

My point, exactly. WHY even discuss creationists? Like I said, I am sick and tired of the old debate between atheists and fundamental Christians -- yawn...

There are many more angles on explaining the origin of the universe and life than mainstream Christian creationism and mainstream atheism. Maybe you should study them.

raiku Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are many more angles on explaining the
> origin of the universe and life than mainstream
> Christian creationism and mainstream atheism.
> Maybe you should study them.

You mean science?

A large part of this controversy can be addressed by studying The Lost Book Of Enki and The Epic of Gilgamesh.

I do not say that they are the total answer but definitely food for thought.

I think Dawkins has been very up front about not being a good debater, although I think he's a great writer and I enjoy his books. I too do not believe in an entity such as "God," do not believe in what traditional religions teach about an afterlife, i.e. "heaven" and "hell" and anything in between. However, I do think that consciousness can survive physical death, as I do believe that thoughts, feelings, memories, etc. are part of a "soul" (for lack of a better word) that is made of energy, and energy cannot be destroyed, only changed. So I am in the process of defining my own personal theology. I'm much happier, actually, than I was when I believed all the "god and Jesus and heaven" stuff. (I never did buy the hell part.) Hope you have luck finding a group or place or forum or friends where you can enjoy this type of discussion. When you find them, they can be fascinating! :)

I believe a lot of what you have said comes from 'common sense' when someone can clear their minds of religion and just look around themselves at the earth and stars. I believe there is a God, after life, and reincarnation (of the soul). I have had communications with spirits in the after life and they have helped me in a number of situations ----- 2 where they came to my aid. I have experienced other communications and 'looking into the future', however I cannot sufficiently control my experiences ---- yet. Therefore, I guess I will just say I believe in what I said above versus know. But try to read books on psychics if you want to experience some of these things you may just believe in now.

TED talks are not debates. The guy had the stage and well....he just used the same old argument between fundamental Christians and atheists....Can't we move beyond this?

Science does not know where consciences comes from so for me, that is a start, not, debating religion...

boilerluv, you can of course believe what you want.
But thoughts, feelings, memories, etc. are *not* "made of energy." Functioning brains USE energy to produce and maintain them, but they're not made of energy. And energy is not "organized" or "intelligent" -- it's just the potential to do work. There's no evidence anything of "you" survives your physical brain ceasing to function.

"But thoughts, feelings, memories, etc. are *not* "made of energy."

COMMENT: Well, this statement implies that science knows what "engergy" is. The standard abstract definition, as you state, "The capacity to do work," tells us nothing about the ontolgical status of "energy." Until we know what that is (if anything but a convenient fiction) we cannot know whether it carries information such as to support intelligence. As one philosopher of science put it: "Energy is just shorthand for a certain useful algebraic combination of various quantities characterizing the system." (Marc Lange, THe Philsophy of physics, page 123)

Notwithstanding the above, it is highly suspect to invoke "energy" as a term to describe a "soul." Whatever a "soul" is, it must, as you suggest, in some sense use energy, and it must have some discreet components that support not only information but information processing. If we want to speculate, we can suggest a "substance" that is refined beyond what science is able to reveal (e.g. the strings of string theory) that is held together somehow and organized into functional "systems" that roughly correspond to organic, intelligent systems that are supported by the brain.

"There's no evidence anything of "you" survives your physical brain ceasing to function."

COMMENT: This last statement is false. There is evidence that "souls" survive death after the brain ceases to function. This "paranormal" evidence is based upon real human experiences that cannot (in my view) be entirely discounted just because they are inconvenient to materialist science. They remain data to be explained. But in any event, such reports are most certainly evidence of survival, whether you deem such evidence adequate or not, or whether you deem such evidence strictly "scientific."

"There is evidence that "souls" survive death after the brain ceases to function."

No, sorry, there isn't. There are *claims* about such things -- there isn't any evidence. Evidence is testable, anecdotal claims about the "paranormal" aren't. And every time they are put to objective tests, they fail. Completely.

I hear an awful lot of arguments from ignorance, a lot of "we don't know so magic is possible," etc. If imagining that the gaps in our knowledge hide magic gives you some kind of comfort or hope, that's your thing. It's not mine.

"No, sorry, there isn't. There are *claims* about such things -- there isn't any evidence. Evidence is testable, anecdotal claims about the "paranormal" aren't. And every time they are put to objective tests, they fail. Completely."

COMMENT: In his book, The Demon Haunted World, Carl Sagan (as I recall, he was a scientist of some reputation) makes the following comment:

"At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images 'projected' at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."

All of the above phenomena, in the form of anecdotal "paranormal" reports, are noted by Sagan as deserving "serious study." That is because he obviously deems such reports as "evidence" to be taken seriously.

So, at least according to Saga--and many other scientists--you are absolutely wrong! Note further that since Sagan's statements, the credibility of such reports has grown, not diminished. (See, Kelly, Irreducible Mind, if you are really interested in overcoming your obvious bias)

Poor Henry...

Unable to differentiate the testable versus the proven. It's okay Henry... You can consult almost any 13 year old for some education on this.

Worthy of study does not equal proven and substantiated.


HH. =)

I cannot prove anything but I have experienced your #2 (projections of the future --- have not been 100% but had some mind blowing experiences) and to a small degree #3 (past lives ---- saw a hall of my past lives (lots) the door I opened (mentally) I was living in a small house in the woods by a lake (believed in Europe)as a child but really didn't get too far into it. Similar to your #1 I haven't tried to move/change objects but books I have read suggest multiple people when trying to move something with your mind.

I agree with you (Harry B. and Carl S.). All I can say is if anyone really wants to give it an honest try this 'obviously crazy stuff only idiots would believe' they can go to a good sized library and look up books on PSI, ESP, and psychics ----- primarily limit your search to books with multiple 'exercises' to test your abilities. Don't worry if you don't excel at every exercise ----- few do. Just ask yourself what does success really mean? with the ones you do succeed at and can duplicate maybe not 100% though!

Henry, I wonder if these dogmatists still think Max Planck was a scientist:

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with."

--Where Is Science Going (1931, I think)

THanks for that reminder. Sometimes I think the psychology of the RfM posters is the most interesting thing about this Board. When these "dogmatists" don't have anything substantive to offer, they still feel the need to attack. Why? I don't get it.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (1) that by thought alone humans
> can (barely) affect random number generators in
> computers;

Absolute BS. Computers do not generate true random numbers. They generate a sequence of mathematically calculated mumbers that is long enough to appear random when it isn't. There is no scope for a person to influence the calculation.

The starting point for the sequence of numbers is often "seeded" from the system time of the computer at the time of running the program, otherwise running the program twice would produce the exact same sequence of supposedly random numbers. That time can be influenced by a computer user, but then we are talking about a user influencing when a program is running and NOT the outcome of a random number generator.

"Absolute BS. Computers do not generate true random numbers. They generate a sequence of mathematically calculated mumbers that is long enough to appear random when it isn't. There is no scope for a person to influence the calculation."

COMMENT: Wrong. Random number generators are not deterministic, they are genuinely random. They rely upon external, non-computational, sources of random effects in nature that disrupt the otherwise deterministic functions of the computer, and include such things as random electronic noise, or random radioactive decay.

"The starting point for the sequence of numbers is often "seeded" from the system time of the computer at the time of running the program, otherwise running the program twice would produce the exact same sequence of supposedly random numbers."

COMMENT: OK. What is the point? Obviously the RNG has to start somewhere. This has no bearing upon whether the resulting sequence is truly random or not.

"That time can be influenced by a computer user, but then we are talking about a user influencing when a program is running and NOT the outcome of a random number generator."

COMMENT: No. The point of Sagan's reference to (1) above, is that the subject can control by thought processes the outcome of the generator; thus undermining the otherwise stochastic nature of the number sequence. Note further that the point is only to establish small, but significant, statistical effects of mind on matter. A RNG ensures that any apparent effects are actually real effects. Arguably, even apparent mental manipulations of an apparent random sequence, if statistically significant, could have evidential value when considering a human's ability to affect the physical world through mental effort. Thus, your hang-up over Sagan's use of the word "random" is overblown.

say wha?????

maybe i'm misreading einstein but i thot matter was energy

and vice versa

but then what the bleep do i know?

I'll confine my comments to this subject: Is there consciousness that survives death of the body? I'm not sure, but inclined to think it's possible and has absolutely nothing to do with religion, deities, saviors, etc. Those are humans trying to figure out the world they live in that has survived long after science has better answers.

If it does exist, it's part of the natural process of how energy manifests. Some have what they claim is evidence of some kind of evidence of this process. Others call it baloney.

A very small amount of matter produces energy. Is light matter? Does light produce energy.

I have no clue how it works, but it seems to me there are things that manifest that we cannot explain with our current knowledge.

My personal experiences have led me to conclude something is going on. I don't know what, but something happens that I cannot explain that defies what I think is physics.

Still scratching my head.

I am leaning towards your POV, SusieQ yet, I also don't think the "New Agers" have any answers either. Most of them will believe just about anything.

I just think if we could move beyond the new agers and the atheists vs. fundamental Christianity debate we might begin to get somewhere and until this happens, we are just stuck on the same hamster wheel.

Why would we not want to find answers? I mean we are all in this together, after all?

rgg


I am not aligning myself with "New Agers" or any other group.
I am convinced that some things cannot be explained by the usual methods. There are things that go on that we do not have a clear answer for.
Maybe I'll find an answer, maybe not, but in the mean time, I'll continue to amaze and enjoy what I see happening.

I wasn't referring to you as a new ager....Sorry, my comment went to other POV.

rgg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wasn't referring to you as a new ager....Sorry,
> my comment went to other POV.


OK..got it! I wasn't sure! :-)

Some interesting ideas here:

YOU ARE A SIMULATION. A film by Jeffrey Grupp, SimulationTheory.net. Bostrom's Simulation Argument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOdOdrqGsK8

I'll give my opinion on the subject of debates on atheism vs. fundamental religion:

It's fun, and it's easy, and it's low hanging fruit.

Having said that, the fact that I don't hold a belief in any gods in no way informs my opinion on other matters such as life after death, ESP, etc.

Different topic. Different debate.

Regardless of what I think of Dawkins' point of view on religion, his stance on aborting Down Syndrome affected fetuses brands him as a fucking barbarian. I advocate for persons with developmental disabilities (and am the parent of an adult with severe disabilities) and I have no words to express my disgust for him and those who support him.
Were he to catch fire in my presence, I would not piss on him.
'nuff said.

Ron Burr

That is a tough road, you have my respect.

I have not been following this post very closely but several years ago I became interested in Dr. Stevenson's research. He was a medical doctor who tried to do honest scientific research on incidents where people, esp.children claimed they could remember living a previous life.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

Our own subjective consciousness remains one of the biggest mysteries of the universe. Science has no idea what it is or where to find it. Science may be able to identify the physical expressions, mechanics, and chemical reactions of consciousness (e.g. what happens to the brain of conscious beings), but Science knows absolutely nothing about consciousness itself. And science is no closer today to discovering consciousness than it was before the scientific method was ever used.

Consciousness is the source of spirituality.

For great discussions on this topic, read and listen to the works of Alan Watts (a philosopher educated in both eastern and western religion), Eckhart Tolle (a former linguist with an incredible personal story. I recommend his book the Power of Now), and Peter Russell (a physicist who studied under Stephen Hawking). Many works of all three men can be found on Youtube. I used to be agnositc, but my perspective has completely changed by these ideas coupled with my own experiences.

Another amazing book that details numerous stories of people who experience personal spiritual transformations is Out of the Darkness by Steve Taylor.

Have fun!

For anyone who believes in some form of "spirituality" I challenge you to come up with a theory about what that "spirituality" is vs what it isn't, and secondly try to come up with a theory of what that "spirituality" means from the point of view of physics, eg whether it has mass, how it interacts with the known universe etc.

I bet no-one can do it without realizing that the idea of "spirituality" disproves itself when examined in detail.

For anyone who believes all of reality is proven by theories in physics, or for that matter chemestry, biology, or astronomy, I challenge you to come up with a theory of what consciousness is, and whether it has mass, and how it interacts with the universe.

You can't do it. You have 100 percent knowledge that you exist, but no scientific discipline can prove it. Your knowledge of your own conscious awareness is based on pure subjective knowledge.

Likewise, science cannot prove that other beings with whom you interact are consciously aware beings, as you are. But you trust that they are because of the similarities thay have with you and because you know of your own conscious awareness.

Humans trust, believe, and even know things all the time without scientific proof. Such beliefs and knowledge arise from our life experiences coupled with intuition.

If we relied solely on objective science (and rejected our own subjected beliefs when science couldn't prove them), we would have to conclude that we really are not even consciously aware of anything. And what's funny about that, is that some scientists actually do reject consciousness! Haha. But please, we all know it exists, and we know THAT more than anything else in the universe.

And that's where we find spirituality. Our consciousness is the key. :)

THE GREEN POTATO CHALLENGE

“For anyone who believes in some form of "spirituality" I challenge you to come up with a theory about what that "spirituality" is vs what it isn't, and secondly try to come up with a theory of what that "spirituality" means from the point of view of physics, eg whether it has mass, how it interacts with the known universe etc.

I bet no-one can do it without realizing that the idea of "spirituality" disproves itself when examined in detail.”

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED:

Just to be clear, you are looking for (1) a “theory” about what “spirituality” is; and (2) what “spirituality” means from the point of view of physics.

(1) Spirituality is a conscious mental state that encompasses the sense that the material world, as revealed by science, is not all there is to external reality. Its proximate causes are likely specific brain states that correlate to such experiences in the same way that any conscious state correlates to brain states. However, its ultimate cause is more complex and ellusive—-as is ultimate causes of all subjective experience, as reflected in the complexity of human psychology, the brain, and the environment. The ultimate cause of a spiritual experience reflects a reality, be it God, or something else, that transcends the material world, as viewed from a scientific, reductionist sense, and that impinges on consciousness, which ultimately reflects a human soul which underlies our individual self, and all of our experiences. What the human “soul” ultimately is, is unknown, just as the ultimate basis of matter (quantum fields, or the strings of string theory?) is unknown.

(2) From the point of view of physics, “spirituality,” or spiritual experiences, serves as evidence of what physics has always known and acknowledged; i.e. that the material world is not all there is to reality; specifically that mind is a component of reality, which, until recent decades, physics has shown little interest.

Notwithstanding, the standard (Von Neumann) interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, as well as experiments in cognitive psychology, confirm that mind is somehow independent of the physical world, and acts upon the physical world. This supports the idea of a “soul,” freewill, and arguably “spiritual" experiences. It is only when you restrict yourself to classical, Newtonion physics, that "spirituality" does not make sense within the framework of science.

So, if “spirituality” then “disproves itself when examined in detail, ” I NOW CHALLENGE YOU, to provide an explanation of this claim!

Oh, hey, how much did we bet?

Nicely done, Mr. Bemis.

Spirituality (noun): Religious practices engaged in by people who know it is not cool to own up to being religious.

Scientism (noun) Following the religion of the mainstream establishment while pretending to have no religion at all.

Friends here's my 2 cents about 'spirituality'.

All you science junkies must acknowledge the unseen forces and phenomena of nature. Hard to define let alone quantify, but impossible to ignore.

How about if we just use the term 'subtle energy', as Einstein called it.

More precise imo and not nearly as woowooey a term as 'spiritualty.

Shummy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All you science junkies must acknowledge the
> unseen forces and phenomena of nature. Hard to
> define let alone quantify, but impossible to
> ignore.

If, by that you mean acknowledging that there are things in nature we don't understand? Sure. If you want to offer a supernatural explanation, no thanks.

never suggested such a thing rt

if on the other hand you consider serendipity and intuition as supernatural, then that's fine by me

whatever you wanna label them as notwithstanding, einstein wrote quite a lot about those influences and the profound effect they had on shaping his emergent earth-shaking scientific epiphany

scientism (n.):

"Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless. This view seems to have been held by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (1922) when he said such things as "The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science..." He later repudiated this view.

In the weak sense, scientism is the view that the methods of the natural sciences should be applied to any subject matter. This view is summed up nicely by Michael Shermer:

Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science (Shermer 2002).

On the other hand, the dictionary definition of 'scientism' is the attitude and method of the typical natural scientist, whoever that might be....."


http://skepdic.com/scientism.html