This is bait for the piranhas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92pBIw0_Og

From Terence McKenna:
"...on the night of September 16th, Descartes had a dream and in this dream an angel appeared to him, this is documented by his own hand, and the angel said to Descartes, "The conquest of nature is to be achieved through measure and number." And that revelation lay the basis for modern science. Rene Descartes is the founder of the distinction between the res verins and the res extensia, the founder of modern science, the founder of the scientific method that created the philosophical engines that created the modern world. How many scientists, working at their workbenches, understand that an angel chartered modern science?..."

Some provocative quotes:
"a: 'It's nonsense,' b: 'It is not important,' c: 'I always said it was a good idea,' and d: 'I thought of it first.'"
Arthur C. Clarke explains the four stages in the way scientists react to the development of anything of a revolutionary nature.

"See first, think later, then test.
But always see first.
Otherwise you will only see what you were expecting.
Most scientists forget that."
Douglas Adams

"There’s science and then there’s reason and science has at times used reason although at times its conclusions have been fairly unreasonable. Reason is a universal method for dealing with information, whereas science is an extremely culturally conventionalized method. I think there’s a role for reason and the razors of logic but this is a branch of formal philosophy, not a branch of science; science appropriates everything to itself and then we tend to genuflect before it but what we really need is a relativistic approach to the true scope of science which is considerably less than it has claimed for itself. In the 20th century, it’s claimed to be the arbiter of truth in all domains when in fact it’s simply the study of those phenomena so crude that the restoration of their initial condition causes the same thing to repeat itself, and that’s a very small part of the sum total of the phenomenal universe."
Terence Mckenna

"Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact and theory and, when successful, finds none."
Thomas Kuhn

"We've arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."
Carl Sagan

And an irony:
Interesting to note that the leading (materialist)'Skeptic' Michael Shermer used to be a fundamentalist Christian, now on a reactionary mission to devalue anything that threatens his new materialist belief system. Hilarious.

(from http://www.dedroidify.com/science.htm )

What's your point, Richard? Are you saying you reject the scientific method?

All that sounds like some sort of apologist sour grapes. I'm not getting anything from it. I guess it's because I don't think there is any such thing as angels.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2013 08:16PM by rationalguy.

If you see an angel in a dream, it's likely that you already have the angel trope in your own consciousness. Descartes certainly did, being schooled by the Jesuits. But whereas the form something appears as is determined by your present mental furnishings, the salient point is that there is some untapped aspect of the mind that can and often does deliver illuminating glimpses to the reasoning aspect. Some see this dualistically: "I" am the reasoning aspect, and the illuminating aspect is an "Other." Some see this more holistically as dimensions of their own mind. And still others, who are probably not aware of this kind of experience, may dismiss it altogether as "woo."

Other scientific innovations that originated in dream inspirations are Kekule's molecular structure of benzene, Mendelev's periodic table by atomic weight, Howe's sewing machine, and even in part Einstein's theory of relativity.

Agreed. I am a network engineer by trade, and more than once I have solved the most difficult problems in my sleep. I believe that there is a portion of your sub-conscious that you can't tap into while awake and that can be the most brilliant part of the mind. Is it God or an Angel working through me? No, it is my own consciousness; my own mental facilities; however, brilliant at times. I wish I could tap into that all the time. Your sub-conscious thought can take on a myriad of forms, which are pre-loaded with what you have been taught and know. I've had dreams based on Mormonism. It doesn't make it any more real.

Each post is progressively more soporific. Have you ever thought of marketing your nonsense as a sleep aide Richard? You may have a second vocation there.


Zzzzzzzz....

SleepyHeretic

It's good to hear from you, Richard. I have missed our brief conversations. Not only are scientific and technoology problems addressed through dreams, but I had very important dream in which my deceased great-grandmother appeared and helped me with a very difficult personal problem--a solution which I have shared with clients now and then (without sharing the source). I didn't even start a church over the whole thing :p

Humans have a fairly small set of basic delusions (rats under the bed, alien abductions, stuff like that). The delusions are colored by the ambient culture, so Descartes sees an angel in a dream, and demonic possession was common in the 16th century.

Now, not so much. But since humans learned how to fly, and then go into space, alien abductions have had a dramatic spike.

Funny how that works.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2013 09:11PM by Brother Of Jerry.

(not necessarily a literal angel)? The unconscious speaks in images and symbols. An angel guaranteed it would get his attention.

I agree on the environmental coloring--fascinating.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2013 09:18PM by robertb.

... why I quit doing religion.

Thanks for the reminder!

Timothy

'The brain is just a collection of nerve cells that store impressions from external stimuli, and dreams are simply an unconscious recycling of those impressions. No angels, no messages. The 19-year-old Descartes had obviously been thinking of math while awake, or read a book, and the memories just happened to connect while he was asleep.'

I'm confused...what's the point being made?!?

The point of this is to show that modern science is no different than religion

MeatySalad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point of this is to show that modern science
> is no different than religion

If that was the point, then it failed completely to make it.
Because the two are not similar in any way.

What I meant to say is that science and religion are similar.

They both reject each other's ideas even though they each aim toward truth, they both kick someone out if they do not conform, and they both have things to fix (even the church has sinned and scientists have their vices).

I know there are differences, such as the religious people are stuck in the past while the scientists want to start from scratch.

They both have some form of knowledge to put forward I think.

Moving forward, they should compromise which probably will not happen too soon.

MeatySalad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I meant to say is that science and religion
> are similar.
>
> They both reject each other's ideas even though
> they each aim toward truth, they both kick someone
> out if they do not conform, and they both have
> things to fix (even the church has sinned and
> scientists have their vices).

Still not the case.
Religion rejects anything that conflicts with dogma -- beliefs and statements with no rational basis.

Science doesn't reject any ideas that have evidence backing them. Whether they come from religion or anywhere else. And there's no "excommunication" in science.

> They both have some form of knowledge to put
> forward I think.

"Faith" and "belief" aren't knowledge.

> Moving forward, they should compromise which
> probably will not happen too soon.

There's no reason for science to "compromise" -- it's the best method we humans have ever come up with for determining fact and "truth."

I am not talking about their faith and belief.

I consider the Bible, the Koran, and the Tao Te Ching to simply be recorded documents.

These old writings have things in it not to be taken as fact, but as metaphor. Taking them as fact could be similar to a human trying to point someone in the right direction with their finger, but the person looks at my finger instead of the direction it is pointed.

Maximized rationality is possible, but 100% rational would be a rigid robot. Robots don't flinch when they're about to kill especially with a hacker or a computer virus.

Robots are not capable of new ideas. Being irrational allows humans to think more than just the conventional. Humans feel discomfort and various emotions. That is irrational, but this irrationality is not evil (mostly).

It is a bit irrational to be afraid of irrationality.

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many
> scientists, working at their workbenches,
> understand that an angel chartered modern
> science?..."

If you're having a dream, nothing is "appearing" to you. It's all in your mind. Imagining, in your mind, an angel is not the same as there being an angel.

Given that Descartes was a believer in gods and angels, perhaps his subconscious conjured one up as a kind of "oracle" to communicate this interesting thought.

Not that it really matters...Descartes had some good ideas -- even some great ones. But "science" wasn't the result of one person. Including Descartes. Dreams of angels or not.


p.s. the story is that Descartes came up with the Cartesian coordinate system while delirious from fever in his tent, watching a fly buzz around the room. If true, combined with the "angel" story, perhaps Descartes' best ideas came when his conscious mind, imprisoned by religious dogma, was let loose a bit and allowed to roam free, contrary to the dictates of religious instruction...:)

but you don't want to put Descartes before the horse.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2015 09:05PM by donbagley.

There was science before Descartes.

In modern science the ideas may come from ANYWHERE. Dreams,
psychic readings, astrological charts are all fair game for
where you get your ideas.

However it is in the testing of ideas that science diverges from
religion. In the scientific marketplace of ideas, where you got
your idea doesn't matter. This is the main difference between
science and religion.

But the point of it was covered in subsequent entries by me and robertb.

Descartes interpreted the intervention of something beyond his ordinary rational mind as an "angel" because of his culture and conditioning. Others, including many scientists, have also gotten inspirations from that "beyond," though they didn't personify the source as a higher outside agent.

In that light, it makes sense to me that the accounts of angelic visitations in the past, biblical and historical, are similarly interpretations according to the receivers' belief system. The important point is not to dismiss the messages received as nonsense "because there is no such thing as angels" [according to our modern secular framework, the presently accepted belief system] but to allow that these messages or inspirations came from something beyond the normal scope of the receivers' minds--that there IS 'something' that knows more, whether a different level of our own minds or another order of beings.

Looks like the original youtube link no longer exists, but the same clip is now at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92pBIw0f_Og
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X6_0jJbcy0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYXflzAQFVg

"it makes sense to me that the accounts of angelic visitations in the past, biblical and historical, are similarly interpretations according to the receivers' belief system"

Exactly.

ALSO, depending on the times, scientists had to be very careful in the words they chose to deliver any scientific discoveries or theories they made, which might be taken as HERESY and land you in the middle of a burning pile of wood, if you express something the "wrong" way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2015 10:13AM by seekyr.

Scientists claim rationality, but even they can be driven by irrational things ie. a dream.

To remain completely rational is impossible in my opinion. There's always a bit of emotion that goes into everything.

Science, religion, and general society take away individuality. They both have this "my way or the highway" mentality.

If there is any single person who could be called the "Father Of Science" that would be Thales of Miletus. He was the first philosopher in Western tradition to propose that natural events have natural causes and not supernatural ones.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales