Karma

[wigginhall]

Interesting debate on the simulated universe idea.  DeGrasse Tyson seems to support it, Chalmers not.   Nice idea that we should be able to spot flaws, e.g. pixellations!    And Tegmark speaks about his mathematical universe, O listen and obey. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSZA3NPpBs

[torridon]

In fact old Torridon can back this up, he invited a few of us to join a little course thing where some Prof had a relatively new way of looking at the mind, anyway this Prof stated that he had met with some resistance because his peers saw no merit in the direction he was going.

Oi.

Less of the 'Old', please young Gonnagle, me lad.   

[torridon]

The point is that ...as we go along we will be leaving behind the  comfy and familiar world that we have known all these years through science.   The universe and even human life are likely to seem more abstract and speculative. That is the nature of the world.

I think you have got that the wrong way round. 

It is the old religions of the world that still infuse attitudes with familiar cultural beliefs, and it is science which continually undermines or challenges those beliefs, demolishing so much human hubris along the way. Four thousand years ago we were children of a supernatural god living on a flat earth at the centre of all creation.  Then we had to accept a round Earth, then a geocentric cosmos, then a galactocentric cosmos, then Mr Darwin hinted we are African apes, just part of the eukaryotic biomass on one of trillions of similar planets, and since then we have found that we a mostly empty space and what matter we are made from is mostly endosymbiotic bacteria and viral communities, hot things are really fast things, the sky isn't really blue it is all in your mind, time runs at a different speed for your head than for your toes, nobody experiences reality in real time or makes decisions using free will, and persons don't really exist in any real ontological sense and in fact we are replicating bounded metabolic units created by the insentient imperatives of biochemistry to serve thermodynamic law. 

It is science which challenges us to leave behind the comfy intuitive human-centered belief systems of our ancestors, not the other way round.

[wigginhall]

Yes, to call science comfy and familiar is really hilarious.  This thread alone shows the repulsion that (some) people feel about neuroscience, and their urge to embrace old ideas, such as the soul.   Let's run back to nurse, for fear of something worse.

[Sriram]

I think you have got that the wrong way round. 

It is the old religions of the world that still infuse attitudes with familiar cultural beliefs, and it is science which continually undermines or challenges those beliefs, demolishing so much human hubris along the way. Four thousand years ago we were children of a supernatural god living on a flat earth at the centre of all creation.  Then we had to accept a round Earth, then a geocentric cosmos, then a galactocentric cosmos, then Mr Darwin hinted we are African apes, just part of the eukaryotic biomass on one of trillions of similar planets, and since then we have found that we a mostly empty space and what matter we are made from is mostly endosymbiotic bacteria and viral communities, hot things are really fast things, the sky isn't really blue it is all in your mind, time runs at a different speed for your head than for your toes, nobody experiences reality in real time or makes decisions using free will, and persons don't really exist in any real ontological sense and in fact we are replicating bounded metabolic units created by the insentient imperatives of biochemistry to serve thermodynamic law. 

It is science which challenges us to leave behind the comfy intuitive human-centered belief systems of our ancestors, not the other way round.

Yes.  We moved from myth and legend to science. Now scientists are getting stuck in old science and old ways of thinking and not responding positively to a new and broader understanding of the world.

Ideas and understanding evolve. They don't move in any unidirectional manner.

So...it not  Religion/spirituality > physical Science...and its physical science all the way after that...

It is Religion/spirituality > Physical sciences > mix of old and new > Better philosophical understanding of both spirituality and science > Integration.

Your impression that we have gotten rid of religion/spirituality and taken to an improved system of knowledge through physical science for all time to come, is not correct. There is much to learn from spirituality and much to understand.

In time to come only a integration of spirituality and science will take us forward.  The way of the purely physical sciences is a dead end.

[Maeght]

Maybe so. But how are String theory or Parallel Universes theory more acceptable as 'Science' than After-Life or Spiritual Worlds?

They are ideas which can be used to explore and examine other scientific theories and measurements scientists have made. This isn't the case with After Life and Spirit Worlds.

And what if many of the phenomena are not amenable to examination through the Scientific Method?  Should the method be reexamined and expanded or should all such phenomena be dismissed summarily?

The method shouldn't be changed in my view or else you are moving away from science and diluting the meaning of the word and of the scientific method. Call it something else - nit try to make it all science.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Wigs,

Who is repulsed by neuroscience, it is a very valuable field of research but will it ever answer the biggies, why am I here? ( instead of on a tropical island with a tribe of beautiful buxom blondes, probably Karma ) what's it all about? ( Alfie ) why something from nothing? ( well not nothing per se, sort of nothing, nothing but in a vacuum nothing, virtual particles nothing ) and the real biggie! Why is Scotland shit at football?

Gonnagle.

[Enki]

From Gonnagle's reply 911:

Only quite recently we were debating the Aquatic ape and from what I can garner a lot had to do with the lady in question not being a scientist, I also get the feeling that being female was also another contributing factor and we do have evidence that females were discouraged when it came to scientific pursuit.

I hope you aren't including me in this, Gonners, as I was at great pains to suggest that this was not the case. I based my case, as do many people, fully on the strength(or weakness) of her arguments and on other contrasting evidence, which is a completely reasonable approach. The fact that Elaine Morgan was a woman is totally superfluous to these arguments.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Maeght,

Why do you think it would dilute it, to boldly go where no man has gone before, well men have gone but not scientific men, Priests, Shamans, Mystics but never in a scientific way, although you could loosely call it science, I am sure those Mystics tried a lot of herbal tea before they found the right ingredients to take them to Nirvana, Valhalla or Heaven, depending on your religion of choice.

Gonnagle.

[Aruntraveller]

Why is Scotland shit at football?

Is it the Buckfast? 

[Enki]

Yes, to call science comfy and familiar is really hilarious.  This thread alone shows the repulsion that (some) people feel about neuroscience, and their urge to embrace old ideas, such as the soul.   Let's run back to nurse, for fear of something worse.

Yes, it's a laughable proposition. I've just finished reading a book called 'reality Is Not What It Seems' by Carlo Rovelli which is a fascinating book that puts forward  the idea of quantum gravity and  that space and time, as we understand them, don't really exist. I don't recognise Sriram's  attitude to science in this book at all.

[Gonnagle]

Dear enki,

No I was most definitely not including you, it was more about the links and the stories attached to the thread, you cannot deny that the poor lady took a beating from some purely because of her non scientific background and in case you haven't noticed, women are still fighting for equality, the scientific field is just one where women are struggling to gain a foothold.

And this gives credence to what Jack Knave was alluding to, there are or were elements within the scientific community where you did have to toe the line.

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

Dear Wigs,

Who is repulsed by neuroscience, it is a very valuable field of research but will it ever answer the biggies, why am I here? ( instead of on a tropical island with a tribe of beautiful buxom blondes, probably Karma ) what's it all about? ( Alfie ) why something from nothing? ( well not nothing per se, sort of nothing, nothing but in a vacuum nothing, virtual particles nothing ) and the real biggie! Why is Scotland shit at football?

Gonnagle.

Hello soldier.  Buxom blondes are all very well, but they want to go to B & Q, and watch repeats of Bergerac.   What's it all about?  Well, I'm hungry, so will probably have a sandwich.   All the blondes are out, so it's just me and the universe.  Nothing - nothing is impossible.   Football - try the diamond formation.   Sandwich good, blondes are still out, looking good. 

[Dicky Underpants]

Hello soldier.  Buxom blondes are all very well, but they want to go to B & Q, and watch repeats of Bergerac.   What's it all about?  Well, I'm hungry, so will probably have a sandwich.   All the blondes are out, so it's just me and the universe.  Nothing - nothing is impossible.   Football - try the diamond formation.   Sandwich good, blondes are still out, looking good.

Jowita Zienkiewicz for me. I hope she likes Chopin - I doubt whether she's heard of Bergerac, but I'd take her to Jersey (euphemism ). If she likes football, I could do her a good impression of Ron Manager from the Fast Show - fathers and sons, jumpers for goal-posts: saturday afternoons are football, aren't they? You know, isn't it? Marvellous.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

why something from nothing? ( well not nothing per se, sort of nothing, nothing but in a vacuum nothing, virtual particles nothing )

Gonnagle.

That's a something Mr G.....and it doesn't really answer the question why something and not nothing.
Of course if one argues there can never be a nothing then you are arguing eternal existence...(But what moves it? Why is it dynamic?)..........hold up, I can here sirens.....I think it's the ''It just is'' police.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Interesting debate on the simulated universe idea.  DeGrasse Tyson seems to support it, Chalmers not.   Nice idea that we should be able to spot flaws, e.g. pixellations!    And Tegmark speaks about his mathematical universe, O listen and obey. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSZA3NPpBs

Yes but we would only be conscious of pixillations or lack of possible resolution if we had an idea what the perfect image would be or to put it another way, Dawkins take take on reality is the equivalent of Baird 30 line TV while Lane Craig enjoys UHD.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, to call science comfy and familiar is really hilarious.  This thread alone shows the repulsion that (some) people feel about neuroscience, and their urge to embrace old ideas, such as the soul.   Let's run back to nurse, for fear of something worse.

Neuroscience though is also used as wankfodder for dyed in the wool reductionists.

[Dicky Underpants]

Yes but we would only be conscious of pixillations or lack of possible resolution if we had an idea what the perfect image would be or to put it another way, Dawkins take take on reality is the equivalent of Baird 30 line TV while Lane Craig enjoys UHD.

I can't wait to find out the contents of Lane Craig's music library. I know something of Dawkins', and it sure ain't Smokey Mountain Jamboree with Dolly Parton.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I can't wait to find out the contents of Lane Craig's music library. I know something of Dawkins', and it sure ain't Smokey Mountain Jamboree with Dolly Parton.

How would you say Dr Dawkin's musical tastes have evolved?

[Jack Knave]

Thst explains why you want their version of an explanation, which is nice.
However you may have missed it but just to reiterate, I was asking what your definition is. Do you have one?

I don't want it it is the one that has been implied by them in their posts and by scientists I've heard over the years.

Not one you would understand.

[Jack Knave]

Jack Knave
I'm going to require you to blow into this bag!

I'm sorry but I can't blowhard.

[Jack Knave]

No, I am equating hearsay with hearsay.   Some unnamed top scientist, whom you heard on the radio several years ago, and it was a good programme.  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

YEAH!!!

[Jack Knave]

Maybe so. But how are String theory or Parallel Universes theory more acceptable as 'Science' than After-Life or Spiritual Worlds? And what if many of the phenomena are not amenable to examination through the Scientific Method?  Should the method be reexamined and expanded or should all such phenomena be dismissed summarily?

I think because they stem from something real as in researchable matter. Then they go through the looking glass and think they are still in the material universe.

[Jack Knave]

I think you have got that the wrong way round. 

It is the old religions of the world that still infuse attitudes with familiar cultural beliefs, and it is science which continually undermines or challenges those beliefs, demolishing so much human hubris along the way. Four thousand years ago we were children of a supernatural god living on a flat earth at the centre of all creation.  Then we had to accept a round Earth, then a geocentric cosmos, then a galactocentric cosmos, then Mr Darwin hinted we are African apes, just part of the eukaryotic biomass on one of trillions of similar planets, and since then we have found that we a mostly empty space and what matter we are made from is mostly endosymbiotic bacteria and viral communities, hot things are really fast things, the sky isn't really blue it is all in your mind, time runs at a different speed for your head than for your toes, nobody experiences reality in real time or makes decisions using free will, and persons don't really exist in any real ontological sense and in fact we are replicating bounded metabolic units created by the insentient imperatives of biochemistry to serve thermodynamic law. 

It is science which challenges us to leave behind the comfy intuitive human-centered belief systems of our ancestors, not the other way round.

That was one of my points, science has a culture which has a restrictive viewpoint as all ideologies/customs etc. do. People unconsciously live by these and so make the data/evidence fit their confirmation biases just as the Soviet Union did and other cultures.

[Jack Knave]

That's a something Mr G.....and it doesn't really answer the question why something and not nothing.
Of course if one argues there can never be a nothing then you are arguing eternal existence...(But what moves it? Why is it dynamic?)..........hold up, I can here sirens.....I think it's the ''It just is'' police.

Probably because it is not perfect. You never fiddle around with a well tuned car.