Reincarnation

[Sriram]

I don't see much point in trying to understand something unknowable, particularly if it consumes out energies, then that is energy that could have been spent on trying to understand things that we know to be real. Alan Burns will solemnly tell us that intelligence is a gift from God, but merely 'accepting' that is a lazy man's way out of trying to understand what intelligence actually is; we don't then have to think about it.  Given there are seven billion of us on the planet now, we need more than ever to face up to understanding our nature, we need to learn to be realistic.

You are again trying to avoid the issue by talking both ways.

I can agree that the higher intelligence could be unknowable, just as the Singularity or the String or Parallel Universes are unknowable.  But we can admit to their possibility and built that possibility into our hypotheses without becoming phobic about them.

It is the phobia and the reluctance to think of such possibilities that are a barrier to further understanding....regardless of how far we are actually able to go in understanding such matters.     

[torridon]

You are again trying to avoid the issue by talking both ways.

I can agree that the higher intelligence could be unknowable, just as the Singularity or the String or Parallel Universes are unknowable.  But we can admit to their possibility and built that possibility into our hypotheses without becoming phobic about them.

It is the phobia and the reluctance to think of such possibilities that are a barrier to further understanding....regardless of how far we are actually able to go in understanding such matters.   

I don't see any 'phobia's at play; that rather has echoes of Vlad and his 'god dodging' spiel. We all have a limited amount of time; with limited funds surely it is better to spend your money wisely on things we have good evidence for rather than investing in the unknowable.  Wisdom is not a phobia.

[Sriram]

I don't see any 'phobia's at play; that rather has echoes of Vlad and his 'god dodging' spiel. We all have a limited amount of time; with limited funds surely it is better to spend your money wisely on things we have good evidence for rather than investing in the unknowable.  Wisdom is not a phobia.

The 'phobia' is what prevents people from accepting it as a natural possibility and makes them dismiss the idea as another religious belief.

If there is no time for such a fundamental part of reality...what is it we should be investigating? You would also then object to research on Strings, the beginning of the universe, how dinosaurs were killed, how life began, black holes and so on? What are we going to gain by investigating such phenomena?  It is all a waste of money and time.

[torridon]

The 'phobia' is what prevents people from accepting it as a natural possibility and makes them dismiss the idea as another religious belief.

That's not what a phobia is.  A phobia is an irrational fear.  Where we invest our research efforts is not guided by phobias, it is guided by the evidence within the constraints of budget.

[Sriram]

That's not what a phobia is.  A phobia is an irrational fear.  Where we invest our research efforts is not guided by phobias, it is guided by the evidence within the constraints of budget.

My goodness torridon...! You just keep going back and forth.

I know what phobia is. It is phobia of God and religion and the supernatural that prevents 'scientists' from accepting the possibility of Intelligent intervention as a natural part of reality.

Evidence is what we have discussed already about complexity and intelligence.  If you want further evidence you have to find a way and work on it.

Cheers.

[torridon]

My goodness torridon...! You just keep going back and forth.

I know what phobia is. It is phobia of God and religion and the supernatural that prevents 'scientists' from accepting the possibility of Intelligent intervention as a natural part of reality.

That is wrong though.  Scientists aren't driven by irrational fears; they are driven by curiosity, in the main, to find out how stuff works.  And in that regard the principle is to follow where the evidence leads.  That isn't phobia, it is being true to the evidence.

[wigginhall]

Actually, if a scientist discovered evidence for a higher intelligence, he would be showered with honours, probably a Nobel prize, and it would be considered one of the greatest discoveries.   But so far, zilch.  Of course, the possibility of it is accepted, but that is not evidence.

[ippy]

Actually, if a scientist discovered evidence for a higher intelligence, he would be showered with honours, probably a Nobel prize, and it would be considered one of the greatest discoveries.   But so far, zilch.  Of course, the possibility of it is accepted, but that is not evidence.

Most would agree with you Wiggs, you'll have a hard job getting through to Sriram with these, rather simple facts.

What's your horoscope got you in for this week Sriram? Need I ask any more of you?

There you go cheers, ippy.
 

[Sriram]

That is wrong though.  Scientists aren't driven by irrational fears; they are driven by curiosity, in the main, to find out how stuff works.  And in that regard the principle is to follow where the evidence leads.  That isn't phobia, it is being true to the evidence.

They may be driven by curiosity but it is their phobia of 'supernatural'  things that prevents them from integrating such matters into their world view.

If galaxies are moving apart at an accelerated rate, scientists assume that something is pushing them apart, even though we can see no evidence of any such thing. We then start looking for evidence for this something. This is Dark Energy....which is said to constitute 70% of the mass of the universe.

If we see some odd gravitational effects in the cosmos, scientists assume there is some exotic matter present everywhere that makes this happen, even though we see nothing of that sort anywhere. Then they start looking for evidence of this strange matter. This is Dark Matter....which is said to constitute 25% of the mass of the universe. 

But if we see complexity and intelligence arising through biological evolution, we don't think that something should be making this arise....we attribute this to chance happenings. That's just the way things happen folks!  Nothing to see here!

If we talk of a Soul or Consciousness, we are asked to outline in detail such things as the texture, chemical composition, how it bonds with the body and so on.

[torridon]

They may be driven by curiosity but it is their phobia of 'supernatural'  things that prevents them from integrating such matters into their world view.

If galaxies are moving apart at an accelerated rate, scientists assume that something is pushing them apart, even though we can see no evidence of any such thing. We then start looking for evidence for this something. This is Dark Energy....which is said to constitute 70% of the mass of the universe.

If we see some odd gravitational effects in the cosmos, scientists assume there is some exotic matter present everywhere that makes this happen, even though we see nothing of that sort anywhere. Then they start looking for evidence of this strange matter. This is Dark Matter....which is said to constitute 25% of the mass of the universe. 

But if we see complexity and intelligence arising through biological evolution, we don't think that something should be making this arise....we attribute this to chance happenings. That's just the way things happen folks!  Nothing to see here!

If we talk of a Soul or Consciousness, we are asked to outline in detail such things as the texture, chemical composition, how it bonds with the body and so on.

None of that amounts to a phobia. If you think it a phobia, that is just a skewed perception within your mind.  It's not real.  Science is inherently naturalistic, in the sense that anything supernatural cannot be investigated, because that flows from the definition of supernatural.  We cannot investigate that which is uninvestigable.  That is not a phobia, it is simple logic. We see observations that call for an explanation not yet found, such as 'dark energy' and 'dark matter'; these are in effect labels for undiscovered processes causing these observations.   We will always have gaps in our knowledge, and there is no point in imagining that some supernatural agent has some agenda in pulling galaxies apart. We work on the assumption that there is some natural cause for this, if we did not, we would never come to discover the causes.  This is the nature of science, it is not some aberrant phobia that for some reason afflicts scientists in particular.

[Shaker]

They may be driven by curiosity but it is their phobia of 'supernatural'  things that prevents them from integrating such matters into their world view.

No, it's the scientific method - the only thing yet discovered which has consistently shown itself to be a reliable means of understanding the way nature is - that prevents them. No 'phobia'; reason and an evidence-based approach to reality.

[Sriram]

None of that amounts to a phobia. If you think it a phobia, that is just a skewed perception within your mind.  It's not real.  Science is inherently naturalistic, in the sense that anything supernatural cannot be investigated, because that flows from the definition of supernatural.  We cannot investigate that which is uninvestigable.  That is not a phobia, it is simple logic. We see observations that call for an explanation not yet found, such as 'dark energy' and 'dark matter'; these are in effect labels for undiscovered processes causing these observations.   We will always have gaps in our knowledge, and there is no point in imagining that some supernatural agent has some agenda in pulling galaxies apart. We work on the assumption that there is some natural cause for this, if we did not, we would never come to discover the causes.  This is the nature of science, it is not some aberrant phobia that for some reason afflicts scientists in particular.

Are you getting the point at all?!   I didn't say that galaxies are pushed apart by supernatural forces.

[Sriram]

No, it's the scientific method - the only thing yet discovered which has consistently shown itself to be a reliable means of understanding the way nature is - that prevents them. No 'phobia'; reason and an evidence-based approach to reality.

Yeah...yeah...I get that. The scientific method!  Anything that falls outside the scientific method has no business to exist!

[torridon]

Are you getting the point at all?!   I didn't say that galaxies are pushed apart by supernatural forces.

OK, to take the example of souls, if you take the position that it is a supernatural phenomenon then that by definition rules it out of natural investigation.  If you take the position that it is a natural phenomenon, then we ask, what then is it's nature; for example, it's substance, it's temperature, it's shape, it's charge, why doesn't it show up on scans etc. etc.

[Sebastian Toe]

Are you getting the point at all?!   I didn't say that galaxies are pushed apart by supernatural forces.

..but they could be, couldn't they?

[Shaker]

Yeah...yeah...I get that.

Unlikely in the extreme.

[Sriram]

OK, to take the example of souls, if you take the position that it is a supernatural phenomenon then that by definition rules it out of natural investigation.  If you take the position that it is a natural phenomenon, then we ask, what then is it's nature; for example, it's substance, it's temperature, it's shape, it's charge, why doesn't it show up on scans etc. etc.

Why don't you get it? You are vacillating.

Parallel Universes, Strings, Dark Energy ....are natural phenomena. Do you know their temperature, shape, charge etc. and why they don't show up on any of our instruments?! 

[Sebastian Toe]

Why don't you get it? You are vacillating.

Parallel Universes, Strings, Dark Energy ....are natural phenomena.

How do you know that?
Maybe they are supernatural.
They could be, couldn't they?

[torridon]

Why don't you get it? You are vacillating.

Parallel Universes, Strings, Dark Energy ....are natural phenomena. Do you know their temperature, shape, charge etc. and why they don't show up on any of our instruments?!

These things do show up on our instruments.  Or, more accurately, they are names, or names for provisional explanations for things that do show up on our instruments. We can measure the expansion of the universe due to 'dark energy', whatever it turns out to be.  It is a real phenomenon of nature, there is no doubt about that. Likewise String Theory is an attempt to explain the fundamental nature of matter at a subatomic level and is constrained by observational evidence at higher levels. Parallel worlds is an attempt to explain observations from quantum theory.  All of these are explanations for real measurable phenomena.  Reincarnated souls on the other hand have no observational evidence in favour of it, unless you include anecdotal claims, which are not regarded as strong evidence.  We can build a picture of past life on Earth because fossils in sedimentary layers are good evidence, they do not lie.  We can measure the speed of galaxies using red shift and this is good evidence because telescopes cannot lie.  Humans on the other hand can and do lie, and get confused, and have ulterior agendas and prejudices, so witness testimony is considered weak evidence. There is no significant evidence that a theory of reincarnation would attempt to explain; rather it is an idea from pre-science antiquity trying to find justification in the context of modern science.

[ippy]

These things do show up on our instruments.  Or, more accurately, they are names, or names for provisional explanations for things that do show up on our instruments. We can measure the expansion of the universe due to 'dark energy', whatever it turns out to be.  It is a real phenomenon of nature, there is no doubt about that. Likewise String Theory is an attempt to explain the fundamental nature of matter at a subatomic level and is constrained by observational evidence at higher levels. Parallel worlds is an attempt to explain observations from quantum theory.  All of these are explanations for real measurable phenomena.  Reincarnated souls on the other hand have no observational evidence in favour of it, unless you include anecdotal claims, which are not regarded as strong evidence.  We can build a picture of past life on Earth because fossils in sedimentary layers are good evidence, they do not lie.  We can measure the speed of galaxies using red shift and this is good evidence because telescopes cannot lie.  Humans on the other hand can and do lie, and get confused, and have ulterior agendas and prejudices, so witness testimony is considered weak evidence. There is no significant evidence that a theory of reincarnation would attempt to explain; rather it is an idea from pre-science antiquity trying to find justification in the context of modern science.

One side of this rambling argument is willing to accept anything that's backed up by even small amounts of evidence that could be a pointer to some form of a direction.

The other side with it's rambling on about stuff, that's all it is stuff, childlike stuff that has to date been unable to even supply anything that would at the very least inspire enquiry.

Regards ippy


   

[jeremyp]

I know what phobia is. It is phobia of God and religion and the supernatural that prevents 'scientists' from accepting the possibility of Intelligent intervention as a natural part of reality.

Cheers.

Complete and utter rubbish.

Scientists ignore the possibility of intelligent intervention because it doesn’t help them to understand the Universe. By ignoring the possibility that goddidit they’ve had centuries of success. Before that, they had millennia of scientific dark ages.

[Shaker]

I know what phobia is. It is phobia of God and religion and the supernatural that prevents 'scientists' from accepting the possibility of Intelligent intervention as a natural part of reality.

How is "intelligent intervention" by a supposed supernatural entity "a natural part of reality"?

You seem more than usually confused, which is saying something.

[Sriram]

These things do show up on our instruments.  Or, more accurately, they are names, or names for provisional explanations for things that do show up on our instruments. We can measure the expansion of the universe due to 'dark energy', whatever it turns out to be.  It is a real phenomenon of nature, there is no doubt about that. Likewise String Theory is an attempt to explain the fundamental nature of matter at a subatomic level and is constrained by observational evidence at higher levels. Parallel worlds is an attempt to explain observations from quantum theory.  All of these are explanations for real measurable phenomena.  Reincarnated souls on the other hand have no observational evidence in favour of it, unless you include anecdotal claims, which are not regarded as strong evidence.  We can build a picture of past life on Earth because fossils in sedimentary layers are good evidence, they do not lie.  We can measure the speed of galaxies using red shift and this is good evidence because telescopes cannot lie.  Humans on the other hand can and do lie, and get confused, and have ulterior agendas and prejudices, so witness testimony is considered weak evidence. There is no significant evidence that a theory of reincarnation would attempt to explain; rather it is an idea from pre-science antiquity trying to find justification in the context of modern science.

Ok...lets leave it at that then.

I am glad there are some people like Moody, Tucker, Parnia.... and their numbers are growing...thankfully.

Cheers.

[Rhiannon]

Ok...lets leave it at that then.

I am glad there are some people like Moody, Tucker, Parnia.... and their numbers are growing...thankfully.

Cheers.

Do they get invited on Oprah?

[ippy]

Do they get invited on Oprah?

Super duper comment/post Rhi.

Regards ippy