|
Post by rational on Dec 25, 2015 2:00:46 GMT -5
And how would you support that claim? "Who am I?" - This requires no faith. I am the next generation of a species, the result of the combination of the DNA of my parents. "Where did I come from?" - like every other member of the species, the result of the combination of the DNA of my parents. "Where am I going?" - Like every known life form, I will cease to function at some point and my constituents will return to the environment. "What shall I do while I am here?" - This is an individual question. I try live a life that does not harm others. There is a lot more but faith is not involved. Faith becomes an issue when people speculate on what might be rather than what is known. All of your answers are predicated on the assumption that "you" are just your physical body – a bag of skin, containing some bones and some organs in community with a bunch of microorganisms that outnumber your cells by 10 to 1. Nothing more. You have it just a little twisted. I have arrived at the above conclusions because there is absolutely nothing that would lead to a different conclusion. Life forms are produced and they die. Sure, people like to speculate over what might happen after death, whether there might some higher purpose for our existence, or if there might be something that humans are supposed to be doing while here. One could also speculate that humans might be oak trees that simply have a different perception of themselves. Should some evidence come to light regarding the existence of an afterlife I would be very interested in exploring it. But to date there is nothing. You could speculate on what is and is not reality. But empirical evidence is what there is. You can come up with all sort of possibilities to discount it but if you were to drop a rock and measure the acceleration due to gravity it would be the same no matter who took the measurement. Certainly it is human perception but then we live in a world perceived by humans. Rational thought allows for the development of ideas supported by the available data which in turn allows for the prediction of future events based on the the resulting theory. Or course individuals can evaluate the data in an irrational way but past experience has demonstrated that this does not yield reliable results. radius, ulna, humerus...? A fracture - greenstick, oblique, compound, buckled, simple, transverse, comminuted, stress...? Inquiring minds want to know!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 28, 2015 3:44:59 GMT -5
Edgar Allan Poe
For my own part, I have never had a thought Which I could not set down in words With even more distinctness that which I conceived it. There is however a class of fancies of exquisite delicacy Which are not thoughts and to which as yet I have found it absolutely impossible to adapt to language. These fancies arise in the soul, Alas how rarely, only at epochs Of most intense tranquillity When the bodily and mental health are in perfection. And those mere points of time When the confines of the waking world Blend with the world of dreams. And so I captured this fancy Where all that we see or seem Is but a dream within a dream.
|
|
|
Post by Hmmmm on Dec 28, 2015 6:26:26 GMT -5
Thoughts are wonderful things Nowadays they are considered Intellectual property of the one who created them If we can own something , then that makes it real whether it exists or not in the material world
Whereas material things only exist if you believe they exist. If you can't see it, it's not
|
|
|
Post by Yes on Dec 28, 2015 7:04:16 GMT -5
Thoughts have an infiniteness associated with them Where materials have a finiteness
We cannot freely think unless we explore the Realm of that which goes beyond the finiteness of the material world. There is an infinite world of thoughts where we can create anything we can imagine
I do not believe that I can conceive of infiniteness Maybe one could perceive of infiniteness as a concept, although a concept that far exceeds even the out most extreme of any thing that is finite.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Dec 30, 2015 17:03:28 GMT -5
All of your answers are predicated on the assumption that "you" are just your physical body – a bag of skin, containing some bones and some organs in community with a bunch of microorganisms that outnumber your cells by 10 to 1. Nothing more. You have it just a little twisted. I have arrived at the above conclusions because there is absolutely nothing that would lead to a different conclusion. Life forms are produced and they die. Sure, people like to speculate over what might happen after death, whether there might some higher purpose for our existence, or if there might be something that humans are supposed to be doing while here. One could also speculate that humans might be oak trees that simply have a different perception of themselves. Should some evidence come to light regarding the existence of an afterlife I would be very interested in exploring it. But to date there is nothing. You could speculate on what is and is not reality. But empirical evidence is what there is. You can come up with all sort of possibilities to discount it but if you were to drop a rock and measure the acceleration due to gravity it would be the same no matter who took the measurement. Certainly it is human perception but then we live in a world perceived by humans. Rational thought allows for the development of ideas supported by the available data which in turn allows for the prediction of future events based on the the resulting theory. Or course individuals can evaluate the data in an irrational way but past experience has demonstrated that this does not yield reliable results. radius, ulna, humerus...? A fracture - greenstick, oblique, compound, buckled, simple, transverse, comminuted, stress...? Inquiring minds want to know! Radius and ulna. Simple, but with compression. (Gained an appreciation for what Michael Jackson liked about propofol.) I agree that "empirical evidence is what there is". But I would never say that it is all there is. I would place the same kind of judgements on rational thought. Einstein famously said "I didn`t arrive at my understanding of the fundamental laws of the universe through my rational mind." I`ve just become acquainted with Edward Frenkel (mathematician with an epic passion) and he expressed the same concept in slightly different terms (I would have to review a youtube video to capture the exact quote). " You can come up with all sort of possibilities to discount it but if you were to drop a rock and measure the acceleration due to gravity it would be the same no matter who took the measurement." Yeah, all neat and tidy. Comforting, even. Then Einstein came along. And I think it is pretty apparent that there is so much more to the entire picture of gravity. I would agree that empirical evidence or rational thought should not be dismissed. (I came across a statistic the other day that "24% of Americans believe that the sun orbits around the earth." I was not able to explore the basis for this assertion, but if there is any truth to it, then that is a little alarming. At the same time, the Richard Dawkins style of dialog is clearly not working. The latest one is that he had an interview scheduled with a Muslim journalist, and in the lead-up to the interview, asked him if he really believed that Muhammad "flew to heaven on a winged horse". In the affirmative, Dawkins cancelled the interview, saying "A non-timewasting journalist needs at least SOME grasp of reality." Now, Dawkins may have a point. His one-liners are frequently as funny as hell. But clearly this style of communication is not working. Either on the fundamentalist believer front or where Science is (at least momentarily) running out of answers. For myself, I think we really need to listen to each other, and to attempt to develop a terminology that is somewhat commonly understood so that we can constructively contribute to the evolution of humankind.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Dec 30, 2015 23:13:45 GMT -5
Sorry to hear about your arm, Sharon. More inquiring minds want to know what happened!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 31, 2015 11:55:31 GMT -5
I agree that "empirical evidence is what there is". But I would never say that it is all there is. I would place the same kind of judgements on rational thought. Einstein famously said "I didn`t arrive at my understanding of the fundamental laws of the universe through my rational mind." I`ve just become acquainted with Edward Frenkel (mathematician with an epic passion) and he expressed the same concept in slightly different terms (I would have to review a youtube video to capture the exact quote). Yeah, all neat and tidy. Comforting, even. Then Einstein came along. And I think it is pretty apparent that there is so much more to the entire picture of gravity. Of course there is and there is the data to show that. However, the measurments I suggested will remain constant. You should see the data on the number of people who believed humans existed with the dinosaurs! As Sagan pointed out, we live in a demon haunted world. Try to keep the candle burning! Dawking certainly can be abrasive.Science does not run out of answers. The answers just have yet to be discovered.Not sure evolution runs on contributions... If data turns up that points to some unknowns I have no doubt that Dawkins and other skeptics will be in the forefront exploring the possibilities. My experience has been that scientists are, in general, a curious bunch.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Jan 2, 2016 12:58:07 GMT -5
Scientists can be fascinating individuals when they allow their minds to slip slightly involving the imagination to describe what they are trying to convey.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 4, 2016 10:46:16 GMT -5
Sorry to hear about your arm, Sharon. More inquiring minds want to know what happened! Thanks. Nothing too exotic, slipped on a patch of ice while shovelling a driveway.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 5, 2016 14:10:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 5, 2016 14:58:38 GMT -5
Science does not run out of answers. The answers just have yet to be discovered. I would suggest this is an article of faith on your part. No, facts are not a limited commodity any more than numbers. There may be questions for which there are not yet answers but that does not indicate there is a lack of facts. You might be in a place where there is no water available but that does not mean there is no water. A good possibility. He is working on the edge of discovery. Answers are not sitting in a book on the shelf but have to be pulled out of matter itself (his field is in the area of matter/anti-matter). It is not the first time this has happened. J.J. Thomson and Ernest Rutherford both has to create the answers to describe the work they were doing in the fields of atomic physics.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 5, 2016 15:03:51 GMT -5
All of your answers are predicated on the assumption that "you" are just your physical body – a bag of skin, containing some bones and some organs in community with a bunch of microorganisms that outnumber your cells by 10 to 1. Nothing more. Thinking about this comment - In other words all that we are is contained within our physical being. With increased research this is becoming more apparent. The ability to stimulate discrete parts of the brain and see that modify a person's behavior and even, for example, their sexual preferences leads one to the conclusion that individuals are self contained.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 9, 2016 15:47:52 GMT -5
All of your answers are predicated on the assumption that "you" are just your physical body – a bag of skin, containing some bones and some organs in community with a bunch of microorganisms that outnumber your cells by 10 to 1. Nothing more. Thinking about this comment - In other words all that we are is contained within our physical being. With increased research this is becoming more apparent. The ability to stimulate discrete parts of the brain and see that modify a person's behavior and even, for example, their sexual preferences leads one to the conclusion that individuals are self contained. And this, of course, is predicated on the assumption that awareness/consciousness/mind is created by the human brain. I don’t agree. (That being said, I grant that, without the physical brain, human mental processes of the waking and sleep states would not be possible. This does NOT imply that the “mental realm” ends in the physical brain of a human being.) Radios don’t create music. By the same token, a number of legitimate scientists (Don’t even ask; google them yourself) assert that brain activity does not create thoughts, even though we can now see what areas are lighting up. Neural networks map out and mediate electrical activity. This is not exactly “thinking” or having an “experience”. (“Correlation is not causation” is a cornerstone of real science.) To assert otherwise, at this moment of our understanding and evolution, is an act of faith.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 9, 2016 19:49:58 GMT -5
And this, of course, is predicated on the assumption that awareness/consciousness/mind is created by the human brain. I don’t agree. Easily refuted by showing any conscientiousness/awareness outside of the body. No it doesn't but there is, to date, no verifiable reason to thing that it does. No it doesn't but the energy that is transmitted to the radio can be detected. In general to transmit information energy is required. Devices have been developed that can detect minute amount of energy. So far all of the claimed energy fields that people say flow through the body have not been detected.No need to look them up. No one has put forth even a theory of data manipulation/storage/recall in the brain. Exactly. But the point is that it does happen in the brain. Stop neural networks and the whole process stops. Or "Correlation does not imply causation". While assuming that correlation did imply causation is a logical fallacy it does not rule out the possibility that there is a correlation. At our level of understanding all that can be determined is that we do not know. But a lot of people have fun, and even profit from, speculating and pretending there are unproved things going on.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 9, 2016 20:56:55 GMT -5
You have it just a little twisted. I have arrived at the above conclusions because there is absolutely nothing that would lead to a different conclusion. Life forms are produced and they die. Sure, people like to speculate over what might happen after death, whether there might some higher purpose for our existence, or if there might be something that humans are supposed to be doing while here. One could also speculate that humans might be oak trees that simply have a different perception of themselves. Should some evidence come to light regarding the existence of an afterlife I would be very interested in exploring it. But to date there is nothing. You could speculate on what is and is not reality. But empirical evidence is what there is. You can come up with all sort of possibilities to discount it but if you were to drop a rock and measure the acceleration due to gravity it would be the same no matter who took the measurement. Certainly it is human perception but then we live in a world perceived by humans. Rational thought allows for the development of ideas supported by the available data which in turn allows for the prediction of future events based on the the resulting theory. Or course individuals can evaluate the data in an irrational way but past experience has demonstrated that this does not yield reliable results. radius, ulna, humerus...? A fracture - greenstick, oblique, compound, buckled, simple, transverse, comminuted, stress...? Inquiring minds want to know! Radius and ulna. Simple, but with compression. (Gained an appreciation for what Michael Jackson liked about propofol.) I agree that "empirical evidence is what there is". But I would never say that it is all there is. I would place the same kind of judgements on rational thought. Einstein famously said "I didn`t arrive at my understanding of the fundamental laws of the universe through my rational mind." I`ve just become acquainted with Edward Frenkel (mathematician with an epic passion) and he expressed the same concept in slightly different terms (I would have to review a youtube video to capture the exact quote). " You can come up with all sort of possibilities to discount it but if you were to drop a rock and measure the acceleration due to gravity it would be the same no matter who took the measurement." Yeah, all neat and tidy. Comforting, even. Then Einstein came along. And I think it is pretty apparent that there is so much more to the entire picture of gravity. I would agree that empirical evidence or rational thought should not be dismissed. (I came across a statistic the other day that "24% of Americans believe that the sun orbits around the earth." I was not able to explore the basis for this assertion, but if there is any truth to it, then that is a little alarming. At the same time, the Richard Dawkins style of dialog is clearly not working. The latest one is that he had an interview scheduled with a Muslim journalist, and in the lead-up to the interview, asked him if he really believed that Muhammad "flew to heaven on a winged horse". In the affirmative, Dawkins cancelled the interview, saying "A non-timewasting journalist needs at least SOME grasp of reality."
Now, Dawkins may have a point. His one-liners are frequently as funny as hell. But clearly this style of communication is not working.
Either on the fundamentalist believer front or where Science is (at least momentarily) running out of answers. For myself, I think we really need to listen to each other, and to attempt to develop a terminology that is somewhat commonly understood so that we can constructively contribute to the evolution of humankind. Certainly, "Richard Dawkins style of dialog," is often abrasive & off putting. (I have heard some of his fellow scientists and/or atheists say the same)
However, I certainly can understand his cancelling an interview with someone who would ask such question of a scientist. Someone with the scientific credentials of Dawkins hasn't the time to waste on such as that. How do you arrive at the conclusion that Richard Dawkins style of dialog is clearly not working.?
It is working for those of us who really listen!
He makes a lot of sense to many of us. Yes, -he was testy about the microphone working when I heard him speak but when microphone problem got settled, it was fascinating to hear him.
|
|
|
Post by ThankGod on Jan 11, 2016 14:21:33 GMT -5
How does a strict materialist (ex: Dawkins) reconcile a dog eat dog/survival of the fittest world with the overwhelming evidence that we have an inherited need to be truly compassionate in order to survive . The need to be loved and to love unconditionally is part of how we have survived , fact .
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 11, 2016 14:49:20 GMT -5
selfishness is not a trait worth preserving? It is proven to be an extremely harmful defect.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 12, 2016 10:22:32 GMT -5
How does a strict materialist (ex: Dawkins) reconcile a dog eat dog/survival of the fittest world with the overwhelming evidence that we have an inherited need to be truly compassionate in order to survive . The need to be loved and to love unconditionally is part of how we have survived , fact . You really have to look at the behavior of the animals that have been around for a long time and see what that is the case. Remember that man is a newcomer to the party.
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 12, 2016 15:22:56 GMT -5
Does man not exercise stewardship over all animals?
I believe you are incorrect in assuming that man came after animals. Imho
|
|
|
Post by Hmmmm on Jan 12, 2016 15:26:37 GMT -5
Are you postulating that various theories can now be considered "fact" If so please document this
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 12, 2016 15:51:40 GMT -5
Does man not exercise stewardship over all animals? I believe you are incorrect in assuming that man came after animals. Imho There is almost insurmountable evidence that they did. Do you have anything that refutes what has been found?
|
|
|
Post by Yes on Jan 12, 2016 16:57:17 GMT -5
There is infinite amount of evidence to support Information-intelligent design Consider RNA interacting with DNA , consider that sheep/lambs are wholly dependent on a stewart
|
|
|
Post by Yes on Jan 12, 2016 17:09:30 GMT -5
There is infinite amount of evidence to support Information-intelligent design Consider RNA interacting with DNA , consider that sheep/lambs are wholly dependent on a stewart
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 12, 2016 17:30:03 GMT -5
Thoughts are wonderful things Nowadays they are considered Intellectual property of the one who created them If we can own something , then that makes it real whether it exists or not in the material world Whereas material things only exist if you believe they exist. If you can't see it, it's not Can thoughts be considered IP if they are not realized?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 12, 2016 17:37:47 GMT -5
There is infinite amount of evidence to support Information-intelligent design Perhaps you could provide some examples. Consider RNA interacting with DNA[/quote]Are you referring to RNA–DNA interactions and DNA methylation in post-transcriptional gene silencing? I have no idea what a stewart is but don't you think that the reason that domestic sheep are so dependent on man is because of selective breeding and genetic modification?
|
|
|
Post by Yes on Jan 12, 2016 18:07:09 GMT -5
Sheep cannot "shed" their wool. If wool is not sheared , they will not survive.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 12, 2016 18:19:08 GMT -5
Sheep cannot "shed" their wool. If wool is not sheared , they will not survive. Most sheep do shed their wool. In fact some people are concerned that wool is sometimes removed early to avoid loss through shedding leaving the sheep without the wool they need to keep warm. However, it is true that through genetic modification some sheep do shed less than others. Do you work with sheep?
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 12, 2016 18:22:49 GMT -5
Everything that has and will be created was created
Which came first the RNA or DNA? Mouth or voice box? Voice box or the ear? Chicken or egg?
I do not have enough time to discuss theories that have not been proven regardless of other opinions
|
|