RE: Black Hole eats sun (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - Off Topic: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=23
- - - RE: Black Hole eats sun: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=198678



Message

Northern Rock -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 22 2012 16:03:33)

Sorry your quite right Florian , cynical is what some of us become as we get older and we realize that theres more between heaven and earth than will be found in religion or science .

Many will disagree but the older I get
the more I find that life, and the universe is a bigger mystery with the passing of each year and is better for it as you leave your mind open to the practical things that really matter.

That dosn,t mean I haven,t read some of the above posts with interest , it just all becomes an enternal question .

As to the physical answer to Entropy,ie , the death of stars and eventually the whole universe can I recommend the short story by Issac Asimov " The Last Question". This deals with the future of man kind and the end of the universe, and although over simplistic it has a killer ending.

I haven,t read Asimov since I was a youngster but I always thought he had an edge on other science fiction writers as he was a working scientist him self.

My I also respectively recommend his guide to The Bible and he,s thesis on other life forms ,all very interesting, but no answers only mystery, no believe other than our own .

As for my comment on the depth of this thread sorry it was just a shock to see such andthoughtful. I would,nt find any thing like this on any bass guitar or Fender Telecaster forum, but then this is the music forum I read the most .

Regards
Craig



marrow3 -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 22 2012 17:23:25)

quote:

Science can also explain human psychology and characteristics (and these obviously differ between racial groups) by evolutionary biology

What we understand is a drop in the ocean compared to the reality.



BarkellWH -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 22 2012 18:13:47)

quote:

What we understand is a drop in the ocean compared to the reality.


True, but that is all the more reason to treasure and advance science, the scientific method, and the rational thinking that gave birth to them. We owe a huge debt to the ancient Greeks for being the first to understand that the rational mind, above all else, leads to knowledge. It certainly is not religion as it is commonly understood, nor is it astrology. It is not the ingestion of hallucinatory drugs, which produce not an "alternate reality," but simply cause the neurons and synaptic impulses in the brain to fire differently, making it "appear" as if one experiences a different reality.

Even though what we know to be "true" may change as we gain ever more knowledge and insight into the universe, each step takes us closer to the ultimate reality, whatever it may turn out to be. For example, I don't think it will too long (maybe not in my lifetime) that we will have discovered the long sought-after (but elusive) Unified Field Theory that will explain the relationship among gravity, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. From that, all sorts of things will fall into place. With this great voyage we are on, I fail to see how anyone could ever be bored!

Cheers,

Bill



estebanana -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 22 2012 18:32:33)

quote:

Science can also explain human psychology and characteristics (and these obviously differ between racial groups) by evolutionary biology


Re; psychology, if you're Freudian in basic outlook, but a Jungian would not stop with science as an explanation for every aspect of psychology. Neither would a more of less analytical neurologist like Oliver Sacks.

Jung and Freud broke over a basic disagreement about whether or not scientifically unprovable concepts actually exist. Take for example the concept of the Collective Unconscious, scientifically unprovable, yet extremely valid.

Pure rigid science is as weird and unnatural as pure religious fundamentalism. Lots of things can't and never will be explained by scientific inquiry. And that is the beauty of it.



marrow3 -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 22 2012 19:20:49)

Hi Bill,

I appreciate the points you make and largely agree (as far as I understand). I didn't mean in the sense of drugs like Aldous Huxley or something. Rather that humility in the scientific method is necessary. With respect to human behavior this probably more evident than anywhere as the brain is considered one of, if not the most complex thing known about. I was reading about the 'connectome' recently which is a project to map out the neuron connections in the human brain.

www.humanconnectomeproject.org

It is surely a vast enterprise making sequencing of the human genome look like child's play.

As a scientist I went to a Biosensor conference last week where many presentations were on the subject of DNA sensing. It is mind-blowing to hear about the race between various companies to sequence human genome for $1000, I mean the advancements in technology.

I wouldn't rule out there being a scientific description of consciousness one day but it is a long way off.

regards,
Richard



BarkellWH -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 22 2012 20:19:59)

Richard,

What a project, indeed! Mapping out the neuron connections in the human brain. A great current example of this wonderful voyage we have been on for 2,500 years. Now, if only my brain's neurons would fire "in compas" when I play the guitar....

Cheers,

Bill



XXX -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 22 2012 21:05:34)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marrow3

What we understand is a drop in the ocean compared to the reality.


Probably the most abused statement in science. It is self contradictory. In order to compare the drop to an ocean one would need to know the ocean. But then your knowledge wouldnt consist of just a drop, but the ocean.

There is no other reality than the one we know. Suggesting a reality beyond this one would assume to have knowledge over it. But if we had knowledge over it, it would loose its mystical appeal.

Unlike Socrates, i think that we just know what we know, and we just dont know what we dont know. Pure rational statement i think.



estebanana -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 0:26:50)

quote:

I wouldn't rule out there being a scientific description of consciousness one day but it is a long way off.


Hmm I find this very difficult because we don't even understand what consciousness is. And if we had any idea, I would imagine any mapping of consciousness would have to be as big as the terrain of whatever consciousness is. Meaning the map itself would have to be another form of consciousness. If consciousness encompasses the conscious and the unconscious, and what sentience is, which are all very much real, I doubt whether these can be mapped or explained. But that's just me. Brain nerve mechanics seem like a possible thing to map, but the whole of consciousness, not.

I reminds me of the story the Library of Babel; the library is too big for one person to see the whole library in a lifetime. One hardy even sees another librarian.



hamia -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 1:14:18)

quote:

ORIGINAL: estebanana

Re; psychology, if you're Freudian in basic outlook, but a Jungian would not stop with science as an explanation for every aspect of psychology. Neither would a more of less analytical neurologist like Oliver Sacks.

Jung and Freud broke over a basic disagreement about whether or not scientifically unprovable concepts actually exist. Take for example the concept of the Collective Unconscious, scientifically unprovable, yet extremely valid.

Pure rigid science is as weird and unnatural as pure religious fundamentalism. Lots of things can't and never will be explained by scientific inquiry. And that is the beauty of it.


Psychology is not a science - not even close. I was thinking more of the hard science viewpoint which sees DNA as the major factor in determining human behaviour and ability.



estebanana -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 1:49:58)

quote:

Pure rigid science is as weird and unnatural as pure religious fundamentalism. Lots of things can't and never will be explained by scientific inquiry.


When I said this what I was getting at it that a purely rigid scientific course is not singular a panacea to understanding. I was making a comparison to religious bias. Sometimes scientific method taken too literally can be just like a literal intepretation of a bible story. Some scientists cringe when they hear this kind of thing. Personal example, I've heard Western doctors say the acupuncture part of Chinese medicine is nothing more than a mere placibo form of treatment. That is has no scientific value or provability, therefore not medicine. Yet the Western doctor would operate thinking it was the rational course, when the acupuncture could have been a better treatment. The bias serves to prolong the suffering of the patient.

In my own case I have suffered various kinds of tedonitis. Western doctors failed at treating it, the Chinese medicine doctors succeeded. But the Western doctor could not give a rational reason for the success. The Chinese medical practitioner who used both Western and Chinese techniques could explain some of it scientifically, but not all of it.


I'm saying science practice is not immune to dogma or bias. It's like religion in that respect.

quote:

Psychology is not a science - not even close. I was thinking more of the hard science viewpoint which sees DNA as the major factor in determining human behaviour and ability.


Modern clinical psychology is a of branch science, it follows scientific method and is subject to peer review. Maybe the modern of practice psycho therapy can incorporate non scientific aspects, but the basis of psycho therapy is grounded is science. It has been since Freud first began researching the unconscious via scientific method.

Behavior, ability is not determined by the genetic disposition alone. Part of psychology is the scientific study of how genetic factors work with psycho dynamic principles (environmental, familial factors) to form whole human beings. Also it plays big factor in how psychologists determine formal descriptions of pathologies. Mental health issues are certainly approached scientifically today. Mental illness is treated a 'disease', a medical term. The language itself has changed to reflect a scientific practice. There are numerous modern scientific studies carried out in the field of psychology....I could cite dozens of benchmark psychological experiments if you like.

Like they say in the restaurant business it's all about location, location, location. In human behavior it's mostly environment, environment, environment.

The most current thinkers in brain trauma research have been looking at psycho dynamic principles as part of the course of action in experiments. And more importantly looking at how these factors effect the recovery or non recovery of trauma patients. Things like how patients react to music being played for them while they are in a coma. It's not enough to say "Oh yeah maybe if you play music they will wake up." No. Psychologists are working scientifically to see what is happening between brain injury, genetic disposition, and active factors in the patients mental/psychological state. They want to know why some patients respond to certain therapies.

It means that what is considered a rift or split between so called hard science and soft science is breaking down and practitioners are looking at how different aspects of science work together for a better scientific method.

I always go for the low hanging fruit[:D]



Ricardo -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 3:29:53)

quote:

Your post appears quite like bent to predetermined demand.
In my experience believers are vastly preconditioned, and the small percentage who yet came to dedicating to mythology as adults usually appear unwilling to cope with this worlds reality, or better to say, to taking efforts of seeing into own and surrounding conditions.


Well I wanted it to be a bit like making a case for the reason INTELLIGENT people gravitate to spirituality...in a way I was playing devil's advocate as I lean much more to scientific explainations for events. To me intelligent people are not the same mindless sheep followers you seem to refer to above. But still, you have whittled down all god believers to two things...either brainwashed from childhood (conditioned) or crazy/dellusional (unwillling to cope with reality). I point out again, there are people that need a feeling of community and comfort to explain their EXPERIENCES that are at present out of the relm of scientific explainatiions. To deny such experiences or feelings is also a denial or unwillingness to "cope" with reality. (did you not enjoy the feeling of commeradery as per large number of other postings of ani religious sentiment?)

quote:

# Why would you think that the replacement of instincts through awareness would be equalling giving up on self-preservation in the same time?

Well, earlier you attempt to kill my point about "6th sense" stuff and talked about the purpose of evolution that involved self preservation and cognative abilities etc....so we need no spooky stuff to explain our "meaning" of existence....yet you don't give a rational for a compulsion to do a sefless acts such as your own toward the dump puppies....so it's kind of cute that you think the world to be so horrible that no kind god could sit back and let it play out, yet, to the dump puppies you are THE messiah. Do you not see the contradiction?

quote:

# Why would you think that empathical skills were bound to adopting "Christ like attitude"?
Empathical skills and reasoning have been with hominids way before past 2 millenia.

Empathy is a skill of early hominids? Ok, there is evidence of early hominids rescuing endangered animals??? WHy is your "skill" so much more honed to this empathy that our species benefits after you reproduce? In other words how does empathy towards other species further self preservation? (sorry to seem to be picking on you about this animal rescue vs your athiest stance. It is just the perfect duality to my earlier point that contradicions are a part of reality and inhibit our goal in seeking the absolute truth).

quote:

And objectively; you might want to take a seat first; we, being immensely destructive to bio diversity and ressources, are the least significant species on earth as is now.

Bio diversity. WE, being part of bio diversity are destructive....IMMENSELY destructive....yet are least significant???? Do you not see the condradiction? Or at heart you believe mother nature somehow did NOT spawn us along with the rest? Seems you possibley believe stronger then any that god not only exists, but you are angry at him, and less than proud to be born human. If it were true, your belief in only the cold impationate universe letting our molecules and dna evolve by chance and natural selection to its present state, and empathy a chemical reaction in the brain allowing us to realize a need for all life to co exist so that we can survive with mother earth in peace, then why even KILL germs bugs and parasites? Why not let a mosquito sit on the arm happily suck your blood that it can feed its young, or other bugs/animals to eat your flesh? The instinct to kill these things starts at birth...it's in our DNA. Self preservation, from the time you squashed your first bug, you have been fighting the bio sphere. You can draw the line at cute furry critters that stick the tail up after they eat, but it doesn't change the fact the bio spere at large is not empathetic to US. And now we can, at touch of a button, obliterate the bio sphere at will. Least significant species????

quote:

You don´t sound to me like being "very much into ( principles of) science" at all. For, science is less pathing opinion rather than the attempt of approaching objectivity.

On the contrary, I seem to be one of few admitting we might NOT be understanding certain fundamental ideas properly, and I am specifically questioning the "matter of fact" conclusions deduced by certain observations as per understood CONFLICTING pillars of science. Put another way....observation: unexplainable gravity effect of stars in orbit of galactic nucleaus. Conclusion: Gravity concept not wrong...standard model not wrong....so there must be a dark matter particle we can't see. in quantity of 90% of matter in entire universe!!!!!!!!! Initial shock feeling is that gravity could be wrong....but as per Einstein's revision of Newton, we also observe predicted gravitational lensing. Ok, but it all ties together. Truly objective thinking would say "ooooops....it's all wrong back to the DRAWING BOARD". But the science community adheres to certain beliefs as strongly as any religious group makes conform of their spiritual doctrines to new realizations. If we can so easily say "evolution is fact? Oh **** there is no cane able jesus or god for that matter" then why can't we do the same for things such as standard model or general relativity? Instead we spend tons of time money energy complex math etc to build and under ground detector to observe .....thus far....nada.

Ricardo



Arash -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 6:47:32)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ruphus


I think to understand your personal view.

In general terms however, what can or rather must be done is reciprocally questioning.
Can the same intelligence that was creating and conducting the world be ordinary perceiving / acting like an ancient rube in the same time?
And provided the thinking individual´s slightest notion of what is going on our planet: Could an almighty, by his capability self-evidently far from vengeance or sadism ever be standing by watching it?
Or, could he alternatively have been capable of creating all that is in space and monitoring it in the same time, yet be insusceptible to gross yet vainly inflicted pain and injust such as is occuring billions of times every single day on earth?

Logic demands the precondition of thelike questions as possibly positively answerable first, for a considering of mutual eventuality of occurance or abscence. Otherwise equal consideration of yes or no would be like building a castle in the air.
Just saying.

Ruphus


Ruphus, your view about God (if he should exist) is more like from a religious person than mine.

You require human attributes ("sitting there watching" , "feeling the pain" , etc.), you require human emotions, feelings, etc. from a (possible) God.
whereas i think if God exists, then we can't imagine him or explain and understand his attributes.
If God created the billions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars (and maybe also other universes), then i am sure he has better things
to do than sitting there watching what we do on our small unimportant planet (just to use your method and humanize God).

Or maybe god just fired the big bang and leaved the rest (the universe) to chance. Nobody knows and nobody will know.
Our brain is too small and our tools too weak to ever understand these issues.

But the most naive questions would be like yours:
to ask things like "why is God watching all this pain on earth and doesn't do anything if he exists?"

This is almost as naive as religious people believing in some ancient bullsh!t stories.

Both the atheists and religious fanatics make the same mistake to "humanize" God and ask irrelevant questions



Ruphus -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 11:35:41)

Ricardo, you are twisting points upside-down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo

I point out again, there are people that need a feeling of community and comfort to explain their EXPERIENCES that are at present out of the relm of scientific explainatiions. To deny such experiences or feelings is also a denial or unwillingness to "cope" with reality.


If you check out the subject of psychology you will find that the vast of it deals with the phenomenon of people evading efforts of exploration / unwelcome entity. ( You think it accidental that the less sophistication given the more superstition there being in place as well?) Humans are traditionally prone to comfortable wildcards of the super natural, and commonly lesser so the more advanced their education be.

Taking the good old fancy as a clue for existence of the super natural makes little of consistancy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo
(did you not enjoy the feeling of commeradery as per large number of other postings of ani religious sentiment?)

Me could stand the case alone, and am enjoying the comradery with many here anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo
yet you don't give a rational for a compulsion to do a sefless acts such as your own toward the dump puppies....so it's kind of cute that you think the world to be so horrible that no kind god could sit back and let it play out, yet, to the dump puppies you are THE messiah. Do you not see the contradiction?


The rational behind it is well known by behavioural and sociological science. Cooperation pays. This was even mathematically substantiated the minute computers were capable of it ( in the late eighties, if memory serves me right ).

If you had been attentive enough you would had realized that I was basically pointing to that what mere humans are empathically capable of, an almighty would be capable of long before.

Your response is not to what I have been saying, but instead to the contrary of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo
Empathy is a skill of early hominids? Ok, there is evidence of early hominids rescuing endangered animals??? WHy is your "skill" so much more honed to this empathy that our species benefits after you reproduce? In other words how does empathy towards other species further self preservation?


For the efficiency of cooperation empathical skills evolved. And since empathy will either be in place or be abscent, it will not be ceasing to function in sight of what might be considered inferiour life.
Once being in place empathical skills will be just that, working indiscriminatively for any form of life that an individual in question might associate with according sensual properties.

So, these skills came into place for socializing internhumanly in the first place, but function beyound that for the nature of the matter.

And while the evolving and progressing of empathical skills will have been to no outer species aim, I am sure that It will have benefitted to our ancestors every once in a while nonetheless. Like say with cave men-defending packs of wolves that for most might have been solidary for associated food ressource, but eventually just as much for empathical feedback.

Prehistory, history and presence are filled with anough of pressumed and proven examples where empathical approach to animals has shown productive, even if just as an evolutionary side product.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo
Bio diversity. WE, being part of bio diversity are destructive....IMMENSELY destructive....yet are least significant???? Do you not see the condradiction?

You are mixing up. Too bad such must be spoon fed still.
The special value on this planet is its manifold evolution. When a single species developes into a destructor of the whole then its becomes of the least value.

You don´t realize that the criteria you apply are being those of species intellectual level, and while I claim that you specially are being far from realizing what fellow species might have developed to in this very realm, the point would be what will count for this blue planets preservation.
Earths creation could care less about humans´ high deem of own philosophical standards.
What may count for mother earth in the meantime is to not lose billions of years of evolutionary forthcoming and diversity through just a blink of idiocy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo
If it were true, your belief in only the cold impationate universe letting our molecules and dna evolve by chance and natural selection to its present state, and empathy a chemical reaction in the brain allowing us to realize a need for all life to co exist so that we can survive with mother earth in peace, then why even KILL germs bugs and parasites? Why not let a mosquito sit on the arm happily suck your blood that it can feed its young, or other bugs/animals to eat your flesh? The instinct to kill these things starts at birth...it's in our DNA.


It is genetical imprint, not instinct.
And that for several reasons. One of them being that cave men didn´t know that these buggers and mosquitos transmit viruses, whichs chromosome sequentials again have been essential for us to become what we are.

In fact, we even didn´t know that until just recently.

But anyway, there you have the legitimation within our sight even for thelike lousy creatures. Ain´t it ironic? ( Seriously.) ;O)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo
Conclusion: Gravity concept not wrong...standard model not wrong....so there must be a dark matter particle we can't see. in quantity of 90% of matter in entire universe!!!!!!!!! Initial shock feeling is that gravity could be wrong....but as per Einstein's revision of Newton, we also observe predicted gravitational lensing. Ok, but it all ties together. Truly objective thinking would say "ooooops....it's all wrong back to the DRAWING BOARD". But the science community adheres to certain beliefs as strongly as any religious group makes conform of their spiritual doctrines to new realizations.


I am the last to deny preconception in science and more even in history of science. But that exmaple above makes little sense.

Science sticking to given columns as long as there be no better available, making them of comparable incongruency to spiritual doctrines?

Man, Ricardo, weren´t you saying to be scientific, yet can´t see basic differences between imperfection and arbitrariness?

Arash,

You have been too rushing, ... like so often. :OP

I have been referring to gods as designed by religions. And you have just backed me up.

Ruphus



estebanana -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 12:28:05)

I liked that part of the movie Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure where they travel in time and meet Socrates. They give some philosophical wisdom the from their time. They say to Socrates, "Dude, everything is dust in the wind."



and then



estebanana -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 12:49:42)

More excellent modern philosophical discourse. Foreshadows of the Dr. Evil character on Austin Powers.




marrow3 -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 14:28:16)

quote:


Hmm I find this very difficult because we don't even understand what consciousness is. And if we had any idea, I would imagine any mapping of consciousness would have to be as big as the terrain of whatever consciousness is. Meaning the map itself would have to be another form of consciousness. If consciousness encompasses the conscious and the unconscious, and what sentience is, which are all very much real, I doubt whether these can be mapped or explained. But that's just me. Brain nerve mechanics seem like a possible thing to map, but the whole of consciousness, not.


I agree, I think. I meant the word in a vague sense, understanding the brain as a unified whole from the bottom up, with all the functions that it performs in some kind of structure. Could speculate, but who knows. Some definitions of consciousness could be unfalsifiable, haven't really thought about it.

quote:



Probably the most abused statement in science. It is self contradictory. In order to compare the drop to an ocean one would need to know the ocean. But then your knowledge wouldnt consist of just a drop, but the ocean.

There is no other reality than the one we know. Suggesting a reality beyond this one would assume to have knowledge over it. But if we had knowledge over it, it would loose its mystical appeal.

Unlike Socrates, i think that we just know what we know, and we just dont know what we dont know. Pure rational statement i think.


It's simpler than that, I did not mean it as a philosophical maxim. On the microscale, the brain has 10^11 neurons and 10^15 connections between neurons, those connections are subject to continual changes. The analytical tools to study this structure in real time simply don't exist yet, but we do know it's there. So biiig challenge ahead. I do concede it may be an exaggeration if the microscale detail turns out to be unnecessary.
ref: www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010042



Ricardo -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 14:38:08)

quote:

What may count for mother earth in the meantime is to not lose billions of years of evolutionary forthcoming and diversity through just a blink of idiocy.


Yet, she has done EXACTLY that herself at least 4 times in the past (if you believe in fossil record of mass extinction events that have occured since the begining of life on earth, and furthmore occur in fairly regular time intervals). In fact this slate cleaning seems a big part of the evolution of life on earth.....everything must die out to make room for others. EVERY LIFE FORM MUST DIE. And by "coincidence" human technology arises at more or less the next timing point for yet another mass extinction. So....another contradiction that we can either do what mother nature intended...(perhaps our meaning of evolving as such to help mother with next mass extinction since she is running out of Bollides big enough to do the job?)....or....be like moses and make some sort of ark to save which ever furry critter or plant we'd like to eat keep as pets or think is cute or pretty INCLUDE our selves, the only ones yet capable of doing such a thing? Least valuable or....MOST valueable species yet to evolve? The math is clear...the future as we stand at such a cross roads is not.

quote:

Science sticking to given columns as long as there be not better available, making them of comparable incongruency to spiritual doctrines?

I did not mean to imply the doctrines themselves are comparable as alternative hypothesis to explain observed events. Simply that PEOPLE adhere to beliefs all the same, not because they are simply close minded, stupid, brainwashed or crazy necessarily. Even Kepler and Einstein did their most significant work by trying to prove God to be a brilliant creator. Letting go of preconcieved notions in the end helped Kepler. Einstein introduced Cosmo constant to fudge his GR equations (expansion discovered later eliminated need for it) and later had problems with "chance" and never found a way to reconcile his ideas with what heisenberg proposed....yet he can't be proved wrong as of yet. (even the Einstein lovers re introduced cosmo constant at "discovery" of increasing expansion rate caused by another "dark mystery" called "dark energy").

Thanks to Einstein and star trek those little satelites that orbit the earth can be corrected for general relativity curvature and beam my exact location on the planet back to my wife's smart phone. THanks einstein!!! But quantum mechanics has proven super practical as well. They can't both be correct descriptions of the universe yet despite the obvious, people in science grip tight to either one, or divide the mind when dealing with one or the other the same as spiritual people reconcile doctrine with aspects of science and practical life. I agree that "faith" fills in the cracks of knowledge, but it is a problem not only for religion. Trying to solve such mysteries by setting aside certain experiences and observations may possibly doing disservice to the complete truth.



estebanana -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 15:14:50)

quote:

quote:


Hmm I find this very difficult because we don't even understand what consciousness is. And if we had any idea, I would imagine any mapping of consciousness would have to be as big as the terrain of whatever consciousness is. Meaning the map itself would have to be another form of consciousness. If consciousness encompasses the conscious and the unconscious, and what sentience is, which are all very much real, I doubt whether these can be mapped or explained. But that's just me. Brain nerve mechanics seem like a possible thing to map, but the whole of consciousness, not.


I agree, I think. I meant the word in a vague sense, understanding the brain as a unified whole from the bottom up, with all the functions that it performs in some kind of structure. Could speculate, but who knows. Some definitions of consciousness could be unfalsifiable, haven't really thought about it.


I think broad patterns of consciousness or isolated or single parts of consciousness could and will be seen in brain research through watching brain activity with various modes of tracking how the brain operates.

To be crude, I think it's possible to understand the brain as a piece of meat vis a vis it's operating system of nerves. But ever since De Carte, ( and earlier) we've been wondering what part of consciousness the brain plays. We don't even know if all of consciousness encompassed in the awareness of the brain. It could be the wrong organ to be looking into if consciousness resides in an organ to begin with. The brain could be like an amplifier or receiver to broadcast consciousness to us, the records or radio waves, to make a metaphor, of consciousness could be coming from some other part of our being. The brain simply or unsimply transmits the information to us.

The ones I think who have done a lot of work in mapping consciousness are Buddhist monks. They went about by trail and error over along period of time, but they seem to have some knowledge on how it works. They differentiate between "the meat body" a Buddhist term, and the non corporeal body. So right from the beginning they set up a larger system for researching the subject by recognizing there maybe more then one body to look at. Not that I'm pushing Buddhism, but just mentioning there has been a lot of recent scientific interest in the findings of Buddhist monks about the nature of how the brain works.

Meditation has been shown to alter brain chemistry for new example and there is research going on about how this works. Or at least what is going on physically in the brain. It has also been scientifically noted that monks have high degree of skill or developed aptitude at interpreting rapid micro facial gestures. So science is starting to look at surface, the face and how a meditator or a non-meditator perceives something about a person based on facial changes so rapid they happen dozens per second.

My money is on these types of dual traditional model scientific methods and monks as consciousness researchers inquiries if any thing is to be charted out about consciousness. But I think it is so vast and layered it is not really ultimately chartable, if we even know what it is or where it comes from.

Some people talk about subatomic particles and how we keep seeing or speculating on smaller and smaller particles that get so small they eventually slip through what we know to be real. Maybe there is some connection between consciousness and the physical particles becoming so small they transform into a all pervasive stream and we tuning into this stream. Sort of like "the force" in Star Wars. Ha ha, I think George Lucas based the force on Jung's concept of the collective unconscious and synchronicity.

Maybe there is something there, but I'm willing to let it be and find out later. We all will make shift in consciousness eventually maybe we find out then how it works and just laugh our asses off at all the wires and MRI machines hooked up to a guys brain.



estebanana -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 15:20:30)

quote:

In fact this slate cleaning seems a big part of the evolution of life on earth.....everything must die out to make room for others. EVERY LIFE FORM MUST DIE. And by "coincidence" human


Wow quite draconian there Ricardo. During those mass extinctions not everything died. Lots of stuff, life on earth, was just culled back to what could survive the global trauma until it could develop. More like drastic weeding than absolute death.

Probably the things that survived these catastrophic events were the kinds of bacteria and micro and small organisms that live in deep sea volcanic vents.



mottallica -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 16:40:48)

quote:

Even my grandmother, (who was really a Jew!)


was she your mother's mother or your father's mother?



mottallica -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 17:01:26)

quote:

Unfortunately, we have many school boards in the States who, either because they actually believe it or because they are spineless in the face of fundamentalists, dictate that "creationism" must be taught alongside evolution, under the laughable assumption that both are equally valid "theories."


i know it's old but i must say something
i'm not a religious extremist but i must protest
as much as you don't believe in the "creation theory" you have to respect those who don't believe in evolution.
you can't prove that you are correct , and even if you could and people still didn't believe in it it's their choice and the fact of the matter is that many people still believe in the former and you should respect their choice and let children decide for themselves what they choose to believe in if at all.and as long as both theories are as popular as they are in the states - both should be thought.

by the way , me - i see no contrast between evolution and religion . evolution can be the "how" and not the "what"
it could be that life evolved from bacterias to small fish then mammals and so forth
the thing is that it doesn't answer the biggest question of how did life sparked in the first bacteria? and then when more complex life forms came to life such as human beings especially , where did the "soul" come from?
i put soul under " " for a reason because i mean what soul reflcts to - feelings, thought. - you saying hormons and electric signals is again the "how it works" and not where it came from. see my point?

some bible researchers say that the 7 day idea is a metaphor for ages - each day is an age - an era in time, and if you look at the big bang theory and put the chronological order of things there with the "creation theory" as a metaphor it can hold up really nice.



Ricardo -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 17:25:44)

quote:

Maybe there is some connection between consciousness and the physical particles becoming so small they transform into a all pervasive stream and we tuning into this stream. Sort of like "the force" in Star Wars.


Look no further then electron clouds...meditate on that.



estebanana -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 17:57:23)

quote:

was she your mother's mother or your father's mother?


Matrilineal descent.



estebanana -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 18:03:47)

quote:


Look no further then electron clouds...meditate on that.


I had something mind even more ephemeral, something broken down until it no longer has physical presence.



mottallica -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 18:17:08)

quote:

Matrilineal descent


i asked it because of the possibility of this answer
if she is your mother's mother then according to judism you are Jewish as well :P



Ricardo -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 18:19:08)

quote:

by the way , me - i see no contrast between evolution and religion . evolution can be the "how" and not the "what"
it could be that life evolved from bacterias to small fish then mammals and so forth
the thing is that it doesn't answer the biggest question of how did life sparked in the first bacteria? and then when more complex life forms came to life such as human beings especially , where did the "soul" come from?
i put soul under " " for a reason because i mean what soul reflcts to - feelings, thought. - you saying hormons and electric signals is again the "how it works" and not where it came from. see my point?


Point taken, but you reveal you don't understand the mechnism of evolution or natural selction works. Life forms don't necessasarilly evolve lower to higher, that's not how it works. It is about adaptation, selection, mutiation etc. That is the "where it comes from" question answered in all cases. It's pretty clear fact that needs no prooving in face of religious beliefs. Make a soup of organic molecules just like the early earth and zap with electricity and BAM, amino acids, the building blocks of life. Problems get twisted when it is pointed out fossil record is not complete to relate homo sapiens to other apes....that does not mean the entire concept is unproveable. Simply that you can't yet proove man-ape connections. We can trace DNA back to that cool looking dinosaur I forget his name, with a fin. Evidence of the overall bigger picture truth is irrefuteable. But true, you don't have to "believe" it if you don't WANT to. but is is not fair to lead children down the wrong path that these are two valid concepts, only ONE Of which is correct, which is what happens in schools where you allow both ideas to co exist as a teaching of history or geology or whatever.

As I stated earlier spirituality is not the exact same as "religion" in general. I merely pointed out why I think people gravitate to religion after profound experiences yet still understand scientific method or evolution concepts. 7 day metaphor works perhaps ONLY for children same as the idea Santa Clause will only deliver the goods if you are good boy or girl. Careful with metophor as then we must interpret even commandments as metaphor? "Thow shalt not kill....unless thowest believith in a different invisable man then I"....That's from Carlin.



BarkellWH -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 18:35:03)

quote:

as much as you don't believe in the "creation theory" you have to respect those who don't believe in evolution.
you can't prove that you are correct , and even if you could and people still didn't believe in it it's their choice and the fact of the matter is that many people still believe in the former and you should respect their choice and let children decide for themselves what they choose to believe in if at all.and as long as both theories are as popular as they are in the states - both should be thought.


There are several points to be made about your comment, quoted above. The first is that "creationism" is not a theory. There is no such thing as "creation theory." Those who refer to "creationism" as a theory are the same ones who are fond of saying that the theory of evolution is "just a theory," thereby demonstrating that They do not understand the difference between a "theory," which has withstood repeated testing, registering the same result, and a "hypothesis," which is what the ignorant mean when they say "theory."

One may claim creationism as a hypothesis, but when one then attempts to apply scientific principles in order to prove it as a theory, one runs up against all the evidence that disprove it: the age of the earth, the age of the universe, and the entire fossil history that definitely confirms the validity of the theory of evolution and natural selection which drives it.

And I certainly do not have to "respect those who don't believe in evolution." Neither do I want to "let children decide for themselves" whether they want to believe in the validity of the theory of evolution or in creationism. Creationists believe the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old! This is lunacy. To allow such tripe to be considered equally valid as evolutionary theory is to do a disservice to every young mind that has the misfortune to be exposed to it. There are still people who believe the earth is flat. Should their belief be considered equally valid to what we have known to be true since the ancient Greeks discovered it is a sphere? Of course not. The same applies to creationism. If some want to believe such nonsense, fine with me. But they have no more right to infect students with their belief than do those who believe the earth is flat.

Cheers,

Bill



mottallica -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 19:08:02)

you didn't get my point exactly and although i have pretty solid English skills, it's going to be hard now because i haven't approached science articles and readings neither religion in English so pardon me in advance
i'll start by saying that i'm only high school educated at this point since the minute i finished high school i had to go and serve 3 years in the military and i just got out so i still haven't got to go to college.
all of my knowledge regarding it all is either from high school physics lessons, staying after class with the teacher , watching things like shows on NG and reading, therefore iv'e still got plenty more to learn.

quote:

7 day metaphor works perhaps ONLY for children same as the idea Santa Clause


when i was refering to the metaphor of the 7 days it didn't mean that all the bible is a metaphor , only the first chapters of genesis. think about it, people 3000 years ago didn't know what are super novas, black holes etc. and it hold up as a simpler metaphorical way of saying that earth and life on earth evolved step by step.


quote:

. Life forms don't necessasarilly evolve lower to higher, that's not how it works


that's not what i meant , we are more complex then cockroaches and if an asteroid hits earth they'll probably survived and then life will evolve again from cockroaches because they are the most fit to Populate that earth , same as happened million years ago with the dinosaurs (assuming it was really an asteroid who took them out) i just wanted to refer to the theory of life evolving from older life forms by mutating and improving and adapting to the environment.

quote:

Make a soup of organic molecules just like the early earth and zap with electricity and BAM, amino acids, the building blocks of life.


yeah but given amino acids and all the energy you need - can you make it come to live? no - and that's what , originally, religion is all about - that moment that it did work - the "force" which took those building blokes and gave them the jump start to live. religious people just call that force God.

quote:

Problems get twisted when it is pointed out fossil record is not complete to relate homo sapiens to other apes....that does not mean the entire concept is unproveable. Simply that you can't yet proove man-ape connections


I said nothing of that sort that a connection isn't there - to me evolution or not - apes and chimpanzees in particular are too close to humans to not be connected.

quote:

but is is not fair to lead children down the wrong path that these are two valid concepts, only ONE Of which is correct


quote:

If some want to believe such nonsense, fine with me. But they have no more right to infect students with their belief than do those who believe the earth is flat.


you are correct , but there is still no agreement around the american society which is the valid one. that is why both should be taught so children know both and someday decide for themselves.

in a democracy the majority decide, it doesn't matter if they are right. - that's the concept of democracy. if 80% of Americans will vote for a president that says he supports death penalty for wearing green shirts then in a democracy it will be a rule even if it is stupid - the majority decided.

so far in the US no majority big enough to rule out one of those theories out of schools and therefore both stay.

by the way in Israel both theories aren't taught in elementary schools and i agree , they will get exposed to both thoeries at some point in life , weather at home or in College. they will decide for themselves



Ruphus -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 19:12:21)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo

Yet, she has done EXACTLY that herself at least 4 times in the past (if you believe in fossil record of mass extinction events that have occured since the begining of life on earth, and furthmore occur in fairly regular time intervals). In fact this slate cleaning seems a big part of the evolution of life on earth.....everything must die out to make room for others. EVERY LIFE FORM MUST DIE. And by "coincidence" human technology arises at more or less the next timing point for yet another mass extinction.


There is to be distinguished at what geohistorcial point in time. The first extinctions in earths young and boiling state are being said to have been complete, with evolution having had to start out all over again. The following extinctions became less radical over time.
Currently the theory is that all living beings above the size of a badger must die out every 100 million of years.

This would be different from what we are likely going to cause, which would leave merely cockroaches surviving if at all.


I see no sense in advocating our insanity by interpeting its impact as natural or inevitable. Much lesser so at the actual intellectual potential that we would be at without that silly new age irrationality.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo

Einstein introduced Cosmo constant to fudge his GR equations (expansion discovered later eliminated need for it) and later had problems with "chance"

Thats what I had too ( though far from comparing humble me with him ), until quantum physics revealed that a particle can be at two spots in the same time. And that was about it with determinism, my former anchor.
-

Besides, I think to see you friends taking genetics and brain structure as a much too static thing.
Now, it´s been found that the brain is restructuring all the time, even with every new thought. Similar with genetics which are as well, far from former interpretation, adapting constantly.

Not only from there and from experience do I mean to see you overestimating effects of genetics on character ( which used to be so fashionable already in history and had its little fake-based revival in the eighties ).
In my book genetics should not count more responsible for human personality than for a vague 15% at best.

Ruphus



Arash -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 23 2012 19:38:28)

"7 days" isn't a metaphor. It is exactly what people at that time were thinking.
They also thought that earth is the middle of the world, etc..
Now that science proved that the world was created 14 billion years ago, religious people need to invent "metaphor theories" in order to be "up to date".
There are many other examples, where in the recent decades some serious phrases from Bible, Koran, etc. are now "metaphors" because these phrases are
simply barbaric, proven wrong, etc.

Of course i "respect" religious people (if they don't do any harm to other people".
But i don't agree with them

quote:

in a democracy the majority decide, it doesn't matter if they are right. - that's the concept of democracy. if 80% of Americans will vote for a president that says he supports death penalty for wearing green shirts then in a democracy it will be a rule even if it is stupid - the majority decided.


you are right.

But even in a democracy, imagine 90% of the Germans vote for Neo Nazis.
Should it be accepted?
Ok this is pretty extreme example, but shows that sometimes you need some kind of final instance to stop something, even if it is wanted by a majority



Page: <<   <   2 3 [4] 5 6    >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET