Science
- Started
- Last post
- 1,014 Responses
- monospaced0
^ did YOU read the article? LOL
"The professor did add sarcastically, however, that such an event is unlikely in the near future.
He said: 'A particle accelerator that reaches 100bn GeV would be larger than Earth, and is unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate.'"- Shat ap, you flatulent ass whisperer..
yurimon - It is clear to me that you sir have lower capacity for expansion of consciousness.yurimon
- http://media.tumblr.…yurimon
- because I quoted the article and the absurdity of the headline? pleasemonospaced
- Its a general statement based on many posts as a conclusion sir.yurimon
- yuri, do people with "expanded consciousness" like yourself always start a conversation with petulant name-calling?scarabin
- That was in response to mono in his earlier rudeness. he was a nasty fck in another post.yurimon
- you just sound like a four year old latelyscarabin
- Shat ap, you flatulent ass whisperer..
- Morning_star0
^ yes i did
Are you trying to suggest that the quote I took from the article is not a fair representation of the article, its subject or conclusion?
- I am suggesting that Hawking thinks is not a fair representation. LOLmonospaced
- We all know Daily Mail is the best place to get accurate science newsukit2
- GeorgesIV0
let say science really exists..
how come it can cure global melting of the islands?
- http://3.bp.blogspot…organicgrid
- more harpyurimon
- There is good science and science for the masses... Global melting could be fallacy. I'm sure if stop all experimenting in heating ionosphere. might stopyurimon
- heating the ionosphere.yurimon
- ********0
We could build a particle accelerator larger than the earth. Just need to do it in space. No heavy lifting required.
- problem is we'd deplete earth's metal/mineral resources in order to build it. we'd have to get materials off-world, another project in itselfscarabin
- project in itselfscarabin
- I think you can do your black magic to fix it.. am I right?yurimon
- excuse me?scarabin
- this is adult talk, yuri. get back in your cage or you don't get any fish heads tonight.scarabin
- your satan black magic can fix it right?yurimon
- at least TRY to not be a retardscarabin
- lolmoldero
- Morning_star0
I like the the cut or Mr Wilsons jib.
"I coined the term irrational rationalism because those people claim to be rationalists, but they're governed by such a heavy body of taboos. They're so fearful, and so hostile, and so narrow, and frightened, and uptight and dogmatic... I wrote this book because I got tired satirizing fundamentalist Christianity... I decided to satirize fundamentalist materialism for a change, because the two are equally comical... The materialist fundamentalists are funnier than the Christian fundamentalists, because they think they're rational! ...They're never skeptical about anything except the things they have a prejudice against. None of them ever says anything skeptical about the AMA, or about anything in establishment science or any entrenched dogma. They're only skeptical about new ideas that frighten them. They're actually dogmatically committed to what they were taught when they were in college..."- one of my favorite people. too bad he's not with us any longerscarabin
- ukit20
Morning_star you're always talking about something you call "materialism"...mind explaining what that actually means? Because this materialist/non-materialist thing seems like an incoherent concept to me.
All materialism says is that reality is made out of some kind of substance, which seems pretty hard to argue against. You could have multiple dimensions, or psychic powers for that matter, and it would still have a material explanation. It would kind of have to actually, because something like psychic powers would need to interact with the brain and other aspects of physical reality.
Most scientists would not consider themselves materialist, they just want to measure something before declaring that it actually exists, which seems reasonable.
- Morning_star0
Fair question.
The general claims from those that foster scientific materialism/reductionism are that: humans are biological robots, mind is the same as brain, Conciousness is an illusion, there is nothing beyond the material and science understands the nature of all of the fundamental building blocks of the universe. According to this position, these building blocks are limited to particles (matter). And the entire universe, from it's inception, can be explained using this group of particles.
This position is stagnant and dogmatic and is more of a belief, as evidence for something beyond the material is common in almost all areas of science and nature. The claim that science is a belief (the one that started this thread) comes from the fact that scientific materialism cannot be derived from itself. It requires a 'first cause' or 'prime mover' to light the blue touch paper to kick-start the universe.
The problem with your last statement is that measuring things inside a the materialist paradigm is restrictive, exclusive and susceptible to dogmatic assumptions. Most recently this has become a thorny issue when explaining things like the observer effect and quantum entanglement amongst others.
My opinion is that Conciousness has a far more fundamental role in the universe than we currently understand or allow for. Conciousness studies are an incredibly interesting field and IMO are, if we want to understand more about the universe, where our efforts should be focused.- sorry, there's not evidence of anything beyond it, and just saying it doesn't make it truemonospaced
- but I look forward to actual scientific evidence, especially in the areas you are interested inmonospaced
- I want to study Mono in a lab to see if he has a soul...yurimon
- there's no way to study the existence of a soulmonospaced
- http://www.rankopedi…yurimon
- Morning_star0
Hypnotic science
- yurimon0
what is the unlimits of consciousness and energy the context of human potential?
- That is mind boggling just to think about.organicgrid
- I want this on a t-shirtESKEMA
- i typo'd "in the context"yurimon
- You typo'd more than thatukit2
- OP310
this thread has turned into a tabloid
- Morning_star0
@monospaced re:no evidence
You keep saying there is no evidence for 'anything' beyond matter when there is clearly mountains of evidence across thousands of years.
I expect the problem you may have with that claim is the evidence I'm talking about doesn't fit into the narrow, materialist, lab-based tests that you think are the only way of measuring anything.I have a couple of questions:
I wonder if you can provide the outline of a quantitative experiment that could test for Creativity in humans?
Also, could you give a materialist explanation for what started the Big Bang.- ummm, claims of miracle births and talking burning bushes aren't evidence, bromonospaced
- are you implying creativity isn't a natural ability in higher mammals? because that would be retardedmonospaced
- additionally, there are several strong theories that are purely materialistic explanations for the big bangmonospaced
- in fact, you wouldn't even use the term big bang if there weren't scientific explanations for itmonospaced
- What a surprise, it's the same old argument. Sweeping generalisations, an obsession with religion and baseless claims with no evidence. Blind faith in action.Morning_star
- Blind faith in action.
Morning_star - "Creativity" is just an abstraction isn't it? It's something people came up with, not something that can be directly measured.ukit2
- Kind of like trying to measure intelligence...you can try to do it, but will always be subjectiveukit2
- ukit20
"The general claims from those that foster scientific materialism/reductionism are that: humans are biological robots, mind is the same as brain, Conciousness is an illusion, there is nothing beyond the material and science understands the nature of all of the fundamental building blocks of the universe."
Here's where I think you misunderstand. No serious scientist thinks that we understand the building blocks of the universe or that it's all limited to a certain set of particles...that's the whole point of their job, to try and figure these things out. And of course there are materialist explanations for what started the Big Bang, the multiverse theory is one. Who knows if they will ever figure it out, but there's no reason why you would just give up at that point.
As far as the other ones go, there is nothing in there at all that rules out a material explanation. You can believe that the mind is separate from the brain or that consciousness is a force out there floating around in space and still have a materialist explanation for it. In fact that would be the first explanation you would look for since it's the simplest.
The bigger question is what a non-material explanation for these things (one that you can't even measure of quantify) would even mean. How can mind interact with physical reality if it isn't itself physical? Any time you invoke an "unanswerable explanation" whether it's supernatural powers or God it just raises the question of what caused those things and how they work.
- well said.OP31
- There is a limit to contemplating the physical world through science. consciousness is the missing link to where quantum science on the physical level fails.yurimon
- physics fails...yurimon
- eventually new techniques will emerge. but over all their wiill be holistic approach.yurimon
- Also to add. the materialistic approach has raped the world and left you in bondage... so go figure that out.yurimon
- yuri, you're turning "science" into a catch-all whipping boy for everything you perceive as bad or can't understand. you're confusing human weaknesses like selfishness and greed with the scientific method, "the materialist approach", and industrialism. the fact that you can't tell the difference makes me cringe every time you type this ignorant shitscarabin
- confusing human weaknesses like selfishness and greed with the scientific method, "the materialist approach", and industrialism. the fact that you can't tell the difference makes me cringe every time you type this ignorant shitscarabin
- industrialism. the fact that you can't tell the difference makes me cringe every time you type this ignorant shitscarabin
- if religion get perverted and corrupted, you still call it religion. so same with science.yurimon
- Real science is at a road block in dealing with consciousness,. its stuck. get it unstuck? how?yurimon
- that's what the scientific method is for. that's why science exists. removing roadblocks in our understanding. sitting around praying won't help, i guarantee it.scarabin
- praying won't help, i guarantee it.scarabin
- you make fun of "magic" but magic is precisely what you're positing to be the solution to understanding everything.scarabin
- please tell me you're not so fucking stupid you can't see this.scarabin
- Your perception is scewed through modern rhetoric. well science failed. old gnosis seems to well explaining.yurimon
- all the dieties you think are myth represent natural phenomenon. science has changed the names but you dont see it. cause too smart for you own goodyurimon
- smart for you own good. Alot of fallacies involved in modern thought process you need resolve.yurimon
- like ether was called considered a myth which became quantum vacuum. based of same concept. explain that.yurimon
- explain what? that we used to think thunder was Zeus farting before science showed us it wasn't?scarabin
- that's literally all you've just said, besides the fact that we rename things once we better understand themscarabin
- i still call it zeus fartingOP31
- lol we also believed the world was flat, does that mean it still is?OP31
- the materialists what you to think its round, but its flat in or consciousnessOP31
- *sarcasmOP31
- i'm curious about what yuri's like the rest of his day. can he even get his pants on by himself?scarabin
- what's it like being crazy, yuri? do you even see the same colors we d?scarabin
- world was flat to the idiot. vikings were advance they were in north America already.yurimon
- scarabin0
from what you've been saying though yuri, (namely, that old anthropomorphic archetypes and spiritual models are better than research and observation when it comes to understanding the universe) i think you should join the OTO or golden dawn. a couple years of that and you might be better informed about these "consciousness techniques" you're constantly talking about.
you make fun of magick but it's precisely what you've been campaigning here for years.
- I think those systems are valid. Pyramids in egypt were built in conjunction with ancient math and use of those systems,yurimon
- Its out of arogance of Europeans in how they portray what is primitive without complete understanding.yurimon
- thanks for the offer im workin on somethin already.yurimon
- did you know the human brain was 10% larger pre industrial farming revolution.?yurimon
- we also had tails at one point. so what?scarabin
- where are you even getting that information?scarabin
- this was based off of research study done. so if you find the study https://constantincr…yurimon
- http://io9.com/57531…yurimon
- articles premise is stupid but you get the idea. read the actual study. I think its food related more so then what it suggests.yurimon
- this says our brains have shrunk but become smarter. and says nothing about the industrial revolution.scarabin
- Article uses the study of the 10%. you need find the original. article of smarter is bullshit.yurimon
- they using the brain shrinkage. its not like fiber optics vs copper wire geniousyurimon
- why not link me to the study instead of something that says the opposite of what you're claiming?scarabin
- and why are you supposedly looking at scientific studies, anyway? science is just a belief system, remember?scarabin
- Morning_star0
@ukit2
The multiverse theory just dodges the question. The multiverse still requires a first cause. If you then suggest that there is an infinite number of big bangs and universes then everything and anything is possible. This, however, is all restricted by the limits of human comprehension and our arrogance that we 'can' understand.
The standard model doesn't work. An extended standard model is just a limited theory that tries, and fails, to explain all the naughty phenomena that won't adhere to the rules. Even then, Gravity for instance scuppers the whole deal.
Faith that material scientism, given time, will provide all the answers is no more likely than a dualist solution. Betting the farm on a flawed model isn't particularly scientific and restricting science to the limited bubble of materialism is dogmatic.
You ask "how can mind interact with physical reality if it isn't physical" which is an incredible question and sits right at the heart of the direction science will take in the future. You then proceed to place limits on 'how' it has to be answered undermining the very nature of scientific endeavour.
All I hear are restrictions, stagnant arguments and a rejection of discovery. The spirit of science is in a bad way.
- Basically your argument is the "god of the gaps". The fact that science doesn't currently explain everything doesn't make your much-less-likely theory more credible.
http://en.wikipedia.…ukit2 - much-less-likely theory more credible.ukit2
- The idea of materialism vs. non materialism is a really old one, but just because it has been around as a meme in culture and religion doesn't mean there is any good basis for it as a scientific argument.ukit2
- religion doesn't mean there is any good basis for it as a scientific argument.ukit2
- I'm just saying there are gaps, i'm not putting god, science or the flying spaghetti monster there. There's as much argument on here for 'scientism' of the gaps. I hear again and again 'just because science doesn't know now, doesn't mean it won't know in the future'. It cant be valid for one argument and not the other.Morning_star
- on here for 'scientism' of the gaps. I hear again and again 'just because science doesn't know now, doesn't mean it won't know in the future'. It cant be valid for one argument and not the other.Morning_star
- in the future'. It cant be a valid argument for one position and not the other.Morning_star
- It's reasonable to think that methods that helped us understand the world in the past will help us in the futureukit2
- Whereas "dualism"...there's nothing supporting that at all. It's an old idea that came from religion and superstition.ukit2
- I wouldn't be surprised if science gets completely turned upside down (again) at some point. I'd be very surprised if the answer was some superstitious concept people came up with centuries ago.ukit2
- aligns with some superstitious concept people came up with centuries ago.ukit2
- Basically your argument is the "god of the gaps". The fact that science doesn't currently explain everything doesn't make your much-less-likely theory more credible.
- detritus0
We will always struggle with a 'root event', as there'll always be the thought “but what brought about THAT?”, at that point it's a matter of personal preference whether or not you insert a deity in there or not.
but then, “whence the deity?”.
So, who gives a shit? Believe what you like, believe whatever makes you feels comfortable / the least uncomfortable.
The science-flavoured bit just keeps everything fresh and interesting.
- ukit20
Well I never said multiverse theory intends to answer everything, it's just a possible explanation for what happened immediately before the Big Bang. It's pretty clear that something did happen beforehand, and unless you think the Big Bang was a one off anomalous event, multiverse doesn't seem like a bad theory although it's just speculative at this point.
As detritus pointed out, the problem of a first cause is going to be there whether you invoke science, supernatural powers or the concept of God...so I don't see how a "conscious universe" or whatever thing it is you're proposing has a good answer to that.
- organicgrid0
Do you people actual believe in science?
- i pray to science before every mealmoldero
- what about before sex?organicgrid
- Morning_star0
Ukit2, I agree. Whatever happened before the Big Bang is speculation. What I disagree with is the claim that the explanation can only be described within the boundaries of scientific materialism. Which several people contributing to this thread have admitted to agreeing with.
Multiverses, other dimensions etc are all valid theories, each with their own uniquely challenging claims. It's a tall order to expect a species like ours who are only aware of what we can measure to comprehend accurately the nature of the universe. It's like asking a raisin in a wedding cake to describe every aspect of what the cake 'is'.
That's why I believe it's worth investigating all phenomena that humans experience without prejudice. What if?