Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
24 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,215 Year: 963/23,288 Month: 963/1,851 Week: 86/321 Day: 1/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science and origins
grandfather raven
Junior Member (Idle past 3827 days)
Posts: 27
From: Alaska, USA
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 16 of 33 (506819)
04-29-2009 1:40 PM


one of my favorite books is Spook: Science tackles the afterlife by Mary Roach. obviously, main theme of the book is how people throughout history have tried to gather empirical evidence of supernatural claims

long story short, "science" can and does investigate supernatural claims, from ghostly visitations to mediums talking with the departed to NDE/OBEs. it simply has found no evidence of any, ever

i just like to keep reminding everyone that the claim "science ignores the supernatural" (eg, philosophical naturalism) is clearly false

thank you for reading =)


Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Perdition, posted 04-29-2009 3:23 PM grandfather raven has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1332 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 17 of 33 (506821)
04-29-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Richard Townsend
04-28-2009 5:10 PM


Hi Richard,

I'm going to play devils advocate here.

Science does exclude transcendent designers from all hypotheses currently but this is because there is currently no evidence that any exist.

Objectively you are right, no objectively verifiable evidence currently exists. BUT, we forget subjectively.

We cannot deny the existance of our 2 worlds. Our physically experienced world and our subjectively experienced world.

One has a common aspect to it that we can all agree on, the other has a personal aspect to it, that even though cannot be fully agreed upon, does hold more weight to the person experiencing it than does objective evidence - to some extent. So it's existance, whether real or made up, still holds weight for certain people.

I believe this is what is meant when people say you cannot "test" god. How do you test my subjective experience?

Likewise, how could you ask me to flat out reject what I've experienced, even though I cannot fully comprehend it myself?

So to this statment you make:

No scientist can make the proposal that a transcendent designer should be a component of a scientific theory unless they can produce scientific evidence that there is such a being.

I agree with. Science deals with only objectively verifiable evidence that can be observed and repeated.

Anything else is philosophical and personally experienced, but, does hold weight to those who have experienced it.

---------------------------------------------------------

To lyx2no:

"You're a straight up loon, Watson. The St. Louis Cardinals spent the night before smoking marijuana cigarettes with a stand-up comedian*."

:laugh:

Yeah, sorry about that Cardinal fans...

PS. Marijuana "cigarettes"? What's with the 50's Refer Madness reference, dude? - lol

- Oni


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Richard Townsend, posted 04-28-2009 5:10 PM Richard Townsend has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RDK, posted 04-30-2009 3:58 PM onifre has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1619 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 18 of 33 (506825)
04-29-2009 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by grandfather raven
04-29-2009 1:40 PM


You could argue that science is trying to bring the supernatural into the natural by finding a repeatable test to determine the characteristics of such phenomenon, but it still makes the assumption that what it is studying can be detected by materialistic means. IF something were truly supernatural, it wouldn't necessarily register on any scientific equipment...this wouldn't make the supernatural thing false, just unscientific. Or ascientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by grandfather raven, posted 04-29-2009 1:40 PM grandfather raven has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by grandfather raven, posted 04-29-2009 3:56 PM Perdition has not yet responded

  
grandfather raven
Junior Member (Idle past 3827 days)
Posts: 27
From: Alaska, USA
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 19 of 33 (506828)
04-29-2009 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Perdition
04-29-2009 3:23 PM


"IF something were truly supernatural, it wouldn't necessarily register on any scientific equipment..."

but then we would also be unable to percieve it at all. even if that "supernatural something" is utterly undetectable of and by itself, it must have some physical, or at least empirical, effects. and those CAN be investigated

one study of NDEs/OBEs -- utterly subjective experiences -- looked at what the subject was able to observe. in the case in mind, there was a randomly-generated word on a laptop that could *only* be seen from an near-the-ceiling perspective. if the subject did indeed "float above his/her body", then the randomly-generated word would have been visible, and the subject could identify it. hasn't happened yet, but when/if it does, that would be objective evidence of a subjective event


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Perdition, posted 04-29-2009 3:23 PM Perdition has not yet responded

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 3297 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 20 of 33 (506829)
04-29-2009 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Blue Jay
04-29-2009 1:37 PM


Re: Suggest we don't use the word "supernatural"
we call something "supernatural" because there isn't a good explanation for it. But, there's really no way to distinguish "there isn't a good explanation for it" from "there isn't a good explanation for it yet."

That's not my point. My point is that if you have a god that can act without using any natural force (electro-magnetic, gravity, nuclear forces), and without leaving any discernible trace whatsoever of its action, then it's out of the realm of science, because it's unobservable. This does not mean that things we cannot explain must therefore be supernatural, simply that the supernatural, definition is scientifically untestable. This will be true until a so-called god physically manifests himself and allows us to scientifically document his abilities. But even if this were to happen, under the guidelines of the Greater Miracle thread, I'd probably have to assume mass hallucination instead of there actually being a deity :)


We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Blue Jay, posted 04-29-2009 1:37 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Rahvin, posted 04-29-2009 4:20 PM Stagamancer has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 36 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 21 of 33 (506831)
04-29-2009 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Stagamancer
04-29-2009 4:04 PM


Re: Suggest we don't use the word "supernatural"
This will be true until a so-called god physically manifests himself and allows us to scientifically document his abilities. But even if this were to happen, under the guidelines of the Greater Miracle thread, I'd probably have to assume mass hallucination instead of there actually being a deity

All said deity would need to do would be to perform an action in plain view with objective, measurable effects. Something like diverting a river permanently would do, or even something simple like moving a boulder or carving words into a rock - or better yet, appearing directly on recorded media like a camcorder. Something that we can directly observe after the manifestation is over to show that the experience was not a mass hallucination.

This still leaves the possibility of a massive hoax, but depending on the miraculousness of the actions, that too can potentially be excluded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Stagamancer, posted 04-29-2009 4:04 PM Stagamancer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Stagamancer, posted 04-30-2009 1:31 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 3297 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 22 of 33 (506950)
04-30-2009 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Rahvin
04-29-2009 4:20 PM


Re: Suggest we don't use the word "supernatural"
Agreed, my statement was meant more as a joke than not.


We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Rahvin, posted 04-29-2009 4:20 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
RDK
Junior Member (Idle past 3651 days)
Posts: 26
From: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Joined: 11-23-2008


Message 23 of 33 (506976)
04-30-2009 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by onifre
04-29-2009 2:05 PM


Objectively you are right, no objectively verifiable evidence currently exists. BUT, we forget subjectively.

We cannot deny the existance of our 2 worlds. Our physically experienced world and our subjectively experienced world.

One has a common aspect to it that we can all agree on, the other has a personal aspect to it, that even though cannot be fully agreed upon, does hold more weight to the person experiencing it than does objective evidence - to some extent. So it's existence, whether real or made up, still holds weight for certain people.

I believe this is what is meant when people say you cannot "test" god. How do you test my subjective experience?

Likewise, how could you ask me to flat out reject what I've experienced, even though I cannot fully comprehend it myself?

In order to be subjectively experienced, the event / thing / deity in question would need to objectively exist in some form or another. This would mean that the problem is the disconnect that happens when it is experienced by several people.

Yes, subjectivity plays a role in how valid something is to someone, but but there also needs to be something there to actually perceive. Also, notice how almost every account of supernatural events experienced by religious people involve only that one person, and the stories more often than not all contradict each other in some way.

Edited by RDK, : No reason given.

Edited by RDK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by onifre, posted 04-29-2009 2:05 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by onifre, posted 04-30-2009 6:57 PM RDK has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1332 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 24 of 33 (506991)
04-30-2009 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by RDK
04-30-2009 3:58 PM


Hi RDK,

First, I should start off by saying that I'm an atheist, so I will only argue this from a philosophical stand point, not in support of any religious belief.

In order to be subjectively experienced, the event / thing / deity in question would need to objectively exist in some form or another.

But it does exist in some form, in my mind.

Objectively my mind/brain obviously exist. I experience this spiritual "event" within it, in the same way that I experience the reality that we all can agree on, I just don't do it with any of my sensory inputs (ie. sight, hearing, touch, etc.).

Since we all experience each other, and what we call objective reality, using our sensory inputs, any other way in which I experience something is going to seem unverifiable to you or anyone else, objectively, in our experienced reality.

But what evidence do you have that our sensory inputs, that receive information from what we call "objective reality", is the ONLY way we can know if something exists or not? Why? Because anything else we can see, touch, hear, smell? Do you trust that the nuero functions that receive and desipher all of this information have not over looked something?

Also, that people have called things god(s) in the past, that people equate certain experiences to specific god(s), etc, does not in any way make those experiences and the notion that "there may be more to all of this reality" any less. There very well could be more and the proof is in the experiences themselves.

People have always had them. They orignially made up multiple stories about multiple gods. People have wild imaginations. So what? Do we reject the experience just becuase primitive people, early civilizations, and less educated societies made up a bunch of stories, I say no. The experience is still, IMO, proof that perhaps there is more to existance than what we experience with our 5 sensory inputs.

The only thing you know truly exists is you - "I think therefore I am".

To not get too deep into what that means, as we can pull of into many different areas of philosophy, would you at least agree that maybe there is more to experienced reality than what one particlar bio organism has been able to expereince in it's short life span on this planet?

Yes, subjectivity plays a role in how valid something is to someone, but but there also needs to be something there to actually perceive.

Yes, but we are limited to just 5 ways in which we can know if something is "there". 5 sensory inputs, that is all. Evolved traits mind you. Meaning that the process for giving a species an ability to experience reality is limited to what was needed to survive here, on Earth, that's it.

Given that aspect to how we experience reality, how do we know that we can experience it to it's fullest? What if subjective experiences, that happen in the same way as everything else you experience - (which is to say that basically neuro function send information to and from areas in your brain that you desipher) - are the way in which to experience this higher level of consiousness? And that that constitutes as evidence for "something".

Evolution produced a bigger brain, ever since then our species has become more "aware" of it's experienced reality. Are you, or will anyone else, limit evolution to just morphological changes? Or can evolution also happen within our neurological system? Can we be evolving better and more precise ways to experience reality within the functions of our brain? - If not, why not?

I'm not saying that the Christian god exists, or Zues, or any other man made god-type entity is real. But, given that we have these experiences in our brains, and they seem as real as anything else one experiences, what proof do we have that the subjective experience is not evidence of "somethings" existance? - even if we cannot comprehend it.


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RDK, posted 04-30-2009 3:58 PM RDK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by grandfather raven, posted 04-30-2009 8:08 PM onifre has responded
 Message 27 by RDK, posted 04-30-2009 9:24 PM onifre has responded

  
grandfather raven
Junior Member (Idle past 3827 days)
Posts: 27
From: Alaska, USA
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 25 of 33 (506995)
04-30-2009 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by onifre
04-30-2009 6:57 PM


quote:
what proof do we have that the subjective experience is not evidence of "somethings" existance?

i can imagine (subjectively experience) a unicorn, thus unicorns objectively exist. are we *really* going there?

anyway, since we cannot prove a negative, i'll just point out that, throughout history, very few subjective experiences of one person correlate with the subjective experiences of another. that lack of correlation is good evidence that there is, in fact, no objective reality to those subjective experiences

if everyone who ever meditated had the same epiphany, that would support the "subjective experience = objective reality" hypothesis. since that has never, ever happened we can consider the hypothesis falsified

thanks for reading =)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by onifre, posted 04-30-2009 6:57 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by onifre, posted 04-30-2009 9:00 PM grandfather raven has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1332 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 26 of 33 (507000)
04-30-2009 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by grandfather raven
04-30-2009 8:08 PM


i can imagine (subjectively experience) a unicorn, thus unicorns objectively exist. are we *really* going there?

Please re-read my post because you have apparently missed my point completely. If you wish to debate it, if not cool.

Did I give any characteristics to anything I experienced?

Did I give any credibility to anything other than the experience itself?

very few subjective experiences of one person correlate with the subjective experiences of another.

This again misses the point entirely.

Who said anything about correlating experiences?

Who said anyone has ever been right in say what the experience meant?

if everyone who ever meditated had the same epiphany, that would support the "subjective experience = objective reality" hypothesis.

Ok. What is "objective" reality? What tells you that what you experience is objectively verified? Your sensory inputs, right?

Is that the limit as to how humans can experience reality? - Maybe, maybe not. Remember, these are evolved traits specific for this environment, there is no evidence that those 5 senses are the limit to possible evolved sensories.

Re-read my post, I did not say that the "subjective" *equals* "objective". I clearly said that you cannot objectively verify *my* experience or objectively experience it either.

Let me try saying it this way: You receive information from your eyes, your brain processes all of this and tells you it's a table in front of you. Now, lucky for me ever human species - with the exeption of those who are blind - comes equipted with functioning eyes as well. Due to our common ancestry and such, we have evolved similar neurological processing functions so that, when I point to the object, you, given that you know what it is, will ALSO see a table.

Great. That's one sensory input that we both have that can help us both determine it's a table.

However, this object is located externally from my brain therefore it can be "seen" in the physical sense by others. But, my experiences are not, they are manifested in my brain and thus will have a single determining factor, me - "I'm the decider".

And thus you will never have the same subjective interpretation as I do of what manifested in my brain.

This does not make me right, nor wrong, it just means we have these experiences. And I'm not saying that because we have these experiences that it's proof for god(s)/supernatural entities/dieties/etc.

But the experiences are common throughout human history. That we have them is proof that humans experience more than what our 5 sensory inputs tell us there is out there, or what you would call objective reality. And, IMO, we can't limit ourselves to just what our 5 sensories tell us exists.

In other words, "If I can't see it, smell it, touch it, hear it, or taste it, it doesn't exist", may not be 100% acurate.


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by grandfather raven, posted 04-30-2009 8:08 PM grandfather raven has not yet responded

  
RDK
Junior Member (Idle past 3651 days)
Posts: 26
From: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Joined: 11-23-2008


Message 27 of 33 (507003)
04-30-2009 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by onifre
04-30-2009 6:57 PM


Hey Oni.

Objectively my mind/brain obviously exist. I experience this spiritual "event" within it, in the same way that I experience the reality that we all can agree on, I just don't do it with any of my sensory inputs (ie. sight, hearing, touch, etc.).

Would you agree then that this isolated "event" might be 100% inside your head; a figment of your imagination? If you're not using your sensory inputs, then you're not really sensing external stimuli.

Since we all experience each other, and what we call objective reality, using our sensory inputs, any other way in which I experience something is going to seem unverifiable to you or anyone else, objectively, in our experienced reality.

But what evidence do you have that our sensory inputs, that receive information from what we call "objective reality", is the ONLY way we can know if something exists or not? Why? Because anything else we can see, touch, hear, smell? Do you trust that the nuero functions that receive and desipher all of this information have not over looked something?

I'm sure there are things that are overlooked by the neuroprocesses that interpret information from our sensory organs. Our ability to experience the world around us via sensory input is not infallible; there are plenty of animals that have done it for longer (millions of years) and do it a lot better. But my main point is that while we, individually, using our natural bodies, can't necessarily be sure that we haven't missed anything somewhere along the line, we do have machines that can do it for us. There's a difference between not being able to sense things like subtle weather variations or tectonic plate movements due to our bodies' deficiencies, and not being able to detect them at all.

But yes, I would agree with you that we can't be 100% sure. Perhaps there has been no need for homo sapiens to sense "events" like the one we're discussing, which is why we just never evolved the ability. But in all seriousness, the probability is small.

Also, that people have called things god(s) in the past, that people equate certain experiences to specific god(s), etc, does not in any way make those experiences and the notion that "there may be more to all of this reality" any less. There very well could be more and the proof is in the experiences themselves.

Or it could just mean that there were natural explanations for what seemed like supernatural events.

To not get too deep into what that means, as we can pull of into many different areas of philosophy, would you at least agree that maybe there is more to experienced reality than what one particlar bio organism has been able to expereince in it's short life span on this planet?

Absolutely. But to think that we've missed something obvious--something that's been sitting right in front of our noses but requires a sensory adaptation that we haven't evolved yet--is kind of silly. If we were constantly bombarded with something of that nature, don't you think we--or any other of the myriad of organisms all throughout history--would have evolved something that would help us to identify it? I'd be much more inclined to believe it if it were an unusually isolated incident, or something that only happened once in a great while.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by onifre, posted 04-30-2009 6:57 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by onifre, posted 04-30-2009 9:40 PM RDK has not yet responded
 Message 29 by onifre, posted 05-01-2009 1:31 PM RDK has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1332 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 28 of 33 (507007)
04-30-2009 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by RDK
04-30-2009 9:24 PM


Hey RDK,

I gotta head out to a show as we speak, I'm late as a matter of fact but this is one of my favorite subjects to discuss. I'll give you some food for thought and then answer your whole post.

Feel free to add more of a response if you feel it's necessary.

Perhaps there has been no need for homo sapiens to sense "events" like the one we're discussing, which is why we just never evolved the ability.

If we didn't have eyes would we be aware of the enitre scope of our existance? Meaning, would we know we are on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy, amoungst billions of others, in an infintely large universe?

What else is there, what other sensory functions can we hope to evolve that may show us these new realities?

I think I smoke too much pot...

- Oni


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RDK, posted 04-30-2009 9:24 PM RDK has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1332 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 29 of 33 (507096)
05-01-2009 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by RDK
04-30-2009 9:24 PM


Would you agree then that this isolated "event" might be 100% inside your head; a figment of your imagination?

Absolutely, but equally, the reality that we experience could just be a figment of our imaginations as well. Would you agree with that?

If you're not using your sensory inputs, then you're not really sensing external stimuli.

I agree with you, no external stimuli that we can currently comprehend was involved. That is not to say that there aren't any other external features to reality, it simply means that with the use of our 5 sensory inputs, reality offers no other external stimuli that we are currently aware of. But we are limited to just those sensory inputs, so who knows. Would you agree with that?

But my main point is that while we, individually, using our natural bodies, can't necessarily be sure that we haven't missed anything somewhere along the line, we do have machines that can do it for us.

Yes, but machines are built by the very species that is limited to it's sensory inputs, so machines are also limited in what they can detect by the very fact that we are limited to begin with.

How did we know to build a machine to test the data gathered about particles? There was a process of raised awareness about sub-atomic scales. We then proceded to discovery this new "world". But this "world" could not have been discovered had it not been for a collection of sensory functions that humans happened to evolve. At one point in time there was not only an enormous macro world that had not been known, but also a micro world that had not been know to exist as well. Now they are known, and it is all due to the fact that we evolved these sensory functions and a brain with the capacity to desipher all of the external info that it receives via these functions.

Since we are the result of a collection of evolved species, each adding new neuro processing functions to each sensory input that they may have had, I cannot point to a time when humans had 4 of the 5 sensory functions and then evolved the 5th. Making my point that once the 5th sensory function was introduced our species became aware of a whole new reality. But, we can speculate as to how that would have been and imagine a process that would add a new sensory function, or an upgrade to the current sensory functions and the brain which desiphers it, that would make us aware of a whole new reality.

This is all of course hypothetical musing, but, IMO, it's not too far fetched of a possiblity.

But yes, I would agree with you that we can't be 100% sure. Perhaps there has been no need for homo sapiens to sense "events" like the one we're discussing, which is why we just never evolved the ability. But in all seriousness, the probability is small.

Perhaps there was no need, perhaps there is a need now.

Evolution is unpredictable, what is needed is not known, IMO.

Or it could just mean that there were natural explanations for what seemed like supernatural events.

Externally, yes. Most definitely, supernatural explanations are bullshit. I'm not saying that a raised awareness about a new aspect of reality would be anything more than natural. Just as eyes raise our awareness about the universe that we find ourselves in, so too could a new sensory function, or an upgrade, make us aware of a new feature to the universe we find ourselves it. I mean, why not?

But to think that we've missed something obvious--something that's been sitting right in front of our noses but requires a sensory adaptation that we haven't evolved yet--is kind of silly.

I hope I have made a good enough argument in the above responses to show why it's not that silly of an idea. Also, the sensory adaptation doesn't just have to be a *new* sensory function, it could very well be an increase in the processing of the information received from the external world. In other words, an increase in complexity to how information is processed in the brain.

I'll try a different angle, though.

Let's say there are no humans, and no other species on the planet with the type of brain to desipher the input received from whatever sensory functions they have.

What type of reality would these creatures assume they exist in, if they could postulate such a thing? How many different external information would they be unaware of?

Lets go one further and say that the species also lacks one of the sensory function. Would you not agree that they would be even less aware of many external features in nature?

What evidence do you have, or anyone else has, that we are at our maximum level of awareness about external features in nature? Could we not be in the very stage of limited awareness that the species in my example was in? If not, why not?

If we were constantly bombarded with something of that nature, don't you think we--or any other of the myriad of organisms all throughout history--would have evolved something that would help us to identify it?

Yes, that is my point, I believe we did, our brain. How old is the current human brain? 200,000 years, or so? Do you, knowing what we know about evolution and the long process that it is, think the brain is done evolving? If so, why?

If not, then could it be possible that the brain IS the "something" that was evolved, since it is unique, that can make us aware of these external stimuli that, up to now, have not been currently experienced?

And, does this not mean that something can exist in nature that, due to our limit in sensory features, can still exist and we have not been made aware of it yet?

- Oni


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RDK, posted 04-30-2009 9:24 PM RDK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by RDK, posted 05-02-2009 11:35 PM onifre has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8213
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 30 of 33 (507107)
05-01-2009 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
04-29-2009 6:56 AM


Re: Suggest we don't use the word "supernatural"
Several people suggested that we must first agree upon a definition of the supernatural. We could perhaps agree among ourselves that the supernatural encompasses things that aren't real or that have no evidence or are made up, like the world of Harry Potter or Tolkein or the Bible, but religious folks would never accept such a definition, and unless we're content just to talk among ourselves we need a definition that they accept, and that we ourselves accept. Is that even possible?

My first reaction to this is to look back through history and understand how the viewed the intersection of the supernatural and natural. I can't help but notice that the definition of supernatural has changed quite a bit.

A couple of millenia ago no one really viewed the natural and supernatural as distinct realms. Rather, the world around us was awash with the supernatural. As Stephen Weinberg puts it, "Once nature seemed inexplicable without a nymph in every brook and a dryad in every tree."[1] Many scientific historians agree that the demystification of nature is what allowed science to flourish.

As science has progressed the supernatural has been pushed back until those who believe in the supernatural are now forced to claim that the supernatural is a separate realm. I really don't think this is a matter of practice. It is a matter of keeping a belief alive through whatever means necessary, including a redefinition of what the supernatural is.

If believers are going to push for the inclusion of the supernatural into a practical method then we must focus on the practical definition. In practice, the supernatural is equivalent to fantasy. They are indistinguishable.

But complex theories, whether about God or science, rarely have that one piece of confirming evidence. Ask yourself what is the one piece of evidence that proves the sun is at the center of the solar system. And Tycho Brahe spent a lifetime gathering the evidence used by Kepler to derive the laws of planetary motion.

The answer is stellar paralax. Even Tycho Brahe agreed that such an observation would falsify a geocentric solar system, and with advances in telescope technology stellar paralax was observed.

The problem with the supernatural, as it is defined in practice by believers, is that any and all observations can be consistent with the supernatural. There is no equivalent to stellar paralax when it comes to the supernatural.

As obvious as the conclusion that there is no Christian God might seem to us, proving that all this evidence actually supports that conclusion and not its opposite is no simple task.

This is why I often ask pointed questions. This is why I always ask what observations, if made, would be inconsistent with the existence of ___ (insert deity here)____. When believers fail to address the question then the conclusion is all too obvious. Evidence doesn't matter. It never has.

[1] Dreams of a Final Theory, Stephen Weinberg.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 04-29-2009 6:56 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020