Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 304 of 396 (618159)
06-01-2011 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Percy
06-01-2011 2:07 PM


Re: open minded debate
Let's use your definition of the supernatural, that it represents what science doesn't currently understand. Given that definition, how is supernatural ID science supposed to work that is any different from how science already works.
The only difference between how supernatural science works vs. natural sciences, is acknowledgment.
Supernatural phenomenons are already being studied. Universities are studying human behavior's and recognition patterns from child birth in an attempt to see how beliefs are formed.
Some scientists spend a lot of time debunking phenomenon and scoring short roles in television programs just to say "science cannot explain this"
I believe that the study of supernatural phenomenon will find groundbreaking discoveries when they build the supercomputer with mass statistical capabilities that will hopefully unlock data storage--access and interpretation--of the human mind.
(There is already some work in this as statisticians from the NSA have teamed with communication companies to make breakthrough in massive data analysis.)
Because of current mindsets of many scientists, it is unlikely a mediocre scientist will make breakthroughs on the supernatural fronts. It is most probable that work on understanding the human brain as it physically operates will unlock mysteries of consciousness and make breakthroughs concerning the supernatural.
I have my own hypothesis on the subjects of God and other (apparently) supernatural phenomenon-- and time will tell--if science evolves as I believe it will.
Superior consciousness (which has a high probability of being true) is unlikely to be understood or even communicated with; if we do not even have the capacity to understand our own consciousness.
p.s. Sorry I took so long to respond, I Don’t have work today, but I am proud to announce my girl is in her 11th week of pregnancy

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Percy, posted 06-01-2011 2:07 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Scienctifictruths, posted 06-02-2011 12:37 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 305 of 396 (618160)
06-01-2011 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Taq
06-01-2011 2:54 PM


Re: open minded debate
So you are saying that the events, as you described them, really happened?
I'm saying: It is the opinion of official examiners in studied cases that the apparently 'supernatural events' are unexplainable.
What is fictional about matter bending the path of starlight per the laws of relativity? What is fictional about this matter not absorbing or emitting light? Please explain.
Please do not make me start posting all the problems with these 'theories'. They are full of holes and you have enough education to know that.
Ask again if you really want me to do that, and I will. (And not the problems with light refraction, or with electron transfer through non opaque materials, but the actual theories I mention in the post that you decided to summarize with basic electron wavelength function.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Taq, posted 06-01-2011 2:54 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Taq, posted 06-01-2011 5:48 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 308 of 396 (618169)
06-01-2011 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Taq
06-01-2011 5:48 PM


Re: open minded debate
So which are they? Unexplainable, unexplained, or supernatural?
Unexplained, currently unexplainable, and considered by many to be Supernatural.
Supernatural as define as: considered beyond the scope of science and the natural order.
Beyond defined as : On the far side of; past: Just beyond the fence. 2. Later than; after: beyond midnight. 3. To a degree that is past the understanding, reach, or scope of: ...
I still don't understand why you think that particles which lack the ability to interact with light are somehow supernatural?
I have no idea to what you’re referencing. I said in post 271:
"The events are not fictional. Our ability to explain supernatural events can be considered fictional. But so can: dark matter, big bang theory, string theory, chaos theory, and any other theory not proven."
Edited by tesla, : typing errors

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Taq, posted 06-01-2011 5:48 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Taq, posted 06-03-2011 11:26 AM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 309 of 396 (618170)
06-01-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Panda
06-01-2011 5:33 PM


Re: open minded debate
Ok then fine. Let’s have an English lesson on the true meaning of this word supernatural one last time.
supernatural/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.
Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
beyond/bˈnd/
3. To a degree that is past the understanding, reach, or scope of...
Should I define the word attributed? maybe understanding too?
Edited by tesla, : yadda yadda.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Panda, posted 06-01-2011 5:33 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Panda, posted 06-01-2011 7:14 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 311 of 396 (618186)
06-01-2011 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Panda
06-01-2011 7:14 PM


Re: open minded debate
Answer this question correctly and I will accept your tuition:
My parrot is blue.
My parrot is not blue.
Is my parrot blue?
(You got it wrong last time. Maybe this time you will get it right.)
Language is easily misinterpreted. One of my favorite sentences I stumbled upon while taking technical writing was:
I'm kicking cancer in the balls!
It's not a very clear sentence because is the writer kicking the cancer in the balls? (Figuratively as American language would imply) or is the writer kicking cancer in the balls ? As most second language English speakers would read?
When in a debate with experienced debaters--who are looking to win a debate regardless of any real truth-- misinterpreting a writers language is often intentional to disgruntle their opponent.
Plato wrote of this in his work Sophist in about 367 BCE
Plato dialog area [239] from 'Sophist' :
str. I see, Theaeteus, that you have never made the acquaintance of a sophist.
Theat. why do you think so?
str. He will make believe to have his eyes shut, or to have none.
Theat. what do you mean?
str. when you tell him of something existing in a mirror, or in a sculpture, [240] and address him as though he had eyes, he will laugh you to scorn, and will pretend that he knows nothing of mirrors and streams, or of sight at all; he will say that he is asking about an idea."
To answer your question however, yes it would be contradictory to say something is blue, and then say it is not, when both of the words 'blue' are the same definition.
The post that began this debate, I had said 'supernatural' alone, and then mentioned 'supernatural phenomenon' Easily confused when the definition of supernatural is not being used by its literal dictionary definition, which at least many here have gotten comfortable using it improperly. Which in turn, makes the debate difficult.
I thank you for your concession, but let us not cease discussion if any healthy thing could be learned or discovered through continuation of discussion.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Panda, posted 06-01-2011 7:14 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Panda, posted 06-02-2011 5:32 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 315 of 396 (618232)
06-02-2011 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by Scienctifictruths
06-02-2011 12:16 AM


Re: open minded debate
If these occurrences are beyond the 'laws of nature' then how can we study them? As far as consciousness goes there is actual research being done on understanding how consciousness works (specifically in the field of Psychology). However say theoretically that Consciousness is 'supernatural' (i.e. beyond the laws of nature), how would we test this?
You missed 'scientific understanding' which is how we understand the laws of nature.
Psychology involves examination of thoughts themselves, like philosophy, which isn't going to help near as much as physically understanding the thought process. The physical behaviors of thoughts are more physics and chemistry than psychology and philosophy.
Okay now you're going under the assumption that these occurrences actually happen. Scientists don't assume something is correct, we assume it is incorrect.
Not entirely correct. Scientists accept a lot of assumptions. They have to believe what they are studying is real, or else they could not run experiments.
A reminder of this is reflected by this quote:
Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations.For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4
This means, since philosophy is used to choose models; assumptions must be made and then explored.
What Hypothesis would we form? How would we test this properly? How would we falsify it? You're going on the assumption that Consciousness cannot be explained through natural means.
No. I'm going on the assumption science has no real answer because it is beyond our current abilities to understand. Evidence supports that.
We need to understand the physical functions of consciousness.
But again we're off topic, how do you propose we test Intelligent Design in the universe? Poltergeists and consciousness appear to have very little to do with this, unless I'm missing something.
Poltergeists and consciousness have everything to do with the potential of intelligent design. It proves that consciousness appears to exist beyond biological means.
Perhaps the only way to begin exploring the possibilities is to first examine what we do know about thoughts.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19731/
"A glowing protein provides insight into how learning strengthens the ties between neurons. "
Neuroscience For Kids - action potential
"The resting potential tells about what happens when a neuron is at rest. An action potential occurs when a neuron sends information down an axon, "
Oh wait? The electrical signals carry information? Well now, wouldn’t it be nice to read that imbedded information?
Is it possible other pulses of this frequency carry information? What of information being imbedded in other wavelengths? We do not know how to read this information. So is it possible greater entities communicate long distances by imbedding information through these channels? It could be. and that’s a place to start.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Scienctifictruths, posted 06-02-2011 12:16 AM Scienctifictruths has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Percy, posted 06-02-2011 11:41 AM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 317 of 396 (618242)
06-02-2011 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by Percy
06-02-2011 11:41 AM


Re: open minded debate
Are you still discussing how supernatural ID science is supposed to work? If you are then I'm finding it hard to see the relationship.
See the bottom portion of post 315.
Intelligent Design Science: acknowledges superior consciousness that dictated the 'design' of the universe.
My position is science has not ruled out that possibility and considers 'Supreme Being' Supernatural.
My position still is that Supernatural only means it is beyond the abilities of current science to understand.
With acknowledgment of the potential, the ability to truly 'disprove' this belief is by understanding consciousness. Science does not yet have that capacity; therefore, it is still potential.
I believe scientists attempting to interpret brain functions of consciousness would receive funding from churches and other religious orders who believe that unlocking consciousness at its base physics could lead to a greater understanding of God.
This would only accelerate the knowledge of science and give science the potential to either prove or disprove Supreme Being.
Everyone wins.
Edited by tesla, : spacing

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Percy, posted 06-02-2011 11:41 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2011 1:56 PM tesla has replied
 Message 346 by Scienctifictruths, posted 06-02-2011 8:23 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 319 of 396 (618285)
06-02-2011 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Straggler
06-02-2011 1:56 PM


Re: open minded debate
I have also pointed out to you that evidence based investigation isn't in the business of proof.
And this is where science apparently disagrees with itself.
For instance here is a Berkley quote: (under falsifiable)
"A falsifiable idea, on the other hand, is one for which there is a conceivable test that might produce evidence proving the idea false."
It comes from this link: Tips and strategies for teaching the nature and process of science
Where it also points out:
"Scientists are judged on the basis of how many correct hypotheses they propose (i.e., good scientists are the ones who are "right" most often). "
How do we judge 'right'? Evidence. And what is evidence considered by most? proof
"Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof real, absolute proof is not particularly scientific."
So please read that sentence as "evidence" instead of proof. if it will make you feel more comfortable. But if evidence is considered to be ‘proof’--tentative, scientifically accepted; proof--then its semantics.
However, did you really read that post and just ignore the potential to grow actual scientific knowledge by accepting the notion that the exploration could unlock evidence of supreme consciousness?
Do you know how much funding could be funneled into scientific research in the realm of neurological understanding and physics?
Probably more funding than was sunk into the hadron collider. Scientist had no idea what, if anything, would be discovered by that.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2011 1:56 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Panda, posted 06-02-2011 3:40 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied
 Message 321 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2011 3:40 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 322 of 396 (618298)
06-02-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Straggler
06-02-2011 3:40 PM


Re: open minded debate
So what is it you think science can "prove" regarding the actuality of things which are defined (by humans) as being materially inexplicable and unfalsifiable?
I'm not sure what evidence will be discovered. I do know discoveries will be made, and many discoveries are potential.
If Last Thursdayism is correct then Evolution is necessarily false. But as far as science is concerned - So what? Why even consider the baseless beliefs of those who treat falsification as the be-all-and-end-all of scientific endevour? They are just deluding themselves with the comforting notion that "My belief can't be falsified therefore it is as justified as any other".
You’re looking at a very small picture. The majority of mankind believes that God is a real thing. Only a few positional-agitated scientists would gawk at scientists studying consciousness at the level of physics and chemistry necessary to understand the behavior--with the premise that it is potential to discover superior consciousness as it is believed to exist--when billions are being dumped into the research.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2011 3:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by jar, posted 06-02-2011 4:13 PM tesla has replied
 Message 337 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2011 6:45 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 324 of 396 (618302)
06-02-2011 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by jar
06-02-2011 4:13 PM


Re: open minded debate
First, belief that God is real is totally irrelevant; is there EVIDENCE that God exists?
The majority of mankind believes there is and that he does.
If there is no evidence that God exists then there is nothing to investigate.
Hosea 4:6:
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children."
Second, studying consciousness has NOTHING to do with supernatural.
The majority of those who 'hear' God report that God communicates via consciousness.
Third, unless there is some evidence that something called "superior consciousness" there is nothing to investigate.
Do you have evidence that God or superior consciousness or supernatural exist?
The claims of the majority of humans on this planet is enough to validate true examination, via true scientific methods; to understand consciousness in the hopes to validate what the majority already believe.
Remember, people do not just believe in this idea tentatively. They truly trust God is real.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by jar, posted 06-02-2011 4:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by jar, posted 06-02-2011 4:34 PM tesla has replied
 Message 327 by Theodoric, posted 06-02-2011 4:44 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 326 of 396 (618307)
06-02-2011 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by jar
06-02-2011 4:34 PM


Re: open minded debate
And it just plain don't matter what they believe.
Before you can investigate something there must be some evidence that it exists.
Do you have evidence that God or superior consciousness or supernatural exist?
The evidence of that is what will hopefully be discovered. The path to scientific evidence of that: begins with first understanding human consciousness, and the physics of thoughts.
That is something we can study towards that end [of understanding superior consciousness].

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by jar, posted 06-02-2011 4:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by jar, posted 06-02-2011 4:52 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 329 of 396 (618310)
06-02-2011 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by Theodoric
06-02-2011 4:44 PM


Re: open minded debate
Knowing that CS will again mock me for this, I have to ask.
Do they believe there is evidence or is there evidence? Very much different things.
If there is evidence what is it?
You’re looking at the issue backwards. There currently isn't any scientific evidence. The question of this topic is 'how do we begin looking for it' (how do we do ID science)
The evidence may or may not be found, but is potentially found by understanding the physics behind consciousness.
This is a path to scientific evidence.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Theodoric, posted 06-02-2011 4:44 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Theodoric, posted 06-02-2011 5:59 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 330 of 396 (618311)
06-02-2011 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by jar
06-02-2011 4:52 PM


Re: open minded debate
If you do not have evidence that God or superior consciousness or supernatural even exist then there is NOTHING to investigate.
Do you have evidence that dark matter exists? oh I guess that means there is nothing to investigate then huh?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by jar, posted 06-02-2011 4:52 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by jar, posted 06-02-2011 5:03 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 332 of 396 (618313)
06-02-2011 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by jar
06-02-2011 5:03 PM


Re: open minded debate
Of course there is evidence that Dark Matter exists, In fact it was the evidence that there was more matter in the universe than could be accounted for by the visible matter that began the study.
Oh, so you mean they said : hey there is something missing let’s give it a name and research it.
So absence of evidence justified looking.
Um...hello...are you in there?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by jar, posted 06-02-2011 5:03 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by jar, posted 06-02-2011 5:22 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied
 Message 335 by Theodoric, posted 06-02-2011 6:02 PM tesla has replied
 Message 347 by Scienctifictruths, posted 06-02-2011 8:38 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 336 of 396 (618328)
06-02-2011 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Theodoric
06-02-2011 6:02 PM


Re: open minded debate
Maybe you should research dark matter a little before you make comments about it. All you are showing here is your ignorance about the subject.
Educators' Corner
"The search for the nature of dark matter is a very active field in astronomy and physics. Scientists do not know what it is made of , but they are investigating a number of possibilities."
I am aware of the nature of dark matter. No one has any idea why the 'apparent' mass discrepancy. That is why they are doing research
The Dark Matter Problem
"In each case there is more matter inferred dynamically than can be accounted for by known matter components. This mass discrepancy is usually attributed to additional (dark) matter, assuming that Newton's laws are valid. Only in Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND, cf. Milgrom 1983) is the discrepancy attributed to a modification of the force law at low densities. This theory has been worked out in detail only for the explanation of spiral galaxy rotation curves. The evidence for dark matter from extended rotation curves of spiral galaxies is considered the strongest, and this topic has thus spawned the most adhoc alternatives. Not only MOND, but also explanations based on magnetic forces have been considered. "
But that is off topic. The point is understanding consciousness being a worthwhile endeavor to understand and potentially discover the existence of supreme being and currently considered supernatural behaviors that relate to consciousness.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Theodoric, posted 06-02-2011 6:02 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Taq, posted 06-03-2011 11:38 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024