So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)

From what I can deduct from this you're referring (essentially) to the irreducible complexity argument? That things are too complicated to have evolved?Marc I think you need to actually give examples to back up what you're saying here. Atheism? What has this got to do with Atheism? I'm a Deistic-Evolutionist and I have no problem with two-step mutations. And what do you mean by single event? No one is proposing a single event. What is being proposed is a multi-step event; in that a relatively useful function is found. New genetic information is gradually added to this to eventually create an essential (or greater) function (to put it in it's simplest form).What part of this don't you understand? I could explain it to you in depth but it requires a short jog down the mathematical side of memory lane. However if you've done any form of higher mathematics you could understand it with greater ease. I'm more than happy to explain it to you, I'm skeptical as to whether you'll actually listen though.

Tesla you mentioned 'bickering' within this site earlier, have you ever considered that absolute statements like "You're wrong." Might be the cause of this?The first site you linked is a school for learning about 'paranormal phenomena'. First of all this appears to be a privately funded school, it also appears that the 'scientific' research is being kept quite (as I have never seen anything published in any reputable scientific journals by this affiliation). I could also open up a school to scientifically study the effects that Leprechaun's play on the weather, I somewhat doubt anything useful would come of it though."You’re wrong. I believe the lack of science to explain supernatural phenomenon only means science is limited."Or perhaps the Supernatural phenomenon could be incorrect? Let me ask you something: (theoretically) if Supernatural Phenomena really do occur, if you really wish Scientists to look into this and value it as a valid Hypothesis, then where would we begin? How would we test such a thing, what would our Hypothesis be? What would our Aim be? Even more how would we falsify such a claim? Such things are leaving the realm of science my friend.I think you're really dragging the point off from the main topic though. If we are to take the idea of an Intelligent Designer as a valid Hypothesis then how would we test this? How would we falsify it? What research could possibly come out of this?Now we might take some type of Paranormal Research in the future and decide to see if it's plausible. But we would still have to test this using Scientific methods, can you propose any such methods at the moment by which we may test/falsify these claims?

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? 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. In assuming it is incorrect we then attempt to falsify the theory/hypothesis (prove it wrong). If the theory is falsified it is then thrown away; if the theory is not falsified it is then submitted for peer review (in which further test take place in an attempt to falsify the theory).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. What if it can? Why does consciousness have to be a supernatural (beyond natural) occurrence?Perhaps this would be better studied in the fields of Psychology and Philosophy? Not all Scientists do, but yes you are correct, this breaches into the realm of personal belief. Because these ideas you're proposing cannot be tested through any natural means it is not something a Scientist could say is correct or incorrect, meaning that it is purely up to the individual to make up their mind's about such things. Thus with your line of thinking we could propose anything 'Invisible Flying Unicorns do exist, science should test the existence of flying unicorns but unfortunately it can't because it is beyond scientific means.' Tell me, do we conclude then that Invisible Flying Unicorn's exist? A Scientist would perhaps say 'there is no natural explanation for these, thus they are a null set'. But you seem to propose to assert the idea that they exist regardless.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.

So you're not actually talking about ID full stop? Then this conversation is completely irrelevant...yay for time wasting.Perhaps you should make a new thread for this topic?Oh but congratulations on your the good news =)Edited by Scienctifictruths, : No reason given.

Tesla you seem to keep skipping over my main points.1)How would we test these occurrences?
2)How would we know what occurrences to test?
3)How would we falsify such occurrences?And I'm sorry but what you said earlier is completely incorrect, we do go under the assumption that out theorem's are wrong, this is simply how Science works. We would not assert that the existence of a tree is incorrect, but anything that must be inferred through testing or falsification is assumed to be false (for reasons of progress).Psychology is more than the interpretation of thoughts, it's the understanding, mapping and break down of brain functions. My cousin has her PHD in Psychology and could easily attest to this. But yes for the most part Psychology deals with behavior, just as it deals with brain functions.Well first of all you have to define consciousness, which (although I'm sure you'll give some cryptic esoteric definition no one else agrees with) is actually quite hard to pin down. And it very much changes from field to field. Most would just define it simply as being awake, the rest of our thoughts are just processes.You seem to be talking about some transcendental force acting on our brains though. Such a thing is far beyond any Scientific means to measure, we have not the tools. And even if we were, what tools would we need? How the hell would we measure it?Your statements are all axiomatic, the only one who understands them is you. In this respect I think Panda was right to criticize you. Your idea of how Science works not correct either, you seem to think we pick a topic out of a hat then discover means to measure it. "Hmm poltergeists today lads? Let's invent the ectoplasmic detectors we invented just for this purpose."Once you actually begin to think about this from a Scientists perspective, then I'll listen. You have convinced me that the study of the Supernatural is somewhat related to ID (the one can propose the other), however you've yet to demonstrate once how we could test these things Scientifically (not just forming a theory).Now I can't speak for the Physicists, but in the realm of Biology, if a theorem is not testable or falsifiable then it is rejected. Please, how would we test these Supernatural occurrences? How would we falsify them? You seem to be dodging these two questions.[I appologize for bad spelling etc etc, early morning before my coffee]

The evidence IS there, this is testable and falsifiable.The gravitational pull is there for starters, this can be measure (I can gives you examples how if you wish). Not to mentioned the mass of the universe itself infers the existence of Dark Matter (see Topology).If the evidence were not there the theory would have been chucked out the window long ago. Not to mention we can falsify this evidence; we can test it. I'll leave that to the more Physics orientated people though, as Physics is not my major field. Biological examples would be more my ally. No, but the fact that we could estimate and measure the mass via curvatures (etc etc) infers it's existence. Did we give it a name? Well we certainly weren't going to call it "that random heavy stuff in space" now where we?The thing is we had a lot of evidence inferring the existence of Dark Matter before we began to research it further.

If you started by saying something similar to your previous post we could have saved a hell of a lot of time you do realize? Your post (in reference to Scientific means) didn't really make sense prior to this one, this post seems to be a semi-Rosetta stone of sorts really. Scientists are doing quite a bit of research into Consciousness (specifically in the realm of Psychology) already. It would be much easier if you defined your definition of Consciousness as well. Consciousness to the majority of Scientists simply means awake or not sleeping.We're trying to understand how data is relayed and interpreted as well, see the following:http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/12/091227212312.htm

No Scientist would have any problem with what you're proposing thus far. I would theorize that when further research is done on these topics in the realms of Psychology and Neuroscience theories will be united creating a further understanding of how the human brain works (I'm not sure if this is what you mean by consciousness or not).There is research being put into understanding why these phenomena take place as well, you linked some earlier under the heading of Parapsychology. However this is (for the most part) understanding how our brains can misinterpret signals and information creating such visions in our head, or what makes us create false images (the ideas behind these have the potential to be falsified at later dates upon further research).Supernatural abilities well, here Scientists will have a problem. How first do you determine a supernatural ability? Given your definition Scientists don't understand 100% of what goes on (neurologically) when using the bathroom, is this then a Supernatural ability? Define Supernatural Abilities if you will.No one would say "let's falsify God" We're talking specifically about Intelligent Design here. Even more specifically we're talking about Intelligent Design in the absence of Evolution (i.e. a 6 day creation period, a 10,000 year existence)."If we unravel how consciousness works by natural physics of how data is sent through the brain, we may be able to identify "superior intelligence, or read and interpret thoughts in such a way as to explain the phenomenon."I pretty much completely agree with you here. Except I don't know what you mean by "Superior Intelligence". Stephen Hawking's intelligence is superior to mine, I don't suggest cracking his head open though.The problem is what you're explaining right there can be measured naturally, we already have a basic understanding of memory/information transference within the brain. See we can actually touch feel and study the brain, and even if we couldn't we could infer it's existence through basic study of human and animal behavior. How would we study poltergeists? We can't exactly trap one and ask it questions. We can understand perhaps why our brains create such images, but if anything this (given current research) would falsify the idea of people actually seeing ghosts. But at this point we cannot falsify such evidence so we must simply say "we don't know".I somewhat agree with you, we can understand how we perceive these things, and a lot of research IS being done on this. We however cannot study anything ethereal or transcendental. Perhaps one day we can. I don't think any Scientist would say beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God, no Leprechauns and no Flying Unicorns, but the fact that WE have not seen or observed these occurrences makes them questionable. I would also say that it seems very unlikely that such occurrences are of some ethereal or transcendental nature."Falsification is not the goal, the goal is: understanding; which can lead to verification of falsification." That really depends on the research, if there is any evidence leading us to a specific conclusion then this evidence MUST be presented before peers in an attempt to falsify the evidence, this is how Science works my friend.Again I apologize for the grammar, I was in a hurry when writing this. Edited by Scienctifictruths, : Message did not go through previouslyEdited by Scienctifictruths, : Wrong term used, event instead of ability.

At the Physics level? I'm somewhat doubting the human brain would be dense enough to imply anything Topological so I have to ask exactly what you mean. You really have to define what you mean by "greater consciousness" because given my understanding (of consciousness being a state of awareness) all we would have to do to reach a greater consciousness is to dose up on coffee....You propose how we would present the research to the world, how would we study it? You say we have to look into "greater consciousness" but what is that exactly?We can poor all the money we want into it, but if we don't understand what it is we're actually researching it'll be rather pointless.Psychology may not be where you're going with this, but it very much looks like what you're referring to. The Physics of brain cell function? Please elaborate. Activities are the events that occur, it's the processes and functions that transfer information. Again understanding how memory works, how thoughts work and thought transference are being studied in both the fields of Psychology & Neuroscience. I really fail to see where Physics could fit in here.Your proposition may sounds good, but it really has no foundation. We wouldn't know what to measure or how to measure it. Greater consciousness? Well if it's something that transcends the very brain itself (and the natural world) then I fail to see what we could actually use to extrapolate information to study it.Perhaps your theory might work, perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you. But at the moment it's sounding very much like Pseudoscience. Correct me if I'm wrong of course, I'm just really struggling to see exactly what you're getting here. A lot of your terms appear to be null sets (of no value;i.e. greater consciousness) which makes it harder.

Deepak Chopra? Is he the Pseudoscience\healer guy?Edited by Scienctifictruths, : No reason given.

I threw up slightly in my mouth when he mentioned the use of transcendent forces working within Evolution. Creationists actually genuinely believe that we think something similar, now I know at least where it comes from.

Is procreation bound by Physics? I really don't understand what you are getting at. Please explain yourself. Telling us we need to research is all well and good but we need evidence to go on so we actually know how to research it; or we at least need some means of falsification. Without at least one of these two your research wont make it past the Hypothesis stage. It's easy for you to say 'we need to research and put money into understanding these things' but it's not that simple. You actually have to have a bases to go on before you throw money into it.Giving the example of Dark Matter again, by measuring gravitational pull (by various means, i.e. the shifting and bending of light) we could infer that there is something very heavy in those specific areas that we measure. How do we infer that the Supernatural and Higher Consciousness exist? Saying that people believe it is not a valid answer, see below.Scientists are doing A LOT of RESEARCH into HOW the BRAIN WORKS. They are attempting to understand how to "read and interpret thoughts" but it may take some time, just because you sink some money into something doesn't mean you're going to get instant answers. Give these fields a few years, see what results they come up with. If after we map (for the most part) the brain and understand it in all it's various functions and don't find how thoughts are generated (though this seems highly improbable given our current success rates), perhaps then we might look to some further explanation (although I still would have no clue how to measure or test or falsify such things).We're not being unreasonable here, you have to understand a few things:a) You're making very little sense, the fact that most of us here (who are at least reasonably learned) can't understand what you're talking about is testament to this.b) Your understanding of how Science works is false, we cannot measure such claims as 'Greater Consciousness' especially when you don't define it.c) Your going around in circles, especially with your definitions, your conversation with Panda is Testament to this.d) You're avoiding a lot of direct questions, leading me to believe you really don't care about reasoning, you just want to get your specific point across (even when exposed time and time again as fallacious). I know of no Scientists who would disagree with you here. Research IS taking place to determine how we perceive Supernatural Events. However we can only examine the brain itself and how it reacts during such experiences to understand what truly goes on, this is Neuroscience, Psychology and Biochemistry. I still fail to see what Physics can do here.If I understand your last statement correctly you're saying that Scientists should look into the idea of Telepathy? Or memory/idea transference over long distances? If this is what you are actually getting at you really went the backwards way about it. I would be more than happy to discuss it, but you really have to clarify, you've been very esoteric in the way you present your claims so far. Yes this is true, but we have not gotten far enough in our understanding of the brain to really say what parts are not 'adding up'. And even so, how would you infer such a thing mathematically? You do realize mathematical equations don't just poof out of thin air? They actually build on other mathematical equations, so asserting an equation to work out something (which is impossible to calculate anyway because we have no means of measuring it, nor even inferring it) would take many years of proofing just for it to work with the rest of mathematics (and even then it doesn't mean that it's necessarily going to be correct). 'True Science'? I'm sorry but that's an esoteric statement if I ever saw one. You seem to think that just because Science doesn't know every single aspect of something it means that what it doesn't know must be correct, or it's just misunderstood at this moment in time. That is COMPLETELY un-scientific, we test and demonstrate by attempting to falsify evidence and build up theorem's to create models to help us understand the universe and nature. You assert that we pre-conceive that these ideas are correct, ask for funding, then work backwards to see how we can prove them.The evidence is that people believe? Most children believe in Santa Clause, is that cause to research further into the workings of flying reindeer? Go back a few thousand years ago and the majority of people in certain civilizations believed in Bakuba, and sincerely believe that the world was vomited into existence by the great and all powerful Bakuba. Do we then test how substrates of vomit could produce life as we know it today? The funny thing is that these two examples are Scientifically testable, whether as yours is not. We can test Reindeer to see if any forms retain any ability to fly, we can test vomit to see if indeed it is capable of creating life. These things are falsifiable, your model is not.Now you may think I'm picking on you, but really think, unless everyone here is misunderstanding you really need to work out what it is that you want Scientists to test and how to test it. So far all you've given us is null sets.Set A 'Supernatural' = (Definition given)
Set B 'Phenomena' = (Definition given)
Set C 'Funding' = (Explained)
Set D 'Greater Consciousness' = (Null)
Set E 'Physics' = (Null)
Set F 'Research' = (Null)
Set G 'Falsifiability' = (Null)
Set H 'Evidence' = (Null)And we could really keep on going for a while here, but this is just to show you what YOU really have to give us for us to take you seriously. It's not hard, first you define what you mean (i.e. what is Greater Consciousness, how does it work). Second of all how does Physics relate to this Greater Consciousness? Thirdly what research do we do, and how do we go about it (not funding, actual research). Fourth, Falsifiability, how would we falsify these claims; lack of falsifiability is only proof of no evidence or no supporting theories making the model of no value, essentially because we then have no means to research it. Evidence, what evidence would we be looking for, how would we find it; you may think you've answered this already but honestly, you've been extremely vague.If you want any of us to take your model seriously then please, take this all into account.Otherwise your model is of no value, having no evidence, nothing to compare it with, no proper means in which to research it and no means of falsification.

Just one more thing to really drive this thing home. In the above post you have 8 Sets mentioned: Set A, Set B, Set C, Set D, Set E, Set F, Set G and Set H. Using mathematics (in order to understand how the process works Scientifically) we would prescribe a number to each set based on it's value. If you remember from High School this is known as Truth Tables. Essentially you have two values, let's say P and Q.P might say
P = My child is an adultQ might say
Q = my child is not an adultOnly one of these is actually correct. So I'm going to assert my child is 13, so Q would then be true (T) and P would then be false (F).P=F
Q=TNow to go one step further, I'll demonstrate how we would use this as a Scientific method. Instead of false having a value of F, we would say that it has a value of 0, instead of True having a value of T we would say it has a value of 1 (essentially this is how Binary, and even some parts of genetics works).So for every set, A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H we would prescribe a 0 or 1 value based on the content value of each Set.So we would then have:Set A 'Supernatural' = (Definition given) = 1
Set B 'Phenomena' = (Definition given) = 1
Set C 'Funding' = (Explained) = 1
Set D 'Greater Consciousness' = (Null) = 0
Set E 'Physics' = (Null) = 0
Set F 'Research' = (Null) = 0
Set G 'Falsifiability' = (Null) = 0
Set H 'Evidence' = (Null) = 0Now see Science would then work through a type of multiplication, in that all these things need to be of a specific value in order to be Scientifically acceptable (i.e. the end value need to be 1)So we would have 1x1x1x0x0x0x0x0 which would then equal 0. This would make your model a false one as it does not meet the basic Scientific criteria. Ideally in order for us to even accept your premise, you need to turn EVERY 0 into a 1.So though you might consider the information you are neglecting to tell us of little importance, in order to create a sound Scientific model to work with you need your model to be a true value.So you have your overall set.Set A (Supernatural Phenomena) = (False)For us to take you literally you need your model to be able to meet the basic Scientific Criteria needed for a model to work. Otherwise we might be submitting a false model, and if we did sink millions into this model and it ended up being false it would look rather bad for Science and Scientists as a whole.Comprende?

This is a very wide definition, what particular means in the world of Physics would we then be using? Physics is a very broad word (via your definition) you're going to have to break it down further. Again, for all I know at the moment we could be testing the brain's mass or how it transfers heat. You really have to be SPECIFIC. Broad definitions will get you know where here, I'm prepared to go by your definitions (even though, I dare say, nearly none in the Scientific community use them) but you have to be specific. At the moment Set E is still a null set, giving a false value. You can easily change this, be specific.Set A 'Supernatural' = (Definition given) = 1
Set B 'Phenomena' = (Definition given) = 1
Set C 'Funding' = (Explained) = 1
Set D 'Greater Consciousness' = (Null) = 0
Set E 'Physics' = (Null) = 0 [I'm nearly tempted to give this a 1 now but you need to be more specific in your definition first]
Set F 'Research' = (Null) = 0
Set G 'Falsifiability' = (Null) = 0
Set H 'Evidence' = (Null) = 0I really don't think I'm being irrational here or even harsh for that matter, I'm applying the same to your Model as any Scientist would to any Model. If you don't understand something I've said in the previous posts, ask and I will explain. I'm not trying to belittle anyone, I'm simply trying to show you how Science actually works. We already understand the principles of how energy works in the brain, we also understand that the brain is indeed matter. Can you see what I'm getting at? All I'm asking is for you to be specific, at the moment everything you say in regards to your Model is extremely Esoteric. Be specific please.

That's my point, I wouldn't have a clue what area of Physics would be relevant to this kind of research. In fact I went and asked a good friend of mine today if there was any way that Physics could research higher consciousness, data storage and information & data transference to external sources. He simply said "buddy, you've got the wrong field of Science". We know how it reads and transfers data, what part of Data transference are you referring to particularly? Being transferred to where? Though I do find this an interesting concept, and think that it may be a heavily researched area in the future, at the moment I will admit we are incapable of measuring such things. You might then say that Scientists should then fork out the money and research it, but really (at least at the moment) the chances of actually coming up with any useful information or results is extremely slim. Let me explain: your Hypothesis is valid "can the brain send and receive data from outside brain tissue", however we have no means to research this. You can say 'sink more money into it and more research' but really we don't even understand the nature of this data transference (or if it even takes place to begin with). We could study the brain for out going information, but on what level would we look for this information? This is far more complicated than you think. If Scientists were to attempt to find this particular wave which the brain transfers at (if we can even measure it), there are so many thousands of possible wave lengths that it would be like finding a needle in a haystack.At the moment research is being done into the specifics of how the brain works in the fields of Neuroscience, Psychology and Biochemistry. Why not allow them to further research the nature of the brain itself before we jump too far ahead? If we understand the brain better, perhaps that will give us a greater insight into these events?In any case, this is all irrelevant. Essentially a Hypothesis (which cannot be tested now) is no proof for ID. And even if said Hypothesis became fact in the near future, that still wouldn't suggest Intelligent Design, that might imply Intelligent Life (upon further research) but not Design. So really, again for the most part this is irrelevant.Set A 'Supernatural' = (Definition given) = 1
Set B 'Phenomena' = (Definition given) = 1
Set C 'Funding' = (Explained) = 1
Set D 'Greater Consciousness' = (Null) = 0
Set E 'Physics' = (Null) = 0
Set F 'Research' = (Null) = 0
Set G 'Falsifiability' = (Null) = 0
Set H 'Evidence' = (Null) = 0Again, the criteria for a model has not been met. Not really, I want to understand what we are supposed to be Researching (hence the definitions, which you have still not given). I want to know what Research we could do, what we would measure or how we might infer the model. I want to know the implications of the model, if there are implications then we can make an assumption based on the implications making it falsifiable. I then want to know a) what evidence we have to go on and b) what evidence we would expect to see. These are not difficult questions; this all falls under basic criteria for any Scientific Theory, not just you.The only 'end game questions' are your own, essentially because you're implying the results before having the facts. Yes we ask questions, but unless we have something to go on WE CANNOT RESEARCH IT. Is this really so hard to grasp? You have asked some interesting questions, but until we have something to go on, your model is and will remain a null set.Now you have managed to look over and skip the majority of my questions, I think that most of my questions have been valid so far.