Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 10:58 AM
37 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, edge, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin), Stile, Theodoric, vimesey (9 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,933 Year: 11,969/19,786 Month: 1,750/2,641 Week: 259/708 Day: 34/52 Hour: 15/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
19Next
Author Topic:   The $5,000,000 ID Research Challenge
Percy
Member
Posts: 18589
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 151 of 285 (687598)
01-14-2013 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by tesla
01-13-2013 5:01 PM


Re: Sigh.
Hi Tesla,

I think you've seriously misunderstood the nature of the objections to your ideas. In this thread no one is suggesting that we shouldn't research ID. In fact, the purpose of this thread is to solicit ID research proposals.

The objection to your ideas is that they aren't research proposals.

So no one is saying that we shouldn't include interstellar, mind and intelligence research proposals. What we're saying is that just saying something like, "We should research interstellar ideas," is not a research proposal. No one's going to give you $5,000,000 based on that.

So, if you'd like to try again:

  1. What is your hypothesis? Please include a description of the evidence upon which your hypothesis is based.

  2. How will you investigate your hypothesis? General outlines of the experimental and/or observational procedures are sufficient.

  3. What results are expected if your hypothesis is true? Please be specific.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by tesla, posted 01-13-2013 5:01 PM tesla has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16817
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 152 of 285 (687606)
01-14-2013 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by tesla
12-22-2012 11:55 PM


Re: Chicken or the Egg?
tesla writes:

I want the language of the brain understood to the point you can watch dreams on a screen, and even have a meter to show emotional feelings connected to the dream etc.


How is that research into ID? How would it help determine whether ID is true or false?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by tesla, posted 12-22-2012 11:55 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by tesla, posted 01-14-2013 7:27 PM ringo has responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 136 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 153 of 285 (687608)
01-14-2013 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by tesla
01-13-2013 5:01 PM


Re: Sigh.
Tesla,

I don't think you're at all providing a testable ID hypothesis. If you want an idea of what kind of testable hypotheses we're asking you to provide, see my message 21. To be sure, my proposals have had a fair share of criticism. But they might give you a rough idea of what we're looking for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by tesla, posted 01-13-2013 5:01 PM tesla has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


(2)
Message 154 of 285 (687618)
01-14-2013 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by tesla
01-13-2013 5:01 PM


Re: Sigh.
1. 'God' is potential. Greater intelligence has never been found or measured, and we cannot communicate with lesser intelligence effectively. Which means: there is a lot we do not know, and in light of that, we should research.

That's great and all, but that is not scientific research. That is not what I am asking for in this thread.

Can you name a single subject where this would not be a potential answer? Let's look back at the history of science. At one point we didn't understand what made up the atom. What did we do? Did we decide to build a spacecraft so that we could find an alien civilization that did understand what the atom was made of? What about germs? Did we likewise build a space craft to find an alien civilization that could look at our sick people and figure out what was wrong?

None of this happened, did it? Instead, we built experiments, such as Koch's experiment with anthrax and Rutherford's experiment with gold foil. We depended on OURSELVES!! What you are suggesting is NOT scientific research. It is giving up.

The bottom line: To absolutely say God is not, or that God is, is an assumption, a chosen belief. And scientists are being foolish by not allowing funding from those who would and could fund such research as long as the title of the research also includes an admittance that God is a possibility.

What research?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by tesla, posted 01-13-2013 5:01 PM tesla has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 155 of 285 (687621)
01-14-2013 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by tesla
01-13-2013 5:01 PM


Re: Sigh.
I have to jump in here.

Greater intelligence has never been found or measured, and we cannot communicate with lesser intelligence effectively. Which means: there is a lot we do not know, and in light of that, we should research.

So you are saying that since we have not yet found an intellegence greater than our own we should keep looking. I agree. This is exactly the kind of thing SETI is doing.

You also say that since we cannot dicuss Shakespeare with dolphins we should research how to do this. Again I agree. There are quite a few studies funded by the navy that seek this very porpoise ... eh ... purpose. Well, except for the Shakespeare bit.

So what is the problem? We are doing these things.

Maybe you think SETI should approach the Templeton Foundation with a proposal to spend millions of dollars to upgrade their antenna arrays citing the possibility of hearing god snoring on his throne?

And maybe the Scripps Institute should approach Templeton to fund more dolphin communications research citing the possibility that the dolphins will tell us about their Jesusfish savior and how he was beached on an island as a gift to all fishkind?

Is this the kind of thing you are proposing?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : mor spln


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by tesla, posted 01-13-2013 5:01 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by tesla, posted 01-14-2013 7:32 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2252 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 156 of 285 (687642)
01-14-2013 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Tangle
01-14-2013 3:14 AM


Re: Sigh.
Alternatively, intelligent people recognise arrogance and ignorance when they hear it.

Who can know? Way I see it, if you want indoctrinated people to wake up to a truth; they need to have a path they are comfortable with. ‘You said so’ doesn't count. Nor ‘I say so’. We all choose to believe what we will for our own reasons. I think this site has run out of usefulness to me. The initial question for me was Is God, or is God not? That’s the only part of the discussion I care about, is discovering that truth or lie. And I've decided, religion does not have that answer. And neither does science. So anyone who say's they know something true have made a decision to believe something, and are probably full of it. Factually, physics is a load of data that supports opinions and interpretations that are tentative. Some I would rely on as fact, by saying "probably true, since evidence supports it strongly" other areas are so sketchy it's not worth mentioning.

When it comes to God it's an even bigger mess. Because: our level of intelligence cannot see very far. But people believe it does. People believe we see most everything. But the blindness in that belief is just as bad as believing you have answers from some past writings we know little truth about and cannot scrutinize further than choosing to believe or not blindly.

So I decided to add my two cents at a debate site, and as debates go, you could honestly give the very straight forward truth of the situation, and a naysayer will be blind deaf and dumb because to admit otherwise would admit defeat in argument. Sophistry is all that is here for me, and it is useless to me to hear the same question over and over that I answer over and over with the same result of people ignoring the answers. So I will no longer add my opinions here. I will no longer waste my time here.

YOU decide. Because I'm pretty sure I'll be dead before any truth is found, because people cannot cooperate to save this species from self-destruction. People are too blinded by their own arrogance in what little knowledge they know, to use enough wisdom to capitalize on people as they are for cooperation, instead of waiting for only those they agree with to find cooperation. And so cooperation is not near what it could be, maybe not even enough to save 70% or more of this planets human life.

But if you are still with me:

Know this: people are throwing millions, probably billions into organized religion because they are seeking God. Now, with a little open mindedness to the truth, and accepting where our knowledge does stop, science could have that funding instead. But they will not allow believers of God to have real science being done to gain the necessary knowledge and capabilities we need to really begin exploring the truth of the matter. MAKE NO MISTAKE: we ARE exploring every area that leads to that in science already, the difference is: we are leaving out a very good source of funding. But science does not want to give religious people a place to put their money to 'realize' the truth, they want people to give money because they have overcome their indoctrination by accepting a new indoctrination--it would appear. The doctrine that all is false in the religious books is by far not the truth either.

So what action do you think I will take from this moment on, knowing that what I'm saying is beyond most peoples capacity to see, think, foresee, or reason? (This last statement is based only on responses here and does not reflect greater conversations and musing with others outside of this website)

I will refrain from being something to entertain you and my own expense. Good luck in your journeys. If you have any real and serious conversations worth having, e-mail me at jbrown111@my.apsu and I would enjoy any real serious discussion of our capabilities and limits of knowledge or theories and possibilities of God or greater intelligence potentials, or greater cooperation in our philosophies, which would allow religious peoples to have a place to fund science in the effort to know and find greater being and ‘God’ in a real way.

-Tim Brown


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 150 by Tangle, posted 01-14-2013 3:14 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Tangle, posted 01-14-2013 7:42 PM tesla has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2252 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 157 of 285 (687643)
01-14-2013 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by ringo
01-14-2013 11:43 AM


Re: Chicken or the Egg?
How is that research into ID? How would it help determine whether ID is true or false?

You have to build a rocket ship to the moon before you can land on the moon. We have to understand what the language of consciousness is on all levels before we can ascertain what greater consciousness might look like.


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 152 by ringo, posted 01-14-2013 11:43 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by ringo, posted 01-15-2013 11:44 AM tesla has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2252 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 158 of 285 (687644)
01-14-2013 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by AZPaul3
01-14-2013 4:21 PM


the answer.
So you are saying that since we have not yet found an intellegence greater than our own we should keep looking. I agree. This is exactly the kind of thing SETI is doing.

You also say that since we cannot dicuss Shakespeare with dolphins we should research how to do this. Again I agree. There are quite a few studies funded by the navy that seek this very porpoise ... eh ... purpose. Well, except for the Shakespeare bit.

So what is the problem? We are doing these things.

Exactly. But I'm proposing more funding, and to also put such science under the funding topics of "search for God' and Hunt for greater being and intelligence'.

I'm saying let the religious fund real God seeking and less Indoctrinating, but so far no one here seems to get it. Do YOU get that? Or am I wasting more time on useless candor?


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 155 by AZPaul3, posted 01-14-2013 4:21 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Taq, posted 01-14-2013 8:02 PM tesla has responded
 Message 172 by AZPaul3, posted 01-15-2013 5:18 PM tesla has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6950
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 159 of 285 (687645)
01-14-2013 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by tesla
01-14-2013 7:25 PM


Re: Sigh.
tesla writes:

So what action do you think I will take from this moment on, knowing that what I'm saying is beyond most peoples capacity to see, think, foresee, or reason?

My guess is that you'll do what most do when they come here (and elsewhere) and find that they can't sustain their arguments and ideas against objective criticism. You'll set up a blog and try to get people to read it.

The reason is that it's easier to preach than debate.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by tesla, posted 01-14-2013 7:25 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-15-2013 12:16 PM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 175 by tesla, posted 01-23-2013 9:40 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 160 of 285 (687646)
01-14-2013 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by tesla
01-14-2013 7:32 PM


Re: the answer.
Exactly. But I'm proposing more funding, and to also put such science under the funding topics of "search for God' and Hunt for greater being and intelligence'.

I'm saying let the religious fund real God seeking and less Indoctrinating, but so far no one here seems to get it. Do YOU get that? Or am I wasting more time on useless candor?

When scientists had questions about the God particle they didn't build a spaceship. They built the LHC. Notice a difference?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by tesla, posted 01-14-2013 7:32 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by tesla, posted 01-23-2013 9:43 AM Taq has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16817
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 161 of 285 (687686)
01-15-2013 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by tesla
01-14-2013 7:27 PM


Re: Chicken or the Egg?
tesla writes:

You have to build a rocket ship to the moon before you can land on the moon. We have to understand what the language of consciousness is on all levels before we can ascertain what greater consciousness might look like.


So what you're saying is that we "aren't ready yet" to do any research into ID. You're affirming that ID is not science; in fact, it's only specualtion that ID might possibly some day become science.

I think most people would agree with that assessment - and it explains why there are no research grants for ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by tesla, posted 01-14-2013 7:27 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by tesla, posted 01-23-2013 9:47 AM ringo has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12577
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 162 of 285 (687688)
01-15-2013 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Tangle
01-14-2013 7:42 PM


Re: Sigh.
Tangle writes:

The reason is that it's easier to preach than debate.

Two points.

1) Preaching is not easier than debating because in order to preach you have to listen to the Spirit...you cant just go off on your own intellect and opinion.

2) Debate is also not easy, but its useful. I'll start one by maintaining that human wisdom will never get us where we need to be(or ideally want to be) by itself. The fear (and acknowledgement) of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

I suppose that you will challenge this assertion by saying that essentially absence of evidence is evidence of absence...but i see no evidence that human wisdom will ever enable the inhabitants of a dust speck 9 light minutes away from the sun(nearest star) in a galaxy of 100 billion stars among 100+ billion galaxies will ever attain the knowledge that a (hypothetical) Creator already has.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Tangle, posted 01-14-2013 7:42 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Straggler, posted 01-15-2013 12:44 PM Thugpreacha has responded
 Message 169 by Taq, posted 01-15-2013 3:26 PM Thugpreacha has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 163 of 285 (687691)
01-15-2013 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Thugpreacha
01-15-2013 12:16 PM


Hypotheticals
Phat writes:

1) Preaching is not easier than debating because in order to preach you have to listen to the Spirit...you cant just go off on your own intellect and opinion.

If this hypothetical creator of yours is so knowledgeable then anyone listening to him sufficiently should have access to enough knowledge and insight to both preach effectively and successfully tackle any debate.

Phat writes:

2) Debate is also not easy, but its useful. I'll start one by maintaining that human wisdom will never get us where we need to be(or ideally want to be) by itself. The fear (and acknowledgement) of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

If you have been listening to your hypothetical creator and he has told you that your statement above is an effective form of preaching I can only question just how knowledgeable this creator of yours really is.

Phat writes:

I suppose that you will challenge this assertion by saying that essentially absence of evidence is evidence of absence...but i see no evidence that human wisdom will ever enable the inhabitants of a dust speck 9 light minutes away from the sun(nearest star) in a galaxy of 100 billion stars among 100+ billion galaxies will ever attain the knowledge that a (hypothetical) Creator already has.

Well hypothetically a hypothetical human could obtain as much knowledge as a hypothetical creator.

Or are you suggesting that the absence of such a knowledgeable human is evidence that such a knowledgeable human could not possibly exist......?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-15-2013 12:16 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-15-2013 12:55 PM Straggler has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12577
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 164 of 285 (687693)
01-15-2013 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Straggler
01-15-2013 12:44 PM


Re: Hypotheticals
Straggler writes:

Or are you suggesting that the absence of such a knowledgeable human is evidence that such a knowledgeable human could not possibly exist......?

If I acknowledged that I had access to divine wisdom, I would appear insane or arrogant, but if I only admitted that such divinity is impossible, I couldn't be honest with my belief.

Thus this reply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Straggler, posted 01-15-2013 12:44 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Straggler, posted 01-15-2013 1:00 PM Thugpreacha has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 165 of 285 (687694)
01-15-2013 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Thugpreacha
01-15-2013 12:55 PM


Re: Hypotheticals
Well why don't we test this belief in divine wisdom? That could form the basis for a research project could it not?

Let's take someone who believes that they are in communication with the divine (e.g. yourself apparently) and see whether they can demonstrate the validity of this belief by extracting some knowledge from the divine that it would otherwise not be possible for a mere human to have access to.

What do you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-15-2013 12:55 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-15-2013 1:02 PM Straggler has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
19Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019