Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total)
53 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 52 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,686 Year: 9,434/23,288 Month: 449/1,544 Week: 163/561 Day: 3/63 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 143 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 376 of 396 (618500)
06-03-2011 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Taq
06-03-2011 11:26 AM


Re: open minded debate
How do we determine if something will always be unexplainable?

That cannot be determined.

Also, when someone says that an event was caused by the Supernatural they are claiming that they DO HAVE AN EXPLANATION. That it IS EXPLAINED. So something cannot be supernatural and unexplained at the same time.

That is not always true. Those who do have explanations such as "God told me" or "a spirit informed me" cannot be validated at this time. Research into how the brain communicates may reveal how they have arrived at this conclusion, and whether or not they truly did receive information from an outside force. Until we rule out whether or not the brain has the ability to interpret imbedded information from long distances we have only their word.

You are equating dark matter with the supernatural, are you not?

I equate our level of understanding 'dark matter' and reasoning for researching the 'apparent' phenomenon to be the same.

Dark matter is simply the discovery of mathematical computations of matter not adding up.


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 370 by Taq, posted 06-03-2011 11:26 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Scienctifictruths, posted 06-03-2011 9:21 PM tesla has acknowledged this reply

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 3188
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 377 of 396 (618522)
06-03-2011 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by tesla
06-03-2011 1:38 PM


Re: a nonsense research proposal
People DO investigate those "phenomena". It's just that any evidence gleaned doesn't stand up to ANY scrutiny. You're always going to have your Deepak Chopra's studying woo-woo. As soon as they put forth legitimate evidence of ANYTHING, someone worth their salt will look into it, I assure you.

You see: them realm of science is relegated to investigating evidence: shit we can actually, ya know, study. There is a reason funding has been pulled from SETI..... even though the likelihood of alien life forms is FAR more likely than invisible men in the sky watching me jerk my dick.

Praise be to FSM.


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by tesla, posted 06-03-2011 1:38 PM tesla has acknowledged this reply

Panda
Member (Idle past 2263 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 378 of 396 (618537)
06-03-2011 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by tesla
06-03-2011 1:47 PM


Re: open minded debate
tesla writes:

If consciousness is outside of the realm of today's science, what are you going to use to research consciousness?
Can you give an actual example of how you might research consciousness?
Please describe the process you would use.

I would hire the top brain experts and ask them what they needed to begin experiments to further understand how thoughts are interpreted and relayed within the brain.


Since you are explicitly avoiding answering the question by pretending to be stupid, I am left with the inescapable conclusion that you are a liar.
If you think that lying brings any support to your theories, then you are sadly mistaken.

I now acknowledge that you are clearly indicating that your arguments are false and that you are unable to back them up with either evidence or logic.
I accept your capitulation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by tesla, posted 06-03-2011 1:47 PM tesla has acknowledged this reply

Scienctifictruths
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 05-30-2011


Message 379 of 396 (618543)
06-03-2011 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by tesla
06-03-2011 1:43 PM


Re: open minded debate
All natural things are bound by physics. If science cannot "read and interpret thoughts, as they happen" Then they do not have enough understanding and need to research how the brain relays information and comes up with ideas.

Since science cannot do that: research into the field would be useful.

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).

That is not always true. Those who do have explanations such as "God told me" or "a spirit informed me" cannot be validated at this time. Research into how the brain communicates may reveal how they have arrived at this conclusion, and whether or not they truly did receive information from an outside force. Until we rule out whether or not the brain has the ability to interpret imbedded information from long distances we have only their word.

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.

I equate our level of understanding 'dark matter' and reasoning for researching the 'apparent' phenomenon to be the same.

Dark matter is simply the discovery of mathematical computations of matter not adding up.

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).

Since no evidence currently exists that is scientifically acceptable for providing real scientific answers for supernatural phenomenon, I have supplied a path that may reveal the truth of how many supernatural events take place.
The evidence that unexplainable supernatural events take place and apparently have a connection to the brain is enough reason to validate research into the subject via true science.
That [The evidence that unexplainable supernatural events] evidence is mainly the beliefs of the majority of mankind on this planet that they have communicable abilities with God, have seen ‘Ghosts’, and then there are those who exhibit paranormal capabilities statistically relevant and apparently supernatural because of science’s limited ability to explain such phenomenon.

'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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by tesla, posted 06-03-2011 1:43 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by tesla, posted 06-04-2011 2:52 AM Scienctifictruths has responded

Scienctifictruths
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 05-30-2011


Message 380 of 396 (618545)
06-03-2011 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by tesla
06-03-2011 1:55 PM


Re: open minded debate
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 adult

Q might say
Q = my child is not an adult

Only 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=T

Now 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) = 0

Now 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 message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by tesla, posted 06-03-2011 1:55 PM tesla has acknowledged this reply

tesla
Member (Idle past 143 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 381 of 396 (618575)
06-04-2011 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by Scienctifictruths
06-03-2011 8:37 PM


Re: open minded debate
Is procreation bound by Physics? I really don't understand what you are getting at.

"The word physics is derived from Greek word fusis, meaning nature or natural things. As such, physics is defined as that branch of science, which studies natural phenomena in terms of basic laws and physical quantities. The study is generally structured to satisfy queries, arising from the observed events occurring around our world. In this sense, Physics answers questions about universe and the way elements of universe interact to compose natural phenomena.

The underlying principles in physics are simple and general, but defining (basic) in nature. Elements and quantities used to describe natural phenomena are also general and basic. The whole of universe, as a matter of fact, can be considered to be comprising of two basic quantities : (i) matter and (ii) energy. For this reason, some physicists rightly define physics as the study of matter and energy."

from: http://cnx.org/content/m13250/latest/

do you get it now?


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 379 by Scienctifictruths, posted 06-03-2011 8:37 PM Scienctifictruths has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Scienctifictruths, posted 06-04-2011 3:37 AM tesla has responded

Scienctifictruths
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 05-30-2011


Message 382 of 396 (618579)
06-04-2011 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by tesla
06-04-2011 2:52 AM


Re: open minded debate
"The word physics is derived from Greek word fusis, meaning nature or natural things. As such, physics is defined as that branch of science, which studies natural phenomena in terms of basic laws and physical quantities. The study is generally structured to satisfy queries, arising from the observed events occurring around our world. In this sense, Physics answers questions about universe and the way elements of universe interact to compose natural phenomena.

The underlying principles in physics are simple and general, but defining (basic) in nature. Elements and quantities used to describe natural phenomena are also general and basic. The whole of universe, as a matter of fact, can be considered to be comprising of two basic quantities : (i) matter and (ii) energy. For this reason, some physicists rightly define physics as the study of matter and energy."

from: http://cnx.org/content/m13250/latest/
do you get it now?

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) = 0

I 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.

For this reason, some physicists rightly define physics as the study of matter and energy.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by tesla, posted 06-04-2011 2:52 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by tesla, posted 06-04-2011 9:09 AM Scienctifictruths has responded

tesla
Member (Idle past 143 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 383 of 396 (618608)
06-04-2011 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by Scienctifictruths
06-04-2011 3:37 AM


Re: open minded debate
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)

Whatever physics is relative to the research.

You really have to be SPECIFIC.

I specifically said research into how the brain operates. More specifically how does it read and transfer data. And the big question to be answered: can the brain send and receive data from outside brain tissue.

Of course a lot of other things will be discovered and answered as scientists work towards that end asking specific questions relevant to initial work toward these ends.

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) = 0

I 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.

Well you might want to go find a scientist and see what they think about that. But even if you did, Your asking end game questions, not initial questions.


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 382 by Scienctifictruths, posted 06-04-2011 3:37 AM Scienctifictruths has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Scienctifictruths, posted 06-04-2011 10:34 AM tesla has responded

Scienctifictruths
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 05-30-2011


(1)
Message 384 of 396 (618616)
06-04-2011 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by tesla
06-04-2011 9:09 AM


Re: open minded debate
Whatever physics is relative to the research.

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".

I specifically said research into how the brain operates. More specifically how does it read and transfer data. And the big question to be answered: can the brain send and receive data from outside brain tissue.

Of course a lot of other things will be discovered and answered as scientists work towards that end asking specific questions relevant to initial work toward these ends.

We know how it reads and transfers data, what part of Data transference are you referring to particularly? Being transferred to where?

And the big question to be answered: can the brain send and receive data from outside brain tissue.

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) = 0

Again, the criteria for a model has not been met.

Well you might want to go find a scientist and see what they think about that. But even if you did, Your asking end game questions, not initial questions.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by tesla, posted 06-04-2011 9:09 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Panda, posted 06-04-2011 12:30 PM Scienctifictruths has responded
 Message 387 by tesla, posted 06-05-2011 12:50 AM Scienctifictruths has responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 2263 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 385 of 396 (618629)
06-04-2011 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Scienctifictruths
06-04-2011 10:34 AM


Re: open minded debate
He has been asked many, many times to explain the 'how' of his research.
I have asked him and now you are asking him.
We have both asked several times.
(He even tried answering the question "How do you do research?" with "I ask a scientist to do research".)

For him to have still not done so must surely be because of either deceit or dementia.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Scienctifictruths, posted 06-04-2011 10:34 AM Scienctifictruths has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Scienctifictruths, posted 06-04-2011 12:36 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

Scienctifictruths
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 05-30-2011


Message 386 of 396 (618630)
06-04-2011 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Panda
06-04-2011 12:30 PM


Re: open minded debate
I completely realize this. And I know this is most likely not going to go anywhere, but at least he can't say we weren't open minded. Still I find the whole thing hilarious lol.

He even tried answering the question "How do you do research" with "I ask a scientist to do research"

Which is funny when the actual scientists are going "we have no idea what the hell you're on about".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Panda, posted 06-04-2011 12:30 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

tesla
Member (Idle past 143 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 387 of 396 (618685)
06-05-2011 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by Scienctifictruths
06-04-2011 10:34 AM


Re: open minded debate
We could study the brain for out going information, but on what level would we look for this information?

Every level we can.

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?

All i ever suggested is accelerated funding to research the brain itself. To the end it could explain:

You can say 'sink more money into it and more research' but really we don't even understand the nature of this data transference

Right. So let’s do research. Would scientists turn down funding to better understand the brain?

In any case, this is all irrelevant. Essentially a Hypothesis (which cannot be tested now) is no proof for ID.

I'm not saying we have proof of ID. I am saying it could lead to proof of ID

I want to understand what we are supposed to be Researching

The brain.


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 384 by Scienctifictruths, posted 06-04-2011 10:34 AM Scienctifictruths has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Scienctifictruths, posted 06-05-2011 2:34 AM tesla has acknowledged this reply

Scienctifictruths
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 05-30-2011


Message 388 of 396 (618688)
06-05-2011 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by tesla
06-05-2011 12:50 AM


Re: open minded debate
Every level we can

I believe I already demonstrated the impracticality of this:

"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."

It's so unlikely that we would find it given our current knowledge of the brain that it's not even worth considering, really at this time it would be easier to catch the allusive wild goose.

All i ever suggested is accelerated funding to research the brain itself. To the end it could explain:

We are putting funding into it, Neuroscience, Psychology and Biochemistry. All three of these fields are doing a substantial amount of research on the brain. If we were to put more funds into it we would have to pull funds from other areas of research. We could propose to Churches your idea of researching Consciousness perhaps, but unfortunately because it cannot be defined and it has not been observed all we would be doing is guess work (unless we were to be deceitful).

Right. So let’s do research. Would scientists turn down funding to better understand the brain?

No, however really this proposition of mental telepathy research would be about as Scientifically effective as researching the ethereal rainbow that appears in the skies to predict world wide catastrophes. It's completely untestable, thus all we can do is theorize about it.

I'm not saying we have proof of ID. I am saying it could lead to proof of ID

Could, but that event seems SO unlikely.

I want to understand what we are supposed to be Researching

We are researching the brain, so what's the big fuss about?

Now unless you actually come up with something intelligent to say, I'm just going to abandon these posts, I can see I'm wasting my time. Everyone here has attempted to explain how the Scientific method works, and you just sit there with your fingers in your ears ignoring us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by tesla, posted 06-05-2011 12:50 AM tesla has acknowledged this reply

AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 654 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 389 of 396 (618693)
06-05-2011 7:25 AM


Closing time
This thread is no longer on topic and will be closed. If anyone wants to summarise their view of how supernatural based science works in the context of the diversity of life on earth they have a short window of opportunity to do so.

dwise1
Member
Posts: 4194
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 390 of 396 (618702)
06-05-2011 1:27 PM


Summary
Nearly four years and nearly 400 messages. No creationist has been able to provide an answer. Several attempts to change the question, but no answer.

There is still no known way in which science could use supernaturalistic hypotheses nor to survive the attempt.


Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020