[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by Winter Sun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Your example actually talks more to my point than yours. My point was to appreciate the grandeur of the universe instead of the capabilities of humanity (of which, correct me if I'm wrong, the latter is the point of your example).

My point was that ignorance of something is not more conducive to appreciating its grandeur than understanding it. Or if it is, it's a cheap feeling of awe - the kind a three year old feels when he watches fireworks for the first time - which is the kind that religious people feel when they ask "how is it possible that..." not to try to figure out or learn the answer (because that takes effort), but only to experience the tingly feeling that comes with pondering the imponderable. Religious people do this regardless of whether or not the answer is already known. One religious lady described to me how blown away she was that God could make so many different faces (6 billion at the time) and not ever have to repeat one. She wasn't interested in hearing that we evolved to be able to discern and memorizes the tiniest differences, that it isn't just humans whose faces are all different, she just wanted to feel tingly.

When you say that in order to truly appreciate the grandeur of the universe we have to focus on what we don't know, you're talking about that cheap feeling.

	We see how a TV works and we say, "gee, I wonder if there's anything humans can't figure out with science". I'm saying, yes, there is.

But that was never in dispute.

[deckard]

Originally Posted by Winter Sun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I mean, seriously. I am confronted with this question every day of my life. How can we possibly exist? I am dumbfounded by the irrational devotion to science that I see around here. I am convinced that if we took every bit of knowledge gathered by every human that has ever existed, and programmed it all into the greatest super-computer that we could fathom, it's only answer to this question would be "Does not compute." I don't think it could understand the question, let alone give an answer for it. So what makes us think we are so special, that we could actually understand the answer, or even the question? Only someone who was under the spell of a blinding conceit could claim to understand such a conundrum. Some people believe that if we keep digging with science, that we could find the answer. Science can only give us a best guess, but I don't think it could even begin to scratch the surface to finding an answer. Sometimes I view humanity's obsession with this approach like a kid on a beach, trying to account for each grain of sand, as if they could ever do it within their life span. Meanwhile, they are so preoccupied with this project that they forget they are on a beautiful beach. It's humbling if you think about it. How could something so small and finite ever think they could explain the universe in its vastness by using tools that they find within the universe itself? That would be like using the word that you're defining in the definition itself. I don't think we would have the facility, physically or mentally, to understand the answer, even if it was right in front of us. The most honest answer any person could give is "I don't know". Science does not explain the universe, it describes it.

I think most people take less issue with this the older they become. The satisfactory answer would be that existence and the self are one and the same. So to negate existence, is to negate the self. Existential crisis is a preoccupation of people who for whatever reason can not, or choose not to acknowledge this. It's kind of a baby step towards empathic reasoning because from there you can see that everybody is in this state, despite their confident or uneasy nature. It's always in a state of flux anyway, so comparisons aside - what once was, is no more and what will be follows the same fate.

[Icristhus]

	Originally Posted by Tocsin
	It boils down to cognitive dissonance.

Ha, you had me as soon as you said that. Yes, we're having a definite issue of dissonance, here.

My question to the OP would probably be better worded as follows:

Exactly what are you offering in place of Science, or as equal to it, or as even better than Science?

Since I've not bothered to read the vast majority of threads on these forums, if the answer is buried elsewhere, I would not know.

And while I do assume it to be a religious answer or message you're attempting to convey, I'm not entirely certain what it is, except for arrogance on par of that which you complained: "I know the answers and you don't, because MY way is better."

So, in essence, I would -love- to hear your attempts to prove that whatever your tool or viewpoint is, is superior. I'm always ready to change my mind in light of sufficiently convincing evidence. So, is there any to be offered?

I mean that question in the truest sense, and with no trace of intended mockery.

[rbc]

	Originally Posted by Alwards To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	this is an example of the very essence of the problem with science - not all scientists, many I revere to the highest degree - but those are ther ones who have bigger minds and do not use Science as a self image ... such scientists have been able to principly use creativity and THEN look at data rationaly where applicable.

I don't think I understand what this sentence is supposed to mean. My response to what I think you are trying to say is that if you don't ever look at data rationally (which it seems to me the OP is arguing that you don't have to do), then you are not doing science. Unfettered creativity is what creates fiction. Fact is the result of an experiment. Theory is a combination of the two, where creativity is used to suggest a possible explanation for the facts. One of the many ways in which science is superior to religion is that in science, when a creatively-inspired doctrine is shown to be inconsistent with the results of improved measurement, the doctrine is discarded.

	To say that things are more real when testable than things not testable is intellectually deeply floored. Just because in the middle ages we couldn`t test for viruses doesn`t mean they were not real !

That's not what WinterSun and I are arguing about. To me, that's a minor engineering detail: the philosophical question is about the reality of something which can never be tested even in principle. If there really is a god which takes any action in the universe, then its existence is amenable to scientific proof. If its existence is inherently outside the ability of any scientific test ever to detect, then I contend it is merely a fantasy. If it is outside the realm of scientific experiment, you cannot prove it exists at all. If that condition is temporary, then it's just a matter of time; if that condition is inherent and eternal, you are dealing with a delusion.

[Winter Sun]

	Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...I can offer my two cents on what is going on in this and similar threads that try and put science and religion on equal footings as complementary forms of "faith."...

	Originally Posted by phoboser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...which is the kind that religious people feel when they ask "how is it possible that..." not to try to figure out or learn the answer (because that takes effort), but only to experience the tingly feeling that comes with pondering the imponderable. Religious people do this regardless of whether or not the answer is already known...

	Originally Posted by Icristhus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And while I do assume it to be a religious answer or message you're attempting to convey

Nice attempt at a straw man boys, but the only thing you've proven is that you have no respect for any philosophy or religion
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

I'll leave you guys to your pinata.

[Shadizar]

There's no respect to be had for religion.

[ikotomi]

The possibility of our existence is not zero. Perhaps close to zero, but certainly not zero.

Given that the universe is several billions of years old, and how little time it takes for evolution to be observed if the conditions are right, I am not too worried that this seemingly low probability event occurred. It would be more surprising if there were no beings like us anywhere in the universe.

To say that science is imperfect, and therefore looking for other sources for answers to explain things, particularly physical phenomena is a bit risky. Science is the process of making observations and creating models that are likely to fit with those observations. And over time, we develop methods to observe what was once unobservable, making obsolete those alternative, non-scientific explanations.

Perhaps there is a limit to what can be explained by science, but we can't really know where that limit is. It really depends on the nature of what is true, and what is possible to observed. When we reach the point where science can no longer determine a cause of something (like the universe) we can't tell whether or not that was because there is no cause, or if there is a cause we can not observe.

Whether or not someone needs an explanation is personal. While the topic of a cause of everything is amusing, any explanation that does not rely on evidence doesn't satisfy me. I'd rather just accept that I don't know than to accept an explanation that isn't supported by evidence. A less skeptical person, however, will be satisfied, and there's nothing really wrong with that.

[Icristhus]

Originally Posted by Winter Sun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Nice attempt at a straw man boys, but the only thing you've proven is that you have no respect for any philosophy or religion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . I'll leave you guys to your pinata.

Rather funny how I'm accused of setting up a straw man, as part of becoming a straw man myself.

Especially since I tried to explain I have no idea what point you're attempting to convey here, Winter Sun, except that you believe it's valid enough to attempt to 'mock' the rest of us.

I'm sorry, but my brain simply is not blown by arguments that amount to "I'm right, and you're wrong, and I can't for the life of me explain why that is (or even what I'm right about)." -- Those, sadly, ceased to do it for me many years ago.

But I would still enjoy a reasoned explanation of exactly what you believe you've proven. I really do have no idea - if it isn't religious, then what is it? Philosophical? Existential? Fictional? Devil's Advocate? Straw Man? Moth Man? Boogie Man? Hawkins Man?

I'm drawing a blank. How about the rest of you boys?

[Alwards]

Toscin: Originally Posted by Alwards ...do attempt a rational approach and give examples of posts I have made that you think are unintelligent and illogical ... Citing a contempt (as evidenced by the use of epithets like arrogant, ludicrous, unintelligent, and illogical... not to metion "felighting" in patronizing people of faith) for someone who doesn't exist, or confusing names and bundling two people as one betrays a certain amount of ignorance, or at least carelessness and thoughtlessness. If you're going to debate a subject, it's a good idea not to provide people with too much reason to think you are uninformed.

Nothing here that illustrates unintelligent and illogical, just another sounding off of insults and frustration from you ... try again

btw stop making up posts that dont exiast to defend something that isnt being attacked - you are merely highlighting yourself as one of such a scientific closed mind that thinks it has all the intelligence and rationale but can`t even follow the essence of the thread - nobody here is looking to replace science with religion or vice versa ... you see what you want to see ... not the best basis for scientific experiments btw

---------- Post added 06-07-2011 at 04:26 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Icristhus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ha, you had me as soon as you said that. Yes, we're having a definite issue of dissonance, here. My question to the OP would probably be better worded as follows: Exactly what are you offering in place of Science, or as equal to it, or as even better than Science? Since I've not bothered to read the vast majority of threads on these forums, if the answer is buried elsewhere, I would not know. And while I do assume it to be a religious answer or message you're attempting to convey, I'm not entirely certain what it is, except for arrogance on par of that which you complained: "I know the answers and you don't, because MY way is better." So, in essence, I would -love- to hear your attempts to prove that whatever your tool or viewpoint is, is superior. I'm always ready to change my mind in light of sufficiently convincing evidence. So, is there any to be offered? I mean that question in the truest sense, and with no trace of intended mockery.

Lots of intended mockery actually in your response - and a product of ypur own projection onto the original post. If you can`t be bothered to read the posts then why would the original poster be bothered to trawl through them for you or re-iterate what he clearly states in his original post.

---------- Post added 06-07-2011 at 04:30 AM ----------

EINSTEIN (a true scientist and one I revere)

A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to enhance all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.


The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.

In light of knowledge attained, the happy achievement seems almost a matter of course, and any intelligent student can grasp it without too much trouble. But the years of anxious searching in the dark, with their intense longing, their alterations of confidence and exhaustion and the final emergence into the light – only those who have experienced it can understand it.

---------- Post added 06-07-2011 at 04:31 AM ----------

Einstein What I see in Nature is a magnificant structure that we can comprehend only imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of ‘humility’. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism

---------- Post added 06-07-2011 at 04:32 AM ----------

We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.

The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.

The only real valuable thing is intuition.

Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.

There comes a time when the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge but can never prove how it got there.

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

---------- Post added 06-07-2011 at 04:33 AM ----------

In so far as the statements of geometry speak about reality, they are not certain, and in so far as they are certain, they do not speak about reality.

(Geometry and Experience)

How wretchedfully inadequate is the theoretical physicist as he stands before Nature – and before his students.

[Winter Sun]

	Originally Posted by Icristhus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But I would still enjoy a reasoned explanation of exactly what you believe you've proven.

I had already said what I wanted to say. You said it was obvious and pointless. Then you proceeded to say I was "obsessively" trying to prove something after about two posts, the second one existing to clarify the first for someone. Your fourth response is when you assumed religion and questioned me about usurping science with something else. Your last response was when you accused me of mocking someone and stroking my own ego. You were looking for an agenda where none was to be found except the one that I stated: science is not a worldview, it's a tool.

If you believe this is obvious, then I'm glad we agree. It's not so obvious for some.

[Icristhus]

Sorry if you felt mocked, Alward. But rather than getting into that can of worms, I only offer the following:

1) I read every post in the thread thus far in its entirety.
2) I did not understand every post in the thread thus far in its entirety, including the OP.

So, at risk of seeming belittling or mocking once again.. What -is- being argued for, here?

I've understood so far that you and Winter Sun would like it to be accepted that:

A) Science is imperfect
(I agree)
B) Human knowledge has its limits
(Definitely)
C) Some things may ultimately be unknowable
(Certainly)
D) The universe is beautiful and difficult, mayhap impossible, to comprehend
(Absolutely)

Past that, is there anything more you are attempting to communicate? That's the point where I become confused.

Edit in response to Winter Sun: Ah, fair enough, then. My curiosity is satisfied.

[Tocsin]

Originally Posted by Winter Sun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

...the only thing you've proven is that you have no respect for any philosophy or religion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

I don't have any notable personal connection to a philosophy or religion, as I've mentioned on the (most recent)
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
thread.

I've never experienced cognitive dissonance. I don't form strong beliefs, only mild and conditional ones. I don't internalize ideas that I assume to be true into my self perception, so I never have to face an incorrect assumption with the perspective that "I was wrong"; it is either "that idea was wrong," or "that idea that I had assumed to be right turns out to be wrong." I don't invest emotionally in ideas and assumptions, so there is no pain in letting go of the ones that latter are shown to be incorrect.

****

	Originally Posted by Alwards To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...btw stop making up posts that dont exiast.

Your post (#38) still exists, for the time being at least; though Hawkins, as such, doesn't exist. The derogatory terms you directed at "scientists" still exists in that post as well.

I'm not making it up.

	Originally Posted by Alwards To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nothing here that illustrates unintelligent...

Well then explain who this "Hawkins" bloke is supposed to be. It sounds like a mistake of ignorance of the difference between two different people.

Certianly you're not referring to Jim Hawkins from Treasure Island, are you?

	Originally Posted by Alwards To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...you are merely highlighting yourself as one of such a scientific closed mind that thinks it has all the intelligence and rationale but can`t even follow the essence of the thread...

I'm perfectly comfortable letting other people here make up their own minds about which of us is resorting to setting up straw man arguments and assorted ad hominems.

[Alwards]

	Phoboser: When you say that in order to truly appreciate the grandeur of the universe we have to focus on what we don't know, you're talking about that cheap feeling.

The opening post was far from cheap - it displayed wonder, enthusiasm, searching, an understanding that science is limited and comes up against a brick wall (called quantum mechanics where none of science in all the libraries and in all the heads understands) he understands this as all of the top knotch unfettered willing to be laughed at innovative scientists of the past faced from their peers.
Yet again an example of someone missusing science as a shield to protect them from opening their minds and listening to what is said rather than projecting their own prejudices onto it and then proceeding to attempt to belittle a searcher and innovator.

---------- Post added 06-07-2011 at 05:10 AM ----------

	Tocsin: I'm not making it up. Originally Posted by Alwards Nothing here that illustrates unintelligent... Well then explain who this "Hawkins" bloke is supposed to be. It sounds like a mistake of ignorance of the difference between two different people. Certianly you're not referring to Jim Hawkins from Treasure Island, are you?

I know you are intelligent enough to know that it was an error leving off the `G` but then and now you choose to use it to insult and demean.
Let me be clear I think a whole body of scientists demean the gift of science and use it to hide behind and to shore up their self image. Science has provided us with wonderful things - but the spark of them came from scientists who were not trapped in the religion of science. These scientists were laughed at by their peers and many times scientific journals refused to publish their theories and hypothesis - some even committed suicide - only to be then lauded as representing the scientific achievements ... No the real scientific innovators went on despite being laughed at by their peers.

[ischuldt]

not to just sound contrarian, but the real question you should ask yourself is how is it possible we wouldn't have existed? Or better yet how much time passed before we existed? Think about how long infinity is. Given enough time everything happens. Including us.

[deckard]

I'd be curious to see this non-occurrence some people are all in a hoopla about. What's that look like?

[Alwards]

Originally Posted by Icristhus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sorry if you felt mocked, Alward. But rather than getting into that can of worms, I only offer the following: 1) I read every post in the thread thus far in its entirety. 2) I did not understand every post in the thread thus far in its entirety, including the OP. So, at risk of seeming belittling or mocking once again.. What -is- being argued for, here? I've understood so far that you and Winter Sun would like it to be accepted that: A) Science is imperfect (I agree) B) Human knowledge has its limits (Definitely) C) Some things may ultimately be unknowable (Certainly) D) The universe is beautiful and difficult, mayhap impossible, to comprehend (Absolutely) Past that, is there anything more you are attempting to communicate? That's the point where I become confused. Edit in response to Winter Sun: Ah, fair enough, then. My curiosity is satisfied.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
yep you`ve got it ... nice summary btw

[Imagineering]

I think we'll never truly know why and that is truly amazing. More like, I think the human brain will never be able to comprehend the entirety of it. It's strange though because your normal, every day person like myself is never going to dig that deep into science so I'm never going to really the atomic reasons for why. I just go through life laughing at the absurdity of being here for a few moments in eternity. Life is the most absurd thing there ever was. What a neat universe without any conscious life forms. Just everything acting in complete rhythm. Seriously, if you could trade your consciousness for animal instinct alone, would you do it? I think I would. I love it when time passes and I'm not cognizant of my actions but actions are occurring.

[Phasor]

	Originally Posted by rbc To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	... If its existence is inherently outside the ability of any scientific test ever to detect, then I contend it is merely a fantasy. If it is outside the realm of scientific experiment, you cannot prove it exists at all.

I might agree with an exception, emotions. The only reason we know they exist is by directly experiencing them. In other words, there is nothing about the physical universe or our mechanistic models of it to suggest the existence of such a thing, and yet I know emotion exists because I experience them. Same goes for color. The science of emotions is merely a science of correlations. Person Y says they feel X when there is blood flow to brain region Z. Nowhere in all of science is there a mechanistic explanation of how emotions arise, nor does it seem that there can be. Try to imagine, even a false mechanistic cause for emotions…it can’t be done. This is referred to as the explanatory gap.

I suppose parallels could be drawn between a person observing an external object and experiencing emotion in that the experience of emotion is empirical in nature just as the observation of some external object. However, a persons internal emotions cannot be verified by someone else the same way an external object can be. So, the proof for emotions is empirical but not scientific as it cannot be tested or verified in the normal scientific way.

[Alwards]

Originally Posted by Imagineering To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think we'll never truly know why and that is truly amazing. More like, I think the human brain will never be able to comprehend the entirety of it. It's strange though because your normal, every day person like myself is never going to dig that deep into science so I'm never going to really the atomic reasons for why. I just go through life laughing at the absurdity of being here for a few moments in eternity. Life is the most absurd thing there ever was. What a neat universe without any conscious life forms. Just everything acting in complete rhythm. Seriously, if you could trade your consciousness for animal instinct alone, would you do it? I think I would. I love it when time passes and I'm not cognizant of my actions but actions are occurring.

The vibe of this contribution expresses the wonderment that the Opening Post was conveying
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I understand what you mean re animal level of awareness. But I have a hypothesis that WE ARE the universe becoming conscious on a material plan ... whether at the start of pure energy there was consciousness or whether that evolved I cannot know ... but for sure we most definitely are the universe becoming conscious on a material plan - how can we not be ... we are of the universe ... every atom in me, in you originated at the start, every drop of water everything in existence on every wavelength ... all has been from the start, merely transforming, returning to energy, reconstituting, returning to energy ... Hit with seeming nonsense that is truth is wonderful: A yellow flower ... it is all the colours but yellow
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Green grass/plants - all the colours but green ...

[Tocsin]

	Originally Posted by Alwards To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I know you are intelligent enough to know that it was an error leving off the `G` but then and now you choose to use it to insult and demean.

You mean you really think of Stephen Hawking as "arrogant?" I can see some people characterizing Richard Dawkins as being arrogant - or at the very least uncompromising... even strident. But Stephen Hawking?!?

I hope you don't seriously believe that Stephen Hawking has made a "categorical claim that god does not exist."

[Alwards]

Originally Posted by Winter Sun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I agree life can be observed and appreciated by science. I do the same with science and the pursuit of knowledge. But there is a difference between using science to 'learn and appreciate' our surroundings (describe) and using science to explain existence and answer the 'why' questions (and yes, people try to do this). It moves from being a tool we use to discover the universe to a type of worldview. We often take for granted some of the obvious ignorance of science. For example, what is gravity? Or better yet, why is gravity? Science can describe it all day long, but does any scientist have a reasonable explanation for why it's there or why it's constant? It's a force. Ok, what is a 'force' and where does it come from? This thread can just as easily turn into a "How is it even possible that gravity exists?" thread. If you truly want to appreciate the grandeur of the universe, you must start by acknowledging how ignorant we are about it and how insignificant we are in comparison to it.

Actually the latest scientific theory for gravity (given that it`s quantity doesnt equate with what science currently figures it should be) is that it is a leak from a parallel universe ...

[rbc]

	Originally Posted by Phasor To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	However, a persons internal emotions cannot be verified by someone else the same way an external object can be. So, the proof for emotions is empirical but not scientific as it cannot be tested or verified in the normal scientific way.

My response is "not yet".
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Neuroscience has a long way to go, but it is really ramping up lately. I think we will achieve an objective standard for emotional measurement within the next 500 years or so -- assuming our emotions don't cause us to choose to blow ourselves to smithereens first.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I agree our current mechanistic models can't explain emotions, but I am quite sure that emotions do have an underlying mechanistic explanation, which I think we will eventually be able to figure out, so it doesn't fall into the category posited by the OP.

---------- Post added 06-08-2011 at 07:45 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Alwards To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Actually the latest scientific theory for gravity (given that it`s quantity doesnt equate with what science currently figures it should be) is that it is a leak from a parallel universe ...

Are you talking about graviton leakage into the 11-D embedding space of a brane world model as an alternate explanation for accelerating expansion? I actually know a fair amount about this stuff, but I'm not quite sure what you're driving at.

[Phasor]

Originally Posted by rbc To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My response is "not yet". To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Neuroscience has a long way to go, but it is really ramping up lately. I think we will achieve an objective standard for emotional measurement within the next 500 years or so -- assuming our emotions don't cause us to choose to blow ourselves to smithereens first. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I agree our current mechanistic models can't explain emotions, but I am quite sure that emotions do have an underlying mechanistic explanation, which I think we will eventually be able to figure out, so it doesn't fall into the category posited by the OP.

Why 500 years specifically? Why so sure about emotins having an underlying mechanistic cause? Can you give a hypothetical mechanism for emotions? Perhaps emotions are not derivative. Not to sound like some anti-science butt-hole, just trying to wrap my mind around reality.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Scroll down about 80% of the way to the Brian Goodwin bit.

Also, by definition, doesnt a mechanistic model only describe motion? How do you describe emotion/feelings in terms of motion?

[Alwards]

Originally Posted by rbc To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My response is "not yet". To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Neuroscience has a long way to go, but it is really ramping up lately. I think we will achieve an objective standard for emotional measurement within the next 500 years or so -- assuming our emotions don't cause us to choose to blow ourselves to smithereens first. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I agree our current mechanistic models can't explain emotions, but I am quite sure that emotions do have an underlying mechanistic explanation, which I think we will eventually be able to figure out, so it doesn't fall into the category posited by the OP. ---------- Post added 06-08-2011 at 07:45 PM ---------- Are you talking about graviton leakage into the 11-D embedding space of a brane world model as an alternate explanation for accelerating expansion? I actually know a fair amount about this stuff, but I'm not quite sure what you're driving at.

Emotion is a subjective response of course but we can scratch below the surface and say broadly 2 things:

Firstly it is an inbuilt mechanism to aid survival. Fear can be fear of physical wounding or (because we have developed a sense of past and future - although I have a caveat to that that this past and present take on things is miswired in the sense that fear is an instinctual survival instinct that is so instant (fight or flight) that it causes stress in current era because we cannot usually survive in day to day life without an evaluation rather than an immediate response ... however that evaluation when mixed with fear and checked out with `past` and projected onto `future`. This has the effect of using a more recent and sophisticated tool (extrapolation) and triggering emotional responses that are created from false and or subjective beliefs.

If we did not have emotions we would all die in first yearish of life.

However as we now explore and have a conscious awareness of `being` and `death` we ask question like `what is the universe` `who are we` which are best asked from a deeper/higher/broader level of consciousness and not triggering fight flight response - yet we are currently lumbered with our brain wiring having a short cut into triggering fight or flight for survival without waiting for us to consider. Just like our body shortcuts us by instant removal of hand from fire without thought.

With humans there is a cybernetic loop that can be used to change any belief/behaviour. Change any one of the aspects in the loop and you can`t not get a shift in the other two ... just not possible.

	Are you talking about graviton leakage into the 11-D embedding space of a brane world model

I don`t know - my thought etc around all this is from a knowledge acquired from general intrique interest in the whole area and playing with it. Your flagging up the brane model (is he the guy who brought together the 6 separate string theories ? and then brought all those together under the Membrane theory) and asking your question and telling me
(by inference) you have a sound understanding of the science behind such stuff may (pretty much a certainty) result in me picking your brains from time to time
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


---------- Post added 06-09-2011 at 12:55 PM ----------

Actually without checking I now get a sense from my subconscious rearing up that it is a take based on that theory ...

---------- Post added 06-09-2011 at 01:22 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by rbc ... If its existence is inherently outside the ability of any scientific test ever to detect, then I contend it is merely a fantasy. If it is outside the realm of scientific experiment, you cannot prove it exists at all.

This is a teleological statement ... sounds reasonable on the surface but inherently merely indicates/gives an example of the way in which hardcore self image focused scientists. Not being able to prove something doesn`t make it a fantasy tut. It means that you can`t prove it end of.

Neat to attempt to set up anybody responding by saying: outside the ability of any scientific test ever to detect. The greatest leaps have been as a result of accident or by a free thinking (right and left brain) scientist playing with stuyff off the wall and THEN developing ways to give evidence to it`s validity - please note I say evidence not proof - the point being that lack of proof does not mean something doesn`t exist ... it means that it hasn`t been proven using current limited tools ... ergo everything that science has falls apart at the quantum level ...

[Zsych]

	Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You've vilified the search for understanding; and praised the virtue of ignorance. Congratulations.

More like understanding the limitations of the search for knowledge and what questions it can't meaningfully answer.