Originally posted by lil bitchiness
?
Particle cannot break down into nothingness otherwise, it never existed. Nothing cannot make up something.
It must transfer into something if it breaks down. Like Symmetric Chaos said, perhaps different type energy, but it cannot just disappear.Even if it carries on into a different dimension, time or universe, it still exists, but elsewhere.
a particle can break down to a point where it's parts become immesurably and incallculaby minute. those parts then enter into nothingness which is a plane we cannot visually percieve.
simply.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
a particle can break down to a point where it's parts become immesurably and incallculaby minute. those parts then enter into nothingness which is a plane we cannot visually percieve.simply.
Originally posted by politicsguy
like in a black hole .. all matter is destroyed or something
No and no.
Originally posted by politicsguy
what do ye guys think of agnostics? Are they athiests who just don't have the courage to stand up and say I don't believe or are they really just not sure?
well, you can probably break it into 2/3 camps, people who honestly don't know or are uninterested and those who philosophically believe you can't know
I can respect the opinions of the former and think the latter have less intellectual credibility than fundamentalists
Originally posted by inimalist
well, you can probably break it into 2/3 camps, people who honestly don't know or are uninterested and those who philosophically believe you can't knowI can respect the opinions of the former and think the latter have less intellectual credibility than fundamentalists
I think most agnostics don't think there is a god, they just hope there is
Originally posted by politicsguy
I think most agnostics don't think there is a god, they just hope there is
the vast majority of agnostics I've met (though admittedly only through boards like these) tend to be of the "you can't know" variety. I don't think most hope there is a god, that is probably some rose colored lenses on your part
Originally posted by Deadline
I think you missed the point I was trying to make though. I wasn’t actually saying that I thought you were conclusively wrong the point I was making is that it’s a matter of opinion. You’re both professional scientists how on earth do I deduce whos correct or not? I listened to what you said and I didn’t agree, however that could be due to ignorance on the methods of scientific experimentation.
Thats not entirely my point either. I've discussed these issues with you before and not brought this up, because to me, it is entirely irrelevant whether or not someone is a professional scientist, really unless we are talking at a professional scientist convention, and even then, probably not. Like any profession, there are good and bad scientists, there are eccentrics who have weird ideas that turn out to be true, and there are crazies who are easily distinguishable as nut jobs (I'm not calling Utts any of these, my opinion of her is that she is a good scientist who happens to be convinced by something I am not). For instance, in the department where I got my undergrad, there was a prof who believed that psychology would never become a science until it adopted the Christian ideology of a soul as its underlying principle. Does his PhD make that any more credible? does the fact you don't have a PhD mean you can't say that is BS?
Its just, and I would accuse atheists of this more than of you for sure (you did only a mild form of this, and only because you wanted to be taken seriously, not to shut people up), I wont see science used as a crudgel. Especially on non-specialist boards like these, it just seems like a tactic rather than an arguement. Sure she is a scientist. James Watson is a scientist, he codiscovered the structure of DNA. He is also a racist. A geneticist who is also a racist. The science I study is directly related to the organization and behaviour of humans, and I'm an anarchist. Does this mean that anarchy is scientific?
Also, a quick jaunt over to Utts on Wiki says she is a statistician... not a scientist... ouch... 😉
Originally posted by Deadline
I thought the point she was making was that the criticisms you made could be made about any scientific experiment and that would not necessarily be a problem.
short answer: not really. While there are no perfect experiments, the problems with some that she are describing are enough to call their evidence into question. Not to say "stop looking", but enough to say, "It doesn't look conclusive so far".
long answer: So, you can sort of place fields of science on a continuum from applied to theoretical. Applied science is stuff like medicine or pharmacology, where showing a result is much more important than having a concrete theory about how things work. For instance, we still don't know exactly how anesthetic works, but we know it does, and can apply it in such a regiment that we can control its effects very well. The applied science of how to administer anesthetics therefore really doesn't need a robust theory for us to know that anesthetics have an observable effect.
On the other hand, very theoretical stuff requires a very strong model or mechanism of how things work. A lot of time this is because there are no easy ways to experiment on or observe the object being studied. So, in both neuroscience and astrophysics, strong theories about what one is looking for are incredibly important. For instance, the algorhythms used in fMRI research to standardize brain activation over different subjects requires a theory about brain organization. Nothing is one or the other, but at the extremes, say medicine vs astrophysics the difference becomes apparent.
In more applied research, evidence needs to be unequivicable. Issues like control groups, sample sizes, and other techniques to verify that there is a real effect as opposed to somthing else, and the effect has the be very specific. Imagine that they were giving anesthetic to a woman in labour, and they had sort of ambigious and equivicable results regarding what might happen. In fact, standards in applied science tend to be, statistically, 5x higher than those of theoretical science (I guess im comparing psychology to medicine here, idk p values for most other things...).
In theoretical research, all issues, like control and counterbalance are totally important, but the experiments tend to be less cumbersome. It is a little more appropriate to go fishing for positive results because you might be able to add those to the theory, or they might make sense under the theory (though this is still not nearly as conclusive as a positive result on an experiment).
So, to illustrate the difference, let me say that I have a theory that V1 of the visual cortex is responsible for detecting movement, because I have a theory about how visual features are assembled by neuron pathways. So, if it turns out that V1 doesn't differ between the test and control groups, but say that V5 does, it is a little more appropriate to say, "oh, ok, the theory is probably right, just I put it in the wrong place", than if you had no theory of visual features, and were just looking at the brain for any significant differences. You would always find significant differences, even if they had nothing to do with the detection of movement.
My problem with Utts is that she has results that seem very weak from both perspectives. From an applied side, they really aren't concluisive. Her "conclusions" section actually points out why. Some people it works like this, other people it works like that. Ok, so maybe something like clinical psychology. Most treatments are only effective on a small percentage of the people. Unfortunatly, this isn't a good comparison, because the results for those small percentages are incontrivertable. Sure, CBT is only effective on 30% of depression sufferers, but its effects are clear.
I can't say I'm overly familiar with the studies, but they seem to have very poor controls. Rather than outlining that, let me describe what a good remote viewing test might look like: Each subject is left in a room with a live camera feed to a researcher. They are told to view things by a random number picked from 1-15 (the number of possible targets) and sketch/describe. Each subject would only complete 5 targets. Ok, so pretend there are 100 subjects, that would give 500 "views". The views are randomly assigned a number, though the experimenter keeps track of which object was viewed, the subject viewing it, and the number assigned to the "view". 10-20 "judges" are then brought in. These people are selected randomly from, hopefully, a larger pool, and are to have no direct contact with the experimenter or the subjects. They are each given a set of the "views", and put in a room with the 15 possible targets, and an additional 10 targets to serve as distractors. The judges are to place the view beside the object they believe it is representative of. A full analysis of how much agreement there was between judges would be done, and if any subject were found to consistantly view objects, I'd call that, at least, a decent start. And this leads well into the theory problems.
The reason it is only a start is because there is no control for one thing. There is just as much evidence for remote viewing as there is for the theory that this guy just visualized those things. Now, we could talk about coincidence, but it would be very difficult to get a base line for what people, who aren't psychic, visualize when they are asked to try and remote view something. So, when Utts mentions the subject that was proficent with viewing "technical" targets, how do we know that doesn't just represnt an internal bias of the individual to visual "technical" things? With no theory, no guess at where or how this is happening in the brain, the results really can't be taken as clear evidence for one or the other. If, however, we go with the "quantum interconnectedness" as a mechanism, there at least becomes the potential of running an experiment where we can see if someone really is getting these psychic waves from somewhere.
So, while yes, some science is very flawed from either an applied or theoretical side, it isn't fair to say they all fall victim to the same criticisms that can be made against these studies. Nothing is perfect, and you often have to sacrifice one type of validity for another, but I can't imagine a field where this would be "conclusive". Surely you can't be arguing that psi phenomena is as well demonstrated as anesthetic or as well understood as the structure of an atom?
Originally posted by Deadline
I’m quite sure you asked me about how psi works and stated that if I didn’t have a good idea of what the mechanism was then it casts serious doubt on the experiment.
Not having a mechanism means that a lot of the results that Utts was saying were significant are very highly called into question. The question is, do they represent anything or are they just chance? and if they do represent something, is that something psi? from an applied approach, you would need evidence that is cut and dry, like medicine and such, from a theoretical approach, without knowing what psi is as a mechanism, you can't even approach those questions.
I'm going to leave that for now...
Originally posted by politicsguy
what do ye guys think of agnostics? Are they athiests who just don't have the courage to stand up and say I don't believe or are they really just not sure?
Agnosticism just talks about something different that atheism. People who are agnostics fall under categories like "don't know", "don't care" and "can't know", the last being one of the favoured definitions in my experience, since it is rather unique. The first can fall under general skepticism and so I, at times, identify as agnostic, since obviously, ultimately we don't know, however I am rather positive that there is no God and I definitely do not believe in hir. Perhaps you are right that some agnostics identify as such out of politeness, for fear of being looked down upon or even face worse repercussions. Additionally, I think theoretically someone could also be a theistic agnostic, however I have never met someone like that in person.
Originally posted by inimalist
because it only becomes arguable from a position of absolute post-modernism, which I find to be immature in general.Or, God becomes reduced to this thing where "unknowable" is a trait, which, imho, is not a God worth worshiping.
What about it would be post-modernist and how are you defining the term here?
Do you think it is or one day will be possible to know (not believe or not) whether or not god exists? How would one go about knowing such a thing?
Assuming unknowable or indeterminable is a trait of the definition of god, you may find such god unworthy of worship, but:
1 that would be justa a sentiment about it
2 agnostics don't claim it is worth worshipping and don't worship it themselves
So what makes 'cant know atheists' intelectually less credible?
Originally posted by 753
What about it would be post-modernist and how are you defining the term here?Do you think it is or one day will be possible to know (not believe or not) whether or not god exists? How would one go about knowing such a thing?
Assuming unknowable or indeterminable is a trait of the definition of god, you may find such god unworthy of worship, but:
1 that would be justa a sentiment about it
2 agnostics don't claim it is worth worshipping and don't worship it themselves
So what makes 'cant know atheists' intelectually less credible?
Think about it this way, if you honestly believe you can't know if something exists why take any position on its existence at all? So you have an atheist who's worried about Pascal's Wager.
For example your typical agnostic is not also going to declare herself a skeptic about the existence of the flying-invisible-intangible-bunny-eared-caterpillar. Instead she's going to reject it outright because as a totally untestable concept there's no reason to even think about it.
only if we assume, a priori, that an NDE is by definition a spiritual experience. I w
My apologies. I meant to say temporal lobe and as I could probably write a 300 page dissertation on why Life After Death exists, I just typed occipital while thinking temporal lobe and I am aware of the temporal lobe epilepsy findings.
I'll start with one of my first points. Defining what a spiritual experience is. It is an insignificant semantic definition. Scientists use empirical language and vice-versa, even when searching for spiritual things. People have referred to the Higgs Boson as the God Particle and even Einstein, who was pretty much a classical Spinozan in his religious belief was extremely fond of the phrase "God doesn't play dice with the universe" in his constant flailing to undo quantum mechanics - which he obviously did not accomplish.
People really want to know 2 things. Is their a God (and what is his nature) and is their life after death.
For the most part people get caught up in tremendous semantic arguments that derail very interesting arguments. Spiritual, supernatural. Who cares.
Their is no reason God or whatever cosmic consciousness is can't be a part of nature. The word supernatural means literally something greater than nature. That's really a misnomer. Unless you are defining the unknowable as magic, everything is a part of nature.
A quick response to the "their is no evidence of hard wiring for belief in God." What do you call the right temporal lobe then? Please don'' be the type that says it's a bunch of neurons firing and they just \"happen" to create religious experience purely randomly.
Man's relation to life after death is mankind's defining question.
Think about the nature of science for a minute. You can reasonably make an argument that I'm extrapolating. Discussing this without venturing into the realm of opinion is impossible.
If ATI (all that is - my most neutral word for whatever God might be) exists ( and I'm damned sure he does) he, or rather it, is a part of nature. Science is the study of nature. In a nutshell , that's what it is. Observation of the natural world and the scientific method to observe, quantify and understand it.
If we weren't hard wired for spiritual experience or it wasn't part of our naturew why do we need science at all? Genetically, we are by far and large the dominat species on our planet with not even a challenge4 in sight. Our tecvhnology has actually come to THREATEN our evolutionary growth in the form of nuclear weapons, lab-created viruses and other technologies that have the potential to annihilate us.
Obviously from the strict Darwinian survivalist POV, we won the war a LONG time ago. So why are still building Large Hadron Particle Accelerators, sending Hubble out into the universe and letting robots walk on mars lokking for a microbe or two
Perhaps it's because we NEED to know what the univverse is about and our place in it. If you want to argue that death isn't a factor, mere scientific curiosity is, that's an opinion. In my own POV it's a silly one however and we want to know what our relationship to life and death and the saurrounding universe is. Something that no one else on earth has done so far.
I'll add more long winded and self-righteous comments later
😄 😄
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Think about it this way, if you honestly believe you can't know if something exists why take any position on its existence at all? So you have an atheist who's worried about Pascal's Wager.For example your typical agnostic is not also going to declare herself a skeptic about the existence of the flying-invisible-intangible-bunny-eared-caterpillar. Instead she's going to reject it outright because as a totally untestable concept there's no reason to even think about it.
But 'cant know' agnostics don't take any position on the existence or not of god. Isn't that what defines them? Don't know, can't know, it's beyond us. They usually - actually everyone of them I know - make no claims about it and don't wager on the existence of god.
Well, I dont believe in god for that exact reason. Disbelief in it is as default to me as it is in any other flying teapot, its existence is implausible (and made more so because the teapots are always designed to be absurd and comical) and there's nothing that indicates its existence, but a total skeptic might just as well claim we can't really know about bunny eared catterpillar either and strictly speaking, he'd be right. Why would this position be intelectually less credible than outright disbelief in it?
Re: only if we assume, a priori, that an NDE is by definition a spiritual experience. I w
Originally posted by safadoPeople really want to know 2 things. Is their a God (and what is his nature) and is their life after death.
For the most part people get caught up in tremendous semantic arguments that derail very interesting arguments. Spiritual, supernatural. Who cares.
Their is no reason God or whatever cosmic consciousness is can't be a part of nature. The word supernatural means literally something greater than nature. That's really a misnomer. Unless you are defining the unknowable as magic, everything is a part of nature.
The point here is that believing the cosmos has a coscience, intelect or intent has no basis in direct experience and evidence, and, as far as I'm concerned, is just a personalization fallacy projecting particular animal traits onto nature as a whole - some forms of pantheism - or onto fictional deities that transcend it - most forms of theism.
[/quote]
A quick response to the "their is no evidence of hard wiring for belief in God." What do you call the right temporal lobe then? Please don'' be the type that says it's a bunch of neurons firing and they just \"happen" to create religious experience purely randomly.
[/quote] I call it a piece of the brain. Look, I have knees, but I don't conclude that proves god made them so I could kneel and pray.
meh, I got other shit on my mind
Man's relation to life after death is mankind's defining question.
We dont really need it, we happened to develop it as a refinement of direct obervation, trial and error and deduction, and we kept it for its social, economic and politcal utilityIf we weren't hard wired for spiritual experience or it wasn't part of our naturew why do we need science at all?
I'd say that title goes to the cyanobacteria and we're nowhere near the top
Genetically, we are by far and large the dominat species on our planet with not even a challenge4 in sight.
Well, there is no 'war', we're just lurking arround. We are motivated by economic and or social interests, tradition and curisoty.
Obviously from the strict Darwinian survivalist POV, we won the war a LONG time ago. So why are still building Large Hadron Particle Accelerators, sending Hubble out into the universe and letting robots walk on mars lokking for a microbe or two
I'll go with 'death isn't a factor' for the most part here (some themes of research are directly concerned with death and conscience of course). Besides, this kind of curiosity isnt a rule at all, most people aren't even curious about how water boils, they just accept that it does, you are an exception in your thirst for knowledge
Perhaps it's because we NEED to know what the univverse is about and our place in it. If you want to argue that death isn't a factor, mere scientific curiosity is, that's an opinion. In my own POV it's a silly one however and we want to know what our relationship to life and death and the saurrounding universe is. Something that no one else on earth has done so far.
Originally posted by Mindshipprinciple is the same, the teapot was supposed to be too small to be detected by any means anyway, the very point of the argument is taht it is unfalsifiable.
Isn't the proverbial flying teapot generally considered something you can see or touch? It's legit to search for it with a telescope or radar. But not "God."
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time
Originally posted by 753
But 'cant know' agnostics don't take any position on the existence or not of god. Isn't that what defines them? Don't know, can't know, it's beyond us. They usually - actually everyone of them I know - make no claims about it and don't wager on the existence of god.
There's a difference between don't know and can't know. If you don't know whether god exist then you believe you can be convinced on way or another if evidence appears. If you believe that we cannot know the truth about god then you are saying there is no evidence and there will never be any evidence but you still equivocate.
The key effect of that difference is that the "don't know" is still thinking about their position. On the other hand the "can't know" just doesn't want to be called an atheist or are an atheist but think Pascal's Wager is a reasonable thing to worry about.
Simply, "don't know" is both true and intellectual defensible. I don't know if the gpd is real. Thus I might take the time to think about it and conclude that since there is no good evidence I should disregard it or that since there is good evidence I build an awesome temple for him.
"Can't know" is a cop out. You've just stopped thinking. I can't know if the god is real, thus I will remain neutral about it. That neutrality is ridiculous. You're either going to act on the idea that it is real or the idea that it isn't real, so to declare that you can't know serves to make a non-existent distinction. Effectively "can't know" is just a way of saying "I'm an atheist/theist but don't call me that."
There are other options, though. For a long time I was a "don't care" agnostic. The argument going that either there is an inactive god or there isn't a god, but both are the same to me. Eventually I decided that the difference between this and atheism was too small and dropped it in favor of atheism.