Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 21081 - 21100 of total 22344 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Apr 1, 2014 - 12:28am PT
The universe is permeated by gravitational fields...So is that just one field with concentrations at various points...or is that a domain with a collection of multiple discrete fields? It is what it is, and the answer is just rhetorical...

So how do you detect a sentient field? Well, just as you detect any field...by observing and measuring its effects.

So what would be detectable effects of a spiritual/awareness/sentient field?

This is more challenging because it is an observe the observer situation, as Largo keeps struggling to enlighten us.

You could consider that the sentience field is senior to other physically observable fields, waves, and particles...all of which arise within it. However those who can’t see it have a hard time evaluating this concept. If you are serious about being able to see it...check back with Largo

One answer could be to observe the creation and existence of a physical universe. ((My understanding is that the Einstein’s calculations of relativity require zero point energy unless you choose to ‘normalize’ the calculations (I’m not enough of a mathematician to evaluate this statement)).

Some of you have already considered and rejected that concept, and others ascribe it to ‘God’ so they can stop thinking about it.

I do not find the term ‘God’ to be useful, as the term has such an incredible history of abuse and misunderstanding...you might as well assert that a gravitational field is God (especially worshiped by climbers and sky divers)

To me the confrontational question “Do you believe in God?” is equivalent to asking, “Do you believe in the physical universe?” If you say, “No” to either question, then where does that get you?... LOL

A second answer might be: notice that you are an observer observing a universe. That is actually a good answer. But most of you would probably say that didn’t tell me anything. Well, sorry about that, but language has limitations that you don’t...unless you allow yourself to be trapped in a language that is limiting awareness...

A third answer that you might not like is sort of what we are hearing from Largo, which I will paraphrase as “Shut up and listen!”


This is sort of a Catch 22 situation. If you can’t see it, how can it be explained to you? If you can see it, you don’t need to have it explained to you. I realize this is basically an unsatisfying statement to those wishing for empirical scientific proof.

Ok, so if empirical scientific proof is so challenging, is there subjective proof? Yes, there is, but take it easy on how you do it! Many people on this planet are strongly attached to their physical body. At the point the ashes of the body float away dispersed on the wind, there is no longer such an attachment. Don’t be too surprised to find yourself still there...or somewhere. Claiming in those circumstances that you then no longer exist can be sort of like insomnia...just trying to go to sleep! Some people freak out and obsessively search for another physical attachment.

However it is possible to detach or exteriorize while the body remains alive. This is where the physicalist gets very argumentative, claiming the dormant body explains the special perceptions of near death experiences. Fine, if that is what you want to believe.

Oh, and if you pick up another body, and say fly around in a little bird...oh, that’s just hallucinations...yeah ok, so just try and enjoy life and don’t bother worrying about it...
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Apr 1, 2014 - 12:44am PT

Stars seem pretty simple to me.

Stars while "living" produce light. But when they "die" they produce matter. The combination produces us. That simple?
How then was there any matter at the Big Bang if it takes a dead sun to produce it?Supposedly there weren't any suns for 600mil. yrs after the BB
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Apr 1, 2014 - 01:01am PT
How then was there any matter at the Big Bang if it takes a dead sun to produce it?

So you're saying there are people in the sun.

Check.

DMT
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Apr 1, 2014 - 01:11am PT
the universe is sentient


even in strange out-of-the-way corners like DMT


BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Apr 1, 2014 - 01:14am PT
I think he's stoned. Cause he sure ain't shinning any light!
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Apr 1, 2014 - 01:18am PT
Paul Martzen
I don't think my personal experiences has told me whether there might be a field of sentience or whether sentience has arisen in some other way or been granted by god. However, such a field or property makes a certain sense to me, despite my acceptance of materialism. It seems to me that for sentience (whatever that is) to exist in humans and other animals and organisms, then the foundational properties of sentience must exist in the matter and energy of which we are composed. To deny this means that we believe sentience comes from some outside supernatural force, or that it develops from some magical interplay of complexity, or, that sentience does not exist. There may be other options, but those are the ones that occur to me. I accept that there is probably sentience, but I try not to jump to any conclusions about what it may be or how it might develop.

The way I look at it is that humans are part of the earth. We are a subset of the earth. If we have sentience then, by definition the earth has sentience since there are 7 billion human beings making up part of the earth. Then there are the countless billions of other creatures that have some level or form of sentience. We all arise from the earth unless you think that we and our sentience is given by some external force.

There is a common assumption that matter and energy are "dead" and that there must be some additional "life force" from god or whatever. But if we can't really find any tangible evidence of some additional "life Force" other than our easily fooled personal experiences, then one should consider that our everyday matter and energy aren't quite as "dead" as we had supposed. We have a fairly good understanding of many basic principles of matter and energy, so the question to me is what aspects are potentially the most life like or most likely to be the foundations of life.

Almost all life on earth is completely dependent on energy from the sun. Life is certainly an energetic process and the energy processes of the sun seem to me likely to be infinitely more complex than the processes on earth. Whatever "sentience" the sun might have it won't be a human sentience, it will be a nuclear sentience and we have no concept of what that might be. Not surprising since we can barely grasp the sentience of dogs and cats, chimps and whales, blacks or Chinese, Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, even though we are nearly identical in the big picture.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Apr 1, 2014 - 01:21am PT
This sentience just becomes the new god. Same as the old god.

Can't see her.
Can't smell her.
Can't touch her.
Can't hear her.


Nay, cannot even fathom her.

God?

No!

Sentience!

DMT
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Apr 1, 2014 - 01:32am PT
revised opinion!


there is no sentience in the universe!


especially in strange out-of-the-way corners like DMT




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylu-uCR4ZZI
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Apr 1, 2014 - 05:49am PT
stars don't create matter. They transform the H and He produced by the big bang into heavier elements.

Life does not require a star - it requires water and an energy source. extremophiles living in undersea vents depend on geothermal energy, not solar. Such organisms could thrive on an orphaned planet that has been ejected from its solar system. No star required.

Creatures on a perpetually cloudy world or a subterranean ocean might never observe nor discover the existence of the sun(s) that produced the heavier elements in their bodies.

To a Europan dolphin, the universe is one big virgin martini, shaken, not stirred. Ain't no sunshine when she's gone. Ain't no sunshine when she's home, either.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Apr 1, 2014 - 08:18am PT
But what about nuclear sentience?

DMT
anita514

Gym climber
Great White North
Apr 1, 2014 - 08:20am PT

From "Christians for Michelle Bachmann"
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Apr 1, 2014 - 10:17am PT
OK, if the sentience field is primary - the force from which all others precipitate out, rather than the other way around, I'm willing to entertain it's existence. It doesn't violate existing models per se, then.

I can also see a form of self referential 'pre-sentience' - a process of inorganic evolution whereby spiral galaxies form and, rather than electrical signals through neurons, two transport mechanism are employed - gravity waves and radiation - to communicate between the galaxy's 'neuron' analogs - solar systems.

Gravity waves cause the formation of new solar systems and the super novae that seed them with essential elements necessary for life. Radiation bathes interstellar ice contaminated with these heavier elements, powering the assemblage of organic molecules necessary for life to begin.

Viewed in this way, galaxies form an inorganic superorganism that acts as an incubator for the eventual emergence of the intelligent life that will one day discover and appreciate it. Perhaps this will be the direction deist religion will take in the future. A convergence of science and myth into a hybrid that better represents the actual universe we find ourselves in.

Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Apr 1, 2014 - 10:36am PT
One god to rule them all.

DMT
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Apr 1, 2014 - 10:37am PT
Perhaps this will be the direction deist religion will take in the future. A convergence of science and myth into a hybrid that better represents the actual universe we find ourselves in.

Wouldn't that be grand?

DMT
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Apr 1, 2014 - 11:06am PT

A convergence of science and myth into a hybrid that better represents the actual universe we find ourselves in.

Now ur talkin like an Egyptian. They worshipped your mother the sun to
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 1, 2014 - 11:34am PT
because the science is NOT settled:


http://chronicle.com/article/Embrace-the-Unexplained/145557/

paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Apr 1, 2014 - 12:01pm PT
Viewed in this way, galaxies form an inorganic superorganism that acts as an incubator for the eventual emergence of the intelligent life that will one day discover and appreciate it.


Yes. A complete reversal of previous thought or...



APRIL FOOLS!
MikeL

Trad climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Apr 1, 2014 - 12:26pm PT
Tvash: People equating the biological machinery produced by 3.5 billion years of evolution with a full featured toaster - or any of the rest today's processing technology.

You say that as if our species is all there is. But it isn't. There is also the tree outside my window, which is also a biological entity "produced" by 3.5 billion years of evolution (I guess) . . . or the earth, or our galaxy, or the universe. Just what is it about a few hundred billion neurons that makes you think is so remarkable as to create, define, and explain sentience? You have no idea. All you have (you think) is something that is remarkably complex and dynamic. Good lord. Look anywhere. No matter where you look you'll see infinity, complexity, and unending unexplainable mystery. Hell, even a toaster is truly unexplainable (matter, electricity, space, time, heat, gravity, etc.). You seem to think that evolution is and explains everything. It does neither. Evolution is just a theory. It's just a model of a set of phenomena that makes us feel comfortable so that we can talk about our own existence. Evolution is not a law. It's just a way of talking about what we think we experience. It would be better to look at the very experience of experience to get some sense of what you are and what you are a part of instead of spinning yarns and stories about this event or that event and how they emerge from nothing and fall back away into nothingness.

DMT: Is there any spiritual belief system that goes beyond opinion and into cold hard material fact? I think knott.

Kindly point out one single fact, one cold hard material fact that is undeniably indisputable by everyone. (I think not.) It's all in your imagination supported by consensus reality. You think you know so many things, but you know (not believe) almost nothing, and that single thing that you do know for yourself without any contradiction, you call wu wu and ignore its implications.

But, hey, we're just talking here, aren't we?

Paul: Certainty on the issue of sentience is impossible: nobody knows with “certainty” what it is or even how to define it.

Most people don't even know what "certainty" is, Paul. :-) Few people have realized it.

DMT: Can't see her. Can't smell her. Can't touch her. Can't hear her.

Atoms? Gravity? Concepts? Abstractions? Freedom? Trust? Democracy? None of these must exist either.


Tom:

Fruity going to show up soon and complain that you are a traitor to your scientific education and profession.

It's a indication of professionalism and maturity that anyone trained in a field of study understands its limitations and what it's good for. It's a least a sign that one understands which tools are appropriate for which problems. (I think there is something called The Law of the Small Instrument: "give a child a hammer, and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding.")
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Apr 1, 2014 - 12:37pm PT
Thank you, Mike L, for that kindergarten lecture on the scientific method and limitations of direct experience imposed by our five senses. Hint: laws (in the legal sense) are subject to interpretation, testing, and refinement, too. You might want to tweak the presentation accordingly.

And thanks, too, for your groundbreaking determination of what constitutes 'unexplainable', although you're going to have to step up your game a bit to defend that assertion, which, unfortunately for you, will require predicting the entire future course of human discovery.

I was rock climbing this weekend. Yeah, I felt gravity in no uncertain terms - even with that spartan toolbox that is our five senses.
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Apr 1, 2014 - 01:27pm PT
Most people don't even know what "certainty" is, Paul. :-) Few people have realized it

Oh Great Sage, pray who would those be?


;>)
Messages 21081 - 21100 of total 22344 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews