Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?Page 2 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
Oh I would Jiperly, I would, but I like to hammer home the need for logic, reason, and evidence so that maybe, just maybe, people will start to use these things rather than look askance at you for having the temerity to ask for them.

Of course, I'm going about this all wrong. What I SHOULD be doing is using emotional arguments that just talk about these concepts but don't actually demonstrate why they are important. If I did that people might "jump on the bandwagon". Everyone likes to THINK they are rational, but heaven's to Betsy its hard work to actually BE rational. That requires research, patience, and a willingness to be wrong.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 40
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/23/2009 3:36:33 PM
>>There was a time when people thought the world was flat....until they were proven wrong......There was a time when people believed the sun rotated around the earth....until they were proven wrong.

You gotta be kidding me....

What are we asking for? What have we said, again and again in this topic?

"Prove us wrong"

We want evidence- we're inviting evidence. The cold sad fact is you are outraged BECAUSE we expect to be proven wrong, rather than simply accept with faith that we are wrong.
 feel_alive
Joined: 10/13/2007
Msg: 41
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/23/2009 3:44:21 PM


Silly Tomo- don't you know unless you prove reality exists, then you cannot prove that a collective consciousness doesn't exist? Ideas like that Ad ignorantiam just makes sense- we must know everything, or we know nothing and should never take a stance on anything. Thats how real science works- by denying that reality exists.



No need to be sarcastic...

Reality is a slippery term...I personally BELIEVE, there is no such thing as absolute reality...but I don't want to get into that as it is just gonna make things more confusing...

I am not denying anything, don't you get it? I am being open minded to any possibility...
Rather than being sarcastic, be more specific about your claims...That is how you maintain a decent conversation...

I raised the argument - reality is what your brain creates....You absolutely sure that everything exists around you are concrete and matter?
It is possibility that you are living in a superposition of quantum states? --> do you even understand what that means?
Before being sarcastic again, read and learn what I am trying to say....then comment if you have anything substantial to say...



So lemme get this straight. I said "Lets see the results."- you took that and stated that "I can give you some examples about those experiments. But first..... "

We continued to ask for the examples. At which point, you stated that you CAN show us evidence, but won't, because we're not accepting your point of view on faith and conviction alone? That because we need evidence inorder to validate our beliefs, we can have none, and if we wanted no evidence and accepted it without it, you would give us evidence freely? Do you have any idea how indoctrinated that sounds?



I gave you the examples but exactly as I said...you IGNORE it...I knew it...
Because your mind cannot comprehend...So you chose to ignore like many others...
My arguments so far has nothing to do with faith. You should be smarter than that to realize it.
Obviously not...

I talk about evidence not 100% proof...All the links that I refered are the discussions that scientific community is having today. AND this qualify for evidence...Listen what they say as they are credible ppl in these areas. They are well respected scientists and they all talk about these things based on findings...THEY DO NOT MAKE THINGS UP...Listen again...Gee...

See, you are ebing ignorant just as I said....thanks for proving my point...


This is extremely frustrating- I'd give up Tomo, cause it looks like this guy's just taking you for a trip.

Of course you will give up as you are not well equipped to discuss this topic. Evidently, you are just talking based on none or your very limited information...


Waiting for the end of the next commerical break, eh?

Wait, it will come...I am not sure you will understand what I am gonna say to you it but I will try...
 feel_alive
Joined: 10/13/2007
Msg: 42
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/23/2009 3:49:18 PM
I feel like I am talking to ppl from the 13th century...


Everyone likes to THINK they are rational, but heaven's to Betsy its hard work to actually BE rational. That requires research, patience, and a willingness to be wrong.


And what have you done so far ? what did you research?

I personally spent well over 10 years researching on this topic....I am rational and if you don't get this, it is because you are biased and closed minded...
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 44
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/23/2009 4:26:08 PM
>>>Reality is a slippery term...I personally BELIEVE, there is no such thing as absolute reality...

And I suspected as of such. Though, one wonders, how do you live? If reality is not an absolute, how can you be certain that if you work for 8 hours that 8 hours has passed? That if you buy 3.2 Gallons of gas, that you did indeed get the 3.2 Gallons, and it is indeed gas and not sand- hell, if reality is not an absolute, how can you not be certain your gas will suddenly change into Sand while it sits idlely in your gastank? Or that your veins will pop open one day revealing your blood has turned into fruit flies?

I find anyone who claims reality is not an absolute is the worlds worst kind of hypocrite, because they depend on reality being an absolute for everything and anything in their lives- even that the words they type will not suddenly change meaning without cause- but at the same time, say that nothing is an absolute.

You live in a world entirely dependant on absolutes, and say we live in a world where no absolutes exist.

>>>I am not denying anything, don't you get it? I am being open minded to any possibility...

Yes, I believe thats what I said- you think the best way to understand the universe is refusing to make any conclusions about our observations of the universe- that to abandon all attempts to learn and understand our surroundings is the only way to achieve Omniscience.

In short, its doubletalk.

>>>Rather than being sarcastic, be more specific about your claims...

The words I use are not an absolute- there are no absolutes- thus, I've already been entirely specific. Your failure to understand that is your own inablity to be open minded.

>>>I gave you the examples but exactly as I said...you IGNORE it

Maybe you'd gain crediblity in my mind if you present evidence that didn't come from an Evening News program. How about a Peer Reviewed Journal?

>>>...THEY DO NOT MAKE THINGS UP...

They have a random number generator, and make the leap that somehow people are controlling it for some unknown purpose. Wheres the connection? Wheres the proof that what they say caused it, caused it?

I curious- did they have any information from the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami? After all, over 75 times as many people died- you'd think that would have gotten a greater effect than 9/11 from the "global consciousness"- the single greatest national disaster in our lifetime is overshadowed by 9/11? The population differences demand a massive hit from the global consciousness.

But I suppose theres a perfectly good reason as to why its impossible to measure what you claim is happening.

>>>Wait, it will come...

Didn't you JUST write that you did present evidence. Now you haven't, but will. Right....

Seriously- why have us wait? What kind of asinine game are you playing here? If you have evidence, present it- clearly what I said is true- you only seem to believe you should present evidence to people who do not need your evidence to believe in your statements- which is very convinent for you, I suppose.

What kind of enlightened mind offers knowledge, but only if they abandon any desire to possess knowledge. You're babbling cultish garbage.
 feel_alive
Joined: 10/13/2007
Msg: 45
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/23/2009 4:54:21 PM
And I suspected as of such. Though, one wonders, how do you live? If reality is not an absolute, how can you be certain that if you work for 8 hours that 8 hours has passed? That if you buy 3.2 Gallons of gas, that you did indeed get the 3.2 Gallons, and it is indeed gas and not sand- hell, if reality is not an absolute, how can you not be certain your gas will suddenly change into Sand while it sits idlely in your gastank? Or that your veins will pop open one day revealing your blood has turned into fruit flies?

I find anyone who claims reality is not an absolute is the worlds worst kind of hypocrite, because they depend on reality being an absolute for everything and anything in their lives- even that the words they type will not suddenly change meaning without cause- but at the same time, say that nothing is an absolute.


:)
If I design a software where there is a guy doing exactly what I programmed...

is he then real?
No he is not real!

I can design a house, he can go there at certain hours he can exit in certain hours,
I can design a car that he can drive based on the rules I built...Is he real? Is the car real?
How do you know that you are not a hologram?
No, seriously give me an answer pls...

Long time ago, we thought everything is made up of matter that is indivisible
Then we discover anti matter/energy that we have no idea about that make up most of the universe
Then we learnt that the atom is pretty much empty
Then we learnt that electrons protons are not even a particle
Evidence are growing...
Just because you can do certain activities in certain matters do not make you as real as
the computer programmed man in my design...



Yes, I believe thats what I said- you think the best way to understand the universe is refusing to make any conclusions about our observations of the universe- that to abandon all attempts to learn and understand our surroundings is the only way to achieve Omniscience.


Your observations are based on classical mechanics...You cannot observe quantum states...Then how can you be so sure about your claims...!!!!

You didn't understand what I said , did you:)?



Maybe you'd gain crediblity in my mind if you present evidence that didn't come from an Evening News program. How about a Peer Reviewed Journal?

Please think a little bit...Don't stay at the surface...Evening news program, so what?
People who are taling there credible scientists who have tons of published papers on the topic.
I will send you journal articles, are you gonna read them? Be real...I am trying to make it easier...
I read those articles, I have it in my archieves...They are long, specific and hard to understand.
Yet, to make it easier, I find their videos so that you can follow...
Don't ridicule yourself. If I post a regular guy giving a speech then I would say you are right but
these guys are famous scientists...Listen what they say....Am I speaking french here?

Tell me you will read the articles and I will send you the scientific papers...all right?


They have a random number generator, and make the leap that somehow people are controlling it for some unknown purpose. Wheres the connection? Wheres the proof that what they say caused it, caused it?

You asked for an evidence, and I gave you an evidence from Princenton university prof...
That is just one...Why don't you comment on Hameroff video?


Didn't you JUST write that you did present evidence. Now you haven't, but will. Right....

Yes, I will but you are not ready yet:) I cannot move on to next stage until you are ready:)



Seriously- why have us wait? What kind of asinine game are you playing here? If you have evidence, present it- clearly what I said is true- you only seem to believe you should present evidence to people who do not need your evidence to believe in your statements- which is very convinent for you, I suppose.

What kind of enlightened mind offers knowledge, but only if they abandon any desire to possess knowledge. You're babbling cultish garbage.


Look, so far everything I said is a discussion in scientific community, papers published, experiments are made...Show me one thing I said that I made up from my a$$...
If you call it garbage, I am not offended at all...Because they are not my ideas...They are legitimate theories in QM...You call it garbage because you have no idea what I am talking about,,
 feel_alive
Joined: 10/13/2007
Msg: 48
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/23/2009 5:14:57 PM
Hi Rexhfei...

I read elegant universe too....Brian Green is the author...I love it...

I think you are refering to double slit experiment. And the widely accepted explanation to this phenomena is Copenhangen school of thought mastered by Heisenberg...It doesn't based on expectation, it based on observation. But sounds like you already got the idea...


 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 50
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/23/2009 8:02:58 PM
Wow. Pretty much totally off-topic, and on top of that, it's a crock of horse excrement. Unless you'd care to defend the reputations of Solokov and Nachalov, and perhaps show the peer review and the duplication of results by independent researchers, particularly for Kanchzhen's "torsion generator" that turns chickens into ducks.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 52
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/23/2009 9:24:23 PM
>>>Jip what is going on here ? We have evidence but no explanation

Geeze- four hours and yer already badgering me.

Don't worry- I'll take a page from feel_alive- you can wait till I'm ready.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 55
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/24/2009 5:16:37 PM

Religion can control the minds of SOME people for other people their religious beliefs can actually open the door for them to accept as possible that which others cannot accept as even remotely possible.


How far can you open your mind before your brain falls out?
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 63
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/25/2009 7:04:51 AM

desert - I respect your right to say such things but I do have to question why you feel the need to do so......

Here is a question for you to ponder...

Do the ideas being expressed on this thread threaten you in some way? Why do you assume the position you do and use the methods you do...what are you hoping to accomplish?


The point was, if a little open-mindedness is a good thing, that doesn't automatically mean that an overabundance of open-mindedness is also a good thing. The idea is very much like saying the fact that even a pretty large amount of rain is good for the wheat farmer, it's only good at the right time, and a whole lot of rain at any time means the crop could be completely destroyed.

Indeed, a fully "open mind" is nothing more than a credulous sponge, which will absorb anything to which it is exposed, without filters or even understanding, and treat it as reality. One could easily compare this to your average, everyday brainwashing, much like (as was mentioned by another) Jonestown, where a crowd of very open-minded people killed their own children and then themselves... just because their spiritual leader said it was a good idea.

Then you've got folks like chainsawmiller who will (apparently) believe almost anything, as long as it's a conspiracy theory of some sort, and it denies or attacks the accepted paradigm of science or governance. Again, is that open-mindedness, or credulity? Or just a particular flavor of closed-mindedness, which selectively blocks "accepted norms?" "You can tell I'm a non-conformist because I look just like *this group*"

I'm incredibly open-minded, to be completely blunt. I do not judge my companions and acquaintances... I judge their ideas and actions, but I'm perfectly willing to give up even my most prized illusions and firmly-held beliefs... if only one is able to provide some convincing evidence. I'll believe anything that can be (at least reasonably close to) proven or demonstrated convincingly. This has not happened for "collective consciousness," at least not as it's been presented here.

Aside from that, it's a neat quote I ran into a while ago (like 20 years ago), and it seemed apropos.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 68
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/25/2009 7:47:45 PM
Your deductive reasoning requires completely unproven assumptions in order to be true. That makes it mere speculation, not even rising to the level of a reasonable hypothesis, and certainly not a theory.

Let's draw an analogy:

It's well-known that over 70% of the Earth's surface is water. Humans also consist of about 70% water.

Water also conducts sound... better than air. This has been proven time and time again.

If I am standing in the shallows or Cape Cod, and you are standing in the shallows at Normandy Beach, we are connected by water.

Anything you can hear, I can also hear, as water conducts sound very well. Heaven help me should you be struck by lightning!

...

Are you seeing this, or am I just talking to empty space?
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 69
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/26/2009 9:07:20 AM
*sigh* These are the issues that you guys haven't addressed yet:


Inherent in your statement is the idea that given our limited ability to perceive the universe around us we shouldn't commit an a priori dismissal the metaphysical of supernatural. This is not what I'm saying, I don't reject the idea out of hand, I am just withholding provisional assent due to a lack of evidence. This is a big difference, and just because I require stricter standards for evidence than you do does not mean that I do not accept the possibility, I'm just reducing my chance of error. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Again, I am not ignoring evidence, I just have stricter standards than you. Because human perception is flawed and often incorrect due to its limitations anecdotal evidence just doesn't pass muster. Also I try not to make assumptions about the evidence which do not necessarily follow, such as assuming that because humans have experiences that seem ubiquitous throughout the species that there must be some sort of psychic connection when the more direct connection is that we are genetically predisposed to these sorts of experiences as individuals. There are two points in there actually, the first is the assumption and the second is the presence of a mechanism. Entanglement isn't a valid mechanism because it is not specific and irrelevant without more evidence.

This is a logical fallacy of the moving goal-post. I use the terms supernatural and metaphysical and then you move the "standard" for supernatural and metaphysical to "theories that sound weird". The supernatural and metaphysical deal with ideas that are beyond the scope of science, ideas which are not falsifiable or testable. When you can just make up explanations that invalidate the falsifications and inconsistencies of your claim you are within the bailiwick of the supernatural or metaphysical. We have done a number of experiments to test for the existence of telepathic ability and these results have never been better than chance in a well crafted experiment.


I would also point out that statements made by a scientist or conjectures offered by a science are not evidence. This is another example of the quality of the evidence you accept. A Phd. doesn't mean you accept the evidence, this is a logical fallacy of "argument from authority". There are plenty of researchers who couldn't construct a decent experiment if their lives depended on it. There are people like Kent Hovind who claim to be doctors but get their degrees from non-accredited or recognized institutions.

Poor experimentation or flawed interpretations of the data occur all the time. This is why peer-review is important, it helps scientists correct the errors they might have made. Internal consistency is another part of that, so when the results of an experiment don't fit, we can determine if the results were in fact an anomaly.
 Twill348
Joined: 12/20/2008
Msg: 70
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/26/2009 4:11:25 PM
"Do you think this kind of experiments haven't been done successfully before?
Nobody gets nobel prize for these kind of things...and the reason is simple...
Ignorance...scientific community can be ignorant too sometimes. Not with bad intentions tho. They are ignorant because once you provide them proof to the strange phenomena happening in our lives, science doesn't know what to do with it. "

Oh ho ho ho, I think they know what to "do with it".

You just can't accept, can you, that people lie.

That "researchers" lie, in the way they form their "studies", and just flat out fake the data! Happens in real science all the time, you don't think in happens in fairyland, world of the blind?
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 71
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/26/2009 5:04:25 PM
I do have some books that are excellent reads.

Demon Haunted World and Billions and Billions by Carl Sagan

Magnificent reads by a truly eloquent human being absolutely in love with discovery and knowledge.
 Twill348
Joined: 12/20/2008
Msg: 72
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/26/2009 6:48:01 PM
"How's about this: Evidence via deductive reasoning."



Deductive reasoning is not evidence.

That's why the ancient Greeks never got anywhere...they thought of everything, but they thought that's all you had to do...think. They was wrong about that.

Putting your theories, or beliefs, to the test of reality forces you to confront your errors. Errors you never see from the vantage point in the castle in the sky.
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 74
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/27/2009 10:01:44 AM
Let me give you an example of why your premise is fallacious itsallinthesoul.

L. Ron Hubbard used "Deductive Reasoning" to come up with scientology...and now these people believe they have super powers.

Yes, you read that correctly, Tom Cruise thinks he has super powers because he is a Scientologist.

Science evolves because we test our hypothesis and update it with new information. Science evolves because we don't just come up with ideas but we rigorously try to disprove them. The point that was made was that the Greeks didn't make any advancements beyond what they had thought up, the big advancements and insights were made by the "doers", not the philosophers.

Its not that science "can't prove something today as fact" - its that there exists no reason to believe certain things at all. The same reason you would reject the idea of someone claiming to be Napoleon is the reason rationalists who require evidence reject spiritual and metaphysical concepts. This is a matter of consistency, and it might be interesting to find out just how internally consistent your methodology is, do you apply the same reasoning and logic to everything?

More importantly...and this is a biggie...what evidence would convince you that you are wrong? I have talked at length on a number of threads about the evidence that would convince me of the efficacy of spiritual and metaphysical claims - the standards that I would use to change my position. What about you [speaking to all claimants of the metaphysical or spiritual]? What evidence would you take that you are wrong, what makes your position falsifiable?

If there is no way to falsify your position, you might want to reflect on how useful the idea is, or how open minded you actually are. There should ALWAYS be criteria for changing your mind if you are in fact "open minded" to all possibilities.

Here's another puzzler, you said that you don't need evidence to be open to a possibility - does this mean that you don't need evidence to be open to the possibility that you are wrong? Also, are you open to the idea that the statement "While you may need to find evidence before you can accept a possibility...there are some of us who do not need that to be open to a possibility." is fallacious and illogical without any merit whatsoever...without my providing of any other information/evidence?
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 76
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/27/2009 2:33:18 PM
I'm definitely all for thinking outside the box! Evidence is only part of the equation, its the possibilities that arise out of the evidence is where the meat of science actually takes root. Evidence is just the fertile soil in which the seeds of an idea are planted, if you'll accept the analogy.

As you may have guessed, I covet the truth - truth is something that is very important to me so I am passionate about pursuing it. In fact, I can think of no higher goal to achieve than truth, because truth saves lives and solves problems whereas fantasy only serves as a temporary diversion from reality. For me its not about "me" being right so much as a genuine desire to know what the truth is, or at least as close an approximation as I can get to.

That is not to say that I reject any possibilities, but when trying to arrive at what is "true" I look to the usual suspects first. I don't reject the possibility of the supernatural or metaphysical out of hand, it just never makes it to the top of the list of possible explanations. Quite frankly, other explanations wind up having the evidence, so there has never been a reason to pursue what basically amount to at best "interesting thought experiments".

You are right about your atom supposition - I believe it was some monist philosopher who described a concept similar to atoms , and that idea had some neat correlaries to some modern aspects of atomic theory. However, the reason we arrived at atomic theory was by pursuing the evidence, not making a claim and looking for evidence to support it. That is what science is - detective work. By following the evidence we discover things. The problem with making up explanations and then looking for evidence to support them is that you can generate a lot of false positives that way.

False positives are not only misleading, they are also disruptive. They slow down investigations and rarely reveal anything interesting or helpful. Instead, they cloud the issue with false possibilities, ridiculous possible correlations, and waste efforts at investigation. Even worse, when they are discovered, most of the general public never hear about their falsification, so instead they simply remember the original findings. This is how misinformation about science begins.

This is why even though being unable to prove something is real doesn't mean it isn't real, this idea doesn't mean that it IS real either. In fact, we have to look at what makes the idea worth pursuing or compelling in the first place. What makes an idea with no evidence compelling...that is my question for this post. ;)
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 78
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/27/2009 8:08:22 PM
I think I understand what you are saying itsallinthesoul. I'm a big proponent of the Zen-style philosophy of just accepting life as it comes, being in the moment. I believe there is plenty to explore in the areas of spirituality, I just don't see how the numinous parts of it are necessary to these experience - like the ones that are ubiquitous when recounting tales of prayer, meditation, etc. As an area that is rather sparsely explored I can see a lot of merit in investigating that phenomenon, however there are certain assumptions that are tied into it which I don't see as having any worth because there is no reason/mechanism for them actually being true.

Ok Rehxfei, let's get down to brass tacks. I'm glad that we both agree on the merits of deductive reasoning! Surprise, no points of contention there, lol

I don't think philosophy is inherently necessary to scientific investigation, but I do believe that the philosophy of science does add value to what we understand. Please don't mischaracterize this statement - philosophy still has nothing to do with science beyond understanding things like falsification on a higher level. Guys like Popper had some valuable insights, but in the end the ultimate value of the scientific method comes from its results.

As for my "reputation", lol, I don't try to "manufacture" a reputation - that would be dishonest. Instead, I like to be consistent because I find that there is value in consistency, and as I have said before, I too covet the truth. I don't feel that the supernatural or metaphysical have merit because there isn't any evidence to support the idea that they actually exist beyond man's imagination. If there was evidence, I'd be all over it, but from what I have seen there just isn't any, or the evidence that is claimed does not meet the minimum standard of credibility.

As for you not answering my question about what would make your claims falsifiable, this is rather telling. If there is nothing that would make your claim falsifiable than your claims by definition are not scientific. This is contradictory to your position that you value science and its methodology as this is a fundamental principle of all scientific investigation. Based on your statement I have to conclude that in direct contradiction to your professions you actually find little to no value in the scientific method, and instead use scientific findings to add credibility to your personal flights of fancy.

In short, your inability or unwillingness to provide an avenue for falsification betrays your lack of understanding and appreciation for the scientific method in favor of ideas which you find appealing on a personal level.

Also...you're "Au contrar" response was the equivalent of, "No YOU!". I wouldn't have mentioned it but it made me giggle when I read it. :D

In your final statement you expressed that you are open to the possibility of being wrong, made the claim that you've never been wrong, and then qualified it by saying that only small details have changed with positive results. This is a moderately interesting statement, and right in line with your other unfalsifiable claims. I for one have been wrong more times than I can remember, I have tried to adapt the new information in place of the old, and I know I'll be terrifyingly wrong many times in the future. I look forward to it honestly, it reminds me of the importance of humility and the limits of my understanding.
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 80
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/28/2009 2:51:41 PM
LOL, no worries mate, I don't think I could conceive of taking offense at anything - even if there were insults about me and my mother and our unnatural activities being bandied about - so long as its taking place on an internet forum.

Here's my problem with your position in a nutshell...

Your essential position is that you are in pursuit of the truth. I can appreciate this because I too am in search of truth, I find it a more precious thing than fame and fortune. However, and this is the crux of the matter, your approach to knowledge appears to be one of "If you can dream it its possible."

While on the surface I can't disagree with this statement, this at best seems a backwards way of investigating truth. Understand, I'm a writer, so I can imagine all sorts of possibilities. Turning reality inside out, manipulating coincidence and manufacturing the impossible into the compelling is my bread and butter. However, this is a poor substitute for the actual process of investigation when trying to get to "truth", and here's why.

The human mind is capable of amazing creativity, we can even imagine things which aren't yet real. For example, the title of the book eludes me, but it was the one where the author spoke of space travel and other technological feats which had yet to seem possible in the time that the book was written. While on the surface this seems to support your argument, I instead look even deeper. While he spoke of the implausible that wound up becoming reality, there are plenty of things that the human mind creates which can never be. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able dual-wield shot guns with surgical precision. It is impossible for Superman to catch a falling Lois Lane the way he did without at least shattering her body. Keanu Reeves has NEVER been good in anything except Point Break and those Bill and Ted movies - yet he keeps getting cast.

The impossible exists, and man has the ability to conceive of it, and even make it seem like it isn't impossible when it actually is. This is why conceiving of something and then looking for evidence is a backwards approach. Science creates a strong foundation to reach the next level of knowledge. Making assumptions about things which have no evidence, which are not falsifiable, and which are conceived out of pure speculation only appear to serve science in the off chance that they happen to be true. However, the reality is that what amounts to idle speculation detracts from the real discoveries of science and the boundaries that is placed on the possible.
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 82
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/28/2009 8:53:49 PM
Well itsallinthesoul, its because belief is the impetus for action. The belief that it will rain in spite of living in the desert and weather reports to the contrary will put an umbrella in a person's hand. Likewise the beliefs that prayer can heal the sick or injured has kept children out of hospitals.

However it goes deeper than that. The belief that stem-cell research is "playing god" or any other religious argument is stifling one of the most promising medical fields that we can advance in today, research that has such enormous potential that it could actually repair nerve damage and a host of other possible uses.

Even further, martyrdom is not a rational belief, yet it can kill countless non-combatants through the person who acts on that belief. Since belief is not contingent on the evidence, the potential for harm as well as good is based on a coin-toss, whereas actions based on rationality and evidence allow you to have a bit more control - sometimes not much more but any amount of control is better than random chance.

When we pursue the evidence, while it may destroy a bit of our innocence, we are still better equipped to deal with reality. Take your reverence for the Dalai Lama. Are you sure he is the man that he appears to be? Have you looked skeptically at the claims...they are awful one-sided. Here is another view: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200006/01/eng20000601_42058.html

Do I say that this means the Dalai Lama is a terrible person. No. Just that a realistic look at this man who is a leader might allow us to come to a more accurate picture of the world around us. Perspective is important and absolutes along with beliefs without evidence are dangerous. When we believe something without thoroughly examining it there is the potential for harm in supporting a monster or even supporting an idea that can motivate truly good people to commit atrocities.

So going back to your initial question, when someone holds a belief that they have no reason to expect to be true, that belief can directly harm me because of how it directs their actions. Some beliefs may be perfectly harmless, while others are terrifying in their potential to cause harm. While scientific beliefs can also cause harm, their exists a greater ability to mitigate that harm because a scientific approach requires consistency, so each decision must be based on the evidence available.

Oh and Rex...lol, god save us from self-fulfilling prophecies
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 85
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/29/2009 6:58:23 AM
Is that a dangerous belief? Well, it can be. Let me make a hypothetical to illustrate my point.

Let's say that Dalai Lama ultimately DOES want bring back serfdom, etc. This is an insanely backwards political ideology that basically uses human beings as an animal work-force. While labor is cheap in China today, it isn't free, and the face of the economic and educational strata within China is much different from the decades when serfdom took place.

China, and don't laugh at this idea, is demonstrating the effects of an industrial revolution. People are moving from the farms, from being "coolie's" towards working in factories and living in cities. While this is not an endorsement of Chinese politics, the realistic approach demonstrates that a return to serfdom would be a backwards step for China. So maybe the Dalai Lama isn't advocating all sorts of evils, but if he supports the return to serfdom than the change he wants for China could not be considered positive.

This is what I mean by looking at all the evidence. I'm not saying that the very biased article written by the Chinese propaganda machine was Q.E.D. - far from it. However, its hard to write such very convincing propaganda without basing it on SOME fact, and if even PART of that article contained truth then almost saint-like belief of the Dalai Lama is not just erroneous but likely harmful as people support a belief system which hides behind some nice philosophy.

Think about it...."Free Tibet"....so we free Tibet from the Chinese, and we give back to who? Once given back, what are the intentions of the new "ruling class"? If you HAVE done this research before I put the question, kudos to you on your skeptical attitude. If you haven't, and you still supported the idea, ask yourself if supporting an idea of whose consequences you are ignorant of a safe or dangerous practice.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 87
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/29/2009 9:33:59 AM
>>>I do not doubt for a moment that the Tibetan people have been subjected to human rights violations, I do not know with a certainty at whose hands.

It has most definately been done by both the Chinese when they invaded and took over, and the Tibetian ruling party prior to the invasion. The Tibetians basically used the entire country as slaves to build elaborate palaces, whilst the country was starving- meanwhile, the Chinese invaded and commited numerous other human rights violations at the people of Tibet.

The question you should really be asking isn't at whose hands are these people suffering, or "is the enemy of my enemy my friend"(since we've clearly learned that lesson in the 80's with Iraq)- but would you actually be helping the Tibetians by helping the Dalai Lama get back into power?

So yes, in that example, it could be very, very dangerous to wildly offer support to anyone who offers peace, if all you need for your support is a King to promise he'll rule over you beneviolently- and hope to god he keeps his promises.

>>>this is precisely why I believe it is essential to look inwards of one's self for spiritual awareness and not look outside. Hitler had his followers but the rest of the world leaders turned a blind eye

You DO know that Hilter and his inner circle were highly spiritual, right? They spent alot of time looking inward, in acts trying to ressurect Norse spirituality. Not all spirituality leads to a peaceful existence.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 95
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/31/2009 9:44:38 AM
>>>Ever wonder why animals seem to sense events before we do? Could it be that they are indeed more connected to that consciousness than we are? They are certainly more aware of their environment than we are for the most part...it is a matter of their survival that necessitates that awareness.

I think you already answered your question- the reason animals have better senses isn't because they hold a mysterious sixth(or, in some cases, seventh) sense, but rather, they need to make use of their senses to survive. They seem to sense events before us not because they are psychic or can see the future, but rather are more adapt and senstive to noises, to movement, to smells. As you've said, their survival necessitates it.

If animals held a "collective consciousness", then if I quietly hit a bird with an archery kit, and it was injured, but not dead, then that bird would then phsyicly contact all the other birds in the area to warn them of my presense- instead, unless the bird were to audioly warn other nearby birds, they are completely unaware of the change.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 97
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/31/2009 5:54:31 PM
Animals more heavily rely on instinct. Having an instinct to interpret foreshocks, or interpret air currents makes more sense than animals talking to each other telepathically, or being given a heads up by mother nature......
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >