Forums | MacLife

mo' ron wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

ut I do mean beyond just a "why are we here" sort of thing and more a sort of the phenomenological metaphysics of everyday life and the "mechanics" of how it all hangs together. Absolutely.

The absurdity of it does make you hope there is an afterlife, so that you can find the answer. It's depressing to think that we might die and never know, since death is just death.

But i've never seen or heard a description of an afterlife that wasn't illogical. The only thing that would make sense is if it's just like earth, except we're all superman, but even that would have its own set of questions.

But, I think supernatural means something that could never be tested, not even theoretically.

By the parameters the Bible lays out for God, in that we can't test him, by definition that would be supernatural.

As to what is the nature of thought, since there are theoretical ways we could test it, thought itself is not supernatural.

Well, you know I do believe that death is death and that I do not believe something still somehow "lives" on at death.

I have to disagree though about the parameters laid out in the Bible though. The Bible says that God can be tested in certain regards, and can be affected by human actions.

Can it be tested in the sense soulcrusher is suggesting? I dont think so, but there is a lot I dont know. I know this: when we think about certain aspects of what our own reality "is" it gets a bit foggy. Some of those areas are seemingly mundane.

-How is it that parts can ever compose any whole? What properties must be satisfied in order to say that X is an aggregate of Y's?
-Does time exist? If so, what is it?
-What is language, how does it work, and why does it work?
-Do facts exist independent of human observation (trees falling in forests for instance)?
-Is there such a concept as meaning (meaning which would stand on its own, objectionably)?
-Do facts have any objective meaning independent of human existence?
-If physical events happen in such a way because the universe determines it, is it then right to say it was "supposed" to happen?
-Are determined events even possible unless minds are "supposed" to encounter them in such a way? If not, then in what way are facts facts?

I think these are questions that may not ever get a clear and satisfying manner from science, but are metaphysically meaningful and may say something about how what is possible physically seems to indicate something more.

And not one off "Ghost Hunters".

ShnickyShnack wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

The absurdity of it does make you hope there is an afterlife, so that you can find the answer. It's depressing to think that we might die and never know, since death is just death.

But i've never seen or heard a description of an afterlife that wasn't illogical. The only thing that would make sense is if it's just like earth, except we're all superman, but even that would have its own set of questions.

But, I think supernatural means something that could never be tested, not even theoretically.

By the parameters the Bible lays out for God, in that we can't test him, by definition that would be supernatural.

As to what is the nature of thought, since there are theoretical ways we could test it, thought itself is not supernatural.

Well, you know I do believe that death is death and that I do not believe something still somehow "lives" on at death.

I have to disagree though about the parameters laid out in the Bible though. The Bible says that God can be tested in certain regards, and can be affected by human actions.

Can it be tested in the sense soulcrusher is suggesting? I dont think so, but there is a lot I dont know. I know this: when we think about certain aspects of what our own reality "is" it gets a bit foggy. Some of those areas are seemingly mundane.

-How is it that parts can ever compose any whole? What properties must be satisfied in order to say that X is an aggregate of Y's?
-Does time exist? If so, what is it?
-What is language, how does it work, and why does it work?
-Do facts exist independent of human observation (trees falling in forests for instance)?
-Is there such a concept as meaning (meaning which would stand on its own, objectionably)?
-Do facts have any objective meaning independent of human existence?
-If physical events happen in such a way because the universe determines it, is it then right to say it was "supposed" to happen?
-Are determined events even possible unless minds are "supposed" to encounter them in such a way? If not, then in what way are facts facts?

I think these are questions that may not ever get a clear and satisfying manner from science, but are metaphysically meaningful and may say something about how what is possible physically seems to indicate something more.

Interestingly, science is starting to show -- with what might be considered "proof" for those willing to believe it -- that life does continue after death. There are many clinical examples of patients who experience brain death, who are hooked up to every manner of measuring device to confirm that fact, who are revived and recall events -- visual as well as auditory details -- during the period of their death.

Some neuroscientists are even saying they've confirmed the existence of the soul.

What a crock.

Chickenhawk wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

Well, you know I do believe that death is death and that I do not believe something still somehow "lives" on at death.

I have to disagree though about the parameters laid out in the Bible though. The Bible says that God can be tested in certain regards, and can be affected by human actions.

Can it be tested in the sense soulcrusher is suggesting? I dont think so, but there is a lot I dont know. I know this: when we think about certain aspects of what our own reality "is" it gets a bit foggy. Some of those areas are seemingly mundane.

-How is it that parts can ever compose any whole? What properties must be satisfied in order to say that X is an aggregate of Y's?
-Does time exist? If so, what is it?
-What is language, how does it work, and why does it work?
-Do facts exist independent of human observation (trees falling in forests for instance)?
-Is there such a concept as meaning (meaning which would stand on its own, objectionably)?
-Do facts have any objective meaning independent of human existence?
-If physical events happen in such a way because the universe determines it, is it then right to say it was "supposed" to happen?
-Are determined events even possible unless minds are "supposed" to encounter them in such a way? If not, then in what way are facts facts?

I think these are questions that may not ever get a clear and satisfying manner from science, but are metaphysically meaningful and may say something about how what is possible physically seems to indicate something more.

Interestingly, science is starting to show -- with what might be considered "proof" for those willing to believe it -- that life does continue after death. There are many clinical examples of patients who experience brain death, who are hooked up to every manner of measuring device to confirm that fact, who are revived and recall events -- visual as well as auditory details -- during the period of their death.

Some neuroscientists are even saying they've confirmed the existence of the soul.

What a crock.

How very scientific of you. A credit to the profession, really.

resedit wrote:

If you come up with something - you document it by experiments that others can repeat. That requires a controlled experiment, and you can not subject the supernatural to such control.

Why can you not submit the supernatural to such control?

Because it is supernatural, there is no way to control the supernatural by natural means. Basic logic.

You'll have to outline this basic logic for me.

The only way I can see this being basic logic is if you define supernatural as those events which are beyond nature.

Just because something obeys different laws than the ones of common-day objects does not mean it cannot be studied scientifically.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Interestingly, science is starting to show -- with what might be considered "proof" for those willing to believe it -- that life does continue after death. There are many clinical examples of patients who experience brain death, who are hooked up to every manner of measuring device to confirm that fact, who are revived and recall events -- visual as well as auditory details -- during the period of their death.

Some neuroscientists are even saying they've confirmed the existence of the soul.

What a crock.

How very scientific of you. A credit to the profession, really.

More like this guy is unscientific.

*Starred Review* Neuroscientist Beauregard is no flighty New-Ager or Creationist but, he says, one of a minority of neuroscientists who don't adhere to strictly materialist interpretation of the human mind. He and his ilk believe that scientists who strive to explain the mind as an illusion created by the brain's chemical reactions ignore or vastly miscalculate the expanse of all that goes on in the universe. That is, it is too limiting to strictly confine the origin of all human thought to material or chemical interactions. In this complex tome, he describes the intricacy of his work and proposes that humans don't so much generate as transmit thoughts, and that by virtue of human ability to mentally interconnect with a higher consciousness, the actions of the mind become distinct and separate from, though observable by means of, the brain. He set out to prove his theory by studying a group of Carmelite nuns as they experienced God in prayer and meditation. Beauregard would be the first to note that, while his work doesn't ipso facto prove the existence of God, it does lend scientific credence to the existence of a higher or universal consciousness. Chavez, Donna

And I have a hard time believing that somebody who suffers true brain death can be revived. You'll need to supply a source for that.

It's hardly surprising that the little understood processe that make up normal human consciousness would be affected by trauma in such a way that when interpreted, by those same processes, are shown to be something little understood.

We aren't sufficiently self aware to know our own minds under normal circumstances, let alone under trauma. To assign mythological precepts to the unknown is hardly new, but it's hardly science.

I group these people in the same group as the sky-god crowd.

If you want me to think otherwise, how about you bring some actual evidence to the table, and don't just tell me to buy this guy's book.

Last edited by Chickenhawk (2008-01-22 9:56 am)

Chickenhawk wrote:

I group these people in the same group as the sky-god crowd.

If you want me to think otherwise, how about you bring some actual evidence to the table, and don't just tell me to buy this guy's book.

I don't want you to think in any particular way. I'm simply amused by your snarky hypocrisy.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

I group these people in the same group as the sky-god crowd.

If you want me to think otherwise, how about you bring some actual evidence to the table, and don't just tell me to buy this guy's book.

I don't want you to think in any particular way. I'm simply amused by your snarky hypocrisy.

Its hypocritical  that I don't believe this guy because I am not willing to believe on blind faith, and what this guy is saying goes against my preconceptions, so I need a deal of good evidence before I believe otherwise? Right.

Go believe what you want. That doesn't mean that I won't pop up and give a rational response.

I see a great divide here based on how people see the unknown. Some see something they don't know and take the simplest possible answer. Some take the unknown and extrapolate the supernatural. I'd say that just about sums up the divide between science/rationality and religion/spirituality.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I don't want you to think in any particular way. I'm simply amused by your snarky hypocrisy.

Its hypocritical  that I don't believe this guy because I am not willing to believe on blind faith, and what this guy is saying goes against my preconceptions, so I need a deal of good evidence before I believe otherwise? Right.

Go believe what you want. That doesn't mean that I won't pop up and give a rational response.

Man, you're sounding exactly like resedit! This is most comical.

In case there's any remaining rationality in there, I wasn't expecting you to accept anything whole cloth. I'm merely referring to your contemptuous dismissal based on nothing at all but your own prejudice. Hardly scientific!

A comical reminder of how the scientific method has at its core the same flaw as religious belief -- it relies on human beings.

Nice troll!