A bit of deep thought for ya
- Thread starter PurpleRain
- Start date
Look brah, it's obvious we're gonna evolve into pure energy beings eventually, and religion was just an explanation based on what we saw, and current logic is based around our system of physics and mathematics, which, to be honest, is relatively limited and we are quite a fledgling race, especially to be thinking about something like that.
We change theories when new things come along to make us change them.
Of course there are other sensations I don't know about, haven't experienced, will never conceive, etc...
But maybe some part of me has and I don't even know.
We change theories when new things come along to make us change them.
Of course there are other sensations I don't know about, haven't experienced, will never conceive, etc...
But maybe some part of me has and I don't even know.
Light is also a vibration, simply of a different medium. Or have you forgotten/not learned of particle-wave-duality of light? Light is simultaneuosly an electromagnetic wave and a particle.PurpleRain said:
By anyways, it is curious how you seem to think that arm-chair-philosopising can arrive at any concrete result regarding the universe. Let's do an experiment shall we:
I have with me a box. There is a item in the box. This is all information about the box you shall receive. What is in the box?
Tell me, do you honestly have any change of even a remote possobility of arriving at the correct answer? Of course not. And even if you did, could you repeat it with another box?
Expirimentation and repeatability are the only tools we have to consistently making true statements regarding the universe. The formalization of this method is logic. If A, therefore B. That is the most simple logical construct in existance.
Logic isn't something mysterious. When you check the calendar and make the connection "Hmm, 2. of june... Weekly meeting at 12. OHSHI I'm going to be late!" you just applied logic. Literally. Any connection, any determination you make regarding the world around is is based on logic. You understanding these words after you read them is an application of logic.
Yet to so boldly misunderstand and claim that there must be something more beyond the visible....?
Hubris. Wisful thinking.
Really, if you don't think the universe is awesome, read upon string theory. According to it, there are between 6 and 9 dimension, not 4. But all but these 4 are only remprary by nature and too small to detect by any current means. And they are all around us.
Are ghosts ans spirits etc. possible? Yes, though if they are found they will no longer be supernatural or spiritualistic. because if you can observe it, then it is reality and science can zero in on it faster than Tomahawk missile. Only thing what science or logic can't tell us anything about, is the undetectable. And if it is undetectable, then it means that you neither can have anything meaningful to say about it outside of speculation and philosophy. After all, if it is undetectable, how can you know anything about it?
I watched some show on the Discovery Channel about "Super Humans" and it showed an old, blind painter. Because of the experiments, it was proven that, despite being blind all his life, he can understand perception. Though it was not established how, because the guy just don't want to be a test subject (he hates the MRI and the loud noises it produces).PurpleRain said:
Honestly, whatever helps you sleep at night. For me, my air conditioner helps me sleep at night.
Seriously though, I'm agnostic. I don't deny the existence of supernatural beings, but without proof of their existence they provide no useful information about how to act. Essentially I'm saying we have to rely on logic because it is the only thing with a single solid base; that which cannot be achieve by logic cannot be reproduced and thus can never have useful results in the physical world. I speak nothing of the spiritual world because I have no idea what will provide useful results there, or even what the term "useful results" means in that context.
Perception is a difficult thing to understand because it changes from person to person. Supernatural explanations aren't needed, however; creatures perceive differently because their brain is built differently. I've heard plenty of these mental exercises like "describe the color red to a blind person" that ultimately have no meaning. You can't make them understand it because a blind person doesn't have the necessary basis concepts to understand it; just as a rat doesn't have the necessary basis concepts to understand algebra. That's the key thing that forms your perception is the basis concepts that you use to analyze higher-level concepts and events. Your brain forms these concepts while you're growing. That's the big reason kids take so long to grow; physically humans could reach adult size much faster than they do (many animals grow a lot faster than we do) but the mental development takes quite a long time.
At any rate, if no combination of your basis concepts can equate to some concept you are exposed to, then you will not understand it (correctly) until the missing pieces can be added. We call this learning (also if it is a combination of basis concepts that is unfamiliar, but this can be learned easier). however, learning becomes monumentally more difficult the more basis concepts are missing. Some of these basis concepts can only be gained through specific senses, and are tuned by those senses. If a concept can only be perceived through a sense a person doesn't posses, then describing that concept to them is as useless as trying to control your computer by drawing on the screen. Maybe you'll FEEL like you did something, but you won't have affected anything that truly matters. This is an inherent limitation in processing devices, not one unique to sentient or organic creatures.
Abstract concepts require no senses, however. Your brain still needs some basis for those concepts as well, and it will have to acquire that basis through perception, but once that is done it will be exactly the same regardless of how the basis was acquired (ideally; human perception is colored by opinion and social interaction as well). Mathematics is a great example; you can't explain "red" to a blind person, but you can explain math. And, eventually, you can continue that explanation as far as to the true nature of light; it's just as possible for a blind person as one who can see, since eyes can't see the true nature of light. But they will never know what it's like for their brain to process a bunch of signals coming from their eyes which their brain interprets as "red," no more than you can explain the nuances of voice tone to a deaf person or religion to the faithless; that last example being a mental block rather than any physical one, but that can be just as effective in preventing communication of ideas.
Reading some of the previous posts, I feel compelled to say this: Logic cannot prove nor disprove (by definition) that which cannot be observed. Even purely abstract ideas, such as the symbol "-1" are rooted in some idea which was observed, and then generalized and abstracted. If an idea comes from something that is not observed, and does not affect the observed, then how our we to say it does or does not exist? Exactly the same thing occurs whether that idea is true or not, so, by superposition of events, it is both true and false, which leads to our observable. It is only when an idea predicts an observable can we test the validity of that idea, and come to a conclusion whether it is true or not.
Seriously though, I'm agnostic. I don't deny the existence of supernatural beings, but without proof of their existence they provide no useful information about how to act. Essentially I'm saying we have to rely on logic because it is the only thing with a single solid base; that which cannot be achieve by logic cannot be reproduced and thus can never have useful results in the physical world. I speak nothing of the spiritual world because I have no idea what will provide useful results there, or even what the term "useful results" means in that context.
Perception is a difficult thing to understand because it changes from person to person. Supernatural explanations aren't needed, however; creatures perceive differently because their brain is built differently. I've heard plenty of these mental exercises like "describe the color red to a blind person" that ultimately have no meaning. You can't make them understand it because a blind person doesn't have the necessary basis concepts to understand it; just as a rat doesn't have the necessary basis concepts to understand algebra. That's the key thing that forms your perception is the basis concepts that you use to analyze higher-level concepts and events. Your brain forms these concepts while you're growing. That's the big reason kids take so long to grow; physically humans could reach adult size much faster than they do (many animals grow a lot faster than we do) but the mental development takes quite a long time.
At any rate, if no combination of your basis concepts can equate to some concept you are exposed to, then you will not understand it (correctly) until the missing pieces can be added. We call this learning (also if it is a combination of basis concepts that is unfamiliar, but this can be learned easier). however, learning becomes monumentally more difficult the more basis concepts are missing. Some of these basis concepts can only be gained through specific senses, and are tuned by those senses. If a concept can only be perceived through a sense a person doesn't posses, then describing that concept to them is as useless as trying to control your computer by drawing on the screen. Maybe you'll FEEL like you did something, but you won't have affected anything that truly matters. This is an inherent limitation in processing devices, not one unique to sentient or organic creatures.
Abstract concepts require no senses, however. Your brain still needs some basis for those concepts as well, and it will have to acquire that basis through perception, but once that is done it will be exactly the same regardless of how the basis was acquired (ideally; human perception is colored by opinion and social interaction as well). Mathematics is a great example; you can't explain "red" to a blind person, but you can explain math. And, eventually, you can continue that explanation as far as to the true nature of light; it's just as possible for a blind person as one who can see, since eyes can't see the true nature of light. But they will never know what it's like for their brain to process a bunch of signals coming from their eyes which their brain interprets as "red," no more than you can explain the nuances of voice tone to a deaf person or religion to the faithless; that last example being a mental block rather than any physical one, but that can be just as effective in preventing communication of ideas.
Reading some of the previous posts, I feel compelled to say this: Logic cannot prove nor disprove (by definition) that which cannot be observed. Even purely abstract ideas, such as the symbol "-1" are rooted in some idea which was observed, and then generalized and abstracted. If an idea comes from something that is not observed, and does not affect the observed, then how our we to say it does or does not exist? Exactly the same thing occurs whether that idea is true or not, so, by superposition of events, it is both true and false, which leads to our observable. It is only when an idea predicts an observable can we test the validity of that idea, and come to a conclusion whether it is true or not.
It's quite sad that you feel there is nothing higher then humanity. I mean look at this grand chaos about you, it's amazing no? My point is, this could be god. God could be the universe? Emotions ranging from anger to love are all very powerful things and perhaps it is enjoyed at a much higher level then we know. God may or may not love us or care, but I feel it quite cynical to believe that it doesn't exist.Macksheath said:
And continue to re-read many things I have writen. You keep seeming to think god it this:
Or some creation man invented. We have no idea what god would be.
I don't agree. Many religions endorse a dangerous form of nihilism; enciting people into give up putting value into a physical world like the one we inhabit and put it all into a metaphysical world that may or may not exist (i.e the afterlife). It encourages people to be 'good' with ulterior motives (the thought of being rewarded with eternal bliss) that perhaps undermines morality itself.PurpleRain said:
In a sense, buying into a religion is a form of giving up your free will that that particular relgion's God has imbued in you in the first place.
It's just another spiritual way of thinking. It can help people find their worth in things or help them get through difficult times. I'm also saying it's good for some people but not for all. I don't believe in any religion.Nifty said:
Sure, that might be the case, but you've just reduced the definition of god into impractical nothingness. Why say god when you can more accurately say universe, if they really are the same thing?PurpleRain said:
After all, the term 'universe' doesn't come with such a load of history, preconsieved notions and misunderstandings.
Emotions as some kind of actual force is a nice thought, but an overdone one, disproved one (as far as we are able) and quite frankly, pure romantic nonsense that doesn't belong outside of romance novels and movies.