S
Sair
Guest
Definitely one of the best posts I’ve seen on this thread
- Status
S
Sair
Guest
It may just be that you’re asking the wrong questions - there may not actually be a mathematical equation for the subjective experience of love, but it doesn’t follow from this observation that love is therefore illusory, or that it is somehow the result of supernatural magic. The same may well be true of why Mengele’s experiments were morally wrong, and why you may or may not get a particular job on the basis of your application and interview. A mathematical formula for either of these things would need to identify certain constants, presumably (and I must admit to being no mathematician) but if there are many variables in any given formula, it seems to me that there must be a comparable number of possible outcomes.Is the natural world ALL of reality?
Can natural science answer all questions about reality? If yes, please tell me the answers to the following questions.
Of course, I’m making an interesting type of point by asking those questions. They cannot answered because of jurisdictional issues. All the answers to those questions involve things in reality that are outside the jurisdiction of natural science.
- What is the mathematical equation of Love?
- What is its chemical formula?
- What is the biological cell structure of love?
- Using the scientific method, please tell me why Dr. Mengele was out of line.
- Using the principles of calculus, please calculate the mathematical formula that will tell me exactly when I will get my next job.
Love does exist in reality, natural science cannot measure it. Dr. Mengele was out of line, and that was in reality, natural science cannot condemn him… My future job may be a reality (don’t know yet, nobody did the math for me yet) - but the future, though unknown, is in reality.
I’m still trying to find out Who put the ram In the rama lama ding dong…but maybe science will answer that question too
Natural science has its jurisdiction. Supernatural science has its jurisdiction…
I am intrigued by the idea if a supernatural “science”, though - what is the content of such a science? What is its area of study? What are its methods?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Is the natural world ALL of reality?
Can natural science answer all questions about reality? If yes, please tell me the answers to the following questions.
Of course, I’m making an interesting type of point by asking those questions. They cannot answered because of jurisdictional issues. All the answers to those questions involve things in reality that are outside the jurisdiction of natural science.
- What is the mathematical equation of Love?
- What is its chemical formula?
- What is the biological cell structure of love?
- Using the scientific method, please tell me why Dr. Mengele was out of line.
- Using the principles of calculus, please calculate the mathematical formula that will tell me exactly when I will get my next job.
Love does exist in reality, natural science cannot measure it. Dr. Mengele was out of line, and that was in reality, natural science cannot condemn him… My future job may be a reality (don’t know yet, nobody did the math for me yet
I’m still trying to find out Who put the ram In the rama lama ding dong…but maybe science will answer that question too
Natural science has its jurisdiction. Supernatural science has its jurisdiction…
… Superb questions which pose the materialists with insurmountable problems!
T
tonyrey
Guest
What is your concept of love? You once stated something to the effect that it has a sexual origin…
A
Ancient1
Guest
Mankind, or the “intelligentsia”, seem to always believe that we have attained almost full knowledge of everything, with just some gaps to fill in. Then a few hundred years go by and we are proven dead wrong. Classic case: earth is not flat.
We are adding to the body of scientific knowledge, but maybe we only have about .0001% of our facts straight. Not long ago Einstein’s theory of relativity was hailed as a brilliant breakthrough and all theories shifted to accommodate it. Now some scientists want to chuck that old passe relativity out the window because we have the new discovery of “chaos theory.”
Right now “scientific facts” that have trickled down from the highest halls of research to the grade school classroom include global warming, evolution, a gay gene, depression as a neurotransmitter-induced disease (now being called into question in all research facilities, but mums the word while Eli Lilly racks up the profits), mammograms (you’re shooting your chest full of radiation once per year…sounds to me more like a cause for cancer than cure), ETC!
How many of these ideas are really scientifically proven? How many were “established” by studies (usually comprised of 30 college kids, not exactly the general population)? How many will be completely tossed out in 10 or 30 years? Either because new evidence becomes irrefutable, or faulty research is corrected?
Now that science is largely driven by motives of politics, ideology or self-promotion, it may be just as unstable as it was 500 years ago.
We are adding to the body of scientific knowledge, but maybe we only have about .0001% of our facts straight. Not long ago Einstein’s theory of relativity was hailed as a brilliant breakthrough and all theories shifted to accommodate it. Now some scientists want to chuck that old passe relativity out the window because we have the new discovery of “chaos theory.”
Right now “scientific facts” that have trickled down from the highest halls of research to the grade school classroom include global warming, evolution, a gay gene, depression as a neurotransmitter-induced disease (now being called into question in all research facilities, but mums the word while Eli Lilly racks up the profits), mammograms (you’re shooting your chest full of radiation once per year…sounds to me more like a cause for cancer than cure), ETC!
How many of these ideas are really scientifically proven? How many were “established” by studies (usually comprised of 30 college kids, not exactly the general population)? How many will be completely tossed out in 10 or 30 years? Either because new evidence becomes irrefutable, or faulty research is corrected?
Now that science is largely driven by motives of politics, ideology or self-promotion, it may be just as unstable as it was 500 years ago.
S
Sair
Guest
Why are mental concepts fictions? That is kind of like saying that there is no difference, in actuality, between things we might classify as “trees”, say, and things we might classify as “planets”.
I would certainly agree that there can only be one reality, as such - that anything supposedly outside the reality we experience, in any way, is a mere fiction. But at what point do you consider that the reality of an experience, in and of itself, may depart from the reality of that which is experienced? This is not to say that the experience itself did not happen - far from it. It is a question pertaining to the precise nature of the experience and where its origins might lie. There is no doubting the reality of mental experience, after all - we may only be mistaken in judging the reasons for said experience.
To offer a fairly simple example, a person may have an experience that they take to be a direct vision of God. If one wanted to analyse this experience, and get to the bottom of what was really happening, in that one and only reality that obtains, does one simply take this claim at face value, and assume that the person claiming the experience actually did see God? Or does one attempt to break it down into the component parts, such as the person’s upbringing and the beliefs they have formed throughout their life, the physical circumstances that obtained both in their own minds (might they have been encouraged by chemical processes in their brains, or under the influence of particular drugs, for example?) and in the external environment (a particular play of light upon a particular surface?) at the time they supposedly saw God? Again, the question must be asked - what is the value of truth, to us, if not to increase our confidence that what we think is the case at any given time actually is the case?
I
inocente
Guest
Sure, your reality includes your subjective feelings of love, and sure, a peasant girl in the Maghreb will have a different take on love and a lot more besides, and so live in a very different reality to yours.
But unless you have an alternative, I’d reckon the most excellent method for studying those different realities, along with their origins and development, is the science of anthropology.
S
Sair
Guest
Love is an inherently relational experience - the object of love, as such, inspires affection and the desire for the well-being of said object, to the extent that one’s actions are motivated to bring about the well-being of the object. In some circumstances, love may have a sexual origin, but that is not the only origin possible. It certainly was not the origin of what I considered to be the love I felt towards my dog, nor is it the origin of my love for members of my immediate family or certain of my friends. It sounds like you are trying to oversimplify a complex phenomenon.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I see tonyrey was right about you when he said:
But what’s more, you haven’t read any science that investigates the very things you believe are “inaccessible to science.”
I spent most of my professional life working in science, my field was Paleoanthropology and I’ll presume you know what that is. So let’s get past your obvious presumption that you are the only one who understands science. The fact is: you don’t.
This is why: scientists, the real kind, don’t ignore data or try and explain it away. Some do, but they are people in science with an agenda, not true scientists. Darwin was the truest of scientists, he followed where the data led.
Now let’s take your unsupportable assertion that transcendental phenomena are “inaccessible to science.” Not very long ago, molecular genetics a was “inaccessible to science” until we developed the technology that made it accessible. I believe I have posted to you in other threads that you have simply not looked into the science that studies things we consider transcendental because it would disturb your comfortable worldview. And I see you still have not. Which is fine, ignore all you wish, but stop trying to foist your limited and bigoted view of reality off on other people and pretending it’s more rational and informed than the view that takes into account ALL the data.
You have more assertions as equally false to fact as your “inaccessible” one:
False to fact. There are at least thousands of instances of impressions on the senses and experience of people, including a lot ITT I am willing to bet, and actionc in Time/Space that defy the laws of the physics of Time/Space. Do we understand how that works, yet? Nope. Are scientists trying to figure it out? Yes. Are you willing to look objectively at that data? :nope:
Another assertion false to fact. Anything that impacts any part of Time/Space, even the smallest and most limited part, is the black dog that disproves the assertion: all dogs are white. Your assertion is: nothing outside the limits of the physics of Time/Space has left any impact on the material world.
Again thousands, at least, of incidents of people being directly and incontrovertibly impacted in ways impossible by Newtonian physics.
Here is a correct version of what you wrote.
That’s okay. You’ve created an intellectual safe haven for yourself where all things are either explained or explainable and the only things that go bump in the night are branches blown by the wind.
But the facts are: **nothing you have said is empirically demonstrable and all the evidence is on the other side. **
The thread topic is: can science explain reality? You and I agree: yes it can or will be able to. The difference is: you perceive a narrowly defined set of parameters as reality and I am aware that reality has much greater scope than you, a material fundamentalist, are willing to allow.
Others ITT may disagree with me, and think that what we now call transcendental cannot ever be explained by science. But with quantum physics we have finally found the event horizon between this side and the other. Now we have real research scientists (who are getting funded!) looking at the evidence of things you don’t believe exist. In 50-100 years, we will have a variety of theories from a substantial amount of research to begin to explain how this interaction works.
No one says anymore that lightning comes from “the gods.” It’s no longer considered a supernatural phenomenon. And when the contact and interaction between what we call the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant is explained by solid scientific theory, people will stop thinking of that as a supernatural phenomenon. And atheists will not say “Hey, the Kingdom of God is among us!” they will just say “So what? We always knew about the conservation of energy, no big deal, it’s just a new application of that.”
G
Gaber
Guest
Science explaines the quale of reality within its scope by a method limited to observation of surfaces in the way of appearance to senses and their extension by instruments, including math and orders of ligic. Religion and philisophy, insofar as they might, point to Reality, but cannot explain it. When have you last seen an adequate explanation of God and Creation? There are narratives and specularitons, but the closest thing to an “explanation” might be direct experience. There is a huge difference in that case, of a Saint or Sage exegising from an original realization and somene intellectually extrapolating from reading about one, or even listening to one. Such exegesis as are given by a Saint or a Sage are meant to be pointers, not explanations as such. That is the point of proper metaphysics, as well, to eliminate from the mind those suggestions that distract from perceiving truth. And those who think they have explanations simply aren’t looking intensely enough any more, if they ever did.I’m sorry, but I do not think so.
Science’s domain concerns explaining the world of nature and its phenomena.
It is PHILOSOPHY (and Religion) that explain Reality, not science.
Anybody who thinks Science=Reality is under the spell of Scientism, and that is faith-based.
And true science is NOT faith-based in any way. It concerns studying and explaining (defined) natural phenomena. NOT reality.
Got this explanation from a response in another forum. Parapharsed this somewhat and added “religion” to it. Made by a scientist, as a matter fact.
Thought it wa a cool response to a question asked there.
Anybody agree/disagree with it?
T
tonyrey
Guest
I see tonyrey was right about you when he said:
Materialists have to come out the trench they have dug for themselves.
G
Gaber
Guest
“Materialism is the least likely hypothesis.” RA Heinlein.
Materialists have to come out the trench they have dug for themselves.
G
Gaber
Guest
Actually, on the level of their being mental projections, a tree and a planet are equal, as is the idea that you are a person, primarily.
But as to some of your ideas regarding the Invisible influencing materiality, much work has been done and shown that there is some perceptible, and beyond chance, change on/in materiality by thought process alone. Of course, there are those of us who yet consider thought to be very subtle matter/energy, so such phenomena are evidence of what is yet the generally untrained human mind. And awareness itself, particualrly its reflexive nature, is about the least studied and appreciated of all human qualities. It is largely ignored save in the backwaters of scientific and philosophical studies though it is the ocean of the source of our expereince.
But in any case, you of all people might find it interesting to read On the Frontiers of Science: strange machines you can buid.
amazon.com/On-Frontiers-Science-Strange-Machines/dp/0689115628
I
inocente
Guest
First time I’ve ever seen Amazon’s editorial review contain the words “The title should use the term pseudoscience, not science. Not recommended”.
Along the same lines, anyone interested in exploring their mind/reality interface is advised to first shield their brain from electromagnetic psychotronic mind control carriers by making a handy Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie,
B
BobCatholic
Guest
I think you didn’t get my point. Each natural science has its own jurisdiction and questions can only be answered within its jurisdiction.
There is no mathematical equation of love because measuring love is outside of Mathematics’s jurisdiction.
Dr. Mengele was out of line not because of medical science (that judgment is outside of its jurisdiction) but because of objective morality, which is a realm of philosophy and theology.
There are various supernatural sciences out there, and they deal with the study of things that are outside of the 5 normal senses. Theology is the most obvious one, and there are those that study paranormal activity (hello Ghostbusters).
Theology and philosophy dance with each other and make wonderful music together. For example, moral discussions can easily involve both jurisdictions of theology and philosophy.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Love is not a subjective feeling. If you’re talking about feelings, that’s infatuation. Measuring feelings are outside of jurisdiction of the natural sciences I’ve listed in my original question.
Love, and to be specific, agape - unselfish, giving, love, cannot be measured using the natural sciences I have listed, because doing so is outside of their jurisdiction.
If you believe that love is not part of reality, then neither are feelings like hatred, anger, sadness, depression.
I doubt you are going there.
Perhaps, but philosophy is another science that may be better to explain agape. However, since agape is not a natural thing but supernatural, you’ll have to use a supernatural science like theology to explain that better.
G
Gaber
Guest
Whatever your skin beanie is protecting you from, it might be useful to note that the author claims no consistency for the machines as working for everyone. It is, as it says in the preface, similar to having a lip for playing the trumpet. And, indeed, I’ve seen dowsers accurately dowse and when I tried it nothing happened. Same for some of the other devices in the book. Does that mean that there isn’t some realm of sensibilities that account for, say, a dog knowing its master is leaving for home at a time randomly selected by someone else, or other such phenomena? We now know that there is some concentration of iron in the human nose, and moreso in other animals beaks, etc, that now gives credence to the phrase “a nose for North.” Or maybe like some folks in the past, some of us believe we as a race already know everything, despite just starting to come out of ages of materialism?First time I’ve ever seen Amazon’s editorial review contain the words “The title should use the term pseudoscience, not science. Not recommended”.
Along the same lines, anyone interested in exploring their mind/reality interface is advised to first shield their brain from electromagnetic psychotronic mind control carriers by making a handy Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie,
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Awesone post. Very well done, Julia Mae.I see tonyrey was right about you when he said:
But what’s more, you haven’t read any science that investigates the very things you believe are “inaccessible to science.”
I spent most of my professional life working in science, my field was Paleoanthropology and I’ll presume you know what that is. So let’s get past your obvious presumption that you are the only one who understands science. The fact is: you don’t.
This is why: scientists, the real kind, don’t ignore data or try and explain it away. Some do, but they are people in science with an agenda, not true scientists. Darwin was the truest of scientists, he followed where the data led.
Now let’s take your unsupportable assertion that transcendental phenomena are “inaccessible to science.” Not very long ago, molecular genetics a was “inaccessible to science” until we developed the technology that made it accessible. I believe I have posted to you in other threads that you have simply not looked into the science that studies things we consider transcendental because it would disturb your comfortable worldview. And I see you still have not. Which is fine, ignore all you wish, but stop trying to foist your limited and bigoted view of reality off on other people and pretending it’s more rational and informed than the view that takes into account ALL the data.
You have more assertions as equally false to fact as your “inaccessible” one:
False to fact. There are at least thousands of instances of impressions on the senses and experience of people, including a lot ITT I am willing to bet, and actionc in Time/Space that defy the laws of the physics of Time/Space. Do we understand how that works, yet? Nope. Are scientists trying to figure it out? Yes. Are you willing to look objectively at that data? :nope:
Another assertion false to fact. Anything that impacts any part of Time/Space, even the smallest and most limited part, is the black dog that disproves the assertion: all dogs are white. Your assertion is: nothing outside the limits of the physics of Time/Space has left any impact on the material world.
Again thousands, at least, of incidents of people being directly and incontrovertibly impacted in ways impossible by Newtonian physics.
Here is a correct version of what you wrote.
That’s okay. You’ve created an intellectual safe haven for yourself where all things are either explained or explainable and the only things that go bump in the night are branches blown by the wind.
But the facts are: **nothing you have said is empirically demonstrable and all the evidence is on the other side. **
The thread topic is: can science explain reality? You and I agree: yes it can or will be able to. The difference is: you perceive a narrowly defined set of parameters as reality and I am aware that reality has much greater scope than you, a material fundamentalist, are willing to allow.
Others ITT may disagree with me, and think that what we now call transcendental cannot ever be explained by science. But with quantum physics we have finally found the event horizon between this side and the other. Now we have real research scientists (who are getting funded!) looking at the evidence of things you don’t believe exist. In 50-100 years, we will have a variety of theories from a substantial amount of research to begin to explain how this interaction works.
No one says anymore that lightning comes from “the gods.” It’s no longer considered a supernatural phenomenon. And when the contact and interaction between what we call the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant is explained by solid scientific theory, people will stop thinking of that as a supernatural phenomenon. And atheists will not say “Hey, the Kingdom of God is among us!” they will just say “So what? We always knew about the conservation of energy, no big deal, it’s just a new application of that.”
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Interesting post--------------I would say the closer one gets to “reality,” the better. Which sort of puts science near the top of the “list.”
A
atheistgirl
Guest
I wonder if this paper was written by white American/Euro-centric scientists?
Because my people have been galloping at 30 to 50 miles an hour on horses for centuries
Perhaps they should have asked them!
Sarah x
- Status