Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And some Christians resent those who do not believe the Bible. You are just like them. Your resentment has no place in an honest discussion. Go home.

You seem to be confused. I said those who benefit from and denigrate or misrepresent science. You said that is the same as not believing. Only a lazy thinker would see those as equivalent.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Science is the only way to generate objective knowledge that can be repeatedly demonstrated to be an accurate description of how the natural world works.Trees are not conscious just because you say so.

I agree with the first sentence and more or less agree with the second, but there seems to be an implication that there is any way to demonstrate that trees -- or anything else -- are conscious. There is not. Consciousness is inherently subjective and outside the purview of science for that reason.

Note that what I say here of consciousness is not true of intelligence; that we can demonstrate objectively. (And no, trees do not demonstrate intelligent behavior.)

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I agree with the first sentence and more or less agree with the second, but there seems to be an implication that there is any way to demonstrate that trees -- or anything else -- are conscious. There is not. Consciousness is inherently subjective and outside the purview of science for that reason.Note that what I say here of consciousness is not true of intelligence; that we can demonstrate objectively. (And no, trees do not demonstrate intelligent behavior.)

I think if you start out with a well defined idea of what conscious is supposed to mean then you could test for it. Unfortunately the term consciousness has been co-opted and subsequently mangled be the various New Age fads. This makes discussing the concept difficult. People like Eric can hide behind the vagueness of the term in order to avoid a straight up, objective test. It's SOP for woo meisters everywhere.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

I think if you start out with a well defined idea of what conscious is supposed to mean then you could test for it. Unfortunately the term consciousness has been co-opted and subsequently mangled by the various New Age fads. This makes discussing the concept difficult. People like Eric can hide behind the vagueness of the term in order to avoid a straight up, objective test. It's SOP for woo meisters everywhere.

Intelligence is a vague term. I suppose if you wish to define it precisely, you could do that and test for it. But you only succeed in testing for it in the way you have defined it.

Non-evergreen trees know when to drop their leaves and grow them again. That is intelligence. It is not the same as animal and human intelligence.

Vandal, I see no evidence yet that you are interested in an honest discussion of consciousness.

You accuse some self-defined group called "new agers" of destroying science. Most of them have no effect on science at all. There are new age scientists. There are others who are very ignorant of science and make unfounded statements. I am not one of those, despite what some people here say-- without any proof that can stand up. However, most "new agers" like me are simply interested in pursuing pathways that can improve their lives in various ways, and they are involved in them because they work for them. If they work, that has zero to do with you Vandal. These might include everything from a spiritual path to eating right, or learning to use intuition to gain insight into their lives, or creating more peace through meditation of various kinds, etc., and are just going about their business, and whether you like what they or do or not has absolutely nothing to do with them OR you (since you evidently have zero interest in these things), and they have no effect on science at all. "New agers" have ideas about "consciousness" that help them or guide them in what they are doing, and again they have nothing to do with what you are interested in (perhaps studying the brain or some other science fad that probably has nothing to do with what new agers are interested in doing, or else that might have some use to them, depending on what they are doing or learning about). Your desire to debunk or disprove their activities in order to enforce your dogma, is completely beside the point, and your "objective test" requirement has nothing to do with the truth or reality of what they are involved in, and has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

You seem to be confused. I said those who benefit from and denigrate or misrepresent science. You said that is the same as not believing. Only a lazy thinker would see those as equivalent.

It is the same, because you are a true believer. You hold science as the test for any knowledge or any benefit. That is belief. You are not interested in thinking. You are only interested in knocking what you don't understand, and telling people they should run tests. It doesn't take much insight or thought to do that.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Intelligence is a vague term. I suppose if you wish to define it precisely, you could do that and test for it. But you only succeed in testing for it in the way you have defined it.

Yeah. It's called science.

Non-evergreen trees know when to drop their leaves and grow them again.

No they don't. It's basic physiology, genetics and stimulus/response.Take a tropical adapted species and raise it in a temperate region. No matter how matter how many seasons the plants are there they won't "learn" to drop their leaves. There is no knowledge involved in abscission.

That is intelligence. It is not the same as animal and human intelligence.

Mangling the definition of a word so it can mean whatever you want it to mean. If it's not the same then why are you insisting on using the same term for it? A real scholar would develop a new term to describe the phenomena under study. But, you don't want to do that because you wouldn't be able to go around claiming that trees are "intelligent". In other words you wish to project to others that you somehow possess some knowledge about biology that has escaped the attention of tens of thousands of professionals. It's pure ego on your part.

Vandal, I see no evidence yet that you are interested in an honest discussion of consciousness.

I have yet to see you propose an objective, honest definition of the term necessary before any sort of discussion could ever take place.

You accuse some self-defined group called "new agers" of destroying science.

Hardly. I said they denigrate and misrepresent it. There is no way that New Agers are any sort of threat to science itself. You can't destroy a process that works.

Most of them have no effect on science at all.

Agreed. All they really do obscure the possible understanding of the general public.

There are new age scientists.

Citation please.

There are others who are very ignorant of science and make unfounded statements. I am not one of those, despite what some people here say-- without any proof that can stand up.

You most certainly are "one of those". Your constant reference to The Secret Life of Plants is a dead giveaway.

However, most "new agers" like me are simply interested in pursuing pathways that can improve their lives in various ways, and they are involved in them because they work for them. If they work, that has zero to do with you Vandal. These might include everything from a spiritual path to eating right, or learning to use intuition to gain insight into their lives, or creating more peace through meditation of various kinds, etc., and are just going about their business, and whether you like what they or do or not has absolutely nothing to do with them OR you (since you evidently have zero interest in these things), and they have no effect on science at all.

All of that is perfectly true. The problem comes when they try to justify their choices by making reference to various scientific concepts. They wish to stamp their beliefs with the social legitimacy of "science based" without actually undergoing the rigorous testing that science requires. In the process of claiming scientific support for their claims they invariably distort, misrepresent or out and out fabricate the science.That's were I step in. Your malarkey "shall not pass!"

"New agers" have ideas about "consciousness" that help them or guide them in what they are doing, and again they have nothing to do with what you are interested in (perhaps studying the brain or some other science fad that probably has nothing to do with what new agers are interested in doing, or else that might have some use to them, depending on what they are doing or learning about). Your desire to debunk or disprove their activities in order to enforce your dogma, is completely beside the point, and your "objective test" requirement has nothing to do with the truth or reality of what they are involved in, and has nothing to do with it.

Like I said, "pure group fantasy". Just don't go around implying that there is any shred of evidence supporting your claim.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is the same, because you are a true believer. You hold science as the test for any knowledge or any benefit. That is belief. You are not interested in thinking. You are only interested in knocking what you don't understand, and telling people they should run tests. It doesn't take much insight or thought to do that.

The cry of the misunderstood genius? The fact that your ideas will never pass any of those tests indicates that what you call "thinking" is nothing more than wishing and playing make-believe.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

It's basic physiology, genetics and stimulus/response.Take a tropical adapted species and raise it in a temperate region. No matter how matter how many seasons the plants are there they won't "learn" to drop their leaves.

They did learn, over time, and they know what to do. Your assumption of how it works as if trees had no life, is no better than my observation.

you wish to project to others that you somehow possess some knowledge about biology that has escaped the attention of tens of thousands of professionals. It's pure ego on your part.

Many philosophers understand that traditional biology has nothing to do with life.

I have yet to see you propose an objective, honest definition of the term necessary before any sort of discussion could ever take place.

I have defined it often in past posts. Your comments make it clear you are not interested in a definition.

All they really do obscure the possible understanding of the general public.

They don't prevent anyone from studying science. Scientists have far, far more influence on the general public than new agers. Their propaganda is far more influential than new age views.

Citation please.

Your request shows how narrow your reading experience is. Maybe later, if I feel like it; knowing you will reject them.

You most certainly are "one of those". Your constant reference to The Secret Life of Plants is a dead giveaway.

You knocking it is a dead giveaway. Those were real scientific studies, if memory serves. I might post about it later, but discussions with you so far are too boring to bother.

The problem comes when they try to justify their choices by making reference to various scientific concepts. They wish to stamp their beliefs with the social legitimacy of "science based" without actually undergoing the rigorous testing that science requires. In the process of claiming scientific support for their claims they invariably distort, misrepresent or out and out fabricate the science.That's were I step in. Your malarkey "shall not pass!"Like I said, "pure group fantasy". Just don't go around implying that there is any shred of evidence supporting your claim.

If new agers find some value in scientific studies, that is their business and not yours, and has no effect on science. You are just pedalling dogma and trying to stop people from pursuing things that improve their lives. Your tests have no relevance to any new age claims, because they are narrow minded and phony at the start. The studies you demand have no relationship to studies pursued by "new agers." Your dismissal of chakras is a dead giveaway. You are just knocking what you can't understand, and don't wish to bother with. If new agers want science to back their claims, there are plenty of them if they are interested in that kind of evidence. That doesn't mean a dogmatist like you would accept them. You don't think there is any other knowledge except science. That is true belief, and does not deserve any argument. You and the Amazing Randi are just frauds and circus acts. I am not amused.

Eric, your posts prove more than ever that you are as close-minded as any Fundamentalist Christian, your knee-jerk defense of the chakra nonsense is little different than some Fundies here in MN who were defending faith healing after they were charged with child endangerment and 2nd degree Manslaughter because they refused real medicine for their dying cancer-stricken son.

You are not a philosopher. YOU ARE AN ARROGANT CRANK, in the same league as Alistair Crowley, Edgar Cayce, Deepak Chopra, Ken Wilbur, and that time-cube guy.

Originally Posted by Odin

in the same league as Alistair Crowley, Edgar Cayce, Deepak Chopra, Ken Wilbur, and that time-cube guy.

Thanks for the compliment

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

I think if you start out with a well defined idea of what conscious is supposed to mean then you could test for it.

Consciousness is the subjective awareness of events. It is, distinct from the faculty of an intelligent responsiveness (which could be mimicked by a computer), the fact that a subject is aware and experiencing the events from within.

Tell me a test for that.

Vandal forgets the title of this thread, and should probably use the Materialism thread instead. Philosophy trumps science, because it clarifies the concepts and ideas that we bring with us to any scientific study. A world view is also basically a choice, a choice of which sorts of observations, experiences and concepts are to have priority. I regard certain worldviews as ethically and morally more advantageous than others. This is not a fallacy of disregarding truth because it violates your choice of values. You have already chosen which world view to adopt, based on which kinds of observation you are giving priority. And such a so-called "fallacy" also disregards the fact that values may also be regarded as truths, depending on your view of ethics (absolute or relative).

Folks like Vandal choose to disregard those kinds of observations that don't fit neatly into their little game. But these games are subject to analysis by philosophy, and a less-narrow philosophy will show them up as too limited.

My worldview is not essentially different from Brian's, in that I see freedom and creation as parts of the natural world, not imposed on it from outside. Seeing indeterminacy, he chooses to call it "a new kind of materialism." The only difference I see to my "spiritualism," is that he arbitrarily decides to close himself off from certain experiences of this world we live in, which there is no reason within his worldview to close off from except such an arbitrary choice. These include such experiences as life after death, spirit communication, and psychic experiences (but explained as psychic, rather than as some probability process according to his or Bob Butler's kind of theory). He also limits himself to sense experience, and yet admits other kinds of cognition (which makes no sense to me, since they provide data that the senses do not), and on the one hand disregards the evident fact that definitions and logic cannot be accurate (and yet accepts that mathematical concepts, which he accepts as valid and which are needed for quantitative statements in science, are cognitive rather than empirical), and so is more rationalist than me in ways compatible with materialism, but less rationalist than me in ways compatible with spiritualism (since I accept that archetypes, if grounded in experience, are relevant concepts to entertain).

So if I am a "creationist," as Odin claims, then it is creation as a natural part of our experience that I recognize. You could call it indeterminacy, and I also call it life. Spirit is an inherent part of the natural world, what earlier philosophers called the fifth element (the term "element" having been revised to "states of matter" in later physics, and "element" re-applied to atomic weights and numbers). A less-spiritualist label for it would be "space," but "space" seems according to modern physics to be filled with dark energy, which makes up the majority of the universe, and which is still a mystery. That mystery alone doesn't give me the right to call it "spirit," as a term of physics, but since that word accords more with my experience of my world, I use it.

More on matter, spirit, philosophy, and the big bang in my next post. Otherwise I am giving the materialists here (if they so choose) too much to chew up, grind to bits, and spit out all at once.

It seems to me that the philosopher Bergson specifically proposed the big bang theory before the astronomer Hubble did. As he explained it in 1907, the world and life are the result of an "original impetus" that spews forth like a jet spray, and then falls back and condenses into what we call "matter." This is "creation" as he used the term, and defined "God" as this original impetus. We see that Stephen Hawking says that the big bang was not itself determined by any cause. Being spontaneous, then, this is not different from Bergson's view. I have classified Hawking as a materialist, about 20M/20R in the rationalist quadrant of my wheel, but I may need to look more closely at his book (which I have in my library) to double-check if this is correct. So this makes the big bang an example of "creationism," but it is not necessarily the dictate of a "god," and in any case, such a god would have to be explained in turn. God, in more New Thought terms (as opposed to traditional Christian creation mythology), is simply the reality of the being of the universe; or as the scholar of Buddhism Alan Watts says, "what there is." And that is our essential identity as well; we "humans" who are observing and discussing it. It is the one power, the one presence, the one mind everywhere, and in all. Those words endow God with more than what a materialist physicist would endow ("Him") with. But this "God" is still not a God among many gods, who arbitrarily decides to create something. It is the universe just being itself, and "in action."

Perhaps the big bang arises from an attraction; that God "creates" as a final rather than prior or efficient cause. If the result is "matter" though, then it is something that brings what we call "evil" in the world; in other words, something that could be a challenge; something stupid with which spirit grapples and converts into spirit again. Bergson gives a good definition as merely the lack of something; a deficit. A deficit of what? Of the energy from the original impetus, that falls back and condenses. That seems accurate, if we look at what "matter" really is. It seems to be that which resists an application of energy to it, and energy is even defined as that which "can do work," or in other words, reverse the inertia of matter and set it in motion. But what is this inertia? Simply the lack of energy in the first place, such that it needs to be set into motion again by some greater energy than what it possesses within itself. So matter is just a lack of energy. And we know that "matter" can be converted into energy, when the energy within it is released. Materialists put the cart before the horse, and really make the tail wag the dog.

That energy seems to be mainly "the strong force," by which the "particles" within a nucleus adhere together. It seems to be very strong indeed. That may explain how such "particles" stick together in protons and neutrons. Perhaps "bosons" explain how the protons/neutrons themselves stick together, but I don't see how this explains how the larger atoms and molecules stick together and thus resist attack and exhibit inertia. Maybe someone here can tell me how, or there may be such an explanation in the future, but for now I can only fall back on the "states of matter" idea, which to me seem like nothing but archetypes, the ancient five elements. "Solidity" explains why matter exists in a dense state, and the other "elements" are less dense, according to how much heat they have, as applied from the fire element, or perhaps how much motion they have, as applied by the spirit element, the "prime mover" or "soul." But just why a particular amount of heat results in a change of state, and just why and what these states really are, remains a mystery to physics, which I would explain by the archetype.

As for what "particles" are, they seem to be what results when some larger "particles" are smashed together at high speed, and the physicists can call them "particles" because there is an inherent togetherness that holds it together as a "particle" after the larger particle is smashed. But then what holds these "elementary particles" together, in turn? This may be where string theory comes in someday, which explains "matter" as "strands of energy." We are back to where we started with Bergson, and we also get the ancient spiritualist idea that the world is like musical vibration. Pythagoras was right after all-- the first strong theorist, as he is now called by string theorists. There is at bottom nothing but this "energy," and nothing can explain this energy except the prime mover, which is present everywhere at all times.

And there may have been many "big bangs," resulting in universes that long ago expanded and escaped the event horizon of what we can observe by means of light, as our own universe is now predicted to do. It may be a periodic occurance, like the heartbeat of the universe. 13.7 billion years is not so long ago by cosmic reckonings. Our earth itself, and the life upon it, is as old as 1/3 of that time. So other ETs beings, who may be advanced enough to travel faster than light, probably by spiritual means as well as physical, may have only advanced some thousands or a few millions years beyond ourselves. That is a long time in human terms; and what might we achieve in a million years, when we have only been around a few million years, and civilized only a few thousand?

It may well be that our understanding of physics (for this universe) may be incomplete. Our technology-in terms of what may be possible-may be primitive. Actually, Earthly civilization may be primitive in general-not very flattering to think about.

according to Michio Kaku we're a 0 on the scale

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

They did learn, over time, and they know what to do.

What are you babbling about? Who are they?

Your assumption of how it works as if trees had no life, is no better than my observation.

At no time did I say that trees aren't alive. I said your claim that abscission is a learned behavior has absolutely no evidence to support it. I'm not observing anything. I'm questioning the validity of your claim.

Many philosophers understand that traditional biology has nothing to do with life.

1 - it would seem that "many philosophers" are clueless morons.2 - what "many philosophers" think is irrelevant and your red herring fallacies are pathetically obvious.

I have defined it often in past posts. Your comments make it clear you are not interested in a definition.

Copy and paste is incredibly simple. Even "many philosophers" should be capable of doing it.

They don't prevent anyone from studying science. Scientists have far, far more influence on the general public than new agers. Their propaganda is far more influential than new age views.

True or false, most local newspapers have a regular horoscope section but do not have a science section?

Your request shows how narrow your reading experience is. Maybe later, if I feel like it; knowing you will reject them.

You don't have a citation. Got it.

You knocking it is a dead giveaway. Those were real scientific studies, if memory serves. I might post about it later, but discussions with you so far are too boring to bother.

Nope. The authors made a bunch of wild unsupported claims by radically distorting what science had actually discovered. Big hint. Popular books are not where real discoveries about the properties of living things are initially announced.

If new agers find some value in scientific studies, that is their business and not yours, and has no effect on science.

Except that their business often involves distorting, misrepresenting or lying about what the science actually is. As a science educator, that directly impacts my ability to do my job. And of course the make-believe stories New Agers tell each other will have no effect on the process of scientific research. But, the public's trust of science and willingness to support various types of research is affected by how poorly they understand the basics. New Age crap interferes with that understanding.

You are just pedalling dogma and trying to stop people from pursuing things that improve their lives.

I'm just pointing out that a great deal of what you claim about the natural world is based on ignorance, distortion, and lies.

Your tests have no relevance to any new age claims, because they are narrow minded and phony at the start.

In other words your claim would fail the test.

The studies you demand have no relationship to studies pursued by "new agers."

I agree. Science has little to offer the realms of make believe. But they do serve to help others recognize your claims for the fantasy that they are. If you would just preface each of your claims with a disclaimer that you are just describing your particular version of the make believe world I wouldn't bother pointing it out each time.

Your dismissal of chakras is a dead giveaway. You are just knocking what you can't understand, and don't wish to bother with.

Place objective evidence that such things as chakras exist here. I'll wait.

If new agers want science to back their claims, there are plenty of them if they are interested in that kind of evidence. That doesn't mean a dogmatist like you would accept them.

Yep. I've spent a great deal of my life learning how to recognize fantasy thought presented as fact.

You don't think there is any other knowledge except science. That is true belief, and does not deserve any argument. You and the Amazing Randi are just frauds and circus acts. I am not amused.

And yet none of your so called "knowledge" can ever seem to pass a simple test. It's not me you have a problem with . . . it's reality that says your crap is just that, crap.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Consciousness is the subjective awareness of events. It is, distinct from the faculty of an intelligent responsiveness (which could be mimicked by a computer), the fact that a subject is aware and experiencing the events from within.Tell me a test for that.

Awareness? How is awareness measured? Is a simple stimulus response indicative of "awareness"?Me thinks we've got some more defining work to do. Substituting one poorly defined term for another doesn't get us any where. Ethologists have had to deal with these types of problems for a long time (mirror test). But of course Eric would hate their definitions. Even though they are measurable and testable, they wouldn't let him make ridiculous claims about different organisms.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Vandal forgets the title of this thread, and should probably use the Materialism thread instead. Philosophy trumps science, because it clarifies the concepts and ideas that we bring with us to any scientific study.

Legitimate philosophy can at times help but that in no way means there is a trumping going on. There is no ideal ranking of thought processes. Only a delusional philosophy major could ever convince themselves of such inanity.

A world view is also basically a choice, a choice of which sorts of observations, experiences and concepts are to have priority. I regard certain worldviews as ethically and morally more advantageous than others.

And yet only one "worldview" actually discovers how the natural world works. It alone can objectively demonstrate that its knowledge is of use in discovering new knowledge.

This is not a fallacy of disregarding truth because it violates your choice of values. You have already chosen which world view to adopt, based on which kinds of observation you are giving priority. And such a so-called "fallacy" also disregards the fact that values may also be regarded as truths, depending on your view of ethics (absolute or relative).Folks like Vandal choose to disregard those kinds of observations that don't fit neatly into their little game. But these games are subject to analysis by philosophy, and a less-narrow philosophy will show them up as too limited.

Limited, only if you agree to the rigged system chosen by the philosopher. But, if we pose such all philosophical worldviews up against the laws of nature, only one will see you safely home.

My worldview is not essentially different from Brian's, in that I see freedom and creation as parts of the natural world, not imposed on it from outside.

Since you don't seem to even know anything about the natural world your worldview is less than useless.

Seeing indeterminacy, he chooses to call it "a new kind of materialism." The only difference I see to my "spiritualism," is that he arbitrarily decides to close himself off from certain experiences of this world we live in, which there is no reason within his worldview to close off from except such an arbitrary choice. These include such experiences as life after death, spirit communication, and psychic experiences (but explained as psychic, rather than as some probability process according to his or Bob Butler's kind of theory). He also limits himself to sense experience, and yet admits other kinds of cognition (which makes no sense to me, since they provide data that the senses do not), and on the one hand disregards the evident fact that definitions and logic cannot be accurate (and yet accepts that mathematical concepts, which he accepts as valid and which are needed for quantitative statements in science, are cognitive rather than empirical), and so is more rationalist than me in ways compatible with materialism, but less rationalist than me in ways compatible with spiritualism (since I accept that archetypes, if grounded in experience, are relevant concepts to entertain).So if I am a "creationist," as Odin claims, then it is creation as a natural part of our experience that I recognize. You could call it indeterminacy, and I also call it life. Spirit is an inherent part of the natural world, what earlier philosophers called the fifth element (the term "element" having been revised to "states of matter" in later physics, and "element" re-applied to atomic weights and numbers).

You don't have a single clue what you are talking about. Your supposed modern definition of element is not accurate at all.

A less-spiritualist label for it would be "space," but "space" seems according to modern physics to be filled with dark energy, which makes up the majority of the universe, and which is still a mystery. That mystery alone doesn't give me the right to call it "spirit," as a term of physics, but since that word accords more with my experience of my world, I use it.

If we don't know what dark energy is how can you claim that space is "filled" with it. This is exactly what I am talking about. You are taking the scientific concept of dark energy and you are distorting it. You don't really understand what physicists mean by the term but you feel that it somehow justifies your particular make-believe.

More on matter, spirit, philosophy, and the big bang in my next post. Otherwise I am giving the materialists here (if they so choose) too much to chew up, grind to bits, and spit out all at once.

Not even. Your drivel is so pathetically obvious it poses little in the way of challenge.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It seems to me that the philosopher Bergson specifically proposed the big bang theory before the astronomer Hubble did.

Here is another demonstration of your pure ignorance or intentional lying. Hubble did not propose the idea of the Big Bang! The original concept of a dynamic, changing and expanding universe came from the independent, theoretical work of Alexander Friedman and George Lemaitre based upon Einstein's recently published Theory of General Relativity.Seriously, if you don't even know the most basic facts, what is the likelihood that you are going present the actual science accurately?

As he explained it in 1907, the world and life are the result of an "original impetus" that spews forth like a jet spray, and then falls back and condenses into what we call "matter." This is "creation" as he used the term, and defined "God" as this original impetus.

That is supposed to be a precursor to Big Bang Theory? You don't really understand what the Theory is, clearly. You look pathetic trying to pretend to understand this.

We see that Stephen Hawking says that the big bang was not itself determined by any cause.

That is one particular position but it is no way the universal opinion of all cosmologists.

Being spontaneous, then, this is not different from Bergson's view. I have classified Hawking as a materialist, about 20M/20R in the rationalist quadrant of my wheel, but I may need to look more closely at his book (which I have in my library) to double-check if this is correct.

His book? Singular? Pathetic. The process of the big bang in no way matches your description of Bergson's view. There was no spewing. There was no falling back.

So this makes the big bang an example of "creationism," but it is not necessarily the dictate of a "god," and in any case, such a god would have to be explained in turn. God, in more New Thought terms (as opposed to traditional Christian creation mythology), is simply the reality of the being of the universe; or as the scholar of Buddhism Alan Watts says, "what there is." And that is our essential identity as well; we "humans" who are observing and discussing it. It is the one power, the one presence, the one mind everywhere, and in all. Those words endow God with more than what a materialist physicist would endow ("Him") with. But this "God" is still not a God among many gods, who arbitrarily decides to create something. It is the universe just being itself, and "in action.

Pseudo-philosophical wanking.

Perhaps the big bang arises from an attraction; that God "creates" as a final rather than prior or efficient cause. If the result is "matter" though, then it is something that brings what we call "evil" in the world; in other words, something that could be a challenge; something stupid with which spirit grapples and converts into spirit again. Bergson gives a good definition as merely the lack of something; a deficit. A deficit of what? Of the energy from the original impetus, that falls back and condenses. That seems accurate, if we look at what "matter" really is. It seems to be that which resists an application of energy to it, and energy is even defined as that which "can do work," or in other words, reverse the inertia of matter and set it in motion.

Man, you don't have a clue. From a physics standpoint all you've said here is "what if C A T really spelled dog."

But what is this inertia? Simply the lack of energy in the first place, such that it needs to be set into motion again by some greater energy than what it possesses within itself. So matter is just a lack of energy.

Matter is not "a lack of energy". It is a form of energy. E=mc^2

And we know that "matter" can be converted into energy, when the energy within it is released.

Nope. Matter is energy.

Materialists put the cart before the horse, and really make the tail wag the dog.

Materialists actually know what they are talking about instead of pretending to knowledge they don't really possess.

That energy seems to be mainly "the strong force," by which the "particles" within a nucleus adhere together. It seems to be very strong indeed.

A force is not an energy. Get your bull rap straight at least.

That may explain how such "particles" stick together in protons and neutrons. Perhaps "bosons" explain how the protons/neutrons themselves stick together, but I don't see how this explains how the larger atoms and molecules stick together and thus resist attack and exhibit inertia.

that's probably because you don't have the slightest clue what a boson is.

Maybe someone here can tell me how, or there may be such an explanation in the future, but for now I can only fall back on the "states of matter" idea, which to me seem like nothing but archetypes, the ancient five elements. "Solidity" explains why matter exists in a dense state,

Some liquids are more dense than solids. Take a look at iron vs. mercury. Ther are some solids that rival gases for low density. You don't seem to know anything about physical chemistry as well as cosmology or particle physics.

and the other "elements" are less dense, according to how much heat they have, as applied from the fire element, or perhaps how much motion they have, as applied by the spirit element, the "prime mover" or "soul." But just why a particular amount of heat results in a change of state, and just why and what these states really are, remains a mystery to physics, which I would explain by the archetype.

Not actually a mystery. Check kinetic molecular theory and thermodynamics. Just because you are a clueless moron does not mean the rest of us are.

As for what "particles" are, they seem to be what results when some larger "particles" are smashed together at high speed, and the physicists can call them "particles" because there is an inherent togetherness that holds it together as a "particle" after the larger particle is smashed. But then what holds these "elementary particles" together, in turn? This may be where string theory comes in someday, which explains "matter" as "strands of energy." We are back to where we started with Bergson, and we also get the ancient spiritualist idea that the world is like musical vibration. Pythagoras was right after all-- the first strong theorist, as he is now called by string theorists. There is at bottom nothing but this "energy," and nothing can explain this energy except the prime mover, which is present everywhere at all times.

Leave it to a clueless New Agers to pretend that string theory has anything to do with the what they claim to already know about. Just because your extremely superficial familiarity with some of the terms used in string theory (frequencies, vibrations, etc,) seems to match terms used by ancient philosophers does not mean there is any actual connection.

And there may have been many "big bangs," resulting in universes that long ago expanded and escaped the event horizon of what we can observe by means of light, as our own universe is now predicted to do. It may be a periodic occurance, like the heartbeat of the universe. 13.7 billion years is not so long ago by cosmic reckonings.

13.7 billion years is the entirety of time by cosmic reckoning. Learn the meaning of the term spacetime please.

Our earth itself, and the life upon it, is as old as 1/3 of that time. So other ETs beings, who may be advanced enough to travel faster than light, probably by spiritual means as well as physical, may have only advanced some thousands or a few millions years beyond ourselves. That is a long time in human terms; and what might we achieve in a million years, when we have only been around a few million years, and civilized only a few thousand?

Homo sapiens have not been around for millions of years. Our species is roughly 200,000 years old.Seriously, you are the walking epitome of the Dunning-Krueger effect.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Here is another demonstration of your pure ignorance or intentional lying. Hubble did not propose the idea of the Big Bang! The original concept of a dynamic, changing and expanding universe came from the independent, theoretical work of Alexander Friedman and George Lemaitre based upon Einstein's recently published Theory of General Relativity.

Bergson still was earlier. Hubble discovered the evidence and proposed the theory for it, not them.

The process of the big bang in no way matches your description of Bergson's view. There was no spewing. There was no falling back.

Sure there is. What explodes out of the big bang cools and condenses.

A force is not an energy.

What's the difference? You're saying there is matter, energy and force. So where is "force" in Einstein's equation? How is "force" related to matter? I've never heard such a distinction from anyone else.

Check kinetic molecular theory and thermodynamics.

How does that explain just why "matter" changes its state at particular levels of heat, and why just these 5 states and no others exist?

Just because your extremely superficial familiarity with some of the terms used in string theory (frequencies, vibrations, etc,) seems to match terms used by ancient philosophers does not mean there is any actual connection.13.7 billion years is the entirety of time by cosmic reckoning. Learn the meaning of the term spacetime please.Homo sapiens have not been around for millions of years. Our species is roughly 200,000 years old. Seriously, you are the walking epitome of the Dunning-Krueger effect.

That's what the string theorists said, according to the string theory website.
(funny you are so arrogant, but you can't read what I wrote)

When you can learn to discuss these things respectfully, you will get better replies than this.

How long we have been around depends on how you define human. There was no reason to correct me. You have so much to learn, dude.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

True or false, most local newspapers have a regular horoscope section but do not have a science section?

False. And a horoscope section in a newspaper does not provide the public with any ideas or beliefs.

But, the public's trust of science and willingness to support various types of research is affected by how poorly they understand the basics. New Age crap interferes with that understanding.

It does not at all. They are just different fields of study.

Place objective evidence that such things as chakras exist here.

Did you know that they correspond to hormone and nerve centers?

Other facts about chakras are, that anyone who is conscious of their own body (as well as clairvoyants seeing them in others), will see them; and descriptions of them have much in common across time and culture.

You assume and set up your own requirements for reality, and then if they don't meet them, declare they aren't real.

I've spent a great deal of my life learning how to recognize fantasy thought presented as fact

Time wasted

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

And yet only one "worldview" actually discovers how the natural world works.

I disagree because I include more in the natural world than you do. You can keep your extremely narrow view of reality. It does not serve or interest me. Maybe Odin will buy it.

If we don't know what dark energy is how can you claim that space is "filled" with it. This is exactly what I am talking about. You are taking the scientific concept of dark energy and you are distorting it. You don't really understand what physicists mean by the term but you feel that it somehow justifies your particular make-believe.Not even. Your drivel is so pathetically obvious it poses little in the way of challenge.

I just repeated what the physicists in the PBS documentary said. I don't claim to be an expert on dark energy. But then, since it is a mystery, who is?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Awareness? How is awareness measured?

It can't be. That's the point. We can't even verify objectively that it exists. We know it exists ONLY because we, ourselves, subjectively, are aware -- and that is something we literally cannot doubt.

Is a simple stimulus response indicative of "awareness"?

No; depending on how "simple" you're talking about, it may be an indication of intelligence, but not of consciousness.

Me thinks we've got some more defining work to do.

Not really. The task is impossible. Consciousness is inherently subjective and all attempts to define it operationally are doomed to failure. That's exactly what I'm saying.

If you disagree, then YOU define it in such a way that:

1) You are defining what people actually mean and care about when they talk about the term, which basically means their own subjective experience, pleasure and pain, and whether this experiencing will go on after they die and if so in what form; and

2) You are not actually defining something else more convenient and calling that consciousness.

I'd be interested in any attempts you may make here, but unsurprised if you don't succeed.

EDIT: The test for any operational definition of consciousness is that it describes something which can be differentiated from a biological automaton. We can imagine a biological entity with all the objective attributes of a human being, including nervous-system operation and intelligent response to stimuli, in which all of this behavior is occurring automatically without any subjective awareness of what is going on. We already know that human beings engage in a fair amount of behavior, including intelligent behavior, unconsciously; imagine a human being in whom all behavior is unconscious in that way, and you have an intelligent-but-not-conscious biological automaton.

Show that any given human being does NOT fit that description, and you have objectively identified consciousness. Note that their own reports of subjective experience do not suffice; reporting could also be done as an intelligent-unconscious response.

ANOTHER EDIT: I am well aware that the above conception of a human being as a biological automaton defies all common sense. The point here is not that this conception is TRUE. I don't believe it is true. The point, however, is that science is not and never will be in a position to SHOW that it is not true. We know it's not true only by non-scientific, purely subjective means of understanding.

The point is that consciousness is and always will be beyond the scope of scientific method because it cannot be observed. It can be experienced from within, yes, but not observed from without.

This is one of two entities we know to exist which are unobservable and therefore beyond the purview of science to answer questions of fact about them. The other is the universe as a whole. We can observe, and scientific method can answer questions of fact about, the parts of the universe and processes within it, but not the whole.

Besides ones involving these two entities, I don't believe there are any questions of fact that are beyond the purview of science, in which I disagree with Eric of course. Other sorts of questions, such as questions of value, are beyond the scope of science regardless of subject matter, but that's a different topic.

FINAL (I PROMISE!) EDIT: "Show that any given human being does NOT fit that description, and you have objectively identified consciousness." I just realized that there is exception. It's trivially easy to show me that I, myself, do not fit that description. Similarly, it's easy to show anyone that he or she does not fit that description, unless of course he or she actually does. The test is to show this of a third party, or even a second party. Show me that you don't fit this description, or that Eric doesn't, and you've got it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I don't believe there are any questions of fact that are beyond the purview of science, in which I disagree with Eric of course.

And even these can be investigated scientifically, according to Eric, although science can't understand them fully. In fact, that's true of any subject investigated. This is due to the nature of the method, rather than the subject matter studied.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Socrates. Plato was an idealist/rationalist. Socrates was the one that the oracle said was the wisest man alive, and he puzzled about this, because he thought he didn't know a damned thing, until he realized that he WAS the wisest man alive because he KNEW he didn't know a damned thing whereas most people hadn't yet understood this. He spent his days showing people that they didn't know what they were talking about until they got irritated enough to kill him.

He kinda sounds like Jesus Christ in that regard.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I always thought that Plato was kind of a nihilist?
Or maybe it was Socrates.

Those damn Ancient Greeks! Always putting words in other peoples mouths. What a bunch of "know-it-alls"!

I think I prefer Sgt. Schultz("I know nothink"!).


Prince