(Thread IKs:
Platystemon)
|
Paramemetic posted:The scientific community makes fun of things like "wow lol 60% of people claim to have had a psychic experience, those people are so fukken stupid" but this doesn't actually convince anyone that their experiences weren't real, because they were experiences. No, they don't. The scientific community says that no one has ever been able to prove that psychic experiences are real, in spite of over half a century of attempts to prove them. This doesn't mean they're not real, but it means that scientists have been unable to prove that they're real. Individual scientists may say "those people are so fukken stupid", but I'd cut Dawkins a little slack here. We can't rail against him for shouting "GOD DOESN'T EXIST" at fundamentalists without noting that they've spent a century shouting "EVOLUTION DOESN'T EXIST" at evolutionary biologists like him.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
Paramemetic posted:People like Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and so on are the knights militant of the disenchantment, and they push a strictly materialist perception on the world that at the same time simply doesn't really relate to human experience at all. Cool, it turns out I'm not real and my experience isn't even human.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Sam Harris’ claims are laughable but could you elaborate on the part I bolded? Consciousness hasn't been successfully quantified and while we have pretty good evidence that the brain and consciousness are related there isn't actually evidence that consciousness is caused by the brain or purely related to brain function. It's an assumption we've made dogma because consciousness has been an extremely tricky thing for us to approach. This is usually referred to as the "hard problem of consciousness" and while there are strict materialists who have called it a non-issue or claimed it's already resolved, it hasn't really been at all. We don't know how the experience of experience, qualia, or phenomena occurs, we just know that the experiences happen. We don't know that they stop happening after the death of the brain, because we have no way of knowing that. We assume that it is, conventionally, but there's evidence otherwise that is generally just not engaged with (for example, the work coming out of UVA's Division of Perceptual Studies) because it would be inconvenient. Basically, the question of "does consciousness come from the brain" is unresolved, and yet the fact that it is unresolved means we can't make mechanistic models of behavior and neurology and this is extremely inconvenient so it's just kind of handwaved away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:Cool, it turns out I'm not real and my experience isn't even human. That owns
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
I had a bunch of stuff happen in a house I was living in. Doors slamming and light switches flicking off right in front of me and things moving around when I wasn't watching. I remember feeling excited because hey, maybe this was like proof of paranormal shot or something. But it wasn't. It was just an old house and just lol if you believe in spirits and poo poo in the cold light of day. The only thing out to get you in the basement is your fear of the dark and some guy who crawled in through an open window.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
blaming knowing how our eyes evolved from mammals from fish from protoplasm from cosmic dust excited by nuclear radiation and selfsorted into perpetual motion machines (as long as they're fueled), how electromagnetic light is generated by the big fukken ball of plasma in our sky, and how the aforementioned eyes interpret and process the electromagnetic radiation to feed to our brains, doesn't invalidate or alienate the experience of seeing a beautiful sunset if anything it makes it even cooler tbqh, and the failure to convey that general sense of wonder isn't on big science but our increasingly shoddy education infrastructure Paramemetic posted:There's a small scale and large scale process in play. On the smaller level, we have created an emphasis on desacralization. We want people to see the world as material and meaningless, fundamentally. The principle reaction to this is through conservativism, which is why religious fundamentalism is on the rise. The sun isn't God's gift that gives us crops because we're part of a loving universe that gives meaning to our lives, it's just a big fukken ball of plasma. The feeling of damp grass beneath our bare feet in the morning isn't a transcendental union of our selves with natural beauty, it's condensation on a photosynthesis machine and what are you doing barefoot do you want to get hookworm ugh you idiot
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:That's a weird bit of quote-surgery. Paramemetic posted:I mean they probably mean because somehow the quote is attributed to someone other than the guy who wrote it Oh my bad. You know that thing where Awful.app inserts the quotation wherever the cursor is? That bit me. I was going to respond to SlothfulCobra’s post, decided otherwise, and backed out of the edit menu. Then I quoted Paramemetic. I didn’t notice that the Paramemetic post had been wrapped in the SlothfulCobra quote and when I deleted everything but the one paragraph and the quote tags, I left the wrong opening quote tag.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:No, they don't. The scientific community says that no one has ever been able to prove that psychic experiences are real, in spite of over half a century of attempts to prove them. This doesn't mean they're not real, but it means that scientists have been unable to prove that they're real. Right, that's the dialectical process in action. But yelling "evolution isn't real" at evolutionary biologists is making claims that can be demonstrated false, whereas making claims like "God isn't real" is a bit harder. Without a doubt the experience of God is real for a tremendous number of people, particularly people inclined towards mystical practices and so on. Generally speaking, it's best when scientists talk about science and religious people talk about religion and they don't get involved in each other's turf. We end up in that "god of the gaps" scenario, but only if we assume that the function of god is to fill gaps, and the idea that all religion springs from a desire to answer questions about the natural world is a pretty big stretch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:blaming Yeah I completely agree, hence the nod towards Steiner and Goethian science, which does the same science but introduces it through personal experience. Like, if you want to learn about how plants grow, first observe plants growing. Learning about how plants grow experientially first and then breaking down the biology of it and how it relates to other things gives people a foundation for relating to science in a meaningful way. I'm not trying to attack science as such, it's the institutionalization of science-as-Truth that leads to the stripping of meaningful experience. It is good and cool for people to be able to relate to the stuff they're learning. Anyhow the whole thing was basically tl;dr'd as "I can understand flat earthers because we definitely don't do a good job of presenting scientific materialism in a way that people can relate to since we have a drive to find meaning which science can't provide"
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Right, that's the dialectical process in action. But yelling "evolution isn't real" at evolutionary biologists is making claims that can be demonstrated false, whereas making claims like "God isn't real" is a bit harder. Without a doubt the experience of God is real for a tremendous number of people, particularly people inclined towards mystical practices and so on. It’s odd that you should say this. “Consciousness is caused by the brain” is a a far more testable hypothesis than most in evolutionary biology. Directly stimulate a brain and conscious people describe weird things happening. If a brain becomes sufficiently damaged, any behaviours associated with consciousness cease. I mean sure it could live in The Matrix and the brain is just a voodoo object and poking it triggers functions on silicon hardware, but then again, Satan could have buried all them terrible lizards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It’s odd that you should say this. Well, technically speaking, it's testable for people other than the original perceiver, which is part of why the problem exists with affirming and testing it. But let's not plunge too far down the solipsism hole.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
it must be nice to be dumb because someone will always be there to make excuses for why you believe dumb things
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
Dead Beef posted:it must be nice to be dumb because someone will always be there to make excuses for why you believe dumb things I'm dumb and can confirm it's great
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 03:45
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Right, that's the dialectical process in action. But yelling "evolution isn't real" at evolutionary biologists is making claims that can be demonstrated false, whereas making claims like "God isn't real" is a bit harder. Without a doubt the experience of God is real for a tremendous number of people, particularly people inclined towards mystical practices and so on. Nobody is making a scientific claim that God isn't real. That's probably impossible to prove via the scientific process. However, there's no scientific proof that God is real. And part of science is finding the ways in which our brain plays tricks on us and avoiding those subjective illusions our gray matter casts on our experience. That's the entire reason for scientific methodology - to try to prevent our biases and mistakes from getting in the way. Honestly, it seems like you've got a very biased and mistaken view of science, since you keep focusing in on an imaginary scientific war against religion that doesn't exist outside of Fox News and megachurch sermons. The thing about flat Eartherism is that it isn't really anti-scientific - they'll happily attempt to come up with scientific experiments in hopes of proving the Earth is flat. Instead, the basis of the movement is anti-authority: a belief that NASA, map companies, the US military, earth scientists, and many more are all engaged in a grand worldwide conspiracy to fake a round Earth for presumably nefarious purposes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 03:47
|
|
|
Real science is casting magick spells and if they work for you, keep doing it, if not then experiment doing something else
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
Lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Consciousness hasn't been successfully quantified and while we have pretty good evidence that the brain and consciousness are related there isn't actually evidence that consciousness is caused by the brain or purely related to brain function. It's an assumption we've made dogma because consciousness has been an extremely tricky thing for us to approach. This is usually referred to as the "hard problem of consciousness" and while there are strict materialists who have called it a non-issue or claimed it's already resolved, it hasn't really been at all. We don't know how the experience of experience, qualia, or phenomena occurs, we just know that the experiences happen. We don't know that they stop happening after the death of the brain, because we have no way of knowing that. We assume that it is, conventionally, but there's evidence otherwise that is generally just not engaged with (for example, the work coming out of UVA's Division of Perceptual Studies) because it would be inconvenient. “Do non‐human animals experience reality like we do?” is a question many have pondered. Yet rarely does anyone ask “how can we be so sure plants aren’t conscious”? If they were, how would we know?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
You can learn so much, it's impossible to learn everything but I've found the more you learn the only thing you can be sure about is how little you know. The more you learn the dumber you learn you are which is kinda funny. The less funny thing is getting to the point where you can see the limits of your intelligence and realise there's people whose limits are miles ahead of yours and you'll never get close to them. That's less fun. Anyway this cyberpunk distopia sucks because I can't jam a chip up my nose and be gooder at thinking good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:man if you were gonna write a new New Testament from scratch you would first have to create the universe Alright well I guess I’ll just have to go with plan B: Shouting the N word into a body in the process of forming a black hole
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 04:40
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 05:08
|
|
|
anthroposophy is false op
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 05:08
|
|
|
lol Carl Sagan owns shut up idiot posters trying to talk down to us itt
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:lol Carl Sagan owns shut up idiot posters trying to talk down to us itt carl sagan, noted robotic functionalist and non-proponent of wondrous view of living and spiritual enlightenment at the rare majesty of life
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 05:21
|
|
|
this pale blue dot? there's billions like this, actually, just it's like no big deal
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 05:21
|
|
|
every saint and sinner? well, gosh, when you really think about it there's an infinite number of these, consequentialism is a fiction, pull up the gun and the trigger just like in larry niven's all the myriad ways
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 05:23
|
|
|
i dont really get why science discovering the way that all these things work is supposed to disprove religious or spiritual belief. of course there has to be a way that things work. some things directly challenge certain claims, like evolution contradicting a creationist viewpoint, but biblical literalism is an absurd ideology for idiots who dont get allegory. any sort of intelligent religious belief is entirely consistent with our knowledge of the world as it is. nietzsche was right when he said that god was dead, but it was the industrial revolution, not the march of science, that did it. "all that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned," and so on and so on. is that even a coherent post? im too high to tell
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 05:23
|
|
|
It’s too coherent to pass for a speech from the Leader of the Free World.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
i strive for turmpiness in all things
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 05:34
|
|
|
all i know is that this dead cod i'm examining is showing some fascinating brain activity
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 06:19
|
|
|
Tastykake posted:i dont really get why science discovering the way that all these things work is supposed to disprove religious or spiritual belief. of course there has to be a way that things work. some things directly challenge certain claims, like evolution contradicting a creationist viewpoint, but biblical literalism is an absurd ideology for idiots who dont get allegory. any sort of intelligent religious belief is entirely consistent with our knowledge of the world as it is. nietzsche was right when he said that god was dead, but it was the industrial revolution, not the march of science, that did it. "all that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned," and so on and so on. it's basically about power historically, there's two main things that can cause a rise in fundamentalism: 1) when the powerful educated priest class falls out of favor with the populace due to blatant corruption or something along those lines, and is displaced by a political or actual revolution, it's common to adopt a "back to basics" approach based solely on the original scripture - something that any literate layman can read and comprehend without having to study centuries of unofficial priestly tradition. the rise of Protestantism featured this to an extent 2) when the religious cultural structures that dominated and controlled a society are sidelined by brutal secular capitalism, the hardcore religious community tends to radicalize in response, often demanding stricter observance and an abandonment of the interpretations that have been used to fit millennia-old religious rules into a modern life. on top of that, because the religious community usually faces less repression than political organizations do, it often serves as a gathering point for political dissenters who are dissatisfied with the ruling power in society. this is pretty much the course of events that led to all the powerful militant Islamist organizations in the Middle East and surrounding regions the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the US basically falls into category 2. all the ranting and raving about how science is trying to kill God is basically made up by elements of the religious power structure. what they're really mad about is how their power over society has substantially weakened since they've been increasingly displaced by a secular elite framework, so they're whipping up a persecution complex among the believers they have left.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 06:44
|
|
|
Prav posted:all i know is that this dead cod i'm examining is showing some fascinating brain activity Buy it an account
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 07:13
|
|
|
I’ve been watching the original Beavis and Butthead episodes lately and they’re not that dumb. Yes the characters are extremely dumb but the humor is witty and clever and probably even funnier that you remember. I hadn’t seen any episodes in decades so it’s been really fun revisiting it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 07:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/lbcyber/status/1115015586243862528
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 08:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PedanticRomantc/status/1114615119122591744?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 10:53
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Yeah I completely agree, hence the nod towards Steiner science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFoC3TR5rzI
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 14:25
|
|
|
Goons discover post-modernism ITT.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
So uh, indentured servitude, is it? Right, we invented indentured servitude. Neat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 14:54
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:So uh, indentured servitude, is it? Canada's been doing something similar but I think the nuances are less bad. If I'm not mistaken, they cover your medical school tuition and then for like 5 years following your graduation they choose which part of the country you practice out of (but I think you otherwise keep all your earnings). Helps to get doctors into underserved parts of the country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 14:56
|
|
|
Easy Diff posted:Steiner science is fine, but steiner math is a little suspect IMO I have to click this every time I see it, so thank you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
univbee posted:Canada's been doing something similar but I think the nuances are less bad. So its US residency but a million times better because it sets aside student loan debts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2019 15:33
|
|
