127 replies to this topic

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 24 September 2012 - 02:20 AM, said:

Matter/energy.... Same thing.

I believe "physical" is merely a representation of deeper realities. If these realities could be illuminated, determinists will simply insist on changing the definition of "physical" when in fact the term should have been dropped a long time ago. " Materialism" should have been dropped a long time ago aswell, as we are discovering more fundamental reality acts more like a symphony rather than a pool table.

The biggest problem is "materialists" can support their world view, everything is made up of some form of matter/energy, or derived from such. You're too busy arguing a nonsense position of behaviour independent of the physical.

Edited by Rlyeh, 24 September 2012 - 05:30 AM.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 24 September 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

And immaterialists have to rely on faulty logic, as you have demonstrated. Materialists can at least support their view without invoking magical thinking and pseudo science.

What is magical, pseudoscience, or faulty in logic exactly?

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 24 September 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

The biggest problem is "materialists" can support their world view, everything is made up of some form of matter/energy, or derived from such. You're too busy arguing a nonsense position of behaviour independent of the physical.

We don't even know what most of the universe is made out of, that "material" turns out to be mostly open space and waves. Materialism died a long time ago.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 24 September 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

What is magical, pseudoscience, or faulty in my logic exactly?

Sorry, had to fix that for you.

Perhaps you should explain why materialists must accept your *opinion* of the laws of phyiscs.

Quote

We don't even know what most of the universe is made out of, that "material" turns out to be mostly open space and waves. Materialism died a long time ago.

Have I not already given the definition of materialism?
For something dead it appears to be quite alive and well supported.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 24 September 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

Sorry, had to fix that for you.

Perhaps you should explain why materialists must accept your *opinion* of the laws of phyiscs.

Have I not already given ( my ) definition of materialism?
For something dead it appears to be quite alive and well supported.

Did the same

you can cling to it all you want my friend, but it died as a philosophy a long time ago. And if you still think of yourself as such a logical chap, you may want to consider attacking arguments instead of people. It dosnt make you look very logical.

"Then came our Quantum theory, which totally transformed our image of matter. The old assumption that the microscopic world of atoms was simply a scaled-down version of the everyday world had to be abandoned. Newton's deterministic machine was replaced by a shadowy and paradoxical conjunction of waves and particles, governed by the laws of chance, rather than the rigid rules of causality. An extension of the quantum theory goes beyond even this; it paints a picture in which solid matter dissolves away, to be replaced by weird excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy. Quantum physics undermines materialism because it reveals that matter has far less 'substance' than we might believe. But another development goes even further by demolishing Newton's image of matter as inert lumps. This development is the theory of chaos, which has recently gained widespread attention.

— Paul Davies and John Gribbin, 'The Matter Myth', Chapter 1

"The concept of matter has changed in response to new scientific discoveries. Thus materialism has no definite content independent of the particular theory of matter on which it is based. According to Noam Chomsky, any property can be considered material, if one defines matter such that it has that property.[11]"

http://en.m.wikipedi...alism#section_4

Edited by Seeker79, 24 September 2012 - 02:33 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 24 September 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

you can cling to it all you want my friend, but it died as a philosophy a long time ago.

If it's dead, why is it still very much alive?

Quote

And if you still think of yourself as such a logical chap, you may want to consider attacking arguments instead of people. It dosnt make you look very logical.

Have you considered that yourself, or does the image of a hypocrite suit you better? You've criticized materialists for not accepting an illogical argument you've invented yet attributed to materialism. That sounds like a straw man.

You're using a definition of materialism, that not even materialists today use, instead using an outdated concept of matter.
Even your wiki article defines materialism in a way you refuse to acknowledge; rather quoting parts that only support your view.

Edited by Rlyeh, 24 September 2012 - 03:56 PM.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 24 September 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

If it's dead, why is it still very much alive?

Have you considered that yourself, or does the image of a hypocrite suit you better? You've criticized materialists for not accepting an illogical argument you've invented yet attributed to materialism. That sounds like a straw man.

You're using a definition of materialism, that not even materialists today use, instead using an outdated concept of matter.
Even your wiki article defines materialism in a way you refuse to acknowledge; rather quoting parts that only support your view.

I believe you are improperly using the word hypocrit.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 24 September 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

I believe you are improperly using the word hypocrit.

I don't believe hypocrit is a word.

[White Unicorn]

Emma_Acid, on 23 September 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

I have been asking for examples of this for several pages now. And yes - I am denying that science is discovering "undenyable truths" to what I call paranormal rubbish.

Prove me wrong.

As for people demanding proof of others beliefs, what is Proof except the "belief" in the perception whether it is a truth or a deception? Belief without personal experience is a deception in itself.

Science may "prove" a theory but over time it is later "proved" incomplete or wrong. A lot of science as well as what you call paranormal rubbish is based on propaganda but still we should search for threads of hidden truth on which the belief is based so we can expand our perception of the truth. The ultimate truth will reconcile and explain all the mysterious effects that people observe in science or the paranormal rubbish as you call it.

[Emma_Acid]

White Unicorn, on 25 September 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

As for people demanding proof of others beliefs, what is Proof except the "belief" in the perception whether it is a truth or a deception?

Er, hang on - I thought we were talking about scientific evidence here? It has nothing to do with belief.

This is really getting tenuous. The claim is that science is discovering proof of things that I'd call "paranormal rubbish". I then ask for examples of this proof. You say that the only examples are "belief" that science is showing these things. Right?

That's not science.

White Unicorn, on 25 September 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

Science may "prove" a theory but over time it is later "proved" incomplete or wrong.

You really don't understand science. All science, by its very nature, is incomplete.

A theory is the best working model we have to explain observed phenomena. This changes when new evidence comes to light. The main strength of science is that it is able to change, if the evidence is good enough.

Our understanding of the make up of the universe changed when we developed quantum mechanics. QM is by no mean the last word on the subject, but is accepted due to the huge amount of evidence for it and the predictions the models can make.

I'm asking what area of science "proves" that the paranormal is real, as claimed above.

White Unicorn, on 25 September 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

A lot of science as well as what you call paranormal rubbish is based on propaganda but still we should search for threads of hidden truth on which the belief is based so we can expand our perception of the truth.

New age fluff. People who claim science is "based on propaganda" are simply annoyed that the evidence doesn't point the way they want it to. Science is one of the most transparent processes we, as a species, have ever developed.

If the evidence doesn't point towards the paranormal being real, that's because there is no evidence, not because there is "propaganda" to cover it up.

How do I know this? Because science has to be open and transparent for it to work. Millions of people work in scientific areas around the world - you could not cover up evidence of something like the paranormal, it would take the complicity of too many people.

Likewise, science could not function or progress by hiding things. Scientific discovery would grind to a halt.

White Unicorn, on 25 September 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

The ultimate truth will reconcile and explain all the mysterious effects that people observe in science or the paranormal rubbish as you call it.

But no-one's actually explained what "paranormal rubbish" you're hoping to explain, nor what has been shown so far??

[White Unicorn]

Emma_Acid, on 25 September 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

Er, hang on - I thought we were talking about scientific evidence here? It has nothing to do with belief.

This is really getting tenuous. The claim is that science is discovering proof of things that I'd call "paranormal rubbish". I then ask for examples of this proof. You say that the only examples are "belief" that science is showing these things. Right?

That's not science.




You really don't understand science. All science, by its very nature, is incomplete.

A theory is the best working model we have to explain observed phenomena. This changes when new evidence comes to light. The main strength of science is that it is able to change, if the evidence is good enough.

Our understanding of the make up of the universe changed when we developed quantum mechanics. Our understanding of the make up of the universe changed when we developed quantum mechanicsI'm asking what area of science "proves" that the paranormal is real, as claimed above.





New age fluff. People who claim science is "based on propaganda" are simply annoyed that the evidence doesn't point the way they want it to. All science, by its very nature, is incompletewe, as a species, have ever developed.

If the evidence doesn't point towards the paranormal being real, that's because there is no evidence, not because there is "propaganda" to cover it up.

How do I know this? Because science has to be open and transparent for it to work. Millions of people work in scientific areas around the world - you could not cover up evidence of something like the paranormal, it would take the complicity of too many people.


Our understanding of the make up of the universe changed when we developed quantum mechanics
Likewise, science could not function or progress by hiding things. Scientific discovery would grind to a halt.




But no-one's actually explained what "paranormal rubbish" you're hoping to explain, nor what has been shown so far??

The world's past propaganda of scientific belief once held that  the world was flat or the sun revolved aroung the earth, it was taught to students as fact but it was ...propaganda. People died or were imprisoned if they went public with the truth . All science, by its very nature, is incomplete and is a process trying to develop a unified theory.

You said If the evidence doesn't point towards the paranormal being real, that's because there is no evidence, not because there is "propaganda" to cover it up.  I never said any one was covering it up now,  just that they might be ignoring other observations because they don't fit into the popular belief in a theory  and so they ignor it.

Our understanding of the make up of the universe did chang when we developed quantum mechanics.
We should not dismiss any of the observations or evidence, since we could have been  building upon an orginal misconception that leads to theories going in circles instead of a reconciling all the effects.

The scientific observations in the quantum world appear to move as if dependent on the observer that in itself sounds pretty much new age fluff!

The point is you have to keep an open mind and don't deny an effect just because it doesn't fit into your belief system what ever that may be.

[White Unicorn]

Seeker79, on 24 September 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

We don't even know what most of the universe is made out of, that "material" turns out to be mostly open space and waves. Materialism died a long time ago.

Where does science draw the line of exactly what is material or not?  I would guess they'd use a middle point of where they exist but that's not really a definite line to draw, since it's only based on a relative measurement.

It's kind of like the materialists are saying only the "solid" ice exists. They finally figured out they get water from the ice but don't really comprehend all the forms of matter.  They just wonder where the "liquid" came from or where the "solid" went!  Then they don't even want to consider what others believe about the vapor because they never linked it yet within their theories!

It's all the really the same thing but at a different atomic vibrations and showing different effects.

[SpiritWriter]

Yamato, on 22 September 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

There was never any scientific evidence of anything until there was.  

Do the unexplained paranormal experiences that my family has had amount to scientific evidence?   "Genuine scientific evidence" doesn't belong in the realm of personal opinion with a question like "Do you think you have genuine scientific evidence?".   I would ask a room full of scientists such a question.  Here it's just a stumbling block to trip over for everyone else.

I would say it is most definitely evidence, especially for you and your family. But I'm not a scientist. I just know ghosts exist too....

[Professor T]

Vein Capital, on 21 September 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

I'm not trying to discount all of that, but even if you can make the skeptic admit that ( for example ) such-and-such video isn't fake, these books did fly off the shelf, these sounds on the audio are real, that doesn't mean they're required to posit an supernatural explanation just because there is lack of another. if the skeptic still says, "I admit this physical phenomenon is real, but how do you know that a non-physical entity caused it?" then I think that is a valid reply. I don't think anyone's obliged to accept to theorize a non-physical cause just because a physical explanation is lacking.

Hmmmmm.......... very good point..
Sorry I missed this, was to interested in reading everyone elses posts.
A normal physical event has a normal force attached. Normal as in "these books were pushed by a physical thing" but like you say, where there is no desernable normal force science is at a loss and the event becomes classed as Paranormal because science currently lacks a physical explaination.. IMO people should accept and theorize a non-physical explaination simply because a physical explaination is lacking. That is what science does.. Kind of like old Sherlock Holmes.. "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how mad it might seem, must be the truth." That is what science is doing now in Cern with trying to figure out what matter is made of. lol, we don't even now what physical actually is yet!

[Seeker79]

White Unicorn, on 26 September 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

Where does science draw the line of exactly what is material or not?  I would guess they'd use a middle point of where they exist but that's not really a definite line to draw, since it's only based on a relative measurement.

It's kind of like the materialists are saying only the "solid" ice exists. They finally figured out they get water from the ice but don't really comprehend all the forms of matter.  They just wonder where the "liquid" came from or where the "solid" went!  Then they don't even want to consider what others believe about the vapor because they never linked it yet within their theories!

It's all the really the same thing but at a different atomic vibrations and showing different effects.

I think you would be very interested in this book.
http://www.amazon.co...aw/d/0770436706