warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Birdjaguar said:
So essentially, this is how you arrived at your conclusion that this "unchanging whole" exists:
1. You assume that the supernatural exists
2. You build a framework that can't be tested nor verified in any way
3. This framework explains 1. as well as a secular view of the Universe
4. You assume that 1. must be true since your framework explains it.
This is circular logic and doesn't make much sense.
beingofone said:
What does that even mean? Can you try to use more descriptive language? A lot of the phrases you use appear as incoherent philisophical mumbo-jumbo that don't actually mean anything.
beingofone said:
I agree that I'll never experience the exact same thing twice, but I don't see where you're getting this 'infinite momentum' and 'open system' stuff from.
We are born, our consciousness begins, we die, it ends. There is a finite amount of experiences in between those two points - all the experiences are technically different from one another, but there is only a finite amount of them. This implies to me that consciousness is a closed system, if I'm even understanding the context of the word 'closed' you are attempting to use here correctly.
beingofone said:
So "Your consciousness is self-evident in its experience" = "I think therefore I am" ? Yeah, I'll agree with that, but once again, how does that imply the supernatural?
beingofone said:
Supernatural - unexplainable by natural law or phenomena. You are arguing that this exists.
beingofone said:
You can never have all the facts. That is impossible.
This is why we use science to build models of the Universe - that way we can forsee what will happen given initial conditions and have a general idea of what is possible and what isn't. If something happens that disagrees with one of these models, we know that the model is wrong, or that what you witnessed didn't actually break the model - but you think it did because of incorrectly interpreted data. If I'm walking home from work late at night and I see shadows out of the corner of my eye and the first thing my mind screams is "GHOST!", I am likely going to discard that as a misinterpretation of the facts because "GHOST!" does not fit any established model of the Universe that we have.
Introducing the supernatural because we don't understand a process is intellectually dishonest, imo.
beingofone said:
For all intents and purposes I can assume that I am reading this post. Why would I assume otherwise? There is nothing weird going on here that breaks an existing model of the Universe. If it did, I might stop and think if I'm being delusional.
Understanding that I'm reading this post and "talking to God" or "seeing a ghost" or "having an (actual) out of body experience" are two entirely different things. The first doesn't break any models of the Universe we have, the last 3 do.
beingofone said:
Exactly.
He has his reality and I have mine. By analyzing both of our interpretations of the event we can perhaps come closer to the actual truth. The more people that participate and the more data we have, the better we will be equipped to get closer ot the truth.
beingofone said:
Ahh, but things that may seem 'self evident' might actually not be. Our instincts are usually right, but they do get things wrong from time to time. That's why it's wise to invite others to share in the experience and analyze the data with you - so that we can get a clearer picture of what is actually going on. This is especially true if these people are scientists who specialize in a specific field and who have the experience necessary to make claims about the event at hand.
If we're talking about me looking at a boiling kettle, then I can safely assume that the water is boiling, etc. I know what is happening because existing models of the Universe explain it well. It is when something unexplained happens that we should invite peer review and not rely on our senses alone.
beingofone said:
No, no, yes, and yes. I survive because I choose to try to survive. I could give up and commit suicide if I wanted to.
I don't see how any of this is supposed to imply the supernatural.
beingofone said:
No, science is a methodology that scientists use to make theories like that. It is simply a way of doing things.
It doesn't do things on its own.
beingofone said:
If an event does not fit an established model that has so far been very successful at explaining existing data, then we must either assume that the data is faulty, or build a new model that explains the old data as well as the new data.
Simply assuming that the supernatural is involved whenever this happens doesn't help and is counterproductive.
