|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 11:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Why mister dualist , does it have to be 100% ? Almost every aspect of cosmology is entirely philosophical . To "understand" most of cosmology you have to "believe" in statements which are counter intiutive to the physics around us . That's a fact . If faith is not belief in the absense of proof , then please explain your definition . |
Faith is belief in the abscence of proof or in the face of it. Give me an example of what you are talking about in cosmolog. A statement which is counter intuitive to the physics around us.
Religious faith is 100%. You believe and nothing can contradict that belief. This is evidently not the same as scienctific belief..as I'm sure you know.
| Quote: |
| No , I'm not . Science is a discourse of thinking that makes broad assumptions |
Such as?
| Quote: |
Science hopes to understand a world that is rigid and predictable and testable . Science latest claims are that the universe is not rigid , predictable and testable . Science is eating itself .
|
When did 'science' make these claims? links?
| Quote: |
| Discourses of thought have a 100% history of ending . Just like the predominant thought discourse a few thousand years ago was animism , so too will a time come when "science" has run its course |
Or not. We can't assume that because animism ran its course, that science will as well.
| Quote: |
| Its methodology will always have a place in our little part of the universe , but it's usefulness for answering the big questions (I'll come to that) is limited |
Its usefullness for answering the small questions in our 'little part of the universe' will keep it relevant I'm sure. Indeed to the average person, much, much more relevant. The only way we know anything about our little part of the universe is through science and the only way we expand the part of the universe we know about is through science.
| Quote: |
Everyone has their own big questions . I'll modestly suggest as a sentient organism primarily you should be concerned with the most pressing matters . I think almost universily these can be eloquently stated in the form of ....
Where the Fark am I ?
What the Fark is going on ?
Why the Fark am I speaking to myself ?
Who is Fark ? |
My,what vague and boring questions. Really these are the big questions..I somehow expected more. I personally am more interested in questions that relate to our 'little part of the universe' and have a direct relevance on my life. Selfish I know.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't saying you know that you know nothing contradictory?
How about: "I don't know that I know anything."? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| therooster wrote: |
Oh I'm sorry I'm not posting refrences |
Well, you seem to be making some bold pronouncements about what "science" believes and yet you don't back it with much in the line of evidence.
| Quote: |
| Take your choice of all the sciences and expand upon a body of evidence when reduced and taken to the furthest logical conclusion does not become absurd . There is my challenge for you . |
*blink* Seems you're rather shifting the burden of proof. Define absurd. How does the germ theory of disease, for example, become absurd?
| Quote: |
| Go on . Reduce my experiences of the world to their smallest common physical denominater . Once you can do that....after you have recieved all the nobel prize , I'll admit your reductionist physics is relevant and important and that I'm nothing more than neurons firing . |
Who says that's necessarily a true description of consciousness. You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between a method of inquiry that says "we're going to explain whatever can legitimately be explained by reductionism" to one the that says "what cannot be explained by reductionist means is not worth explaining or does not exist". Neurologists attempt to explain simply that which can be explained by neurons and brain chemistry.
| Quote: |
| You talking to someone who mere weeks ago would call you stupid if you suggested you had free will in any form at all . I think you will find the little tricks that science uses to mask the fact that it has no answers won't work with me....save it buddy (note : i didn't say friend) |
You're crossing into troll territory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
An intelligent person should inquire about the Absolute Truth and our relation to it.
Why are we forced by nature to grow old, get diseased, and die even though we want to live happily ever after?
When we originally desired to enjoy material nature the concommitant bodily and mental miseries were part of the deal.
Becoming embodied in matter was a bad bargain that we now have to make the best of.
Skepticism, and speculation are of very limited benefit. As soon as we become sincere about realizing the Absolute Truth (which includes impersonal, localized, and personal features...) the unlimitedly conscious sentient being reciprocates by guiding us from within and without.
Everything is based on desire.
Devotional science aims at dovetailing our material desires by engaging our senses in ways that are pleasing to the transcendental senses of the Supreme Enjoyer. We experience spiritual satisfaction when God is pleased, and we are motivated to progressively advance in ecstatic devotional service - our eternal constitutional position free from all forms of suffering.
The most effective means for reviving our natural (now dormant) God consciousness is to congregationally chant transcendental sound vibrations which happen to be Holy Names of the Lord. (Hallelulah!...)
Although he wasn't perfect, George Harrison (of Beatles fame - for you youngsters...) was a very sincere soul who did a lot to popularize this very sublime method of spiritual upliftment.
http://www.cosmicempire.freeuk.com/wordsfromgeorge.htm
Here's from the "Concert for George" (including Eric Clapton, Billy Preston, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and Dhani Harrison ...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvH6fxP5hMo
George passed away on November 29, 2001, as devotees chanted holy names to help him on his spiritual journey...
http://www.krishnatemple.com/manor/harrison.shtm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
therooster
Joined: 11 May 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
The last two posters ...all the information needed for you to understand why you are wrong are in my last posts. Stop being lazy and find out the answers for your own questions .
| Quote: |
A statement which is counter intuitive to the physics around us.
|
Are you kidding ? I have mention quantum physics ...entanglement/super position ..string theory and the 11 dimensions.....at least 5 times each....have you read any of these theories ???
* tilts head and gives a insinuating one eyed glare
| Quote: |
*blink* Seems you're rather shifting the burden of proof. Define absurd. How does the germ theory of disease, for example, become absurd?
|
The germ theory of disease ??? This is your best example ?? I knew it wasn't going to be hard for me to laugh of your theory , but I didn't knw I'd be shooting fish in a barrel . Now I'm no microbiologist but....
Ok..I'm about to ehad out....so in a form of a rush job and using what i think are the latest assumptions you might hold as a "physicist" ...(of course there are various schools )
So first we have germs .
Zoom in .
miniscule organisms ! Virusus ! Bacteria !
Zoom in .
Carbon cells .
Zoom in .
Dna
Zoom in .
Bio Molecules
Zoom in .
Molecules .
zoom in .
Protons and neutrons.
zoom in .
quarks ? strings ? quantum behaviour .
Zoom in .
vibrating energy waves ? Slowed down photo electric energy ?
zoom in .
Super strings / membranes /higher dimensional phenemona
zoom in ...
???????
So through reductionism your science fails to explain what the base substance of a germ is , but it can explain the complexity of my behaviour ?
Anyway, time to go out . Later lads . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| therooster wrote: |
The last two posters ...all the information needed for you to understand why you are wrong are in my last posts. Stop being lazy and find out the answers for your own questions .
| Quote: |
A statement which is counter intuitive to the physics around us.
|
Are you kidding ? I have mention quantum physics ...entanglement/super position ..string theory and the 11 dimensions.....at least 5 times each....have you read any of these theories ???
* tilts head and gives a insinuating one eyed glare
| Quote: |
*blink* Seems you're rather shifting the burden of proof. Define absurd. How does the germ theory of disease, for example, become absurd?
|
The germ theory of disease ??? This is your best example ?? I knew it wasn't going to be hard for me to laugh of your theory , but I didn't knw I'd be shooting fish in a barrel . Now I'm no microbiologist but....
Ok..I'm about to ehad out....so in a form of a rush job and using what i think are the latest assumptions you might hold as a "physicist" ...(of course there are various schools )
So first we have germs .
Zoom in .
miniscule organisms ! Virusus ! Bacteria !
Zoom in .
Carbon cells .
Zoom in .
Dna
Zoom in .
Bio Molecules
Zoom in .
Molecules .
zoom in .
Protons and neutrons.
zoom in .
quarks ? strings ? quantum behaviour .
Zoom in .
vibrating energy waves ? Slowed down photo electric energy ?
zoom in .
Super strings / membranes /higher dimensional phenemona
zoom in ...
???????
So through reductionism your science fails to explain what the base substance of a germ is , but it can explain the complexity of my behaviour ?
Anyway, time to go out . Later lads . |
You don't actually say anything there. It's really quite pathetic. The world has outlived kooks like you for millenia and science will be going long after your kookiness has died out. By the way, yes, that is all ad hominem as there is actually nothing to refute in most of your "arguments". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| therooster wrote: |
Carbon cells . |
There's no such thing as carbon cells.
| Quote: |
Zoom in .
Bio Molecules
Zoom in .
Molecules . |
A molecule is a molecule. If it part of a living system, it's an organic molecule. You don't zoom in and find more molecules contained within an organic molecule. You can certainly subdivide many molecules but that's not zooming. Maybe you meant atoms? Carbon atoms. Oxygen atoms. Molecules are atoms bonded together.
| Quote: |
quarks ? strings ? quantum behaviour .
Zoom in .
vibrating energy waves ? Slowed down photo electric energy ?
zoom in .
Super strings / membranes /higher dimensional phenemona |
Ummmm. String theory is just a mathematical construct and there's not a wit of physical evidence for it. Yes, if you invent things like "carbon cells" and reduce things to an unproven mathematical hypothesis then it sure sounds absurd to me. But the absurdity comes in with your silly inventions. Carbon cells. Geez. Sorry, your child like understanding of even basic science terminology robs you of any authority you think you have. No one is much fooled. I've seen more plausible sounding woo woo for dousing rods than that clap above.
The dictionary definition: 1. Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable.
What is incongruous now about
1. Introduce a pathogen.
2. Observe that pathogen's chemical interaction with other cells.
3. The body gets sick.
Pretty straight forward cause and effect. Whatever is underlying it isn't so incongruous that it stops the whole operation from happening. No? In fact, what does QM matter to the infectious disease specialist? Vaccinate x% of the population and we achieve herd immunity. It's pretty dry fact, proven out a hundred times. The doc and the patient are both around to observe and collapse those wave functions, no?
"Hey, math guy! Incompleteness means your math has no internally consistent logical basis! What do you think of that!"
"Oh well, it still lets me compute load stress on this bolt."
It works in the real world. It predicts things in the real world. That's the bulk of science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
therooster
Joined: 11 May 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
A molecule is a molecule. If it part of a living system, it's an organic molecule. You don't zoom in and find more molecules contained within an organic molecule. You can certainly subdivide many molecules but that's not zooming. Maybe you meant atoms? Carbon atoms. Oxygen atoms. Molecules are atoms bonded together.
|
I don't mean to humiliate you ...but you did kind of ask for it .
From wikipedia (not that I hold it to any high standards of validity...but your statements hardly warrant much of my time).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomolecule
Go educate yourself .
You still subscribe to the atomic model of physics ? How quaint . I suppose the atom is the smallest indivisible object in the univserse .Quarks and strings are for kooks ....the subatomic world ? Gerisy !!
Thanks John Dalton .
| Quote: |
| It works in the real world. It predicts things in the real world. That's the bulk of science. |
Yes...*cough ...the "real" world...
You speak of the "real world" with an endearing child like quality .As if you somehow seem to think it exists as you experience it .That takes a lot of Faith ......
ha ha ha....let me know one day if you ever wake up from the "real" world .....
Don't buy into the hype folks...this guy is all smoke a mirrors . The real world ? Are you saying that with a serious look on your face ? the thought makes me want to laugh till I sh!t ....
Last edited by therooster on Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
therooster
Joined: 11 May 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Ummmm. String theory is just a mathematical construct and there's not a wit of physical evidence for it. Yes, if you invent things like "carbon cells" and reduce things to an unproven mathematical hypothesis then it sure sounds absurd to me. But the absurdity comes in with your silly inventions. Carbon cells. Geez. Sorry, your child like understanding of even basic science terminology robs you of any authority you think you have. No one is much fooled. I've seen more plausible sounding woo woo for dousing rods than that clap above.
|
Once again you are kidding right ? Of course there can be no evidence for these theories ......we are incapable of perceiving and testing all the parts of the universe that bring about the little part which is testable .So your convenient suggestion is that these untestable parts don't exist and only the testable parts exist ? Why ? What brough about the testable parts ? How you you explain behaviour of matter at the quantum level ? If you can't ...that's ok. But have the modesty to shut up about it and stop pretending as if you know anything about the "real" world .
Do you know every idea from the big bang to black holes and dark matters are all based on maths ? The size and expansion of the univsre etc is based on formulations on an observation called "red shift" for example . Why would you buy into these and not into strintg theory ? Oh I see . Because you are selective ...and I don't know about anyone else...but someone gets selective about what he believes...i kind of think that's similiar to "faith" ....but whatever it is...that kind of thought structure is not related to "science" ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| therooster wrote: |
| Quote: |
A molecule is a molecule. If it part of a living system, it's an organic molecule. You don't zoom in and find more molecules contained within an organic molecule. You can certainly subdivide many molecules but that's not zooming. Maybe you meant atoms? Carbon atoms. Oxygen atoms. Molecules are atoms bonded together.
|
I don't mean to humiliate you ...but you did kind of ask for it .
From wikipedia (not that I hold it to any high standards of validity...but your statements hardly warrant much of my time).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomolecule
Go educate yourself. |
Yes, I know. What I'm asking is how do you zoom in on a molecule, any molecule? If you do, you should go to the atom. And yes, physics sure does talk about electrons, protons, and neutrons. And what is a "carbon cell"?
Back to the my question:
What is incongruous now about
1. Introduce a pathogen.
2. Observe that pathogen's chemical interaction with other cells.
3. The body gets sick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
therooster
Joined: 11 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Yes, I know. What I'm asking is how do you zoom in on a molecule, any molecule? If you do, you should go to the atom. And yes, physics sure does talk about electrons, protons, and neutrons. And what is a "carbon cell"?
Back to the my question:
What is incongruous now about
1. Introduce a pathogen.
2. Observe that pathogen's chemical interaction with other cells.
3. The body gets sick. |
Re -read my post...I went from molecule to "protons and electrons" ....why is it with you I'm always having to explain things a second time ?
What is so "incongruous" about your "argument" ? Nothing . What does this simplification tell us about the experience of being sick ? Nothing . It's absurd to think reduction and simplification is the answers to all complex questions ...some questions require expansion beyond the simple physics of the world we observe and experience....why ? Because they exists beyond the simple world we can observe and experience...
I don't know what exactly you are trying to argue . Are you saying that reductionism and science confirms the idea that all that exists in the universe is testable and observable ???? That the way forward to exploring our experience of the world is by trying to reduce our experiences to little bits of data that follow predictable physical patterns ? If so ....can you explain why ???? I see no reason to make that assumption....it's based on a flawed premise of science....I'm sure if you think about all this assumptions enough you will find it totally absurd... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
therooster
Joined: 11 May 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| therooster wrote: |
| [I don't know what exactly you are trying to argue . |
Odd that.
| Quote: |
| Are you saying that reductionism and science confirms the idea that all that exists in the universe is testable and observable |
Where did I say that? You sure do like the strawman arguments. No surprise as your whole thesis is built on the gross misunderstanding science is metaphysics. Science is just built on what can be measured and inferred from measurements. Yeah we can measure something to the 4th magnitude. But then you want to say since we can't measure it to the 5th magnitude, then everything is in doubt and we "don't know anything". This is just pea brain talk.
Anyway, I've wasted enough time with your strawman. You won't even define a "carbon cell". You'll notice others have likewise stopped commenting as they've either concluded you're just trolling or you're you've smoking up a wee bit too much. Best of luck dealing with your bank balance and convincing the teller that QM says whatever.
I'm out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm still here ... Here's one nutshell (  , not nutjob!) version of "Hare Krishna Views on Science" ... http://www.krishnascience.com/
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
therooster
Joined: 11 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Where did I say that? You sure do like the strawman arguments. No surprise as your whole thesis is built on the gross misunderstanding science is metaphysics. Science is just built on what can be measured and inferred from measurements. Yeah we can measure something to the 4th magnitude. But then you want to say since we can't measure it to the 5th magnitude, then everything is in doubt and we "don't know anything". This is just pea brain talk.
Anyway, I've wasted enough time with your strawman. You won't even define a "carbon cell". You'll notice others have likewise stopped commenting as they've either concluded you're just trolling or you're you've smoking up a wee bit too much. Best of luck dealing with your bank balance and convincing the teller that QM says whatever.
I'm out.
|
Actually you are demonstrating that you don't understand the context of what I am saying . All you have demonstrated is that you know a bit about the scientific method (but don't really understand much about it's place in the grand scheme of things) .How quaintly medoicre . With a bit of work you might break through to the next level whereby you understand the nature of "discourses" .....that to say , not only the content of arguments , but their context...
..until then why not run around berating scientologist and creationists and mystics as if that which you put your faith into has any more relevance (hint: It doesn't) .... or hit those books and we might chat again in the future when (and if) your thinking becomes interesting or relevant . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
