Neither Godhead or Universal Consciousness have any scientific meaning. You can’t use them in a discussion purportedly about science.
See, there you are invoking science. Or science-y words. Could you explain how Godel applies here?
Good luck about that, both of you.
This is crackpottery. The proper response to crackpottery on this board and everywhere else in the wholistic universe is mockery. Crackpottery can be ignored. I have ignored ebuc76 for his whole career. However, he thrust his crackpot thinking, shaky grasp on spelling, color madness, and offensive insults of posters into our faces. He reaps what he has sown. If he ever says anything coherent (thanks, Trinopus: sorry I didn’t acknowledge you earlier) then I will respond to it seriously. If he keeps on ruining my beloved English language I will treat him with the scorn he deserves. If he keeps on defiling hundreds of years of scientific understanding I will mock him for doing so. It was his choice. Both of you better get used to it.
^ Here’s your problem. The board moved beyond post-modern ideas around 10 years ago, and beyond post-post-modern ideas 2 or 3 years ago. We’ve been on post-post-post-modern ideas since then. Do please try to keep up.
Sure you can. They may not fit into whatever paradigm (I assume physicalist…?) of science you happen to like, but you don’t have a monopoly on defining what is scientific. I would say that if there is such a think as a Godhead or Universal Consciousness, it is open for scientific discussion. And that you by trying to exclude it is being un-scientific, intentionally trying to reduce the scope of the scientific inquiry to fit your own personal pre-conception.
I can, but since you have taken such an offensive tone I don’t think I will. Why don’t you just google it and figure it out for yourself.
Since you have clearly stated that you will resort to scorn and ad-hominem when someones paradigm does not fit yours, I don’t feel inclined to engage in a constructive conversation with you. If you were to demonstrate otherwise, that would change, but if you’re only interested in trading insults and defending your own perspectives, I don’t want to waste my time.
I have no previous experience with ebuc76 and therefore I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, as I do with all people. Your tendency to lump me in with him just because I am willing to engage in an honest exchange of ideas does you no credit. Just saying.
I wish that was true, but I have frequented this forum for 12 years and have not noted any collective shift. I myself went from modern to post-modern to integral in that time period, but for some reason this forum seems firmly entrenched in the modern/post-modern paradigm. Which is OK, after all that is a pretty high level of evolution and is a lot more fun and constructive than those who are pre-modern or simply modern. Your failed attempt at derision and humor(?) notwithstanding.
True, my humor wasn’t as good as your attempts to define science as meaning whatever you want it to mean. But I’ll keep striving for that additional “post-” prefix.
Ok, that may be a better description. I’d classify that as a philosophical subset of modernism though, but your classification may be more correct/specific.
I reject his axioms. I say it’s crackpottery and I say the hell with it.
One of the differences between crackpottery and science is that scientists understand and respect each others’ theories even when they differ. But crackpots always hate other crackpots even when they are on the same side. Stoneburg, I hope you enjoy your dealings with ebuc76. He respects you much less than I do.
No you won’t. You will keep defending whatever your paradigm is until some external force makes it impossible to sustain in front of new evidence or superior perspectives.
I honestly think it is sad that your reaction would be to resort to calling a respected and widely known philosopher a “crackpot” just because he believes there is a transcendental aspect to existence. That seems incredibly narrow minded. Why limit yourself to one specific perspective or lens to look at reality through, and why condemn someone in such an offhanded way?
You may be absolutely right, and I have to say that I am a bit disappointed in the elitist/antagonistic tone of his posts, but I enjoy sharing and indulging in different intellectual perspectives and don’t feel the urge to dismiss something just because it doesn’t fit into some specific paradigm. I can usually find something of value in most systems of thought and since I don’t feel the need to identify with ideas or concepts, I am free to treat the world (and this forum) as a buffet.
Not to me, and I think he has made a poor case of presenting it. To me it looks like an attempt at a “new” cosmological hierarchy, but since it is presented the way it is I find it hard to evaluate it. I do however recognize that he is trying to engage in a discussion about cosmological hierarchies, which I think is very interesting, so my response is to try and engage back in a positive way to see if I can get any new insights or perspectives.
However it is quite clear that most people (including myself) are psychologically programmed to defend whatever opinions and paradigms their ego or consciousness has associated itself with. I was the same for most of my life and consider this absolutely natural. It was not until my own paradigms where shattered by convincing new evidence and experiences that I was forced to abandon them. But after having that happen again and again I’ve instead come to accept that all ideas, concepts and paradigms are temporary, and since I no longer attach or identify with them very strongly, I simply switch between the ones that seem most appropriate or interesting at the time.
I do believe there is some sort of universal truth, but I don’t think it can be found in any one “belief system”, but rather that the more perspectives you are able to hold, the closer to the truth you will come. Of course there are more and less valid systems, but I’m not that interested in condemning the ones that I don’t find valid, since even they can be interesting and be learned from.
Then why does our OP insist on using “occupied space” as a term, without also including “unoccupied space?” And why “finite?” Space might be infinite; this hasn’t been settled.
Making fun of foolishness is not the same as bullying. Also, some of my responses are serious, as in the question of finitude and the question of the definition of unoccupied space.
You’re right, of course, that he is almost certainly male. However, I would be a fool not to take your bet, offering a million trillion to one odds, since the entire universe of discourse runs to only seven billion people. My expected return on such a bet is actually very, very large!
Even more scary, why couldn’t you have a universe with true emptiness, i.e., spacetime itself has no “properties?” Now, this would certainly take the blue ribbon for “uninteresting” universes, but is it “possible” in some extreme sense?
That is a reasonable question, but I have a reasonable answer: ebuc76.
Philosophy is an old and respectable discipline. Attempts to amalgamate philosophical conundrums with science have a weak history, as is to be expected given the time needed to acquire true expertise in either and the near complete lack of individuals willing to commit that much time to two ways of examining the universe that require almost completely antithetical modes of thinking.
Science is under attack today, from religious, political, corporate, and economic enemies. Many, surely most, of these attacks are fueled by self-interest and ignorance, which should be susceptible to attack but oddly aren’t. Why these attacks flourish must have a deeper reason. I dub that “bad thinking,” a catch-all phrase for people who refuse to understand what makes some arguments sound and others mockable. Attacks on science are part of a spectrum that include conspiracy theories, which require a similar set of false axioms, bad logic, and facts that never were, religious nonsense like Creationism, and a load of “I’m smarter than the experts” sites proving whatever fever dreams they have about relativity or the Pyramids or why 0.99999~ is not equal to 1.
And that spectrum includes the meaningless trope of insisting that there is more to the world than science. I utterly reject your contention that an insistence of removing mysticism and other undefinable and unobservable transcendence from science is anything modern or post-modern. On the contrary, it’s the same old shit, older than the Enlightenment. Untold numbers of cults and crackpots have spouted these delusions and have always foundered on the same fault line between you and ebuc76: your fictions don’t mesh with one another’s, while science is by definition a continuous and unbroken whole. There is nothing modernist in this: Libertarianism is a fine example of modernist thought and it is as kooky as TimeCube.
Science works. For everybody everywhere, whether they believe in it or not. Nothing else does. Nothing else has any explanative power. No convincing evidence ever gets presented to the world as a whole; only to individuals. I have a friend who converted to Mormonism because God personally spoke to her and told her to do so. I have never tried to argue because it is inarguable. God could do that to the whole world tonight; somehow God never does.
Whatever truth is, ebuc76 does not have it. Nor does he have a way of moving toward truth. I don’t believe you have have anything interesting to say either, and what you’ve expressed here is old nonsense in new clothes. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that we are ignorant of the larger subject. Just the opposite. As a trained mathematician can spot a nonsense proof in the first few lines without going all the way through every page and learning the notation, a trained historical mind can see the resemblances between this mode of thought and the hundreds of earlier examples without becoming expert in the vocabulary.
There is no there there, to be short. Your assertion of thereness does not convince me.
Exapno Mapcase: Beautiful! A superb telling off, with vigor, and without losing focus or descending into nastiness. Excellent. This is a glorious diatribe, in the very best sense of that word.
As Robert Heinlein said, “You can’t peddle nonsense to me by claiming to be fresh out of sense.” But that’s all that the woo-peddlers have. At least most worthwhile religions have backed off into “Invisible Pink Unicorn” corners, where they’re safe from criticism. Who among us really cares if “God says that love is the answer?”
Hell, at least the Transcendental Meditation cranks are able to write a comprehensible sentence. Even the “Pyramids were built by Geysers” joker was able to communicate in the English language. He never needed to talk about “PyraMids”
…Is this supposed to be a bad thing? This is how paradigms change. You’re currently challenging the paradigm that, fundamentally, has built the modern world around you and has been more successful than any other at actually discerning the truth; why should anything short of new evidence or superior perspectives change that paradigm? Why should anyone ever change their paradigm for anything less than a superior perspective or new evidence that makes it impossible to sustain?
Also, would you care to translate the OP for those of us who are too stupid to understand what he’s talking about? I honestly don’t get it at all; it might as well be gibberish to me. If this makes me dumb, so be it, but you obviously “get it”, so maybe you should explain it to the rest of us.
I realize that YOU live in a culture where science is under attack from both religion and political interests, I do not. Science already won that war in the culture I live in and none of the people I associate with are anti-science, so I don’t need to spend time trying to defend it. But as I said, I appreciate that you do.
My point is that in your proposed defense of science you are actually only defending your own particular sub-set of scientific ideas, your paradigm, and that there are newer and more inclusive forms of science that goes beyond that. Quantum physics transcends newtonian physics, an integral approach transcends the post-modern approach etc etc. Evolution does not stop with rationalism and logical empiricism, those are very important milestones and bring us out of the medieval ways of thinking, but they are not the pinnacle.
