I am an absolute genius, but that’s not important now.
Which “meaning” would you have to change, when? I don’t understand this garbledygook after the “next”: include referents.
Prove the paranormal. Explain the unexplainable.
From the positions stated here that #1 nothing is unexplainable #2 anything previously thought unexplainable when presented enters the realm of science and belief of ultimate explanation, the propostion to prove that paranormal exist is a paradox. You can’t prove that anything is unexplainable. It’s mere existence is construed to mean explainable, even in the absence of an explanation. If you prove the unproveable, it isn’t unproveable anymore. It just got proved.
Since telepathy=paranormal, and telepathy=make-believe, then paranormal=make-believe. Right?
Forget proof. Can you come up with any verifiable evidence of the existence of telepathy?
Please give us one example of something that will never and can never be explained.
How would you know if he was getting somewhere, if everything is unknowable. Maybe you only think he’s getting somewhere. Maybe you only think you’re seeing his post, and my post, and everyone’s posts. What is a more useful philosophy; assuming his post is real, or assuming that it’s an illusion?
Fortunately for you, other people who take a more pragmatic view of the universe have applied reason to grow the food you eat, produce the clothes you wear and build the house you’re in. If you lived according to your beliefs, you’d have frozen and starved by now.
Damn straight, and a well-earned arrogance at that. Until someone comes along and shows otherwise, I’d say humans are kings of all we survey.
Well, duh. The simple fact that science progresses imples that. As opposed to religion and the “paranormal”, which hug their revealed “truths” to themselves, ignore error, and therefore stagnate. Once again, no similarity.
Nope. I don’t believe it to exist. But if it did, we would try to explain it.
Intelligence in the form of human consciuosness.
Food and shelter are evident in lower life forms and do not require scientific explanation or human understanding.
I agree with your assesment of religion but reject your notion of paranormal. Paranormal, by it’s essence, has no truth. it is the absence of such, in theory of course.
Okay, so without the benefits of technology created using scientifically-derived principles, are you prepared to go run down an impala and chew the meat from its bones while sheltering yourself under a tree to stay out of the African sun? Can’t get any less arrogant than that, I guess. Just don’t try using flint to start a campfire, because that’d be an act of faith in something unknowable, i.e. the magic fairies that make the sparks as they dance to the beat of your flint-slamming in their magical discotheques.
This just sounds like a semantics argument now. You might as well ask what happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object. The situation is only a paradox because of how you define your terms. If something moves an unmovable object, well then, it was obviously mislabeled and will now be referred to as a movable object.
If we observe and prove something paranormal, and you define paranormal as something that is unknowable, well, we’re in a bit of a sticky situation here aren’t we! Oh wait, I guess if something was just proved, then it wasn’t unknowable after all. That’s why pencils have erasers, you know.
I’m gonna wait for lighting to strike. I won’t try to understand or explain it. I’ll just accept the fire and keep it burning under my tree…shit…I had hoped for a cave.
Eureka.
Or, rather than blindly hope, you could observe your environment and gradually build up a series or hypotheses of how it works and how you can manipulate it for your own ends, altering your hypotheses as needed when you observe something new.
Just don’t label anything - that’d be arrogant. You’ll have to get by with:
Fire = “ugh”
Tree = “ugh”
Cave = “ugh”
Shit = “ugh”
Or is “ugh” too presumptuous?
Ah, evoltuion of intelligence. Remarkably slow phenomenon right up until the last 300 years. The rate has moved remarkably, right up to the point that we’re having a discussion of the possibilty of the finite or infinite nature of our conscious understanding.
We’d better stop before we prove the unexplained claim that we can tear a hole in the universe and all information is absorbed into a black hole that has been explained to theoretically destroy information. Then we’d have to start all over again.
By your statements, the entire process is useless so it doesn’t matter how remarkable the rate is.
This sentence makes no sense. Are you trying to say that human consciousness can never be explained? Why would you believe this?
Why not ?