Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Richard K. Emms on March 21, 2012 at 7:07am

Personally I consider paranormal science as pseudo-science.  I presribe to Micheal Shermer's definition. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on March 21, 2012 at 7:09am

I've put this up a few times around here, but one more won't hurt:

One man's "magic" is another man's engineering. "Supernatural" is a null word.
-- Robert A. Heinlein

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by paul babcock on March 21, 2012 at 8:15am

No, I don't believe in anything supernatural. That there is no (and basically in the natural world can be no) evidence for supernatural phenomena is t basis for my atheism.

That being said, if there is a naturalistic explanation for some phenomena then it is at least possible. Extraterrestrials are entirely possible. And while it is not likely and there is no good evidence for it, it occurs to me that it is at least possible that some form soul after death might be possible as a result of consciousness being an emergent property of some form of intelligence.

There is no reason to think this is so. All i am saying is that is the only naturalistic explanation i can think of. No one thinks music cds, or house flies have souls. We humans are patterns of information like they are. I cant think of any reason to figure a pattern of information to have a soul of any sort.

we have more intelligence than a housefly. But the only qualitative difference between the pattern of info that is us and a housefly would be consciousness. Still tho i cant think of any way for the pattern of info that make us up to continue after our body is gone any more than t info on a cd to continue after t cd is destroyed consciousness or not.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 21, 2012 at 10:06am

"wrong kind of soul…"

On the contrary, the right kind of soul.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Carroll on March 21, 2012 at 10:12am

Yeah. It really speaks to my soul.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brad Splaymeier on March 21, 2012 at 3:55pm

"We humans are patterns of information"  

That sounds cool...Do you happen to know of any good reading to further explain this?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by paul babcock on March 21, 2012 at 5:05pm

Not to my knowledge.

It is simply that i see everything in the physical world as particular patterns of info.


Different patterns have different emergent properties thru which we can best understand and predict
their behavior. One would not figure on learning much about the behavior of a rock using phycology or biology. One would use chemistry and physics. Chemistry and physics will tell us only just so much tho about a worm or a human.

Consciousness is an emergent property of humans and probably some other animales, to a lesser extent. And consciousness is t only possible reason that i can imcmagine why we would have a soul and a rock and a worm do not.

Tho I still don't think that we do or even see how we could w/o our physical bodies maintaining our consciousness. We are just too much like worms and cds.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 21, 2012 at 2:55pm

"There are legitimate scientists (Dr. Dean Radin and the Cognitive lab at Stanford) in the field that have performed rigorous experiments that have provided strong repeatable and documented evidence of non-local information and non-local influence capabilities."

Whoa there! repeated and documented by whom? 

There isn't a lot of support in the scientific community that he's even "doing" science, not when they actually examine the "evidence" and consider the experiment protocols.

What if Dean Radkin is right? (Skeptic's Dictionary) …exposes the many flaws in not just the methodologies used, but in their interpretation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Carroll on March 21, 2012 at 3:11pm

Thank you Richard. Everytime someone shows me some study, my first reaction is to ask 'what was the methodology used, what was kicked out,excluded. How was the experiment set up'? Also what is the background of the people involved. How did they draw their interpretation of the results? Things like that. Get some crazy looks. Skepticism, it's a beautiful thing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Carroll on March 21, 2012 at 10:37am

Question guys. Are we battling over semantics here? When someone says 'I believe in god[s], or a child says I believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny' does't make it so. However when someone asks why some grass is greener than others, I resond by saying I belive it is due to the ratio of green to blue chloraphyll, we have both used the term believe. We know the difference. So do you think this is a semantics game we are playing. Just curiois. Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 21, 2012 at 2:46pm

No, not if you mean "quibbling semantics" when you say "semantics game". 

"Believe in"; in this case, is an existential claim (not a commendatory "believe in" as in, "I believe in his ability to fix my car).

When you say: " I reasoned by saying I belive it is due to the ratio of green to blue chlorophyl", you're just using "believe it is" as an analog for "think it is". I tend to avoid this one when I actually mean, "think".

Semantics (all three branches apply here), yes …quibbling, no.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Carroll on March 21, 2012 at 3:03pm

Thanks man. Appreciate the clarification. Always helps to ask you guys. Have a good one, my friend.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page