Could We Have Been Lied To? (genesis 1-3)

[vanedor]

Do you trully believe believe that our 400 year old observations of a 14 billion old(according to the latest theories), maybe even older, observable universe are rock solid!?

Personally, I believe it's the best we have.

I prefer to base my knowledge on something that has been scientifically proven, despite its shortcomings, than on some eastern theories that have pretty much the same fundation as astrology.

Sure, modern computers as we have them at the moment have only been invented 30 years ago or so. But they are still much better to make complexe calculation than the good old Abacus that has existed for at least 4,000 years.

 

[coyote]

this is pure ignorance, there is no proven physical location for the exact area of consciousness and thinking. There is only scans of areas of electrical activity for certain states. However, the extreme details of each thought process and higher level thinking cannot be physically pin pointed. If you have any evidence otherwise lets see it.

Among other posts, see JemyM's response to your post here: http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1060952807#post1060952807

This is your own opinion, just like everyone elses. Thats what you've seen, thats what you believe. I think this is not even worth discussing as it is all each individuals opinion. However if we were to discuss this the discussion would be incredibly long and would require a lot of time to even scratch the surface!

This paragraph of yours goes squarely into the "all talk, no substance" bin. Kindly point us to some significant, reproducible evidence of extrasensory perception -- or any other supernatural phenomenon, for that matter.

 

[buckaroobonzai]

You could have as well asked for evidence of the French revolution or on photosynthesis. Not only do you disregard easily available information that is covered on pages like wikipedia, is explored in plenty of great lectures on youtube and even in basic psychology courses if you take one.

Sorry buckaroobonzai, we aren't a bunch of idiots here, many of us have indeed spent time to research the topics we speak about. We are genuinely interested in making sure we are correct in our thoughts, rather than being driven by an agenda on how we want things to be. We can tell bs when we see it. You either haven't researched this subject, or you are consciously trying to play me for a fool. If you had spent any time researching, you would knew very well what I am speaking about, and you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself like you have done in your recent posts here.

We should definitely keep this a non-persoanl discussion, and it is not easy to do since this topic involves such a core essence of our beliefs.

With that said, even considering Wikpedia's questionable source and fact authenticity, the link you posted actually PROVES my point, while disproving yours.

However, how networks of neurons produce intellectual behavior, cognition, emotion, and physiological responses is still poorly understood.
The task of neural science is to explain behavior in terms of the activities of the brain. How does the brain marshal its millions of individual nerve cells to produce behavior, and how are these cells influenced by the environment...? The last frontier of the biological sciences – their ultimate challenge – is to understand the biological basis of consciousness and the mental processes by which we perceive, act, learn, and remember. — Eric Kandel, Principles of Neural Science, fourth edition

Lower sonsciousness is not understood, not even to mention the highest forms of consciousness like imagination, creative invention, and even dream construction! Ha!

Every other link you posted follows from there.

 

[buckaroobonzai]

You can't prove a soul exists.


Isn't that your problem? Why should anyone else have to deal with your bad beliefs?


So? What does it matter what people thousands of years ago thought? Many cultures also thought human sacrifices would bring a good harvest or other stupid superstitious nonsense.


What the hell are you talking about? 'whatever is programmed through mass media/textbook saturation'? So you think that these things are all lies? Three posts ago you try and say JemyM has no evidence of anything, yet you are making all these incredibly bizarre and wacko claims without any basis of proof what so ever. Oh, but it's okay, because you say that science can't detect a soul even though it's really there, honest!

You should go read Carl Sagan's the Demon Haunted World. Specifically the first page or so of Chapter 10.

I don't want to discuss this with personal diatribes, but I get the sense you are trying to go there, haha, nice try.

Trying to state what other people think is a futile effort yo, especially when one is throwing stones from glass houses.
What Jemy said is disproven.

So why should anyone have to deal with your really bad beliefs?

Well, lets see, the Mayans were able to develop a calendar that is more accurate then our own centuries ago. Hmm, I guess they didn't know anything huh?

The great pyramid was built with extreme precision facing the compass points thousands of years before the compass was invented, using the golden mean, has the main air shaft pointing to where the constellation of Orion was located 10,000 years ago, etc. etc. I gues the Egyptians didn't know anything huh?

Modern egyptologists have no way to explain how the inner chambers of the Great Pyramid were lit, as scientific measurements found zero amounts of soot. The mirror reflection hypothesis was proven to be wrong as well. Yet the egyptians lit them. The egyptians knowledge was pretty useless huh?

The bagdhad battery is a proven artifact, proven to be an electrical device, theories range from uses for electroplating, thousands of years ago, yet electricity was "discovered" only three centuries ago right?

 

[buckaroobonzai]

Among other posts, see JemyM's response to your post here: http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1060952807#post1060952807



This paragraph of yours goes squarely into the "all talk, no substance" bin. Kindly point us to some significant, reproducible evidence of extrasensory perception -- or any other supernatural phenomenon, for that matter.

There is Russian scientific proof of Psychic phenomena, I had done a research paper in college about it. I will actually look again for it if I have time.
There is also other western scientific evidence that thoughts effect randomness, again I would have to look for this as well.

 

[coyote]

With that said, even considering Wikpedia's questionable source and fact authenticity, the link you posted actually PROVES my point, while disproving yours.

Nice usage of capital letters to highlight the word proves. Could you perhaps highlight where the wiki article proves that biochemical processes cannot explain human consciousness?

 

[Pladio]

The bagdhad battery is a proven artifact, proven to be an electrical device, theories range from uses for electroplating, thousands of years ago, yet electricity was "discovered" only three centuries ago right?

From Wiki : ...

Skeptical archaeologists see the electrical experiments as embodying a key problem with experimental archaeology; such experiments can only show that something was physically possible, they say nothing about whether it actually occurred. Further, there are many difficulties with the interpretation of these artifacts as galvanic cells:

* the bitumen completely covers the copper cylinder, electrically insulating it, so no current can be drawn without modifying the design;
* there are not any wires or conductors with them;
* no widely accepted electrical equipment is associated with them. (Controversial stone reliefs depicting arc lights have been suggested, however the voltages obtained are orders of magnitude below what would be needed to produce arc lighting);
* a bitumen seal, being thermoplastic, is excellent for forming a hermetic seal for long term storage. It would be extremely inconvenient however for a galvanic cell, which would require frequent topping up of the electrolyte (if they were intended for extended use).

The artifacts strongly resemble another type of object with a known purpose—namely, storage vessels for sacred scrolls from nearby Seleucia on the Tigris. Those vessels do not have the outermost clay jar, but are otherwise almost identical. Since it is claimed these vessels were exposed to the elements, it would not be at all surprising if any papyrus or parchment inside had completely rotted away, perhaps leaving a trace of slightly acidic organic residue.

AND: ...

Even if it is accepted that the Baghdad batteries were in fact electrical devices, this provides no evidence of any real knowledge of electrical phenomena. Thales of Miletus was aware of electrostatic phenomena produced by amber, without possessing any theoretical explanation.

As electrical power supplies, the Baghdad batteries would be inefficient when compared to modern devices. Luigi Galvani formulated a similar electrochemical couple experiment in the 1780s and, 20 years later, Alessandro Volta developed enough theory to convert Galvani's simple experiment into the efficient voltaic pile, producing around 30 volts of continuous current using devices which were much larger than known Baghdad relics. Within two or three more years Sir Humphry Davy was using voltaic piles that produced 1,000 volts and enough current to run an arc lamp.

 

[coyote]

There is Russian scientific proof of Psychic phenomena, I had done a research paper in college about it. I will actually look again for it if I have time.
There is also other western scientific evidence that thoughts effect randomness, again I would have to look for this as well.

Sure, go ahead, please. I know of some studies that could be easily faked and/or could not be reproduced later, despite significant interest in the topic, which is one reason why I am generally sceptical about this, but maybe you can bring up some papers I am not aware of.

 

[buckaroobonzai]

Sure, go ahead, please. I know of some studies that could not be reproduced later, despite significant interest in the topic, which is why I am generally sceptical about this, but maybe you can bring up some papers I am not aware of.

There really is some fascinating information but it is not easy to find...No shit right?

Heres just some quick stuff I found check this stuff out if it interesting enough to you guys:

Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality by Dean Radin (senior scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences)

http://www.amazon.com/Entangled-Minds-Extrasensory-Experiences-Quantum/dp/1416516778?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240996026&sr=1-1


Also a quote:" Dean avoids such risky approximations and has instead written a precise account of experimental work that strongly supports the existence of parapsychological phenomena, and has created an imaginative model to account for it. It has become quite well known that Carl Jung and the Nobel Laureate Wolfgang Pauli were not only interested in extrasensory phenomena, but also believed that a synthesis of physics and psychology was both possible and necessary. Dean has taken their insights, and many others, run with them, and created a remarkable synthesis. "

 

[buckaroobonzai]

Nice usage of capital letters to highlight the word proves. Could you perhaps highlight where the wiki article proves that biochemical processes cannot explain human consciousness?

"However, how networks of neurons produce intellectual behavior, cognition, emotion, and physiological responses is still poorly understood.
The task of neural science is to explain behavior in terms of the activities of the brain. How does the brain marshal its millions of individual nerve cells to produce behavior, and how are these cells influenced by the environment...? The last frontier of the biological sciences – their ultimate challenge – is to understand the biological basis of consciousness and the mental processes by which we perceive, act, learn, and remember. — Eric Kandel, Principles of Neural Science, fourth edition "

Read the bold stuff. we do not know how neural nets produce intellect, cognition, emotion, psychological responses, all of which are components of consciousness. The article did not even mention the highest forms of consciousness like imagination, creative invention, and dream construction.

 

[coyote]

[...]Heres just some quick stuff I found check this stuff out if it interesting enough to you guys:

Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality by Dean Radin (senior scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences)
http://www.amazon.com/Entangled-Minds-Extrasensory-Experiences-Quantum/dp/1416516778?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240996026&sr=1-1
[...]

Do you have anything other than a book, which we would have to buy first? I am certainly not motivated to buy a book with the likely prospect of being disappointed by yet more pseudo-scientific nonsense.

 

[coyote]

"However, how networks of neurons produce intellectual behavior, cognition, emotion, and physiological responses is still poorly understood.
The task of neural science is to explain behavior in terms of the activities of the brain. How does the brain marshal its millions of individual nerve cells to produce behavior, and how are these cells influenced by the environment...? The last frontier of the biological sciences – their ultimate challenge – is to understand the biological basis of consciousness and the mental processes by which we perceive, act, learn, and remember. — Eric Kandel, Principles of Neural Science, fourth edition "

Read the bold stuff. we do not know how neural nets produce intellect, cognition, emotion, psychological responses, all of which are components of consciousness. The article did not even mention the highest forms of consciousness like imagination, creative invention, and dream construction.

Sorry, I still do not see where this proves your point, namely that biochemical processes cannot explain human consciousness. That is your position, is it not?

What it does say is that we do not fully understand human thought. Well, big deal! This does not come as a surprise to me, given how complex our mind is, but nowhere in the wiki article does it say that our nervous system is not the seat of our mind.

 

[buckaroobonzai]

Do you have anything other than a book, which we would have to buy first? I am certainly not motivated to buy a book with the likely prospect of being disappointed by yet more pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Overview Of Current Parapsychology Research In The Former Soviet Union
http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/library/Fsu1.pdf

http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/library/Fsu2.pdf

And read up on this website, read about what they did, and for whom:

http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/

 

[buckaroobonzai]

Sorry, I still do not see where this proves your point, namely that biochemical processes cannot explain human consciousness. That is your position, is it not?

What it does say is that we do not fully understand human thought. Well, big deal! This does not come as a surprise to me, given how complex our mind is, but nowhere in the wiki article does it say that our nervous system is not the seat of our mind.

Well, there is no physical evidence, an actual scan or proof that the "mind" is wholly encapsulated on the finctions of the physical brain systems. All the scientific observations of the neuro net can be attributed to the brain, which controls lower level functions, and not higher conscious thought like I indicated. Also not only does it not understand thoughts, there is no physical association of higher complex thoughts to areas of the brain. I'm talking higher thoughts like imagination, creativity, dreaming, not lower sensory reactions etc. What traditional wisdom, ancient wisdom says is that the mind as well as soul are basically "riding" on the physical brain, which explains it better then the no-explanation we have from what is observable.

 

[JemyM]

With that said, even considering Wikpedia's questionable source and fact authenticity, the link you posted actually PROVES my point, while disproving yours.

Is this your reply? I am genuinely insulted because you clearly see me as naive.

I said "even wikipedia have a page on it" and added that this is basic information when taking a course in psychology. You responded by
a) saying wikipedia is questionable, which is 1. unrelated to what I said 2. doesn't respond to the rest I said.
b) saying "wikipedia proves your point while disproving mine" without clarifying what point that is and how it disproves it.

You are under the Dunning-Kruger effect. You are not only unaware on the topics on which you claim knowledge, you judge the value of your own knowledge through the same incompetence which gives you an inflated self-image.

Those with basic schooling in psychology can instantly see that you are not aware of the research, nor the discoveries, when it comes to the mind. Those with basic schooling in science can instantly see that you do understand how to conduct research, nor have any critical thinking, nor follow scientific method in how you learn new things. You debate through rhetoric and value judgements over presenting empirical data. You do not present logically constructed arguments that explain how your theories are compatible with the available evidence. When exposed with evidence that challenges your theory you reject it without reason. You are obviously prepared to go so far to defend symbols that have value to you, that you are willing to give up the goal of establishing what is true.

And you are too incompetent to realize why you are interpreted this way or why this is a problem.

And btw, scientists in the asian countries you refer to, even they reject their countrymens ideas. I know this because the scientific community is not cultural. Articles for peer-review is open for all universities in the world, with instructions on how to repeat the experiments. I have read the articles by them and they are as frustrated over their local communities misconceptions as we are.

When you become interested in the mind, take a psychology course. I am done with you.

 

[Squeek]

Is this your reply? I am genuinely insulted because you clearly see me as naive.

I really could have used a warning before reading this. I sprayed coffee all over my desk and keyboard.

 

[vanedor]

What traditional wisdom, ancient wisdom says is that the mind as well as soul are basically "riding" on the physical brain, which explains it better then the no-explanation we have from what is observable.

Ancient wisdom also claimed that the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. Actually, Chinese, up to fairly recently, thought that their empire was the middle of the world, surrounded by barbarians.

Your explanation might explain better as you say, but it's based on wind, on paranormal concepts that have very little solid scientific ground to support them.

A long time ago, people tought that the wind was caused by a god called Æolus. The keeper of the four winds. That was the old, ancient wisdom of the greek. It gave a great simple explanation for a complex phenomenon that even your ancient greek paysant could understand. Eventually, researches prove it wrong. Simple answer are rarely the accurate ones.

Sure, it's good for the human ego that his identity, the "me, myself and I" is more than purely biologic. Afterall, the afterlife is one of the last topic that religions still manipulate. And as it is a much complex phenomenon which is not yet explained, people try to explain it with religious, paranormal explanations... But I see no reason at all why, just like the wind, it won't be explained scientifically eventually.

 

[Squeek]

I really could have used a warning before reading this. I sprayed coffee all over my desk and keyboard.

Feeling a little bad about this, so....

As it stands, I view some of your posts as naive. If you really do have status as an expert in this area, one with clear legitimacy, then please explain that, and I will be happy to apologize.

Otherwise, how about coming down to Earth with the rest of us?

 

[Rithrandil]

I don't want to discuss this with personal diatribes, but I get the sense you are trying to go there, haha, nice try.

K.

I
Trying to state what other people think is a futile effort yo, especially when one is throwing stones from glass houses.
What Jemy said is disproven.

So why should anyone have to deal with your really bad beliefs?

Because my beliefs are based off of science while yours are based off of a pathetic mesh of stupid eastern "philosophies" and pseudoscience that would fit right in a UFO Abductee magazine.

I
Well, lets see, the Mayans were able to develop a calendar that is more accurate then our own centuries ago. Hmm, I guess they didn't know anything huh?

They also based it off of a specific end date of December 21st, 2012, so their calendar wouldn't have done us much good in about three and a half years. They knew some things but were vastly ignorant on others. My point is it's stupid to accept something as 'fact' just because its been talked about for thousands of years. Their calendar proved to be really good. Other aspects of their culture/belief system didn't. And our calendar is also centuries old - the last 'update' to it occured sometime in the 1800s where we skipped a few days, if I recall.

I
The great pyramid was built with extreme precision facing the compass points thousands of years before the compass was invented, using the golden mean, has the main air shaft pointing to where the constellation of Orion was located 10,000 years ago, etc. etc. I gues the Egyptians didn't know anything huh?

Once again, not my point. Just because they were awesome with building pyramids does not mean their religious beliefs are valid. Or is this concept too advanced for you to understand?

I
Modern egyptologists have no way to explain how the inner chambers of the Great Pyramid were lit, as scientific measurements found zero amounts of soot. The mirror reflection hypothesis was proven to be wrong as well. Yet the egyptians lit them. The egyptians knowledge was pretty useless huh?

See above statements.

I
The bagdhad battery is a proven artifact, proven to be an electrical device, theories range from uses for electroplating, thousands of years ago, yet electricity was "discovered" only three centuries ago right?

Not from what I've heard, but even if it was - the greeks invented steam power two thousand years ago. The invention didn't stick. It's why even though Leif Erikson (or possibly the Chinese) landed in America first, no one really cares and considers Columbus the discoverer of the New World.

Once again, what's your point? None of it makes their beliefs regarding the 'soul' valid. Are you arguing I should accept Zeus into my heart?

 

[Rithrandil]

There is Russian scientific proof of Psychic phenomena, I had done a research paper in college about it. I will actually look again for it if I have time.
There is also other western scientific evidence that thoughts effect randomness, again I would have to look for this as well.

I'm sure there is, really. This is why it's not widely hailed in scientific journals and why people aren't winning the Nobel prize for this discovery. By the way, I'm selling a can of tuna you may be interested in. It's guaranteed not to go pink in the can.