by Shining One 369 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
tdogg,
Joining the fun? Wow! I am honored to have so many of a scientific bent join me. BTW, I also am of a scientific bent.
So, tdogg, what is gravity? I wonder if you can answer that instead of describing how it behaves? I sincerely doubt it, but I wonder. Is gravity a physical reality?
Respectfully,
OldSoul
BTW (yay I have 3 posts left now), it's my understanding that only mathematics are provable. Other things may be real, but you can't perceive 2 and 2 being 4, it is a provable fact that it is.
So this whole business of proving gravity or comprehending the reality of the colors of walls are assertions made that provisionally they can be accepted but aren't proven by any scientific method.
Okay, Cygnus. I agree with you, but that view ultimately reduces physical reality to an agreed upon perception. Which was my point to begin with.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
Excellent responses, Tetra! Very well written.. can't argue with such solid logic.
What it seems to boil down to for the fundies is that if science can't explain it, then that's proof of God. *rolls eyes* They also can't seem to understand that arguing God must exist because of the complexity of the universe is self-defeating and doesn't answer anything.
Naturalism rules!
kid-A,
Not meaning to pick at your post, but aren't you confusing WHO we are with HOW we react, that is, how we respond? And, maybe I'm slow, but how does mapping areas of the brain define what an emotion is? No, because the studies I am describing involve asking the subject to clearly describe the emotion, in the most subjective terms possible. These subjective descriptions are then matched to the corollary neural region or circuit being activated. I would also add that WHO we are, defines HOW we react and vice versa. The distinction is artificial in terms of the totality of the individual. As for the definition of an emotion, we are of course limited to the narrative of the subject and must analyse these emotions within semantic limitations. Nonetheless, it is safe to assume that all humans share the same emotions within reason, as the same neural regions are activated in association with a very circumscribed range of described emotions. If who we are transcends physical reality and the limitations of neurochemical transmission and reactions, then our identities, emotions, memories, thoughts, perceptions would be immune to physical interventions, and they are clearly not. A simple example is schizophrenia. We know of a definable neurochemical aberration leading to the psychopathology in this syndrome. Schizophrenics lose all sense of a "self" connected with reality while experiencing psychosis. However, when dopamine antagonists are administered, the sense of 'self' can (hopefully) be restored to pre-morbid parameters.
Kid:
If who we are transcends physical reality and the limitations of neurochemical transmission and reactions, then our identities, emotions, memories, thoughts, perceptions would be immune to physical interventions, and they are clearly not.
Ermm, no.
I don't think anyone is arguing that we don't exist in this "reality" (although there are some I'm just not too sure about ). The question is whether or not we extend beyond it.
LT,
I am not clear regarding the difference between 'transcending physical reality" versus "extending beyond it" ? How are these different?
Kid:
What is being proposed is that there are more than the four dimensions (LxBxHxTIME) that we normally deal with. Why does that suddenly mean that the "self" transcend the four physical dimensions entirely so that we should feel no physical stimulus?
The question merely becomes, "is it possible for a human being to receive stimulus from outwith the normal four dimensions?"
LT,
Alas, I would have to know the form that such a stimulus manifest itself in before I would be able to provide a satisfactory answer. What I am confident of is that any such stimulus would have to be transduced at the level of the neuron in order for my consciousness to be aware of it.
In any case, to test such a hypothesis would require an understanding of any hypothetical dimension beyond the 4 you mentioned.
kid-A,
However, such extra dimensions are not newly proposed. Reimann-Kaluza viewed space implicitly in terms of greater than 3s·1t. Einstein's models made extensive use of extra dimensions which can only be explored through their mathematical impacts on our own perceptions.
OldSoul
