Daylight63
Verified User
It's only controversial if the science is correct. But if one doesn't care about science and one has no natural curiosity about how their brain works then I can see how boring it all would seem.
Neuroscientist loses a 25-year bet on consciousness — to a philosopher
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
It's only controversial if the science is correct. But if one doesn't care about science and one has no natural curiosity about how their brain works then I can see how boring it all would seem.
Maybe intensely religious Buddhists believe life is an illusion, and that's their choice.
To me, it doesn't logically follow that transcendent planes of reality we don't perceive necessarily render this physical world only just a mirage
you are boring
Daylight63
Verified User
Probably because I talk knowledgeably about science and religion. Two topics that clearly bore the shit out of you given how often you tell literally everyone that you don't care about the topic.
What a bore.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
That's the point about belief: no logical reason.
There are clearly universal laws. It doesn't matter if you are a human being, a Martian or a Vogon, the laws of the Universe apply to all of those within it.
What happens outside our Universe is a different matter. If a person wants to believe only this universe exists, that's on them.
Googling for scientific papers that seem to fit your preconceived notions, and then scanning them for 30 seconds doesn't count as reading them either.
The last link to a scientific paper you provided that I clicked on didn't support what you claimed it said. It was obviously a paper you quickly Googled an just scanned for 30 seconds.
A lot of 22 year old college atheists believe they can structure their lives around pure logic and physical evidence. But usually when they grow up they start to realize a lot of human life is based on belief and faith.
We might be living on a three dimensional brane embedded within a higher order hyperdimensional space.
'Thinking' is what Einstein did, and a lot of his thinking transcended experience and memory, and was not based on a 'memory of past external events'.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed on the third dimension of human existence: the physical, the mental and the spiritual. The first two exist in the natural universe, but the third seems to exist as part of the supernatural AKA outside the natural universe.
Many people, including both the CIA and KGB, have tried to connect with supernatural forces, specifically ESP and telekinesis, but all have failed. There is no physical proof if the existence of the supernatural. It's a matter of belief and faith as you pointed out.
Definition of SUPERNATURAL
of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil; departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
ZenMode
Well-known member
I'm not saying our brains can't come up with new ideas or concepts, but even those are based on past experience and knowledge. For example, a second grader, with a typical second grade understanding of science, is not going to sit in a room for the next two years and come up with Einstein's theories.
Agreed on the third dimension of human existence: the physical, the mental and the spiritual. The first two exist in the natural universe, but the third seems to exist as part of the supernatural AKA outside the natural universe.
Many people, including both the CIA and KGB, have tried to connect with supernatural forces, specifically ESP and telekinesis, but all have failed. There is no physical proof if the existence of the supernatural. It's a matter of belief and faith as you pointed out.
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universeDefinition of SUPERNATURAL
of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil; departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature… See the full definition
especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
Good summary.
Faith and supernatural can be perceived as loaded words.
Faith: every time we take medication from the pharmacist, we are taking it on faith that is not poisoned or the wrong medication. We don't do our own chemical analysis on the pills to verify them.
Supernatural: some could make the argument that the multiverse, hyperdimensional brane space, or the quantum many worlds fit that definition of supernatural because we have never seen them, and they are barely more than speculation at this point.
Daylight63
Verified User
That's highly doubtful.
I probably did google it. Unlike you I'm actually interested in learning about the topic, not just shouting down anything that doesn't comport to my bias.
Daylight63
Verified User
You DO realize Einstein created simple physical models for his questions, right? So he was leveraging that which he knew. Building on it.
Are you REALLY of the impression that Einstein, wholly unmoored from any human experience, came up with relativity? (Ignoring the FACT that he also leveraged the work of MANY other scientists at about the same time, and let's ignore for a moment that his first wife was probably the mathematician who made the theory possible....)
It is an absurdity to think of Einstein sitting in a room staring at a blank piece of paper and then "imagining Relativity into being" without reliance on other things. Even his own thought experiments were predicated on regular human experiences (riding a bicycle next to a beam of light)
Einstein was able to transcend and see beyond conventional physics and scientific thought.
You will have a hard time convincing me that is exactly what we should expect from biochemical meat puppets.
Daylight63
Verified User
Actually by starting from PREVIOUS WORK. He didn't come up with this out of the blue.
No, Einstein was a pure theoretical physicist, not an experimental physicist.
His ideas about special relativity, the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, general relativity were done in his mind and fleshed out with abstract mathematics.
Einstein's ideas about space, time, gravity, and the intimate relationship between matter and energy were utterly original.
Obviously Einstein needed to learn math to be able to flesh out these ideas, and to review the existing scientific literature.
Scut Farkus
Best
Daylight63
Verified User
Dude, he used the work of Poincare, Michelson, Lorentz....I mean the transforms in relativity for length are very much based off Lorentz's work.
Yes he was not an experimental physicist but he used experimental physicists work.
So you are saying you don't really know the history of much of the science you talk about? Theile and Bechelier wrote about Brownian Motion in the 1800's to early 1900's.
Look, I'm not going to DOWNPLAY Einstein's greatness but you seem to, as usual, have some weird cartoon view of science that really blots out how science actually WORKS.