Sooo, I see your trick SY
Trying to qualify as one of my "smarter people around" are you?
😀 😀 😀 😀
Variac said:
I see your point Variac and its how most others see it too, but some people see things different from the rest, and thats where Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman, Darwin, Watson, etc could of pulled it off from the rest. To me they saw stuff in their mind that others couldnt see, its from the way they think.
Im not trying to get a big head here, but i myself can see things alot different from other people, and pick up in things faster. I also see things that the majority of others dont see. Its from the way i think, i think logical and thats what makes my thinking different. Its also the way i learn.
Ofcourse just with that thinking your only going to get new ideas in a practical world, theroy is a must. Imagination, dedication and setting goals is whats going to get you to the next level.
Even with my type of thinking in the way i think, i still have my weaknesses, and so would have they.
Trev🙂
And how do you tell whats true?
How do you know whats true?
We humans see grass as green, other animals see it in different colours, so tell me, what colour realy is it?
Trev🙂
kd, until you can answer simple questions like "why is the sky blue?" or "what is the shape a limp rope makes when hung from two points?" or "why do atoms absorb and emit light at discrete frequencies and how can those be predicted?", you can't possibly be ready to tackle the more complex problems of cosmology or biochemistry. To suggest that you can replicate all the insights of thousands of great theorists and experimentalists over the past 300 years by observation and no study puts you on a plane above all other humans. I think the Greek word is "hubris."
Part of critical thinking is being able to evaluate non-direct sources of information. Ultimately, it is impossible to only rely on direct observation. For example, how do you know the Earth is really round? After all, you haven't seen if from space with your own eyes.
Ummm by listening, seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting, touching, reading ............. just like the rest of us. We are all original thinkers at birth.
If your on about someone who discovers somthing new. Only what he discovers comes from past experience and others past experience/knewledge. Ofcourse he would have to read books to see what they had done, (ie: observation).
Trev🙂
kingdaddy said:
Science is observation, just formalised. The whole theory of evolution, to name but one, came from Charles Darwin observing differences in various animals and birds.
pinkmouse said:
Leonardo Da Vinci also studied animals, namley birds. Thats how he invented the "Hang Glider" amoungst other things.
Trev🙂
jlsem said:
Religon has certainly done its share of murdering, on purpose or as a side effect... the Crusades (still going on today), and the Black Death (a 1/3rd of the European population dead largely because the cat was declared a tool of the devil). True, when it gets to this point, you have politics mascarading as religion, to the point that IMM, much formal religion has gained a pretty nasty connotation.
True religion should be between a person & his spiritual beliefs & personal evolution. God is just one of the words -- and one that has been most twisted by the politicians above -- used to try to pigeon hole that which might best be described as a "higher" understanding.
Man has a lot more potential than our environs have let us reach ... the individual quest for that potential has been subjigated, wrapped up in religiom, formalized by those that would be in control of those around them, and used as a tool to keep the sheep in line and doing there bidding (and keeping them in power). The insights of many an enlightened guru (Jesus Christ & Mohammed to name a couple well known ones) have been twisted to their ends.
dave
dave
SY said:
I brought this up because you seemed to think that the only source of higher learning and knowledge was books, obviously I did not mean that observation was the only source of knowledge just the main root which you keep leaving out.
It is not necessary to know the fabric of things to understand them and utilize them to your advantage. All the complex issues of how an atom does this or that is mental masturbation from my stand point, you don’t have to know this to be intelligent. All the modern machinery and gadgets are not necessary for sustaining life, in reality they don’t even make life much easier, just shifts the workload to another source and causes as many problem as they fix. Remember the more you know about something in detail the less you know in whole, it’s the whole that is important IMO, not the detail. Why are many scientist so pompous as to think they could ever know or understand the details of life’s origins anyway, and why do they think they will be able to do something with it even if they could understand? This goes back to accepting the truth and not trying to manipulate it, truth is bigger then all of us put together, you cant make a dent no matter what you think. I think our biggest communication problem is that I’m more spiritual in my thinking process and you are more cerebral. Consider the possible fact that all life is a spiritual force and you live in a biological body in this dimension or life, if that’s true no science will ever find the origins of life because it doesn’t understand the fundamentals of what life is.
BTW since this is such a simple question, why is the sky blue and what good will it do me to know?
So, to follow your argument to it's conclusion, you feel we would all be better off if we had never left the savannah, and were still eating roots, berries, and scavenging dead animals? Because if you reject science, where do you stop? What arbitrary line in the sand do you draw? The state of existance you currently enjoy, with a lifestyle that allows you to think the way you do, is all down to what you reject!
Books and laboratory learning allow you to bypass the hundreds of years, millions of man-hours, and billions of dollars spent figuring out how nature works. Again, you may feel that it is beneath you to have to learn scales before playing Beethoven, but for those of us who aren't Superman, it helps to actually know the fundamentals of things before we start opining about advanced matters.
If you can answer the question, "why is the sky blue?" then you can be sure that you understand the basics about the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with particles.
It's certainly not the only source (attributing this statement to me is a lie and violates one of the Ten Commandments!), but it's part of the necessary intellectual toolbag to understand what it is you're observing. When Oog the Caveman looked at that pretty light in the sky, he no doubt had every bit of the intellectual capacity and observational ability that I do. The only reason he attributed the light to magic and I don't is that he just didn't understand the quantum mechanics underlying nuclear fusion. It's not that he was stupid, it's that he didn't have the benefit of having the shoulders of giants to stand on.
If you can answer the question, "why is the sky blue?" then you can be sure that you understand the basics about the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with particles.
It's certainly not the only source (attributing this statement to me is a lie and violates one of the Ten Commandments!), but it's part of the necessary intellectual toolbag to understand what it is you're observing. When Oog the Caveman looked at that pretty light in the sky, he no doubt had every bit of the intellectual capacity and observational ability that I do. The only reason he attributed the light to magic and I don't is that he just didn't understand the quantum mechanics underlying nuclear fusion. It's not that he was stupid, it's that he didn't have the benefit of having the shoulders of giants to stand on.
kingdaddy said:
I think that here the term "books" has much wider meanig than the pysical entities of bound up paper.
True, but someone needed that to allow you to type the above in and have it disemminate across the world... and it is necessary to advance the art.
My current hunch is that all we percieve is standing waves, in a multi-dimensional sea of enegy.
It has to do with the thickness of and absorbtion spectrum of the thin blanket of life sustaining atmosphere and practical application & knowledge of the subject involves sun burns & avoidance of skin cancer.
dave
SY said:
Funny thing about mans knowledge of how something came to be is that it keeps changing every 100 years or so, we have no known reference to test many of our theories or beliefs, maybe Oog was closer to the truth then quantum mechanics are today. Ogg was not trying to be so specific as to why the sky was blue and magic might be very close depending on your definition, but when you try to dissect something down to the nth degree and are wrong in one area, your totally wrong, not even close.
Ill take Ogg's explanation any day.
You point up the greatest strength of science- its ability to correct and refine with time and experience. Oog couldn't make any predictions about the sun's motion or eclipses; Newton could. Newton could explain why Mercury's orbital period is what it is, but couldn't explain its precession. Einsten could explain the precession. If you think that there's no difference between Einstein's view and Oog's, better throw your computer away- we might find out next year that metals no longer conduct electricity.
planet10 said:
I much enjoy and respect your posting demeanor and POV, very respectful and insightful. That being said, I will have to disagree on this last point. I believe that all animals are endowed with a enough understanding to have enough sense to get out of the rain, so to speak. All we need to know was in the first brain that inhabited the first body the walked the earth, and no thing or writing taught he/she how to walk either.
I believe that we humans are spirits and we live in bodies and we have souls and that the soul is made up of your Mind, Emotions and Will which makes us individual.
I also believe that the spirit realm is at constant conflict with the physical worlds, and the more you know about one the less you know about the other.
Why is it that one man can fall from a airplane and hit the ground and break every bone in his body yet live, when another can step off his back porch, trip and fall and die? Only the idea that there is an unseen force of life that is not understandable in the physical mind could explain this IMO.
Just a comment on Intelligent Design (i didn't actually read the citaton, just gathered an impression from everyone's comments). This sounds closely related to the concept of Directed Panspermia which is an idea i have no problems with (even we earthlings are thinking about this when it comes to terraforming places like Venus). What it does do is just move the issue elsewher... ie where did the inteligence that could have seeded our earth come from -- at some point we need an origin. It seems that at some point life/intelligence had to rise out of the seething chaos. if that is the case then Occam's razor says it might have well been the primordial mud of an early Earth.
BTW. ID or directed panspermia is not topologically different from colonization by aliens.
Scientists are just trying to take the limited pieces thay have of a complex jigsaw puzzle and logically make sense of it... as we gain more shoulders to stand on, we continually revise the way the pieces go together as more pieces are discovered...
dave
BTW. ID or directed panspermia is not topologically different from colonization by aliens.
Scientists are just trying to take the limited pieces thay have of a complex jigsaw puzzle and logically make sense of it... as we gain more shoulders to stand on, we continually revise the way the pieces go together as more pieces are discovered...
dave
kingdaddy said:
tell that to all the people out there sunbathing 🙂
That fits in with my philosophy, but i tend to take a broader Learyistic viewpoint.
Somewhere out there is a central light (aka knowledge) that many know is there and strive for. (my definition of a formal religion is taking a specific view of the light, adding the viewpoint that it is the correct view and then (passively or actively) trying to bend others to your view as opposed to letting them develop their own view tailored to their mind, emotions & state of mental development.
It is actually quite amazing how close the most advanced spiritual consisounesses (i am purposely avoiding the word religion as they have transcended this_ -- exemplified by the "cartoon" character of the tibetian guru -- and the quantum physisits are... like one has gone clockwise, the other counterclockwise and they are about to meet at the top.
BTW these advanced spiritual consisounesses are very much able to control & understand their physical environs (body & surroundings) to a level most will never even get a hint at.
dave
Define your terms, else the statement is meaningless. These words have very different semantics for different people.
What the hell is that?
Simple: chance of what exactly gets hit, and how. Most people that fall out of airplanes die when they hit the ground. Most people that trip and fall do not die when they hit the ground. Thanks to insurance companies, there is tons of research on injuries.
Nope. I just provided an alternative explanation above. My explanation has two critical advantages over yours -- it can be tested (and shown incorrect if the evidence so warrants) and it actually explains something and provides potentially useful information (rather than using meaningless terms such as "force of life"). Not to mention that you make claims that something cannot be understood by the "physical" mind without any backup whatsoever.
Prune, if I may be so bold as to say this, I think it's just as big a mistake to try to bring science into religion/spirituality as it is to bring religion/spirituality into science.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.