U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-22-2015, 01:20 PM
 
40,302 posts, read 26,882,677 times
Reputation: 6073

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
But that IS my point. When we manipulate the measurement events in our mathematical rubric the resulting formulations of the aspect being measured is revealed in the symbols used. When energy is symbolized as MC^2 or hf . . . those symbols have characteristics in the math that suggest the characteristics the measured entity possess in our reality. In this case . . . energy EXISTS in a vibratory state (hf) . . . one that we could characterize as analogous to "molecular." That vibratory state can be characterized as the square of speed of light with each cycle (back and forth travel) of the vibration represented symbolically as the square of the underlying "speed of propagation" of all EM radiation (C). I realize this is not the typical kind of thinking about what the mathematics represents . . . but it works for me.I have hypotheses, mordant . . . as you well know. But testability is and will remain the main hurdle that faces me. It is also the thing that Gaylen's efforts to establish a measurement regimen would resolve. It is also why my critics keep asking for any evidence for my CONCLUSIONS . . . knowing full well that there currently is none because my hypotheses are not yet testable. The fact that they are not yet testable in no way invalidates the science and the rationale from which they are derived . . . a point that is routinely ignored by my critics. They pretend that the science and supporting rationale for my hypotheses does not exist . . .without explaining why they think so. They simply repeat their signature mantra " there is no reason to believe and not one shred of evidence," etc. If they actually addressed the science and the rationale and exposed any faulty thinking or reasoning . . . that would be one thing. But to ignore the science and the rationale as non-existent without ever addressing them and then to dismiss my conclusions outright is just "dirty pool."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
.Ok so you are saying that there is some "cyclic" property being expressed. And that the limits of our measurements are telling us something. I am ok with that. I think your use of time is wrong. I say I am ok with that notion because "field' have to be able to change position so a "fixed" base will not work. I think!!!!I don't know. I think you should "build up". when we look "down" things disappear to most people.
The dirty pool is when you start with the name calling. You did it to me.
I am pleased you do see some aspects even though I disagree with you about time. If I ever called you a name I apologize. I don't recall doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
In which case get back to me when it is testable or you come up with an alternative hypothesis that IS testable. Otherwise you cannot provide the support needed to allow your claims to be considered. This is precisely why I haven't so much rejected the Abrahamic, personal type of god as I don't consider it relevant or able to be considered; such a god is inherently not provable. Since the god you are proposing with your admittedly also untestable hypothesis is really just a version of the Abrahamic god. And, since I HAVE to the extent I'm willing (an extent that goes further than what most people in my experience bother with) pursued the avenue of personal subjective experience which might provide proof at least adequate for me personally, and that has not worked out either ... I (and I'm sure most others like me) view life as far too short for me to spend one more second of time on pondering random possibilities. I need someone to show me testable hypotheses before I will seriously look at it again. I want my efforts focused by something actually promising.

95% of my time here is spent demonstrating to theists the lack of substantiation for their claims, in hopes that some of them, when the time is right for them personally, will find their way out of the thicket and fog of theist ideation, as I have, and have benefitted greatly from. Without the substantiation part, you're on a fool's errand in forums of unbelievers, to convince anyone of anything. You will find a far more receptive audience among people who are actively already convinced of some form of theism or other; they may be more vulnerable to alternative ways of thinking about what they've already bought into.

Alas, I fear you are then going to run into different brick walls, ones designed to protect orthodoxy and doctrinal purity. Your best bet are new age types and extremely liberal Christians for whom curiosity and experimentation with random ideas given the already accepted premise, are not taboo.

The above is not to make you feel unwelcome in any way; you often have useful and interesting things to say. I'm just saying, metaphorically: "Saul, Saul, it is hard for you to kick against the ox-goads." So until you have the prerequisites to sell this particular idea, I would not waste time and energy selling it here.
As with most of your posts . . . this is a reasonable request, mordant. But this is the Atheism AND Agnosticism forum. Agnostics should be receptive to speculations especially those well-grounded in science. I understand the need for testability and would never proselytize in here (or anywhere else). As I have repeatedly said . . . I am explaining my reasons because they are far more grounded than "no reasons whatsoever" or "not one shred of evidence" or"just made up" . . . as the baiters repeatedly claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
This is what I alluded to....or said outright...sometime earlier.
I also don't bother with " What if...........?" threads. Even if the premise is possible, it's usually also remote.
Early on, I actually did spend , as it turned, out too much time reading and giving consideration to Mystic's ideas.
I am sorry if my views in any way caused you to waste your time, old_cold. They have been personally confirming and affirming . . . and an enormous comfort to me despite their unproven nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Exactly. I told Mystic and Gaylen on the 'consciousness in a robot' thread that I was a practical man. "What ifs" are diverting sometimes, and in philosophy can even raise questions where science never steps. But, if science cannot provide the answers, faith and speculative guesswork never can.
That is why I have spent so much time on Mystic's hypothesis and its spin -off arguments like the rationale of atheism, the reliability of divine revelation and of course the 'Hard Question'.
It has never turned up anything but (at best) unknowns, speculation and faith -claims. My original take on the "Synthesis" when I first read it hasn't changed bur has been reinforced the more I have seen the protracted debates. It is a nice little theory but is entirely speculative and with no basis other than personal faith.
Many of the most important breakthroughs in science came through speculation and were subsequently validated, Arq. But you are right . . . until testable and validated . . . my views remain "plausible and solid reasons to believe". . . and well beyond "no reason whatsoever to believe."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-22-2015, 04:12 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,198 posts, read 9,122,763 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
But you are right . . . until testable and validated . . . my views remain "plausible and solid reasons to believe". . . and well beyond "no reason whatsoever to believe."
If someone really WANTS to believe then yes it beats just pulling things out of thin air ... the canonical example for me is the Divine Light Mission's notion that post-nasal drip is "divine nectar" and this becomes part of their ritual to seek the divine nectar by stretching the tendon that allows them to extend their tongue to touch their uvula and thus "taste the divine nectar". I mean, really. I don't equate you with that level of nonsense. But I can't credit it any more than divine nectar just because you put a lot of thought and effort into a backstory (or maybe backing into a story). I admire it in the same way I admire Tolkein's Ring Trilogy and his ambition to invent legends for the English speaking peoples. But I credit it just as much too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 06:38 PM
 
40,302 posts, read 26,882,677 times
Reputation: 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I am pleased you do see some aspects even though I disagree with you about time. If I ever called you a name I apologize. I don't recall doing so.
As with most of your posts . . . this is a reasonable request, mordant. But this is the Atheism AND Agnosticism forum. Agnostics should be receptive to speculations especially those well-grounded in science. I understand the need for testability and would never proselytize in here (or anywhere else). As I have repeatedly said . . . I am explaining my reasons because they are far more grounded than "no reasons whatsoever" or "not one shred of evidence" or"just made up" . . . as the baiters repeatedly claim.
I am sorry if my views in any way caused you to waste your time, old_cold. They have been personally confirming and affirming . . . and an enormous comfort to me despite their unproven nature.
Many of the most important breakthroughs in science came through speculation and were subsequently validated, Arq. But you are right . . . until testable and validated . . . my views remain "plausible and solid reasons to believe". . . and well beyond "no reason whatsoever to believe."
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
If someone really WANTS to believe then yes it beats just pulling things out of thin air ... the canonical example for me is the Divine Light Mission's notion that post-nasal drip is "divine nectar" and this becomes part of their ritual to seek the divine nectar by stretching the tendon that allows them to extend their tongue to touch their uvula and thus "taste the divine nectar". I mean, really. I don't equate you with that level of nonsense. But I can't credit it any more than divine nectar just because you put a lot of thought and effort into a backstory (or maybe backing into a story). I admire it in the same way I admire Tolkein's Ring Trilogy and his ambition to invent legends for the English speaking peoples. But I credit it just as much too.
It has nothing to do with WANTING to believe, mordant. You know enough about my situation to realize that WANT played no part and plays no part. By posting that nonsense you do equate them and that is a low blow. The absolute first requirement for establishing anything as fact is to have a plausible means and a rationale for it to be so. That is what separates "divine nectar" crapola from legitimate hypotheses like mine. Testing is the next step and my hypotheses present a special problem because of the meaurability issue Gaylen is trying to address. It is dirty pool to associate my genuine hypotheses based in extant science with "divine nectar" or unicorns or any other baseless assertions. It is a tactic typical of my rabid harassers as evidenced fully in this thread . . . but I would have thought it was beneath you, mordant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 06:59 PM
 
Location: Divided Tribes of America
13,753 posts, read 5,566,946 times
Reputation: 5409
MysticPhd,

You give the same amount of evidence for your claims as the Christian fundamentalists do for theirs: Zero.

So how are you any different than the Christian fundamentalists? You don't like them, and yet you do the same things: you make outlandish claims, refuse to back them up with evidence, and then get upset when skeptics refuse to blindly accept your claims.

Side note: at least the claims of fundamentalist Christians are comprehensible. I can barely understand what you are claiming in the first place. It's all mystical mumbo jumbo to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 07:16 PM
 
40,302 posts, read 26,882,677 times
Reputation: 6073
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It has nothing to do with WANTING to believe, mordant. You know enough about my situation to realize that WANT played no part and plays no part. By posting that nonsense you do equate them and that is a low blow. The absolute first requirement for establishing anything as fact is to have a plausible means and a rationale for it to be so. That is what separates "divine nectar" crapola from legitimate hypotheses like mine. Testing is the next step and my hypotheses present a special problem because of the meaurability issue Gaylen is trying to address. It is dirty pool to associate my genuine hypotheses based in extant science with "divine nectar" or unicorns or any other baseless assertions. It is a tactic typical of my rabid harassers as evidenced fully in this thread . . . but I would have thought it was beneath you, mordant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
MysticPhd,
You give the same amount of evidence for your claims as the Christian fundamentalists do for theirs: Zero.
So how are you any different than the Christian fundamentalists? You don't like them, and yet you do the same things: you make outlandish claims, refuse to back them up with evidence, and then get upset when skeptics refuse to blindly accept your claims.
Side note: at least the claims of fundamentalist Christians are comprehensible. I can barely understand what you are claiming in the first place. It's all mystical mumbo jumbo to me.
You clearly have no idea what my views are or the rationale for them. Since mine are the only thoroughly documented ones here in the forum and even summarized in a Synthesis . . . I recommend you spend some time educating yourself about them. I realize that the default position for the lazy skeptics here has been to simply carp and complain and make claims of "not one shred of evidence or reason to believe" or whatever . . . so I will not be surprised if you continue to do the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2015, 01:13 AM
 
3,637 posts, read 2,709,663 times
Reputation: 4300
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Agnostics should be receptive to speculations especially those well-grounded in science
I look forward to some then. Will you be offering any soon? You have been here nearly 7 years after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Agnostics should be receptive to speculations especially those well-grounded in science.
Quite love speculation myself. I love the idea of a world where the human mind has all kinds of magical abilities like astral plane walking - psychic powers - lifting off the brain and going elsewhere - interaction with each other across psychic threads - and so much more.

Unlike many however - I drop those fantasies as soon as I close the cover on the latest release from marvel comics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Many of the most important breakthroughs in science came through speculation and were subsequently validated
Absolutely! The bread and butter of science is made up of ideas like "What if, just what if, this idea might be true............". Such scientists tend to find substance for their ideas _before_ they actually start treating them as true however - and they realise that the vast majority of their flights of fancy turn out to be nonsense. And they reserve labels like "plausible" for ideas that actually turn out to be.

Would that others would do the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You clearly have no idea what my views are or the rationale for them.
I think anyone - who takes the time to scroll back only a few posts and read my recent entries on this thread - will find that the reasion most people are unaware of your rationale - is that when we specifically and openly ask for your rationale behind your conclusions - you contrive very transparently to not offer it and dodge the questions entirely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2015, 05:59 AM
 
39,470 posts, read 10,995,656 times
Reputation: 5122
Default bamboozlement

Mystic and I go back a long way. I first read his Synthesis a year maybe after he arrived. (I had first put him down as 'agnostic' and then read his talk about Jesus on the cross and the 'Carnal man' with astonishment. Clearly we had a Christian of some kind on our hands) and saw that it was all speculation. A nice little theory but total speculation.

I also found that getting a simple easy to understand explanation was impossible and, after years of badgering, cajoling and questioning, persisting despite a constant deluge of corrosive scorn...I told Mystic then that I don't do Miff and I don't hold grudges. I do however have a pretty fair memory ...I or we finally tracked it down to a conversion experience.

It's pretty clear that these are very powerful and persuasive. Perhaps it is 'God'. Perhaps it is not. That is the rationale of my continued atheism. There are other explanations and in fact increasingly better ones.

The case made for this experience, the soul, the spiritual evolution and an intelligent nature aka "God" was argued out over a long and vehement time and the conclusion is that it is irrational, faith -based and has no merits other than being rather original.

There is no point in protesting or saying I don't understand, old mate. I DO finally understand - enough to know that it is illogical, based on a fallacious assumption of an a prori "God" propped up with the fallacy of First cause and the old 'turtles all the way down' argument, and the rationale of the burden of proof on theism stands up despite a long attempt (with Mission Impossibru - who also helped Mystic on an abortive attempt to make a case for the validity of Divine revelation) to discredit the rationale of atheism and the efforts to undermine the materialist default, with the last possible case hinging on the Hard Question.

There Gaylenwoof patiently got me to get at least some idea what that was and I am now convinced that it is no reason to unseat the materialist default or to find any reason to suppose (through at least a kind of 'dualism' based on the Hard question (just what is the nature of consciousness/perception-experience) that there is a Soul, apparently a consciousness sorta coinciding with our bodies (1).

So I at least don't see any need to spend further time on the debate, though I have a look occasionally. because for me, it is all washed up and I will explain (as I have here, perhaps to save others some time) why I think it is all washed up. It is based on Faith, illogical reasoning, speculation and a lot of evasive posturing and deprecation of anyone who doesn't buy it.

I say this not to put Mystic down but just to tip people off on what is happening when they seem unable to get to grips with what Mystic is saying. He is saying nothing, but making it look as though he is.

The term that comes repeatedly to mind as the perfect descriptor is 'Bamboozlement'. Mystic old mate, you declare that you don't try to bamboozle anyone least of all me. Whether you are aware of it or not (after all, you believe it so you may think you are explaining) the main characteristic of the whole explanation in support of the Synthesis is bamboozlement.

That is my considered and present view on the matter. I commend it to the House.
(1) and which is in fact not separate from other souls - or I don't think so - but is all part of the universal consciousness aka "God". Nice little theory. Even some evidence. But not enough to make it really more than an unproven possibility.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-23-2015 at 06:35 AM.. Reason: some very necessary typing correction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2015, 06:15 AM
 
Location: Florida
19,885 posts, read 20,006,495 times
Reputation: 23372
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post


The term that comes repeatedly to mind as the perfect descriptor is 'Bamboozlement'. Mystic old mater, you declare that you don't try to bamboozle anyone least of all me. Whether you are aware of it or not (after all, you believe it so you may think you are explaining) the main characteristic of the whole explanation in support of the Synthesis is bamboozlement.
.
I actually am of the mind that Mystic is primarily trying to bamboozle nobody but himself.
It's simply that if he can convince others he will receive some support/confirmation of his idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2015, 07:16 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there.
6,885 posts, read 3,810,047 times
Reputation: 4636
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I take offense at the repeated use of "made up" that characterizes my critics' posts simply because they do not understand my philosophical use of the math formulas as analogous measured indices of our underlying reality.
But you have made it up! Who else uses the word 'timespace'? Provide me with a link to one single peer reviewed scientific journal or abstract anywhere that uses the word in that way.


Quote:
In truth most mathematicians have little to no appreciation for the philosophical implications of their extremely useful and revealing formulations.
No most (all) mathematicians don't appreciate your philosophical implications. Why would they?


Quote:
Let's cut to the chase, Cruithne . . . you seem not to engage in philosophical speculation of any kind. But whether or not anyone likes it . . . ANY discussion of God is speculative philosophy . . . otherwise there would be no need for discussion.
Oh I absolutely do engage in philosophical discussion.

Eugene Wigner, mathematician and physicist of the 1960's published his paper 'The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences', in which he both explains and speculates why it should be that mathematics is so precisely able to describe the universe, and why mathematical formula and able to be applied far beyond the contexts in which they were developed.
I think about this often. It is a truly remarkable and wonderful thing that we can slowly unlock the secrets of the universe by means of mathematics.
And this is perhaps why I can never take your synthesis seriously because until you start using the mathematics correctly, for me it's always going to be a non starter.


Quote:
You and your cohort of critics of my views keep attacking them AS IF they were presented as proven. In fact my most annoying critic keeps asking for that proof despite repeated attempts to clarify it for him. That indicates deliberate baiting, IMO.
Me and my cohort of critics? (who would they be?)
Attacking? You have this wrong. There is a big difference between attack and defense. ALL I am doing is defending the science. Sorry that's just my nature. Where I see a mistake I can't help but point it out.
Sorry Mystic, but I will do this everytime. I can't help myself.


Quote:
None of you unbelievers in God seem willing to engage in the philosophical reasoning of the SCIENCE that underlies my HYPOTHESES . . . with the exception of Gaylen. If you did we could find out why you disagree with my understanding of it. You attack my analogies AS IF they were literal and make no attempt to see them from a philosophical perspective as indices of the underlying structure and nature of our reality. My HYPOTHESES derived from the SCIENCE and my personal experiences . . . form the basis for my FAITH/BELIEFS. You and my other critics insist on asking for proof or evidence for my faith/beliefs . . . NOT for the derivation of my hypotheses or any errors in my understanding of the science you might think exists. IF you only see the physics as physics . . . and what it represents or can be used for . . . you are not open to any philosophical speculation about what its measured formulations actually reveal about the underlying structure of our reality. That is very sad because every measurement event captures the essence of our reality and reveals glimpses into its underlying structure and function.
Okay well you have me there.
Yes you are right. I am a very literal person. I deal in reality so there you have it.

---------------------------------

Mystic there are few things about all this that have me scratching my head:
From what I can work out, the vast majority of people who have taken a look at your synthesis have found that it concludes nothing.
Wouldn't it then be safe to assume then, that you are very probably wrong?
Don't you ever question yourself?

People have brains and are free to draw their own conclusions, so I don't understand why you get so bent out of shape about it. You might instead take it as constructive criticism. This is part of what it takes to get a PhD. You have to be able to take criticism on the chin, think about it, reflect on it and possibly draw a new conclusion yourself. Just a thought.

Whenever I defend the science you instantly lump me in with your 'cohort of critics'. Yet in the past we have seen eye to eye on many issues. We probably agree on more issues than we disagree on. I just don't accept the basis of your synthesis here. Another thing to think about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2015, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,198 posts, read 9,122,763 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It has nothing to do with WANTING to believe, mordant. You know enough about my situation to realize that WANT played no part and plays no part.
I know that you were an unbeliever and that your were surprised by the content of a peak experience while meditating and this convinced you (erroneously IMO) that you were wrong and that a deity existed -- which you then or later identified as some sort of pure and uncorrupted version of the Christian deity. I get that.

But some part of you was willing to believe this because otherwise you would not have afforded belief on that basis alone, particularly then mixing it up in a particular specific deity. And now that you have decades of investment in your theory, you are inherently biased in its favor. I would suggest that you DO want to to believe now, at any rate. Or you would not consider my critique a "low blow". I'm not trying to be cruel, but I am being direct and matter of fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The absolute first requirement for establishing anything as fact is to have a plausible means and a rationale for it to be so. That is what separates "divine nectar" crapola from legitimate hypotheses like mine. Testing is the next step and my hypotheses present a special problem because of the meaurability issue Gaylen is trying to address. It is dirty pool to associate my genuine hypotheses based in extant science with "divine nectar" or unicorns or any other baseless assertions. It is a tactic typical of my rabid harassers as evidenced fully in this thread . . . but I would have thought it was beneath you, mordant.
Yeah, I would have, too, but one thing I'm finding in my old age is that I tend to see the other person's point of view to a fault. The fault being that I am always afraid to call a spade a spade. I am trying to correct that of late. Trust me, I empathize with you, and in no way am I trying to dehumanize you. But I DON'T see a difference between Divine Nectar and your ideas (other than the difference I was careful to elucidate, which is that your ideas are less random and not at all cynically concocted). I DON'T see any difference in credibility however even if Divine Nectar is a disgusting concept that appears purposely created to select for fools, and your theory is aesthetically appealing and well-meaning. This is no judgment on you personally and it is no attack on you, it is simply my reaction to your ideas.

Though it doubtless bothers you that an intelligent and thoughtful person does not buy your ideas or is at least willing to make complimentary sounds concerning them, I trust that you will not lower your self to charging me with being underhanded and sneaky. I'm being completely above-board. I don't buy your theory and don't see how anyone concerned with provable empirical facts could in good conscience buy it. This says zero about what I think of you as a human being.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top