O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::.

[And100]

Im living on the bible belt man. Anything scientific that could contradict genesis is a threat. People a few weeks ago here was ready to kill in the name of jesus when they discovered a new species that bridges ape human evolution. Just the mention of scientists finding neanderthal DNA in some humans sparks a harsh defensive negative reaction.

I was reading this thread a few weeks ago, and I saw no one "ready to kill in the name of jesus" nor any "harsh negative reaction".

Painting anyone as some sort of blood-thirsty fanatic simply because they don't fall for evolution, and expresses their views on why they don't, is quite an insult.

You middunderstood what he wrote. He was referring to the Bible belt when he wrote "here", which you did not highlight (but should have).

I noticed atheists tend to lean towards hurling insults at those who don't subscribe to their view, which makes it appear they are actually the ones who are insecure and predisposed to rage. Perhaps they are really the "harsh...negative" and "ready to kill" folks you speak of.

So you call someone out painting other people with broad a brush yet do the exact same thing in very next paragraph...

Is correctly identifying this clear-cut hypocrisy an insult? Does it suggest rage?

[Clyde_Style]

New Dinosaur Species That Lived Above Arctic Circle Is Discovered

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/science/new-dinosaur-species-that-lived-above-arctic-circle-discovered.html



Researchers have found a new species of dinosaur that lived 69 million years ago above the Arctic Circle, the farthest north dinosaurs have ever been found.

The animal, a plant eater about 30 feet long, has been named Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis — ancient grazer of the Colville River, in the Inupiaq language of the Inuit natives of Alaska.

“It had crests along its back like Godzilla,” said one of its discoverers, Gregory M. Erickson, a professor of biological sciences at Florida State University. The dinosaur’s jaw was lined with at least 1,000 teeth with coarse surfaces perfect for pulverizing plants.

U. kuukpikensis belongs to the hadrosaur group of duck-billed dinosaurs. It was 25 to 30 feet long, six or seven feet high at the hip, and probably covered with scales. While its front legs were much shorter than its back legs, it could walk on all fours.

The paleontologists who work the site have, to put it mildly, a difficult commute. It begins with a 500-mile drive north from the University of Alaska Fairbanks along the oil pipeline to Prudhoe Bay.

“From there we fly a few hundred miles to the river in a plane with balloon tires that can land on gravel bars,” Dr. Erickson said. “Then we use inflatable boats to get around. It takes seven or eight flights to get all the equipment in.”

The climate when U. kuukpikensis flourished was much warmer than today, with average temperatures in the low 40s.

“These animals were living in a very strange world,” said another member of the team, Patrick Druckenmiller, earth sciences curator at the University of Alaska Museum of the North in Fairbanks. “They probably had freezing and snow in the winter, and they had to survive four months of complete darkness. Finding food would be difficult. The plants are not growing at this time, and they would have to live on low-quality forage: ferns, twigs and bark.”

The find was described in the journal Acta Palaeontologica Polonica.

“The neatest thing is that our work is showing that there were dinosaurs thriving above the Arctic Circle, and all the ones we’re finding are unique to Alaska,” Dr. Druckenmiller said. “These are not the same species as at lower latitudes. What we have is a unique community of dinosaurs that lived in the polar regions when the world was a very different place.”

[And100]

The dinosaur’s jaw was lined with at least 1,000 teeth with coarse surfaces perfect for pulverizing plants.

My, what a startling but convenient coincidence.

[Iron Mantis]

Im living on the bible belt man. Anything scientific that could contradict genesis is a threat. People a few weeks ago here was ready to kill in the name of jesus when they discovered a new species that bridges ape human evolution. Just the mention of scientists finding neanderthal DNA in some humans sparks a harsh defensive negative reaction.

I was reading this thread a few weeks ago, and I saw no one "ready to kill in the name of jesus" nor any "harsh negative reaction".

Painting anyone as some sort of blood-thirsty fanatic simply because they don't fall for evolution, and expresses their views on why they don't, is quite an insult.

I noticed atheists tend to lean towards hurling insults at those who don't subscribe to their view, which makes it appear they are actually the ones who are insecure and predisposed to rage. Perhaps they are really the "harsh...negative" and "ready to kill" folks you speak of.

Wow, this is sad to hear. You are from USA? For some reason, Creationist still have credibility in this country, its amazing to me. I grew up in the middle of Europe and I can tell you, we don't have those people here. Even the most religious pastors and fanatics knows evolution is a fact that can't be disproven. Before I got the Internet, I didn't even know those people still existed in 21s century.

Anyway, this Mars news really exists me. I pray they find extraterrestrial life in my lifetime, even if its single cell organisms, I live for this ****.

Case in point.

But anyway...evolution entirely evades the scientific method, that's why not everyone believes it.

By what standards is it a "fact that can't be disproven?" By religious standards perhaps, since faith is needed to make such a statement? It certainly cannot be proven by the scientific method. Lining up fossils does not prove life sprang from nothing and ended up a human. All it proves is life has endless varieties of species.

Even actual scientists don't go out on a limb to make such declarations of the idea of evolution being "fact that can't be disproven".

I'm curious, who exactly are you praying to, requesting these findings?

I've been polite with you so I will present you with this simple question: Please define scientific method and how it would be used to determine the truth of evolution (or not).

I have to be frank. You may not be insulting anyone directly, but you are completely evasive and never follow through your assertions to their logical conclusion. After writing at great length on these topics I don't believe you have answered that simple question, yet you continue to invoke it as the heart of your thesis that science has no more validity than biblical statements.

Instead of psychologizng anyone any further, just get down to brass tacks and answer that question please. You're the one who keeps inciting this so you should be the one who is capable of putting it to rest.

Sorry I didn't see this post before you went berzerk.

Clyde, I've posted probably a dozen times different aspects of the scientific method in this thread, namely what qualifies a theory, as I believe that's the stage where evolution stands right now, correct?

[Iron Mantis]

Im living on the bible belt man. Anything scientific that could contradict genesis is a threat. People a few weeks ago here was ready to kill in the name of jesus when they discovered a new species that bridges ape human evolution. Just the mention of scientists finding neanderthal DNA in some humans sparks a harsh defensive negative reaction.

I was reading this thread a few weeks ago, and I saw no one "ready to kill in the name of jesus" nor any "harsh negative reaction".

Painting anyone as some sort of blood-thirsty fanatic simply because they don't fall for evolution, and expresses their views on why they don't, is quite an insult.

I noticed atheists tend to lean towards hurling insults at those who don't subscribe to their view, which makes it appear they are actually the ones who are insecure and predisposed to rage. Perhaps they are really the "harsh...negative" and "ready to kill" folks you speak of.

Wow, this is sad to hear. You are from USA? For some reason, Creationist still have credibility in this country, its amazing to me. I grew up in the middle of Europe and I can tell you, we don't have those people here. Even the most religious pastors and fanatics knows evolution is a fact that can't be disproven. Before I got the Internet, I didn't even know those people still existed in 21s century.

Anyway, this Mars news really exists me. I pray they find extraterrestrial life in my lifetime, even if its single cell organisms, I live for this ****.

Case in point.

But anyway...evolution entirely evades the scientific method, that's why not everyone believes it.

By what standards is it a "fact that can't be disproven?" By religious standards perhaps, since faith is needed to make such a statement? It certainly cannot be proven by the scientific method. Lining up fossils does not prove life sprang from nothing and ended up a human. All it proves is life has endless varieties of species.

Even actual scientists don't go out on a limb to make such declarations of the idea of evolution being "fact that can't be disproven".

I'm curious, who exactly are you praying to, requesting these findings?

I wasnt talking about this thread. I didnt check this thread until this past weekend about the mars news.

Im talking about where im living right now. And actual conversations with people. The "bible belt" is an accepted term used in and to describe the south. More specifically the carolinas. Where you keep your bible on the dash board and fly your rebel flag on the back of your pickup truck.

And this kinda makes my point too. Because I didnt bring up evolution with these folks or nothing. Didnt bring religion into it. They found the subject threatening on the drop of a dime. They found the whole mars thing threatening. When THEY,.... defensively brought religion into the subject. And tried to shut it down,.... it finally dawned on me why they were so upset.

And yeah. Its laugh out loud funny until you get categorized. Like being called an atheist. Something to my knowledge im not. And the name calling starts. The threats that sudden death will strike. And you will be tortured forever in hell. Then the prayers start.

Yes its really like that. If you want proof, you can find easily. I can even point you in the right direction.

Here's another example. This weekends blood moon and eclipse. The bible verses to back that this signifies the end where in full swing. Yes,.. the end of the world was this weekend.

Bro I **** you not. We had a drought. No rain for weeks. This whole weekend and still now,... its rained and been cloudy. No one saw the blood moon here. God brought the rain storms and clouds. Gave us the rain we needed and blocked the blood moon with the clouds. And thats why we are still here today. Thats why the world didnt end this weekend.

The whole world is still here right now, because it rained on "the bible belt". In the south. Thats how important people are here. How important this land is. And more proof that prayer works and there is a god.

Blows my mind. And I cant say nothing. Free speech? Common sense? No way. Im a yankee. A hispanic. A smart ass from the north. I must know my place and keep my mouth shut and appreciate by the way of god that im allowed to be here in the south.

Never once have I ever challenged anyones belief. Just the act of thinking is a threat to the way of faith. And im not from here. So i better watch my step,... and not think.

Of course I dont see it that way. Dont matter how many times they arrest me.

I apologize Kane, that's crazy down there.

Up here I'm in the redneck part of NJ, where the huge pickups all have confedrate flag stickers on them. But fortunately they are not wild and interestingly most seem to lack strong religious beliefs, or have none at all, yet don't care for science either.. It's weird.

[Clyde_Style]

I was reading this thread a few weeks ago, and I saw no one "ready to kill in the name of jesus" nor any "harsh negative reaction".

Painting anyone as some sort of blood-thirsty fanatic simply because they don't fall for evolution, and expresses their views on why they don't, is quite an insult.

I noticed atheists tend to lean towards hurling insults at those who don't subscribe to their view, which makes it appear they are actually the ones who are insecure and predisposed to rage. Perhaps they are really the "harsh...negative" and "ready to kill" folks you speak of.

Case in point.

But anyway...evolution entirely evades the scientific method, that's why not everyone believes it.

By what standards is it a "fact that can't be disproven?" By religious standards perhaps, since faith is needed to make such a statement? It certainly cannot be proven by the scientific method. Lining up fossils does not prove life sprang from nothing and ended up a human. All it proves is life has endless varieties of species.

Even actual scientists don't go out on a limb to make such declarations of the idea of evolution being "fact that can't be disproven".

I'm curious, who exactly are you praying to, requesting these findings?

I've been polite with you so I will present you with this simple question: Please define scientific method and how it would be used to determine the truth of evolution (or not).

I have to be frank. You may not be insulting anyone directly, but you are completely evasive and never follow through your assertions to their logical conclusion. After writing at great length on these topics I don't believe you have answered that simple question, yet you continue to invoke it as the heart of your thesis that science has no more validity than biblical statements.

Instead of psychologizng anyone any further, just get down to brass tacks and answer that question please. You're the one who keeps inciting this so you should be the one who is capable of putting it to rest.

Sorry I didn't see this post before you went berzerk.

Clyde, I've posted probably a dozen times different aspects of the scientific method in this thread, namely what qualifies a theory, as I believe that's the stage where evolution stands right now, correct?

I did not go bezerk. I drew a line in the sand where I said I will stick to basketball with you and not engage in science and religion any longer. I'd rather be friendly and maintain our common ground as Knicks fans than hack away at you on this thread. I don't believe your approach is going to change, so it is my choice to disengage which is what I think is best.

[And100]

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

© PhotoDisc In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

[UcanUwill]

I was reading this thread a few weeks ago, and I saw no one "ready to kill in the name of jesus" nor any "harsh negative reaction".

Painting anyone as some sort of blood-thirsty fanatic simply because they don't fall for evolution, and expresses their views on why they don't, is quite an insult.

I noticed atheists tend to lean towards hurling insults at those who don't subscribe to their view, which makes it appear they are actually the ones who are insecure and predisposed to rage. Perhaps they are really the "harsh...negative" and "ready to kill" folks you speak of.

Case in point.

But anyway...evolution entirely evades the scientific method, that's why not everyone believes it.

By what standards is it a "fact that can't be disproven?" By religious standards perhaps, since faith is needed to make such a statement? It certainly cannot be proven by the scientific method. Lining up fossils does not prove life sprang from nothing and ended up a human. All it proves is life has endless varieties of species.

Even actual scientists don't go out on a limb to make such declarations of the idea of evolution being "fact that can't be disproven".

I'm curious, who exactly are you praying to, requesting these findings?

I've been polite with you so I will present you with this simple question: Please define scientific method and how it would be used to determine the truth of evolution (or not).

I have to be frank. You may not be insulting anyone directly, but you are completely evasive and never follow through your assertions to their logical conclusion. After writing at great length on these topics I don't believe you have answered that simple question, yet you continue to invoke it as the heart of your thesis that science has no more validity than biblical statements.

Instead of psychologizng anyone any further, just get down to brass tacks and answer that question please. You're the one who keeps inciting this so you should be the one who is capable of putting it to rest.

Sorry I didn't see this post before you went berzerk.

Clyde, I've posted probably a dozen times different aspects of the scientific method in this thread, namely what qualifies a theory, as I believe that's the stage where evolution stands right now, correct?

Word ''Theory' in science, stands for explanation, backed by scientific method and tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Just because it has word theory in it, doesn't mean it's not a fact. Gravity is called a theory as well, but just like Evolution, it is scientific fact.

I always wondered is this the reason why English speaking countries has so many people who don't believe in Evolution. Because it has word theory as an expression, people just tend to think that not believing in it is credible and all right.

[KnickFan33]

WATER ON MARS

Really stoked about the news.

Here's a hypothetical. Say microorganisms are found and they are similar in composition to those on earth (carbon based). Would you say that favors they hypothesis of panspermia? Or would you say that it might just mean that carbon based lifeforms are simply an inevitability given the presence of water?

I've never held a particularly strong emphasis in the value of either scenario, i.e. earth being fully evolved internally or if it were seeded by other organisms.

By default, even on a base elemental level, everything is stardust so the earth is a byproduct of something else. For this alone, you have to assume elemental associations will be found on other planets. That is not entirely significant as far as I know so far.

I do think there probably already enough known facts about our biosphere to conclude most carbon-based lifeforms require certain conditions to produce highly sentient beings. That the earth has life forms that exist in inhospitable conditions in deep water or volcanoes and under extreme climatic conditions means life can probably exist in scenarios we haven't encountered yet, but they will still likely require environmental factors like the moisture (not really a new discovery) and its behavior (this is what the new findings are really about) found on Mars.

By extrapolation, the implications of H2O probably only mean there is moisture that under certain climatic conditions and with certain elemental interactions could produce the framework for organisms to evolve into more complex beings. The real hunt now is for single cell organisms. If they are found, but dead, it will probably mean things didn't kickstart beyond the basic starting point. If they are found, but alive, it means life could evolve further under the right conditions.

But does it mean anything else? Likely not. Some are into ancient alien theories and they could say Mars and Earth were seeded by other civilizations and Earth hit the jackpot. There are many theories about this stuff, including the possible existence of advanced human technologies that were lost to war and previous genocides, which some will ascribe to visitors and not simply human ingenuity.

First few paragraphs seem to agree with carbon based life essentially being an inevitability.

Last paragraph, not sure how it fits into the discussion. Are you saying the panspermia hypothesis is based on other civilizations seeding earth with life?

[Iron Mantis]

I've been polite with you so I will present you with this simple question: Please define scientific method and how it would be used to determine the truth of evolution (or not).

I have to be frank. You may not be insulting anyone directly, but you are completely evasive and never follow through your assertions to their logical conclusion. After writing at great length on these topics I don't believe you have answered that simple question, yet you continue to invoke it as the heart of your thesis that science has no more validity than biblical statements.

Instead of psychologizng anyone any further, just get down to brass tacks and answer that question please. You're the one who keeps inciting this so you should be the one who is capable of putting it to rest.

Sorry I didn't see this post before you went berzerk.

Clyde, I've posted probably a dozen times different aspects of the scientific method in this thread, namely what qualifies a theory, as I believe that's the stage where evolution stands right now, correct?

I did not go bezerk. I drew a line in the sand where I said I will stick to basketball with you and not engage in science and religion any longer. I'd rather be friendly and maintain our common ground as Knicks fans than hack away at you on this thread. I don't believe your approach is going to change, so it is my choice to disengage which is what I think is best.

I exaggerated when I said berserk; you were cool.

You are definitely a good fellow and I appreciate your way of handling matters.

[Clyde_Style]

Sorry I didn't see this post before you went berzerk.

Clyde, I've posted probably a dozen times different aspects of the scientific method in this thread, namely what qualifies a theory, as I believe that's the stage where evolution stands right now, correct?

I did not go bezerk. I drew a line in the sand where I said I will stick to basketball with you and not engage in science and religion any longer. I'd rather be friendly and maintain our common ground as Knicks fans than hack away at you on this thread. I don't believe your approach is going to change, so it is my choice to disengage which is what I think is best.

I exaggerated when I said berserk; you were cool.

You are definitely a good fellow and I appreciate your way of handling matters.

[Clyde_Style]

Really stoked about the news.

Here's a hypothetical. Say microorganisms are found and they are similar in composition to those on earth (carbon based). Would you say that favors they hypothesis of panspermia? Or would you say that it might just mean that carbon based lifeforms are simply an inevitability given the presence of water?

I've never held a particularly strong emphasis in the value of either scenario, i.e. earth being fully evolved internally or if it were seeded by other organisms.

By default, even on a base elemental level, everything is stardust so the earth is a byproduct of something else. For this alone, you have to assume elemental associations will be found on other planets. That is not entirely significant as far as I know so far.

I do think there probably already enough known facts about our biosphere to conclude most carbon-based lifeforms require certain conditions to produce highly sentient beings. That the earth has life forms that exist in inhospitable conditions in deep water or volcanoes and under extreme climatic conditions means life can probably exist in scenarios we haven't encountered yet, but they will still likely require environmental factors like the moisture (not really a new discovery) and its behavior (this is what the new findings are really about) found on Mars.

By extrapolation, the implications of H2O probably only mean there is moisture that under certain climatic conditions and with certain elemental interactions could produce the framework for organisms to evolve into more complex beings. The real hunt now is for single cell organisms. If they are found, but dead, it will probably mean things didn't kickstart beyond the basic starting point. If they are found, but alive, it means life could evolve further under the right conditions.

But does it mean anything else? Likely not. Some are into ancient alien theories and they could say Mars and Earth were seeded by other civilizations and Earth hit the jackpot. There are many theories about this stuff, including the possible existence of advanced human technologies that were lost to war and previous genocides, which some will ascribe to visitors and not simply human ingenuity.

First few paragraphs seem to agree with carbon based life essentially being an inevitability.

Last paragraph, not sure how it fits into the discussion. Are you saying the panspermia hypothesis is based on other civilizations seeding earth with life?

Not sure what more you are asking for. I believe in biological conditions being required for life to evolve. And I was saying the WHY of HOW those conditions appear may or may not be relevant, but we don't know that and maybe never will. So until there is a greater ontological basis for saying earthly conditions are a result of conscious non-earthly influences, I assume the default hypothesis to be that our ecology provided conditions suitable for evolution. And that could occur elsewhere that those conditions exist.

My belief in non-carbon lifeforms has no real bearing on that other than the fundamental question of how did non-carbon life forms happen too. I'm pretty well aligned with the basic of science so there is no contradictions there. Since I'm pretty sure the sheer physical limitations of space travel make interplanetary contract with evolved species unlikely, I remain curious about the existence of non-corporeal consciousness, which I'm damn sure does exist.

Consciousness clearly transcend space and time limitations that flesh cannot. The mystical powers of many humans have demonstrated this over and over again. Some think it is all attributable to a God on a throne, whereas I'm close to certain it has nothing to do with that, but is a manifestation of physical laws that move beyond the third dimension.

Why it is relevant to a discussion on evolution is this: Are all inter-dimensional beings a by-product of earthly powers?

In other words, has consciousness evolved right here on earth to the point where in some instances the mind (or soul or spirit) continues intact outside the moral coil?

AND/OR, is it that PLUS some entities are born from other non-carbon conditions entirely and exist from beginning to end in another dimension that can pierce ours?

AND/OR, is it possible that advanced civilizations exist at great distances from ours and they know how to transport their consciousness or even material forms through space and time by using inter-dimensional technologies or consciousness itself?

This is all relevant to evolution because I have no doubt consciousness operates in non-carbon form and if one believes this to be the case it affects the possibilities of human origins and what came first. But I still believe in bio-chemistry and the fossil record here on earth.

[And100]

I remain curious about the existence of non-corporeal consciousness, which I'm damn sure does exist.

How does one distinguish between non-corporeal consciousness and a perception of non-corporeal consciousness?

I believe the argument that one has to personally experience it to know the difference and cannot express it just further illustrates the relevance of the question.

Consciousness clearly transcend space and time limitations that flesh cannot. The mystical powers of many humans have demonstrated this over and over again.

That is an empirical statement. When was the last documented demonstration?

[Clyde_Style]

I remain curious about the existence of non-corporeal consciousness, which I'm damn sure does exist.

How does one distinguish between non-corporeal consciousness and a perception of non-corporeal consciousness?

I believe the argument that one has to personally experience it to know the difference and cannot express it just further illustrates the relevance of the question.

Consciousness clearly transcend space and time limitations that flesh cannot. The mystical powers of many humans have demonstrated this over and over again.

That is an empirical statement. When was the last documented demonstration?

We covered your first question.

I find your second question disingenuous. You've said multiple times you are well-versed in every subject you ask your leading questions about. And you actually said once how could I be so presumptuous to assume you are not well versed in subjects of mystical import.

Well, which is it? Are you just of of a purely literal scientific orientation or do you actually know anything about yogas or not? Because if you do, you wouldn't busy yourself needling people on the possibilities that mental and energetic transferences occur on so many levels in non-fixed matter.

You don't believe in free will, right? So what do you care?

[And100]

I remain curious about the existence of non-corporeal consciousness, which I'm damn sure does exist.

How does one distinguish between non-corporeal consciousness and a perception of non-corporeal consciousness?

I believe the argument that one has to personally experience it to know the difference and cannot express it just further illustrates the relevance of the question.

Consciousness clearly transcend space and time limitations that flesh cannot. The mystical powers of many humans have demonstrated this over and over again.

That is an empirical statement. When was the last documented demonstration?

We covered this.

Not to my knowledge we didn't.

I only recall the overarching response that you can only experience, not explain.

But to suggest human have "demonstrated" mystical powers is a whole other, different claim. A demonstration is the action or process of showing the existence or truth of something by giving proof or evidence.

If you didn't mean "demonstration" in that way that cool, no harm no foul. But I'm not assuming you didn't mean it in the literal sense.

[mugzi]

I've come full circle in my own journey to find purpose in this life experience we share. I searched for it with religion, and pursued that for a while with thoughts it would bring me closer to a father I never knew as a youth and didn't meet till I was an adult. I found that didn't work, but despite a difference of belief I developed a bond with my Christian pop that's grown stronger through adulthood. I've come to view religion as spiritual fire insurance, and I can't ascribe to anything that tells me that if I don't believe this then I go to a fiery fate of damnation. Through much reading and study I found that there's many artifacts and past occurrences that modern science and history either cannot or will not explain.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[And100]

I remain curious about the existence of non-corporeal consciousness, which I'm damn sure does exist.

How does one distinguish between non-corporeal consciousness and a perception of non-corporeal consciousness?

I believe the argument that one has to personally experience it to know the difference and cannot express it just further illustrates the relevance of the question.

Consciousness clearly transcend space and time limitations that flesh cannot. The mystical powers of many humans have demonstrated this over and over again.

That is an empirical statement. When was the last documented demonstration?

We covered your first question.

I'll reiterate. Arguing one has to experience it to describe it and/or to know is was a real experience does nothing to address questions about the nature of the experience.

I haven't denied people have genuine 'experiences', perhaps even productive, instructive ones. But to say you have to experience it to conclude it's a "non-corporeal" experience is a fundamentally different claim. Scientific method understands eyewitness experience/testimony is the weakest form of evidence.

I could have such a personal experience myself (which I apparently could not describe to another living being) and that would not even begin to answer the relevant and important question as to the true nature of the experience.

That is the question currently at hand.

I find your second question disingenuous. You've said multiple times you are well-versed in every subject you ask your leading questions about. And you actually said once how could I be so presumptuous to assume you are not well versed in subjects of mystical import.

I'm relatively well-versed in matters of religion. To the best of my memory, I haven't made any such claim about mysticism of the type you seem to be describing.

More importantly, I'm not sure why it matters. This strikes me as a defensive posture, which counter-intuitively seems like the opposite stance someone possessing truth would hold.

Well, which is it? Are you just of of a purely literal scientific orientation or do you actually know anything about yogas or not? Because if you do, you wouldn't busy yourself needling people on the possibilities that mental and energetic transferences occur on so many levels in non-fixed matter.

More importantly I'm currently not aware of humans demonstrating powers suggestive of consciousness transcending space and time. If that's a failure on my part that's what I'm hoping this exchange will remedy. Or if you were under the impression I was, I'll gladly accept responsibility for possibly contradicting myself and apologize to move the discussion forward.

So as someone well versed on this topic, can you provide the most recent example of such a demonstration?

You don't believe in free will, right? So what do you care?

Curiosity. And an interest in science, psychology, anthropology and sociology. None of these interests I consider an expression of free will. I consider if part of my hard-wiring. Skepticism isn't a choice. I cannot NOT be skeptical of such claims any more than I can choose to believe in a custodial god-figure.

But again, why does any of that matter? In your last post you three times made claims about your certainty of non-corporal consciousness to a forum you knew would include skeptics. You claim these abilities have been demonstrated (meaning they've been observed and proven), which is a very, very different claim that any such phenomena could only be observed or experienced first hand.

Isn't it just as easy to give the answer to a fair and relevant on-topic question when you have the answer than it is to turn this into some irrelevant personal matter?

[NYKAL]

sometime I allow myself to zone out and just free associate. The things I've come up with have ..at time astounded as much at it freaked me out. I used to always make sure I was sober when I'd do it but, later found the experience even more lucid and less disturbing if I "twist" one up first.

The first "freak me out" experience was I had what felt like a freaking vision. Anyone remember the tv show Stargate SG1? How they would go into those wormholes....I felt like it was falling into something that looked like what they depicted on the show. When the tunnel ended, I was flat on my back surrounded by rubble and broken/destroyed buildings.

I remember looking around, feeling what felt like cobblestones underneath me and there was a huge chopper in the sky. Then the tunnel again and I'm back in my room.

I know it sound unbelievable. I'm not even going to list the other experiences. Some are even more unbelievable while others are just too personal to share.

[And100]

sometime I allow myself to zone out and just free associate. The things I've come up with have ..at time astounded as much at it freaked me out. I used to always make sure I was sober when I'd do it but, later found the experience even more lucid and less disturbing if I "twist" one up first.

The first "freak me out" experience was I had what felt like a freaking vision. Anyone remember the tv show Stargate SG1? How they would go into those wormholes....I felt like it was falling into something that looked like what they depicted on the show. When the tunnel ended, I was flat on my back surrounded by rubble and broken/destroyed buildings.

I remember looking around, feeling what felt like cobblestones underneath me and there was a huge chopper in the sky. Then the tunnel again and I'm back in my room.

I know it sound unbelievable. I'm not even going to list the other experiences. Some are even more unbelievable while others are just too personal to share.

Not unbelievable at all.

The brain is an incredible instrument capable of more than we normally tap into.

[NBA Fan 1234]

sometime I allow myself to zone out and just free associate. The things I've come up with have ..at time astounded as much at it freaked me out. I used to always make sure I was sober when I'd do it but, later found the experience even more lucid and less disturbing if I "twist" one up first.

The first "freak me out" experience was I had what felt like a freaking vision. Anyone remember the tv show Stargate SG1? How they would go into those wormholes....I felt like it was falling into something that looked like what they depicted on the show. When the tunnel ended, I was flat on my back surrounded by rubble and broken/destroyed buildings.

I remember looking around, feeling what felt like cobblestones underneath me and there was a huge chopper in the sky. Then the tunnel again and I'm back in my room.

I know it sound unbelievable. I'm not even going to list the other experiences. Some are even more unbelievable while others are just too personal to share.

Not unbelievable at all.

The brain is an incredible instrument capable of more than we normally tap into.