Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

[Cebrious Arcane]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

Our personality.

How do we gain or lack those attributes?

Alright, so without environment or heredity, you say we begin with creativity that has no origin. I'm having trouble getting past that. If we exist, there must be a reason we exist (we evolved or god closed his eyes, folded his arms and bobbed his head, etc...) and if nothing else, that would be the default origin of creativity. Ignoring that, would you say we begin with a similar level of creativity or is it random?

Creativity meaning the ability to create? In the ultimate sense, there can be no creation because there is only infinity. In the smaller sense there is only creativity because reality is defined by the perceiver, those definitions have no basis in anything other than themselves, so the perceiver creativly defines reality as he experiences it, dynamically, for his entire existence.

Maybe I don't get what you're saying. Creativity has boundaries. If we do not exist at some point, our own creativity does nothing.

Reference what I said about infinity above.

There are less creative people. Would that not suggest a boundary?

To me? No, because I don't think anyone is less creative than anyone else. My point was that some people are unaware of their creativity and some others even work against their creativity and imagination in exchange for their perception of certainty.

If I didn't understand as completely how vision worked, I could think my eyesight had far less boundaries.

Well, you could say the opposite: If you didn't understand how vision worked and you had a blindfold on, you'd be behind one very significant boundary, and all you need is the realization that you're blindfolded, to remove the blindfold and see.

That's what I'm talking about. The way someone has been conditioned to interpret language will determine what they'll picture. Being able to predict how things will work out in the future would be incredibly complex. (=

So you have faith in the incomplete system? Hahaha, had to get that in there. My point is that because of the inconsistency and unpredictability of those interpretations, there is no way to validate one's experiences or existence through the interpretations of another.

Existing without time? I'm not sure where you're going with that but if there cannot be change, how could there be free will?

Without time there is only the infinite moment. I had to go back four messages to try and figure out what we were actually talking about here, hehe. If there is only the infinite moment, any observed change is not a product of time but rather a product of creativity. Creativity comes from the self thus all observed change comes from the self. Personally controlling creativite change is a product of willpower.

Willpower, like change and creativity, is just a part of the illusion. The true realization of the illusion would then eliminate all and reveal only experience without ego.

 

[Ego_Lost]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

I have a Time magazine from October 2004. The cover story is entitled "The God Gene." Long story short; numerous genes have been identified as being directly related to a persons ability to feel self-transcendental. Regardless of background or belief, individuals with one or more of these genes were more likely to have previously began some kind of spiritual quest than those who did not posses these genes.

The article goes on to pose the theory that spiritualty is an adaptive evolutionary trait. Shared belief in a higher power has always brought groups of people together that probably would not have united under any other circumstance. These people protect each other, share resources, and have babies. They survive and reproduce.

A person without this shared belief may find it much harder to survive. This example works much better if we are talking about the past. It's much easier to survive on your own today, but imagine 5000 years ago. If you did not have the help of others you werent going to make it too far in most cases.

A gene that allowed your brain to release feel good chemicals while contemplating whatever your belief might be would help to solidify your position within a society of others who had little in common except a belief and a gene. You'd probably find a mate within that society who shared the same gene or genes. Your child would probably then share such a gene and the story would repeat itself with the outcome being survival and reproduction.

Individuals who are part of these societies have a higher rate of survival and reproduction than those who are not. Given time these genes will be more and more common within all people and viola, evolution.

Using this model I think we could also plug in most of those attributes that Ceb says come from nowhere and everywhere. Lets take creativity. Being creative is a very very good trait to have when your life is on the line. Your a starving and cold caveman for example. You have the very creative idea that making a spear will let you kill a deer so you can eat. The deers skin can then be used to keep you warm and you live long enough to have a kid.

On the other hand the guy in the next cave over never thought of any of that and died in his cave of exposure and malnutrition. He never had a kid and the uncreative genes never were passed down.

Creative people are successfull in more cases than not. Success in many cases means you will have children. Those children will share your ability to be creative and they will have more children. Meanwhile; uncreative and unsuccessfull people will not have as many children. Again, over time, you get more and more creative people and less and less uncreative people. Evolution happens. Ceb's fire could just be the fact that we all share a history of ancestors with the creative gene.

Thank you for your time.

 

[fonis]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

The article goes on to pose the theory that spiritualty is an adaptive evolutionary trait. Shared belief in a higher power has always brought groups of people together that probably would not have united under any other circumstance. These people protect each other, share resources, and have babies. They survive and reproduce.

Just like hiding under the blankets to pretend the monsters aren't there / can't see you. Self-delusion is a very powerful tool, I can agree that it could be evolutionarily beneficial to adapt to have that trait.

Nice find.

 

[Dread Sun]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

PKs believe that every Blue has a soul and we believe in resurrection!

 

[Cebrious Arcane]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

I have a Time magazine from October 2004. The cover story is entitled "The God Gene." Long story short; numerous genes have been identified as being directly related to a persons ability to feel self-transcendental. Regardless of background or belief, individuals with one or more of these genes were more likely to have previously began some kind of spiritual quest than those who did not posses these genes.

Yeah I remember that article. It was a good read, and I don't mean to dismiss the rest of your post, but I'm about to in an effort to move in a new direction - away from Science vs Other Systems of Belief. I think we've successfully reduced that to personal opinion and choice because provability is impossible. Before I switch topics though, I'll respond to a couple more of your statements, hehe.

Using this model I think we could also plug in most of those attributes that Ceb says come from nowhere and everywhere. Lets take creativity. Being creative is a very very good trait to have when your life is on the line. Your a starving and cold caveman for example. You have the very creative idea that making a spear will let you kill a deer so you can eat. The deers skin can then be used to keep you warm and you live long enough to have a kid.

You and your silly reproduction. When are you having kids, padre? Humans are not viruses. There is more to existence than reproduction, you're just in denial, heheh. I wouldn't consider that creativity as much as learning through observation and experience: "Wow, that big cat has big teeth and those big teeth own those plant eaters. Oh, a big cat corpse, I'm going to use it's tooth to own plant eaters. Ow, I got kicked in the face by the deer. I'm going to attach the tooth to a stick so I'm out of kicking range." etc. Creativity would be the want/need/ability to depict themselves and their surrounding on cave walls, tell stories of their deeds, convey and relay information that is without physical example, etc. So I disagree that you can apply that model to my query. The traits I described can be attributed to survivability but are not required and do not provide survivability. That's why I brought them up, because those examples are outside physical dependence.

On the other hand the guy in the next cave over never thought of any of that and died in his cave of exposure and malnutrition. He never had a kid and the uncreative genes never were passed down.

In theory, that's one way things could have happened. But we can guess about it all day long. Maybe the guy without a spear lived off berries and nuts avoiding hunting for the safer and more convenient gathering. Both survived and popped out kids using completely different methods. The caves shared techniques and intermingled. Since you love thinking about ancient baby-making so much, what about inbreeding? Why would inbreeding in caveman times yield the best traits and most successful offspring (evolving into modern man)when inbreeding in modern times yields negative traits, mutations, and handicaps? Evolving from inbred cavemen seems like it would result in more apelike persons than more humanlike. OR, ooo this is fun, could one of those chance handicapping mutations from inbreeding have caused ego?

Now to change subjects, but I'm all distracted by my last sentence. That'll be fun to talk about.

I think you and I are the only ones on here that have read the Carlos books, so I wanted to pose this question: what if it reality is like Don Juan describes in the sense of this reality being many layers of the onion? So yes, science is right about their observations, because they have studied the shit out of this layer, drawn conclusions, created results (don't get hung up on the word "created"), and are able to act with predictability within this layer. That's all well and good, but there are a multitude of other layers to the onion. Science is a system of belief concerned only with this layer. Science will never discover these other layers because it is solely concerned with this layer and all evidence and verifiability must come from or be from this layer. The openmindedness of other systems of belief allows for the flexibility required to move beyond this layer and possibly perceive other layers. The perception of other layers then eradicates the overwhelming self-justified importance of this layer, further widening the gap between the alternative system of belief and science and shattering the security and egotism of a one-layer system. The egotism of the scientist causes him to label anyone that believes there is more than the perceived as looney tunes, further solidfying their focus on the one layer and shattering any possibility of experiencing the whole truth.

How then could a scientist ever expose himself, with real openmindedness, to the possibilty of other layers and allow himself the opportunity to give those other layers the same respect he gives this one?

 

[Underwater Ape]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

I think you and I are the only ones on here that have read the Carlos books, so I wanted to pose this question: what if it reality is like Don Juan describes in the sense of this reality being many layers of the onion? So yes, science is right about their observations, because they have studied the shit out of this layer, drawn conclusions, created results (don't get hung up on the word "created"), and are able to act with predictability within this layer. That's all well and good, but there are a multitude of other layers to the onion. Science is a system of belief concerned only with this layer. Science will never discover these other layers because it is solely concerned with this layer and all evidence and verifiability must come from or be from this layer. The openmindedness of other systems of belief allows for the flexibility required to move beyond this layer and possibly perceive other layers. The perception of other layers then eradicates the overwhelming self-justified importance of this layer, further widening the gap between the alternative system of belief and science and shattering the security and egotism of a one-layer system. The egotism of the scientist causes him to label anyone that believes there is more than the perceived as looney tunes, further solidfying their focus on the one layer and shattering any possibility of experiencing the whole truth.

How then could a scientist ever expose himself, with real openmindedness, to the possibilty of other layers and allow himself the opportunity to give those other layers the same respect he gives this one?

the layers analogy makes a lot of sense. from a short distance you're a person. from a farther distance you're a society. farther you're Earth and so on out until you're seen as a universe. and if we zoom in we find you're cells, and it just goes even deeper down to the world of atoms. where are you though?

 

[Cebrious Arcane]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

the layers analogy makes a lot of sense. from a short distance you're a person. from a farther distance you're a society. farther you're Earth and so on out until you're seen as a universe. and if we zoom in we find you're cells, and it just goes even deeper down to the world of atoms. where are you though?

The layer example I mentioned is from a specific source (Don Juan in the Carlos Castaneda books), and in that sense, all of what you listed is on one layer - the layer we (society) know. The other layers are not perceivable in any way shape or form with the methods we have available because all of our scientifically verifiable methods are restricted to and by this layer.

An alternate layer would be like a confusing world you find only when in deep hallucination, or a realm of perception without ego or recognition of the self, that you only find in deep meditation. Think of each layer as a completely seperate reality with completely unique rules and laws.

If you like reading, Ape, you should check out the books by Carlos Castaneda. I bet you'd enjoy them. They offer an interesting perspective and are published as non-fiction.

 

[zlatan fulgere]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

I knew that if I waited long enough, Ego would make an appearance. (=

How do we gain or lack those attributes?

Our own personal level of will and determination can come from the examples we've seen from others when dealing with challenges, rewards or lack of rewards as a result of our previous efforts, maybe our genetics. I mean I don't know for sure obviously. As for intention, if you mean our reason for action, it can be determined similarly. If you have a choice to make between the morally "right or wrong" action, you're probably more likely to choose the "right" path if your particular role models valued personal integrity.

Creativity meaning the ability to create? In the ultimate sense, there can be no creation because there is only infinity. In the smaller sense there is only creativity because reality is defined by the perceiver, those definitions have no basis in anything other than themselves, so the perceiver creativly defines reality as he experiences it, dynamically, for his entire existence.

I don't know if we're on the same page with that. I thought we were after the origin of creativity. If there is no creativity because you cannot create, then creativity simply becomes the ability to discover and do what we are all capable of without being aware of someone else doing it first.

To me? No, because I don't think anyone is less creative than anyone else. My point was that some people are unaware of their creativity and some others even work against their creativity and imagination in exchange for their perception of certainty.

Call it what you like but awareness and denial of creativity would be the results of previous events as well. I require a feeling of "certainty". Therefore, my feeling is the cause of my creative denial.

Well, you could say the opposite: If you didn't understand how vision worked and you had a blindfold on, you'd be behind one very significant boundary, and all you need is the realization that you're blindfolded, to remove the blindfold and see.

My point was that creativity, with either definition, does not have to be without limit. The blindfold, regardless of my knowledge of it, is a boundary but not the only one.

So you have faith in the incomplete system? Hahaha, had to get that in there. My point is that because of the inconsistency and unpredictability of those interpretations, there is no way to validate one's experiences or existence through the interpretations of another.

I think I said this was a theory.... one I'd like to dismiss, actually. It's depressing. )= There does not have to be that type of consistency. Anything that alters an interpretation is just part of the cause. If you are aware of those alterations and what causes them, etc, etc, there would be predictability. I am not looking to validate my existence through this, I already know I exist. (=

Without time there is only the infinite moment. I had to go back four messages to try and figure out what we were actually talking about here, hehe. If there is only the infinite moment, any observed change is not a product of time but rather a product of creativity. Creativity comes from the self thus all observed change comes from the self. Personally controlling creativite change is a product of willpower.

Willpower, like change and creativity, is just a part of the illusion. The true realization of the illusion would then eliminate all and reveal only experience without ego.

So, there is only one moment (which would not actually be a proper "moment" but just what is). There is no ego. We are just some collective consciousness that has mentally divided itself up into perceived individuals that exist in an environment with many false boundaries?

 

[Underwater Ape]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

The layer example I mentioned is from a specific source (Don Juan in the Carlos Castaneda books), and in that sense, all of what you listed is on one layer - the layer we (society) know. The other layers are not perceivable in any way shape or form with the methods we have available because all of our scientifically verifiable methods are restricted to and by this layer.

An alternate layer would be like a confusing world you find only when in deep hallucination, or a realm of perception without ego or recognition of the self, that you only find in deep meditation. Think of each layer as a completely seperate reality with completely unique rules and laws.

If you like reading, Ape, you should check out the books by Carlos Castaneda. I bet you'd enjoy them. They offer an interesting perspective and are published as non-fiction.

Someone else told me to check out his books. I've been meaning to.

I've actually learned all I can from psychoactive substances and just meditate to reach higher levels of awareness now. I spend a few hours meditating every day. From blissful peace to sitting in the presence of monks, meditation is no joke. You can learn a lot. Plus I think the og monks that aren't entering Nirvana until every last creature of this planet is liberated are starting to work overtime . You can see the truths about life that Eastern Religions have known forever starting to manifest in the world as a whole. Just look at what technology is doing. Connecting people. More and more. What else is happening? Everything is going wireless. What else is going on? Quantum computing.

What's happening when you sit at home surfing the internet? You feel connected to information right. You can search for information about anything, interact with people, do all sorts of stuff. But what else are you? You're all alone there. Have you ever been so connected to everything, but at the same time completely disconnected physically from other people as when you're on the internet? I can see it. More and more. Connected but disconnected. More Eastern truths. Everything is connected, but there is only one true self. You can see the way technology is going. It's truth manifesting itself. You can see it going all the way back to record players, radios, tv. It's all pointing the same direction. All working to make us realize.

The future is gonna be pretty cool I think.

 

[Dread Sun]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

blah blah blah GOD blah blah blah SPIRIT blah blah blah EVIL blah blah blah

a myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes --- James Feibleman

 

[Underwater Ape]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

blah blah blah GOD blah blah blah SPIRIT blah blah blah EVIL blah blah blah

a myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes --- James Feibleman

while physicists usually refrain from making philosophical implications, one only has to look at the forefront of science to see naive realism doesn't have a foot to stand on. quantum physics, m theory, dark energy, take your pick.

 

[Ego_Lost]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

I've considered the onion. It'd be nice if it were true. I always come back to the same sticking spot that I do any time I contemplate the non-physical...

We have 5 physical senses; touch, taste, smell, sight, hearing.

How come in these non-physical worlds we still experience physical senses?

When I dream, hallucinate, meditate, etc., etc. I see things. I hear things. I feel things. Come to think of it I rarely taste and never smell as far as I can remember. Anyway, the point is that none of it is new or unique. It is all based on the physical, no matter what state I happen to be in.

I've never experienced a new sound, shape, color...anything that I couldnt think of something in the physical world that was similar.

Even if I did I would still be experiencing it with a physical sense.

This observation tends to lead me to the conclusion that these things are not real. They are all my imagination. Creativity gone wild. I take what I know in the physical and I imagine what I want in the so called non-physical.

This also leads me to think that if I am only taking from what I know of the physical, then that may be all there is to truly know.

Some people say that the non-physical is indescribable and if it exists then I would totaly agree. The problem is that if it is indescribable then how do you know you were there. If you can remember it, then you can describe it. If you cant it's cause you're making things up.

If there is a non-physical world you would not be able to experience it with physical senses. If you cannot experience something with a physical sense then you as a human being would not even know it happened. If you will never know it happened as long as you are a physical being then why spend your time trying to peel the onion?

 

[Underwater Ape]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

I've considered the onion. It'd be nice if it were true. I always come back to the same sticking spot that I do any time I contemplate the non-physical...

We have 5 physical senses; touch, taste, smell, sight, hearing.

How come in these non-physical worlds we still experience physical senses?

When I dream, hallucinate, meditate, etc., etc. I see things. I hear things. I feel things. Come to think of it I rarely taste and never smell as far as I can remember. Anyway, the point is that none of it is new or unique. It is all based on the physical, no matter what state I happen to be in.

I've never experienced a new sound, shape, color...anything that I couldnt think of something in the physical world that was similar.

Even if I did I would still be experiencing it with a physical sense.

This observation tends to lead me to the conclusion that these things are not real. They are all my imagination. Creativity gone wild. I take what I know in the physical and I imagine what I want in the so called non-physical.

This also leads me to think that if I am only taking from what I know of the physical, then that may be all there is to truly know.

Some people say that the non-physical is indescribable and if it exists then I would totaly agree. The problem is that if it is indescribable then how do you know you were there. If you can remember it, then you can describe it. If you cant it's cause you're making things up.

If there is a non-physical world you would not be able to experience it with physical senses. If you cannot experience something with a physical sense then you as a human being would not even know it happened. If you will never know it happened as long as you are a physical being then why spend your time trying to peel the onion?

you choose to associate your senses as being physical. perhaps the senses are more primary than the physical reality you assume they're associated with?

also nothing is ever the same. you have never experienced anything the same. your interpretation of any aspect of reality is unique to you and never ever the same. and quite frankly no aspect of any persons reality is truly describable to anyone other than themselves. all descriptions of anything are vague and personal at best. for example. look up at the stars. now does "I'm looking at the stars." truly describe that moment at all? no, but through the great tool that is language i'm able to personally interpret what you're saying by relating it to my own personal experiences with looking at the stars. and even then one can only assume our perceptions of what we believe to be the same thing actually are. in the truest sense i can't even describe a color to you, let alone a personally perceived moment of reality. so i guess what i'm saying is that it would be assumption to assume you're able to describe anything truly in my opinion.

 

[Ego_Lost]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

Personally, I do choose to associate my senses with the physical universe.

Perhaps you are right though Ape and my senses are more primary. Instead of just stating that and leaving it, try to back it up with something. I'm a little fuzzy on exacty what you mean by primary anyway.

Also...I never said my experiences where the same. I said they were similar. The point is that everything ever experienced in a so called higher state of conciousness is based in some way with an experience in the physical world. This observation, like I said before, leads me to think that if a physical experience is necessary for a non-physical encounter then perhaps the physical is the true event while the non-physical is make believe.

Ape, I'd also like to argue your assertion that all descriptions are vague. Your stars description surely is, but what about a symphony? A composer writes down musical notes hundereds of years ago and they can still be played exactly today as they were then. Through this description you can hear what audiences for centuries the world over have also heard. Not only can you hear it but hundreds of musicians can look at those notes and play the same thing at exactly the same time! A mathematical equation can decribe the actions of the physical world better than words in many cases and accuratly to anyone who is willing to solve it. A chemical equation will allow anyone willing to follow it to build the same substance no matter their language, race, background or belief.

I will susceed that you may not ever be able to truly describe a complete moment of your perception. However, if you experience something...anything...and you remember it, you can bring a little of that into the light for the rest of us. To say something is indescribable is a cop-out. If it is remembered it is because some portion is stuck in your head. That portion is described to you whenever you think of it through your memory and can therefore be expressed to others.

 

[Cebrious Arcane]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

Some people say that the non-physical is indescribable and if it exists then I would totaly agree. The problem is that if it is indescribable then how do you know you were there.

You can describe it but the validity and accuracy of the description is up to you, as the judge, to determine if it's accurate. Which is why I think so many people say it's indescribable, because their own attempts at definition do not satisfy their perceived experience. You could say the non-physical is like being engulfed in light without brightness. But how do you know the person you're describing it to is envisioning what you're trying to relay? You don't. You can't. So the non-physical is just as indescribable as the physical, we've just chosen to accept the descriptions of the physical.

If you can remember it, then you can describe it. If you cant it's cause you're making things up.

Describe love.

If there is a non-physical world you would not be able to experience it with physical senses.

Unless the perceiver utilizes awareness to perceive and awareness has been defined as the physical senses in what we assume is reality. That awareness is also what is utilized to perceive the non-physical, but in the attempt at definition the habit is to use the definitions we are most familiar with: the senses. So you perceive. How you define the perception is solely up to you.

If you cannot experience something with a physical sense then you as a human being would not even know it happened. If you will never know it happened as long as you are a physical being then why spend your time trying to peel the onion?

How is confusion a physical sense? Or Anxiety? Passion? How do you see, hear, taste, touch, smell your own fear?

How, in all of this, can you neglect the possibility of a sense not yet accepted and defined by science?

but what about a symphony? A composer writes down musical notes hundereds of years ago and they can still be played exactly today as they were then.

Exactly? There is no way to prove that. Using musical composition as the example, the composer is in control. You were in music class, how many of your actions were directed by the composer, the inflections of notes, subtle accents, etc. We can ASSUME we are hearing the exact same thing. But that assumption is worthless. All we can prove is that we are hearing music.

Through this description you can hear what audiences for centuries the world over have also heard. Not only can you hear it but hundreds of musicians can look at those notes and play the same thing at exactly the same time!

Ever heard your voice on a recording? The effect with the music example is the same. There is no way for you to know what you hear is the same as what you play, what is being played, or if it is what anyone else is playing because it is all subjective. It is all left to the individual perceiving.

A mathematical equation can decribe the actions of the physical world better than words in many cases and accuratly to anyone who is willing to solve it. A chemical equation will allow anyone willing to follow it to build the same substance no matter their language, race, background or belief.

Not every time. Chemical laws can be reduced to the subatomic level - subatomic particles at a deep enough level are chaotic and unpredictable. Mathematics is a system within itself, it proves nothing but the fact that it works within itself. What is 1+1? What does it matter when 1 is just a variable - a description for a description?

However, if you experience something...anything...and you remember it, you can bring a little of that into the light for the rest of us.

If there is a rest of us. What if your only avenue of verifiability was yourself?

To say something is indescribable is a cop-out. If it is remembered it is because some portion is stuck in your head. That portion is described to you whenever you think of it through your memory and can therefore be expressed to others.

You think in words?

 

[Underwater Ape]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

Personally, I do choose to associate my senses with the physical universe.

Perhaps you are right though Ape and my senses are more primary. Instead of just stating that and leaving it, try to back it up with something. I'm a little fuzzy on exacty what you mean by primary anyway.

Is the mind the product of the brain? Or is the brain the product of the mind? The question is all that can be posed to anyone. The truth has to be found by you.

Also...I never said my experiences where the same. I said they were similar. The point is that everything ever experienced in a so called higher state of conciousness is based in some way with an experience in the physical world. This observation, like I said before, leads me to think that if a physical experience is necessary for a non-physical encounter then perhaps the physical is the true event while the non-physical is make believe.

Can you prove to yourself that the entire physical world is anything more than mental? It's all in the mind. Any lines drawn are of your own.

Ape, I'd also like to argue your assertion that all descriptions are vague. Your stars description surely is, but what about a symphony? A composer writes down musical notes hundereds of years ago and they can still be played exactly today as they were then. Through this description you can hear what audiences for centuries the world over have also heard. Not only can you hear it but hundreds of musicians can look at those notes and play the same thing at exactly the same time!

I'll ignore any reference to the term exactly. I think I already stated nothing is ever the same from a purely scientific stand point. As for a musical composition. I've never seen a musical notes on paper convey any sort of meaning other than instructions for how to play it. They don't capture the original composers thoughts, reasons, or interpretations of the original piece. It doesn't capture anything about the person that wrote it. Therefore it is entirely impossible to ever experience the music in the way the original composer intended it to. No one truly can other than that person. To say a song is beautiful or to say a song is horrible is nothing more than your interpretation. And your interpretation of a song is based on your personal experiences. A song about breaking up with a girl will have a different type of meaning to a person that's in the process of breaking up with a girl than someone that isn't. So do you hear a musical piece composed 100 years ago the same way today? No, you don't. Meaning is not an embodied property in anything. It's unique and defined only by you.

A mathematical equation can describe the actions of the physical world better than words in many cases and accuratly to anyone who is willing to solve it. A chemical equation will allow anyone willing to follow it to build the same substance no matter their language, race, background or belief.

Any measurement taken is only true to that instrument at that specific location in space time. For any math equation to be absolutely true it has to explain YOU. I'm not saying mathematics isn't a useful tool. I'm saying it's incomplete. Brain is a mystery. Consciousness is a mystery. Quantum mechanics is a mystery. Again, a great tool, but doesn't prove, disprove, or explain anything really. I mean M-Theory is cool and everything, but if it doesn't explain you, it doesn't explain much of anything.

I will susceed that you may not ever be able to truly describe a complete moment of your perception. However, if you experience something...anything...and you remember it, you can bring a little of that into the light for the rest of us. To say something is indescribable is a cop-out. If it is remembered it is because some portion is stuck in your head. That portion is described to you whenever you think of it through your memory and can therefore be expressed to others.

Plenty of moments are indescribable. Say you go skydiving for the first time. All your friends ask you what it was like. To which you respond, "It was the most exhilarating, breathtaking, rush of my life." That's great. But the people you're explaining that to can only take your statement and develop an idea of what it might be like by taking the language in which you used to convey the experience and make an analogy of their own definition of "the most exhilarating, breathtaking, rush of my life". One friend might imagine it to be something like bungee jumping, another like riding a roller coaster, another like having sex. They're all valid interpretations because it's what each individual made thought your experience might of been like. But where lies the static true describable understanding of the experience you're attempting to convey? In my opinion there isn't one. The moment, the experience, is exactly what it is only to you. As far as memory is concerned, remembering skydiving isn't skydiving. Interpretations are stabs in the dark. The root of an experience is in the experience at that moment only. Language is just language. You give it meaning based on your own personal experiences.

 

[tangerine1490]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

i'm not going to get into an indepth religious discussion, but i will say that i cannot stand it when a religion takes a "my way or no way" approach. a nice example of the opposite is hinduism. the god ganesh is considered to be a protector of ALL religions. though i'm not a hindu, i appreciate the open mindedness of that religion. personally, music is kind of a religion to me. i just know that it's a beautiful thing that inspires and uplifts me. as for universal answers, i believe we have all the answers somewhere inside us. it just takes living life to find them.

 

[Ego_Lost]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

I'm getting the feeling here that a description of something is only a description to you two if it is %100 accurate, encompases every aspect of whatever the subject is talking about and is able to be perceived by the descriptee just as it was perceived by you. This is not so and can never be. It is unnecessary though. A description can still be a very usefull tool. Without a description of what reality "really" is by various spiritual leaders and other flakes you wouldnt be debating most of the stuff on this thread. Most things you've learned have come initially from a description. You may get better at what you do through experience, but typically you start with pure description. How vague and personal can others descriptions be if most of your knowledge has begun with them?

You can't describe love Ceb? Not even to yourself? How do you know when you feel it?

Confusion, anxiety and passion are not senses. They are at best perceptions of senses, but not always. I do not neglect the possiblity of a sense not yet defined by science. I experience 5 senses that can be stimulated externally and are verifiable. Until I experience a 6th, or someone else does and can prove it, then there are only 5.

Chemical equations are exercises in probabilty; the same as any example of the sub-atomic or quantum worlds. They are not chaotic or unperdictable, they're just complicated. They are descriptions of a system with known and defined variables. Because there can be other variables that we are unaware of, they can be wrong or inefficient. In some cases you may know all of the variables, you just cant do anything about them. In those cases the equations themselves will typically tell you the probabilty.

Ceb, what do you mean when you say math is a system within itself? You can apply math to nearly every aspect of this reality.

Ape, what do you mean when you say that for an equation to be true it has to expalin you? There are equations to explain what you are made of and how it all works. None of it is complete of course, but it is a good start.
I get the feeling you may be talking about the why of it all? Good luck with that. Why is one of the worst questions we as a species could possibly ask at the moment.

A quick sidetrack from this argument over the validity of the physical. How do we even know the mind exists. In my assumed (see guys, I assumed, I admit it. Just go with me cause and effect universe, everything you feel, think and do is a reaction to countless other events that have happened before. What is mind then? Just another effect in the chain. Mind is what you have dubbed your own thoughts in order to make yourself feel important or in control. Your decisions are in effect already made. Mind is your brains reactions to stimuli and the tool used in some cases to enact the next "cause" in the universe. I think my cause and effect physical universe is just as valid as your pure mind universe. Why do you choose your path?

 

[impact-]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

There is a God, plain and simple. Something had to create everything in the universe.

Physics is ignorant. The Big Bang theory is not logical, and sounds more ridiculous than a superior being.

I mean, the atom is still a theory, and they can't even prove that, let alone how the universe was created.

Stated simply by the world's most brilliant physicist :

"The probability that the universe came into being by chance is analogous to the notion that the dictionary originated from an explosion in a print shop."

- Albert Einstein

 

[tangerine1490]

Re: Newsweek poll: Americans believe in God, reject evolution

"The probability that the universe came into being by chance is analogous to the notion that the dictionary originated from an explosion in a print shop."

- Albert Einstein

lol. nice.