It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thoughts on the Science Delusion

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   
He makes good points about how all nature is a connected balance, and cannot ever be replicated by artificial science without disasterous results
www.youtube.com...

The Dawkins Delusion- lol
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Hollywood11]




posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Well, that's because there is no such thing as "artifical science". Science is the harnessing and understanding of the universe and it is used according to the laws of the universal structure.

It'd really help more if people understood science instead of knocking it. Yes there are still holes in knowledge and there are incomplete theories, but we won't progress if people don't at least attempt to help. It's not a religion, it's an objective study of the universe.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:49 AM
link   
science will have all of us wind up in complete destruction without spirituality.
If people start ''remembering'' their knowledge, science will be a great benefit to mankind.
There are higher dimensions, but MAINSTREAM science will not accept this because it ''cannot be proven'' by physical experiments in controlled environments.
The spiritual realms and higher dimensions are composed of clear light that you cannot see...our earth has a vast amount of intricately connected lay lines of electromagnetic energy.
Science and spirituality together are the key. but without the religious dogma.
All of you will eventually see the truth...
keep an open mind
and keep digging for info...
be your own authority and escape the container that strictly physical world thinking puts you in.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by iiinvision
The spiritual realms and higher dimensions are composed of clear light that you cannot see...our earth has a vast amount of intricately connected lay lines of electromagnetic energy.


Um, we CAN see electromagnetic light with specialized optical apparatus.


Science and spirituality together are the key. but without the religious dogma.


Science is spirituality. It will discover and explain "spirituality".



be your own authority and escape the container that strictly physical world thinking puts you in.


That's all there is physical. Even electromagnetic light is physical. Anything non-physical is irrelevent because it can not interact with our physical existence.

You need to wake up and escape the religious authority that contains YOU. You are reflective of a mind of faith.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


"It's not a religion, it's an objective study of the universe."

Stars for you, LOVE.
I couldn't agree more...and yet - I often feel as though science is "attacked" in the way religion is...even though we're not the ones with something to prove.

Good stuff.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Well thank you my fellow objectivist.

Individual subjectivism is the true delusion. The only "individual subjectivism" that exists is the mind of the one eternal universe, the only way to get to know the mind of this universe is to study it without opinion, without faith, and without dogma.

Science is an accumulation of facts that are subject to change as the evidence and observences build and grow. Some people, for some reason, do not understand this, and as you said they attack science as if it s a religion... but simultaneously there are also people that treat science as a religion. It is NOT, it is GOOD to question everything, but question thoroughly and come to positive conclusions, use math to prove what you summate and use existing logic and science coupled with your own observations to progress it.

It's NOT a religion and science states through its definition that it is a CHANGING psychology (at least thus far). We do not yet know everything but it appears as if we are quickly approaching, and even more quickly as more knowledge builds.

It should be known that science does not endorse the big bang nor any other wild, unprovable and untestable theories. That is NOT how science operates.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:21 AM
link   
The biggest delusion of all is thinking that by putting protocols in place and following a "Scientific method" in practice, that you can overcome the delusions of the human mind or understand the real nature of anything.

Science cannot know anything except through the lens and filter of the limited human mind and limited 5 senses. Therefore science cannot know how anything, let alone nature, actually works. Science is as much a delusion as anything a human mind that hasn't undergone a Near Death Experience can percieve, meaning science is complete delusion.

What makes it so insidious however, is that people think it allows them to understand how things really are, when it doesn't.

All creations and ideas from someone who has not undergone a near death experience are un-natural and interfere with the natural order of things. Humans in general interfere with nature.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Hollywood11]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Reply to hollywood11

No, Humans in general ARE nature, what are you talking about? You couldn't be more off the mark with everything that you just said.

A near death experience does nothing, because it is not death. True death is to never live again. A Near Death Experience is only the mind playing what it believes to be true for the subjective believer before it dies.

The 5 senses that we harness are capable of receiving enough objective knowledge to create machines that use other senses to see and hear far more of what we currently can through our "natural" senses.

Are we all a victim of gravity? Are we all a victim of light? Are we all a victim of "thought"? Are we all a product of this planet and its environment and atmosphere? Yes.

In fact, what I've learned from dating a woman that had a NDE is that it made her delusional and unstable. She completely lost touch with reality, thought that I was Jesus Christ, and thought that the moon made her yell at me. She wasn't like that before her NDE... but if you applied objective science instead of personal opinion and projected subjectivism you might have considered such a situation. Obviously, you didn't, and obviously your statements don't stand up to the scientific method and rudimentary logic.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

[edit on 6-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Great premise for a thread. I like science but it is no the end all be all its purported to be. The Science Delusion was first discussed philosopher Immanuel Kant.



The biggest delusion of all is thinking that by putting protocols in place and following a "Scientific method" in practice, that you can overcome the delusions of the human mind or understand the real nature of anything.



That's right Hollywood! Experience does not necessarily always equal reality. f you are a materialist reductionist then your thoughts are merely chemical reactions occurring in a brain that came together by accidental chance. There is no reason to assume it knows truth.

The overblown egos of science assume that human reason and our senses give us access to external reality and that the limiting factor to human knowledge is the limit of reality itself. This is true of all naturalist materialists like Dawkins and crew. They are suffering from the delusion of what philosopher Immanuel Kant calls the “enlightenment fallacy”.

Kant begins with a simple premise: all human knowledge is based on experience. We gain access to reality through our five senses. This sensory input is then processed through our brains and central nervous systems. How do we know that our human perception of reality corresponds to reality itself? The reality we comprehend is not reality in itself. It is just our take on reality. We have no basis to assume that our limited perceptions of reality ever resemble reality itself.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
That's right Hollywood! Experience does not necessarily always equal reality. If you are a materialist reductionist then your thoughts are merely chemical reactions occurring in a brain that came together by accidental chance.


This is untrue. Where do you get your information from? Experience always equals reality, either way you cut it. If you make something up that is completely impossible, it's still an imaginative experience, and a result of carnality. Yes, thoughts are a chemical reaction, electromagnetic reaction, environmental reaction, planetary product and unviersal reaction. But by accidental chance? No, that's what the faithful claim with the big bang. The big bang is not science. Science is yet to completely understand why things take the forms that they do, such as our bodies. That, for me... is a goal that I am persuing. It is so illustrously attractive, suspensful and mysterious. It will be amazing, the day that I or someone understands why this is.


There is no reason to assume it knows truth.


Correct, and it doesn't assume. It is tested and verified fact.


The overblown egos of science assume that human reason and our senses give us access to external reality and that the limiting factor to human knowledge is the limit of reality itself.


Overblown egos? No, it doesn't assume that, as I said it doesn't assume anything. Science does not deal with opinion, assumption or faith. It is objective study. Do you know anything about science or does your Bible teach you how the world was created?

Our senses give us access to external reality? You mean relative to our own bodies? There's only one reality, it's either neither external or internal as a universal non-referential, or relatively both.

Reality is infinite. You are wrong. There is no limit to reality, there are an infinite amount of places and things to see and go throughout the eternal cosmos, but there are laws that I suspect to be structurally universal and thus limited.


This is true of all naturalist materialists like Dawkins and crew.


Well, no it's not. I am an Athiest and a scientist, and it's not true for me as I've just explained to you above. Again, more generalizations. Science doesn't do that, we don't generalize, we pedantically study specific intrinsics.


They are suffering from the delusion of what philosopher Immanuel Kant calls the “enlightenment fallacy”.





Kant begins with a simple premise: all human knowledge is based on experience.


Sure.


We gain access to reality through our five senses. This sensory input is then processed through our brains and central nervous systems. How do we know that our human perception of reality corresponds to reality itself?


Because if this is your argument through the use of Kant, then the only reality we'd ever be able to gain access to is the one that we are subject to through our 5 senses, thus that would be our ultimate reality, anything else is completely irrelevent, untestable, untouchable, unknowable, and eternally invisible; IRRELEVENT.


The reality we comprehend is not reality in itself. It is just our take on reality. We have no basis to assume that our limited perceptions of reality ever resemble reality itself.


Yeah we do. This is our reality, as I said, anything else is irrelevent and does not exist in our reality, but being that our perceptions of reality are limited as stated by Kant, then I can't take anything that he says that you have used for your argument as anything more than what he presents: a limited perception of reality. Good job Kant, you defeated your own legitimacy.

Kant wasn't the brightest tool in the tool box, was he? He appears delusional as well. He might have made a good scientist.

Like I said, as scientists we don't conjecture and speculate on what could never be, only on what is and can be based on what is.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


You're the text book case of an overblown ego. The whole thread can rest on you testimony alone. thanks!



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


Again....stars for you, LOVE. Oh, and apparently "overblown ego" is his catch phrase for the day.

Hysterical.

I think "overblown ego" comes in when you give forth tireless, relentless efforts to prove something that can't be proven - ever. That sounds like ego to me.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by optimistic skeptic
 


Yes. Ego and desparity.

Unfortunately these people always resort to name calling and character degradations. I suppose it's frustrating to put your faith into something you can't even explain or prove because it doesn't exist, never did and never will, and to add for Kant; as far as our reality is concerned, which is all that we should be concerned about.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Science cannot know anything except through the lens and filter of the limited human mind and limited 5 senses.

Actually, it is the brain that cannot know anything save through the senses.

Science is not a living entity. It is a form of human behaviour. It is a particular way of dealing with information afferent through the senses.

Yes, it is therefore limited by what the senses present to the brain. And it is further bound by the limits of the brain's own operating specifications.

But the same is true, not just of science, but of all other human productions.

Art. Love. Sex. Childbearing. Childcare. Society. Politics. War. Religion.

So your point simply reduces to: 'reality is an illusion.' Ho, and also hum. The Hindus worked that out long ago. They speak of the Veil of Maya. Plato worked it out. He explained it with his analogy of the Cave. Physicists worked it out, first with their whirling solar-system-like atomic models, then down through the onion-peel layers of subatomic particles and probability field interactions, at which point everything material vanishes.

And you know what? In one sense it's all true. But in terms of human reality, it's absolute bollocks.

The world-picture as created by our operationally limited brains, based on the filtered information from the senses, is a perfectly accurate picture of the world humans have evolved to occupy and it is perfectly appropriate to treat it as reality. Yes, our brains and our senses can often be fooled - witness optical illusions, the persistence-of-vision effect that allows us to see a sequence of still images as a moving picture, the effects of psychoactive drugs and the hallucinations experienced by shamans, religious visionaries and people undergoing near-death-experiences. But these are extreme cases caused by situations which do not often arise in our environment (unless one is a movie obsessive or suffering from a serious cognitive disorder).

The 'reality' our brains construct from modulated sense-data is reality - human reality. Science is a perfectly acceptable (and incredibly powerful) way to learn about and understand it better on those peculiar human terms, and even to see when and where those terms fail us. It is science, for example, that has borne out Hobbes's* ideas about sense-abstractive reality (on which are what you're basing your argument); science that has shown us how our brains and senses operate, and in what ways they sometimes play us false.

Science. It works, kiddies.
 

*Not Kant's, of course.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Nope. Clearly you don't understand the scientific method.

A scientific theory is based on an experiment that has a repeated, predictable outcome. The experiment can, and is, carried out by different people around the world, using different instrumentation, different subjects, different labs. And yet they still all come up with the same outcomes. You see, by using different scientists, the error introduced by the fallible human is removed - it counteracts itself.

But clearly you're happier drenching yourself in ignorance. Which is weird, and strongly hypocritical, as everything you can see around you was made possible through the scientific method. And yet you turn your back on something that has done no wrong to you, simply because your chosen book (which is devoid of any evidence) holds a special place in your heart, and the thought of living without that book scares the pants off you. So you lash out to the one thing that can easily show the inherent weakness of your beliefs to the light of day, in some last-ditch attempt to revive your ailing faith.

Give in. Deny ignorance. Get a clue.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


What makes me think Science is a way of knowing the universe? Simple. It has a proven track record of success. Modern medicine, ample food, clean water, space travel, the internet, videogames, modern travel, etc.

The only reason you're even talking with anyone online is a testimony to how effective the scientific process is at discovery and application.

And yet you slap in the face every scientist who diligently worked to provide you the first world convinces which you enjoy and rely upon. And for what? Some "spiritual" purely-subjective mumbo-jumbo which cannot be proven and only taken on faith - which in the history of humanity has a track record of absolute non-achievement.

So you convince me. What is it about "spirituality" that has ANY merit or benefit to me or mankind? And note, this cannot be anything that has an effect on the physical universe - because to do so would make it observable and measurable by science. This includes things like morals and emotion, which have been mapped in the brain and shown to exist in other animals.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   


Yes, our brains and our senses can often be fooled - witness optical illusions, the persistence-of-vision effect that allows us to see a sequence of still images as a moving picture, the effects of psychoactive drugs and the hallucinations experienced by shamans, religious visionaries and people undergoing near-death-experiences


Add atheist scientists assuming they can fully Know reality...

Funny thing is that Steven Weinberg writes that as a scientist he has a "respect for reality as something outside ourselves, that we explore but do not create."

Outside ourselves... hmmm

Throughout history the great religions of the world have held that there are 2 levels of reality. There is the human perspective on reality and there is the God's-eye view of reality, which is reality itself.

The Enlightenment fallacy that atheists so errantly put their blind faith in holds that human reason and science can come to know and eventually comprehend the whole of reality. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant shows these assumptions are false.

For instance a camera can record reality in one mode visually... humans are the same but we have 5 modes. But bats can perceive reality through sonar so there are other modes of perception of reality we don't have. We are limited to our perceptions which are not reality it self.

Reason if it is to be reasonable, must investigate its own limitations. Human reason raises questions that it is incapable of answering. Like where does reason come from ? Chemistry? Accidental natural selections? It is foolish to go around asserting claims based on reason without examining what claims reason is capable of deciding.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


You should actually find out what science is before showing us you don't have a clue. Seriously. This is embarassing for you. You have already made up your mind that a completely objective study of our universe is somehow predisposed to finding out certain things. It's nonsense. If there was evidence for God, science would instantly become the loudest supporter of said God, just as science is the loudest supporter of, say, gravity, because science has revealed to us that it definitely exists.

Unfortunately for you and those of your ilk, science holds the key to showing you just how flawed your knee-jerk reaction of "oh God must have done it" to anything you don't understand is. Science accepts that humans are flawed, and is geared up to remove those errors. You, however, say that humans are flawed, yet you believe things people tell you without doing any research.

Ignorance. You have it.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Science delusion or illusions? There's always room for error and speculation.

Here's a link about science and remote viewing.

www.book-of-thoth.com...

It would seem that science still rejects it, possibly, because it can't or refuses to prove or disprove it. That doesn't mean that remote viewing isn't used as a form of disinformation also. Although, some future events can be programed and altered, many naturally occurring events, may or may not also. (HAARP?) I've been lead to believe I've been a remote viewer. I still don't trust it or these memories because they could be planted or delusions.

So, the future may be filled with alternate realities. An all seer is not necessarily an all sayer. This may be why some prophecies are vague or warnings. Many of which may actually be programed events, such as what conspiracy theorists believe happened with 9/11.


So, religion is probably part of the experiment and it's up to us to figure it out. Science may eventually prove or disprove religion to some degree. The biblical events may actually be how we or our DNA got here, possibly from another world, possibly by the same manipulative species that may have destroyed our planet. (fiction?)

How much of our alleged science fact, religion and history is actually science fiction or deluded?

The degrees of a Mason may actually be how close they are to this knowledge or absolute truth. Just because an alleged Mason says otherwise, doesn't mean they know the real truth. Many of us already suspect and see a world and society filled with double standards or variables.

Thanks for pulling my chain though.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
The degrees of a mason? Ugh...

Right. That explains their supernatural powers.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join