Just How Impossible is the Possible?

[Audie]

I don't think that counts as mathematical proof. It's more like "amount" of evidence.

Yeah, could be. Math is not my thing, calculus nearly
sank me.

 

[Audie]

Interesting, intriguing ideas! My responses:

1) The converse is also logical, that is, if even one person, ever, had any kind of spiritual experience, materialist views are partial, incorrect.

2) Your thoughts disallow for entities/energy to appear here from other dimensions. I don't understand how rationalists can posit up to 11 dimensions than say nothing untoward can get here from there.

"Any kind of spiritual experience".

We tried asking you guys what "spiritual" means,
and got answers that ranged approximately from
sniffing a daisy to seeing the face of god.

In the absence of any meaningful let alone
non-subjective / personal opinion about
"spiritual" we find that your idea of how to
shoot down "materialism" is more or less a
empty bb gun trying to get a F35.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Ideals are not "illusions". They are how we understand what we experience of reality. "Illusion" is, itself, an idea born in our experience of the enigmatic nature of reality. "Everything" is a "mental construct", because to experience something, to we humans, is to cognate it: to develop a mental construct (context) within which we idealize it, and connect this experience to all the other idealized experiences we've have previously encountered. You speak as if the experience and the idea of the experience are two different phenomena, one "real" (electrochemical) and the other "unreal" (cognitive) when they are one and the same. The chemistry is just the mechanics of our cognition. The cognition is the "higher" purpose, and the defining characteristic. Not the chemistry.
We humans create ideas, constantly. It's what we do. We "ideate" our experience of existence. To dismiss this as false, or illusion, because the ideas occur in a soup of electro-chemical-neural interactions is just ... silly.
Every choice I make in life is an expression of who I am at that moment. And if we follow the pattern of my choices over time, we will see how I have become who I am, now, through that succession of choices. I am "creating myself" (defining my spirit) by the choices I'm making, and continue to make.
I don't know what that means.

Are you simply saying that every decision or choice you make in life, defines your spiritual "self"? Therefore, all real life experiences(schooling, personal relationships, social interactions, employment choices, military service, buying a house, etc.) are what you use to define what you call "my spirit"? How does this spiritual self differ from your personality or your character? This seems to give the impression that all your choices are internally motivated, and internally conceived. Would this be accurate? If so, I'd say that you are very lucky that your choices are not influence by any external factors. Like the rest of us.

I never said that love and hate were ideals. I said, "The mental construct(conception) of love and hate are simply an illusion of the mind, and only exist in our subconscious". When did I introduce the term "ideals", and then call love and hate ideals? Please no straw man thank you. Just stick to what I do say, and not what I don't say. If you think that love and hate are ideals, then simply say so. But don't call them ideals, and then argue that I call ideals illusions. That is a fallacy(equivocation, straw man). I personally think that love is a artificial social behavioral construct, that was created by the print, news, television, and movie industries, to justify and romanticize the evolutionary physical attraction between males and females. Do you think that the concept of love is the same today, as it was in the 60's? Is there anything that you can point out, that can be physically represented as objective and abject love? Therefore it is only a mental construct, a social concepts, a zero-dimensional illusion, and a biochemically induced emotion created by the mind.


[QUOTE="PureX, post: 5738558, member: 5255"You speak as if the experience and the idea of the experience are two different phenomena, one "real" (electrochemical) and the other "unreal" (cognitive) when they are one and the same. The chemistry is just the mechanics of our cognition. The cognition is the "higher" purpose, and the defining characteristic. Not the chemistry.[/QUOTE]

Again, more gibberish and another straw man. There IS a separation between an event, and being cognizant of the event. However since you said the experience and being cognizant of the experience, you are just being redundant. You can't have a subjective experience, and not be cognizant of it. But you can have an objective experience and not be cognizant of it. Can you think of an example of this? Our cognition is only our thoughts, perspectives, expectations, and thought processes(reasoning, and heuristics). Our cognition allows us to form concepts, and solve problems. However, our cognition is not always a blessing. It can lead us towards confirmation bias(avoiding those with differing opinions) and can eventually lead to "belief perseverance" in spite of obvious evidence. Our cognition can also form a mental set, that presupposes how we think(flat earthers, young earthers). Stating that cognition "is the "higher" purpose, and the defining characteristics", is truly not the best description I would use.

Explaining your circular reasoning and equivocation fallacies, I think would be a waste of time. If you want to believe that anything is possible, and those that don't are close minded, then that is your belief. I make claims based on the facts and data, not based on beliefs, hope, and faith. Since you have provided zero evidence to support any of your claims, I assume that your argument will continue to be only philosophical. This only means that any answer to any question can be right or wrong, or right and wrong. ​

 

[Darkstorn]

Since you have provided zero evidence to support any of your claims

*cough*

A bit like your OP? It's you making a metaphysical argument against another metaphysical argument. With zero evidence.

 

[PureX]

Depends a lot on the fairy tale or he resurrection claim.

If Nixon has made yet another comeback, there must be
some way to use math to show he is really there. Or not.

Like, say, zero people have seen him, and, some
larger number say his grave is undisturbed.

This is where definition becomes important. Not seeing Nixon back from the dead does not prove that Nixon has not come back. It only appears to be an unlikely actuality according to our own limited experience of it. I'm not saying that we shouldn't abide by this improbability, I'm merely pointing out the limited and relative nature of ALL OUR PRESUMED PROBABILITIES. And therefor the danger of both dishonesty and misconception regarding our understanding of and relationship with reality.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I don't know what is safe to say. I don't know what is possible or impossible. All I know is what I, personally, have experienced, and not experienced, and I have to base what I think is a probable or improbable experience, on that.
Only if the probabilities we are trying to ascertain fall within the mechanics of physicality as we perceive it. But many of the probabilities we humans ponder are not of that variety.
I don't think the people who believe myths are facts care what science has to say about it.

Thank you. I think that you are purposely avoiding an honest answer to my question. Surely you would not expect people to be floating in the air, carrying oak trees on their backs, or being resurrected and returning to work the next day? I know you said that,

All I know is what I, personally, have experienced, and not experienced, and I have to base what I think is a probable or improbable experience, on that.

But lets be honest, even though you haven't experienced any floating, or resurrected people, do you think that this experience could be possible, very unlikely, or impossible? And why? Ignorance is not a rational argument. The only "mechanics of physicality" is its probability of violating natural law. It can't. Therefore, it is impossible for humans to float into the air, or return from the grave, or lift oak trees onto their backs. You don't have to experience it to know that jumping off a 10 storey building will be extremely hazardous to your continued good health. Because science says so.

You are correct. People who believe that myths are facts, truly don't care what science has to say about it. Yet for some reason most believers in alternate realities, mysticism, supernatural, the metaphysical, religions, the paranormal, and the spiritual, need to dismiss or manipulate the tenets in science to support their beliefs. Why is that?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Interesting.
- Professor John R. Brobeck of the University of Pennsylvania

Has science discovered everything? Then that's the end of science. RIP,

Thank you. I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean. Are you suggesting that the search to continue refining our understanding of reality, should cease because science has not discovered everything? Maybe I have misunderstood you?

 

[George-ananda]

The Laws of physics and math debunk Myths, Metaphysical, the Supernatural, Vampires and Zombies, Fairy Tales, Ghosts, Telekinesis, Telepathy, Clairvoyance, Psychics, Gods and sub-Gods, Astral Projections, Resurrections, Astrology, Faith Healers, Occultism, Spirituality, and Miracles. Not only do these made-up human constructs not exist in reality, but it is impossible for them to exist. If any one of these constructs did exist, it would be the end of the Universe as we know it. All the natural laws of Thermodynamics(Entropy/Enthalpy), Conservation of Energy, Inertia and angular momentum, the absolute constants(light, time, and temperature), all the fundamental components of matter and the four natural forces, would all simply collapse. Even if only one of these scientific principles were suspended or violated, the consequences would be obvious, and irreversible. For example;

For any ghost to be seen, it would need to be composed of some kind of matter. Matter that can absorb, reflect, or refract light energy(EM). All the different properties of matter and their fundamental building blocks are already known(CERN and LHC). A ghost would need to draw energy from somewhere or it would disappear immediately(2nd law of thermodynamics). To reappear would also require an energy source. Since it can float or pass through matter, it can't exert any force on anything. This is a violation of Newtons Motion laws, as well as Gravity).Therefore, its components must interact with each other differently than the Standard Model would suggest. This is impossible since all the properties of matter are accounted for(including the possibility of dark matter and supersymmetry) by the Standard Model. Since the Universe is still here, Ghost can't exist. Hence, why no verifiable objective evidence can exist.

The Metaphysical(philosophical), the paranormal, and the supernatural are not self-evident. They can't be established by any everyday experiences, or by any natural scientific investigation. These philosophical beliefs can't concern themselves with objective evidence, since no objective evidence exists. They must only concern themselves with exploiting the language, or challenging already established principles with language. They can never become established fact, or be deduced by using formal logic or mathematical reasoning. Especially, since all Metaphysical phenomena exist outside of our senses/experiences. Even an empiricist is not allowed to assert the truth of non-empirical constructs. There will always remain the problems with realism, representation, evidences, and especially with semantics. Challenges to Metaphysical Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) . Therefore, if the metaphysical, supernatural and spiritual worlds could exist, they would have no materialistic or practical value, except for those seeking answers that are "a priori" in nature.

My personal belief, is that these were stories created by humans, to generally entertain other humans with a lot of time on their hands. So, to recap, NOTHING that exists within this Universe, can exist outside of the four fundamental forces of the Universe(EM, Gravity, Strong and Weak). NOTHING can be established as fact or certainty, without some additional amount of evidence. NOTHING that is composed of matter and energy, can ignore the four Laws of Thermodynamics, or escape its Entropy. NOTHING composed of matter, mass or momentum can travel faster than light, obtain absolute zero, or occupy zero space. NOTHING, can exist outside of any Quantum Field medium, established by the Quantum Standard Model of Fermions(Matter particles), and the Bosons(Force particles). Nothing on the macro-scale can escape the effects of Gravity, time and space, or the Laws of Motion. And, NOTHING can interact with something, without a medium/mechanism to facilitate that interaction(no medium/mechanism for clairvoyants, telepaths, empaths, or telekinesis). The only exceptions to anything that could violate the physical laws of nature, are the ideas and beliefs that we create using our mind. Since the basis for dis-belief is science, what is the basis for belief? The mind IS truly a terrible thing to waste.

Well, first @Hockeycowboy thank you for asking my opinion on this OP.

First of all I believe the OP is way overestimating how much we know. There is enough weirdness to reality that I would also consider things like those discussed in the movie 'What the Bleep do We Know?'.

Also I believe in the existence of the paranormal beyond reasonable doubt from the quantity, quality and consistency evidence. These things I believe dramatically show the incompleteness of what we know.

Also quantum mechanics throws a monkey-wrench into our orderly understanding of how the universe operates. Einstein himself even saw this as 'spooky' stuff. Why do things operate in what to us seems in unpredictable ways. That would seem to imply there are reasons that we yet haven't learned.

And what is matter the deeper we go into it? Ultimately much of the eastern and western and so-called New Age teachers tell us it is consciousness based and not materially based. I think the new post-materialist scientists are the ones pointing the way to the future of understanding.

Also, I think the physical senses and instruments are limited in what they can detect. The majority of the matter in the universe is not directly detectable (so-called dark matter) is a position held by even today's science. Again those teachers claiming insight beyond the physical senses tell us that real things exist in dimensions (beyond our familiar three) and at vibratory rates not directly detectable by the physical senses. The OP mentioned 'ghosts'. I believe spirits are made of matter of these 'higher' dimensions. "Ghosts' then may just be cases where spirits by their efforts attempt a materialization or semi-materialization onto the physical plane.

Lastly, what is subjective consciousness? Why do our billions of neurons experience as a 'one'? What is this 'one' then? I often explain the two sides like this:
Non-materialist: Consciousness is primary and matter is a derivative of consciousness

Materialist: Matter is primary and consciousness is a derivative of matter

Eastern (non-dual Hindu) and much of New Age thought sounds much like the father of quantum physics Max Planck who said:

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness."?
Max Planck

 

[Audie]

This is where definition becomes important. Not seeing Nixon back from the dead does not prove that Nixon has not come back. It only appears to be an unlikely actuality according to our own limited experience of it. I'm not saying that we shouldn't abide by this improbability, I'm merely pointing out the limited and relative nature of ALL OUR PRESUMED PROBABILITIES. And therefor the danger of both dishonesty and misconception regarding our understanding of and relationship with reality.

A person can go overboard with that, but of course
we note that science does not do facts, but probabilities.


In view of that-
This-I'm merely pointing out the limited and relative nature of ALL OUR PRESUMED PROBABILITIES.

May have been overly hyperoutpointed by now.

 

[PureX]

Are you simply saying that every decision or choice you make in life, defines your spiritual "self"? Therefore, all real life experiences(schooling, personal relationships, social interactions, employment choices, military service, buying a house, etc.) are what you use to define what you call "my spirit"?

All these choices I make are an expression of the 'spirit of me'. Of my individual uniqueness, as well as my universality. And each time I choose, I am taking another step along my own unique path through existence. A path I walk beside countless other beings like myself. And as I walk, my spirit is enabling and defining my existential nature.

How does this spiritual self differ from your personality or your character?

These different words represent different conceptual 'windows' through which we choose to view each other. Some more in keeping with science. Some more in keeping with religion. Some more in keeping with philosophy. And so on.

This seems to give the impression that all your choices are internally motivated, and internally conceived. Would this be accurate? If so, I'd say that you are very lucky that your choices are not influence by any external factors. Like the rest of us.

I have to perceive options before they can become a choice. The external world may dictate many of my options, but they don't really become a choice until I perceive them as such. And they don't define me until I've acted on that perception.

I never said that love and hate were ideals. I said, "The mental construct(conception) of love and hate are simply an illusion of the mind, and only exist in our subconscious".

Everything is a "mental construct" (identifies and exists as a concept in our mind). This does not make any one construct any more "illusory" than any other.

Again, more gibberish and another straw man. There IS a separation between an event, and being cognizant of the event.

Not one that any human can experience, or prove. You seem to have 'bought into' the presumption of an "objective reality" that you have never experienced, and never will, based on information that you cannot gain, and do not possess. And now that I am pointing out the irrationality of this presumption, you are reacting boorishly.

Cognition, for we humans, is EVERYTHING. Literally! It's ALL WE HAVE and all we will ever have in terms of knowledge, experience, truth, and wisdom. But for some strange reason you want to imagine that bio-chemisty in the brain is the be-all and end-all of the human experience. And I can't help but see that as a biased and foolish presumption. Especially wen you could even develop or hold that presumption without the transcendency of cognition.

You can't have a subjective experience, and not be cognizant of it.

Cognition is subjective. Therefor, "objectivity" is an ideal that no human has ever actually experienced, or ever will.

But you can have an objective experience and not be cognizant of it.

Without cognition, there is no experience.

Our cognition is only our thoughts, perspectives, expectations, and thought processes(reasoning, and heuristics). Our cognition allows us to form concepts, and solve problems. However, our cognition is not always a blessing. It can lead us towards confirmation bias(avoiding those with differing opinions) and can eventually lead to "belief perseverance" in spite of obvious evidence. Our cognition can also form a mental set, that presupposes how we think(flat earthers, young earthers).

Welcome to the limitations of the human condition.

Stating that cognition "is the "higher" purpose, and the defining characteristics", is truly not the best description I would use.

And yet without it, we are not "us"; we are not "here". And purpose would not even be a question asked.

​

 

[Audie]

All these choices I make are an expression of the 'spirit of me'. Of my individual uniqueness, as well as my universality. And each time I choose, I am taking another step along my own unique path through existence. A path I walk beside countless other beings like myself. And as I walk, my spirit is enabling and defining my existential nature.

These different words represent different conceptual 'windows' through which we choose to view each other. Some more in keeping with science. Some more in keeping with religion. Some more in keeping with philosophy. And so on.
I have to perceive options before they can become a choice. The external world may dictate many of my options, but they don't really become a choice until I perceive them as such. And they don't define me until I've acted on that perception.
Everything is a "mental construct" (identifies and exists as a concept in our mind). This does not make any one construct any more "illusory" than any other.
​

Were you, like a psychology major who took a couple
of philosophy classes?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Well, first @Hockeycowboy thank you for asking my opinion on this OP.

First of all I believe the OP is way overestimating how much we know. There is enough weirdness to reality that I would also consider things like those discussed in the movie 'What the Bleep do We Know?'.

Also I believe in the existence of the paranormal beyond reasonable doubt from the quantity, quality and consistency evidence. These things I believe dramatically show the incompleteness of what we know.

Also quantum mechanics throws a monkey-wrench into our orderly understanding of how the universe operates. Einstein himself even saw this as 'spooky' stuff. Why do things operate in what to us seems in unpredictable ways. That would seem to imply there are reasons that we yet haven't learned.

And what is matter the deeper we go into it? Ultimately much of the eastern and western and so-called New Age teachers tell us it is consciousness based and not materially based. I think the new post-materialist scientists are the ones pointing the way to the future of understanding.

Also, I think the physical senses and instruments are limited in what they can detect. The majority of the matter in the universe is not directly detectable (so-called dark matter) is a position held by even today's science. Again those teachers claiming insight beyond the physical senses tell us that real things exist in dimensions (beyond our familiar three) and at vibratory rates not directly detectable by the physical senses. The OP mentioned 'ghosts'. I believe spirits are made of matter of these 'higher' dimensions. "Ghosts' then may just be cases where spirits by their efforts attempt a materialization or semi-materialization onto the physical plane.

Lastly, what is subjective consciousness? Why do our billions of neurons experience as a 'one'? What is this 'one' then? I often explain the two sides like this:
Non-materialist: Consciousness is primary and matter is a derivative of consciousness

Materialist: Matter is primary and consciousness is a derivative of matter

Eastern (non-dual Hindu) and much of New Age thought sounds much like the father of quantum physics Max Planck who said:

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness."?
Max Planck

Thank!
I appreciate your input. I know we haven't had much dialogue between us, but I've always found your posts enlightening.... in fact, they often reinforce what I believe.

Take care.

 

[George-ananda]

Thank!
I appreciate your input. I know we haven't had much dialogue between us, but I've always found your posts enlightening.... in fact, they often reinforce what I believe.

Take care.

Also I like reinforcing more liberal Christianity.

 

[PureX]

Thank you. I think that you are purposely avoiding an honest answer to my question.

I gave you an honest answer, but it didn't help you promote the bias that you want to promote. Sorry.

But lets be honest, even though you haven't experienced any floating, or resurrected people, do you think that this experience could be possible, very unlikely, or impossible?

The truth is not determined by what I think. Nor by what you think. Nor by what scientists think. Nor by what religionists think. In fact, we humans don't get to determine what the truth is. We just don't have that capability (omniscience).

Ignorance is not a rational argument.

It's all we've got as limited, relative, humans.

 

[PureX]

A person can go overboard with that, but of course
we note that science does not do facts, but probabilities.


In view of that-
This-I'm merely pointing out the limited and relative nature of ALL OUR PRESUMED PROBABILITIES.

May have been overly hyperoutpointed by now.

And yet it never sees to 'sink in' to the minds of those spewing them out as if they were divine truth.

 

[Audie]

And yet it never sees to 'sink in' to the minds of those spewing them out as if they were divine truth.

Just so you dont miss the thing about overdoing it.

So were you a psych major?

 

[Audie]

Thank!
I appreciate your input. I know we haven't had much dialogue between us, but I've always found your posts enlightening.... in fact, they often reinforce what I believe.

Take care.

Of course! Confirmation bias, we calls it in the biz.
Or, for the layity, we calls it "preachin' to the choir"
or birds of a feather.

 

[PureX]

Were you, like a psychology major who took a couple
of philosophy classes?

I didn't beat around the 'truth/reality bush' like those lightweights; I went strait for the source. I'm a master of fine art.

 

[PureX]

Thank!
I appreciate your input. I know we haven't had much dialogue between us, but I've always found your posts enlightening.... in fact, they often reinforce what I believe.

... Just to point out: if they "reinforce what (you) believe", as you state, they are not "enlightening" you. They are only affirming what you already think. ... I mean, speaking of 'confirmation bias' an all.

 

[Audie]

I didn't beat around the 'truth/reality bush' like those lightweights; I went strait for the source. I'm a master of fine art.

Ah so desu ka. Fine art of what?