PastorAIO:


The PR thing is essential. When you rely on public funds to conduct your experiments then you need to convince the public that is worthwhile. Hence all the popular science books that many of us pseudo-scientists on NL are fond of reading. These books seek to simplify the latest discoveries just enough to convince us that our taxes are being spent on worthwhile projects.

A substantial amount is made up, though. The object is more to obtain funding, than to educate the public.

The most recent and shameless charade is the "discovery" of the Higgs Boson, or should that be "zoo of Bosons, blah, blah, blah", as they tried to dress it up?

The Large Hadron Collider clearly wasn't powerful enough to achieve what they wanted. They needed an upgrade.

How do they justify the huge cost, without something substantial to show for the initial investment?

They lie. They say they've discovered the Higgs Boson, and they give the guys Nobel Prizes, etc. etc. theatrics.

They use PR to market a blip as a zoo of bosons cum Higgs Boson, and the dance goes on.

The media plays along. What has anyone of importance got to lose?

sinequanon:


Another perspective is that it is the process of recall which organizes our experience, using time. I use the dream example. I don't know if you have woken up and recalled a "long" dream, only to look at the clock and realize that the clock disagrees with you?

However, my point is not to claim that we can humanly divest ourselves of time, but that we can move in that direction if we paid attention to what is involved in these apparent fluctuations.

I have. It could be the process of recall. It's also been suggested that a difference in the perception of time, particularly during a dream, could be down to a change in the speed of brain processing such that the faster the brain acts the slower time appears to be. You can experience more in a given time than you normally would. This suggestion sits better with me, but then I'm nobody.

It has the effect though of explaining away perceived time distortions as being caused by the brain, not that the brain momentarily gave way to a more effective perception tool.
I agree that we need to pay more attention to the fluctuations.

Agreed. I am saying that omnipotence totally dissolves passage of time.

But I am also saying that the more open our perception (the less constrained by dogma and certain mental interference) the LESS we experience the passage of time.

Sorry, I meant to say "omniscience" where I said "omnipotence". Looks like you understood anyway.

That is, the more we are able to bypass logical thinking, right?

(I don't follow particular philosophies, but the closest thing I could find is "idealism".)

Essentially, I am saying that the mind or consciousness exists outside of space and time, and that space and time supervene on consciousness. i.e they are a result or perception within conscious state -- e.g elements of human consciousness.

Materialism says the reverse, that consciousness emerged from a particular complex state of matter/configuration of space and time.

So, I am saying that consciousness cannot be factored into causal elements. It is that elusive thing that just IS, and on which all else supervenes.

I think I get it. I hope this doesn't sound nonsensical.

In the first place, it is clear that our human consciousness as yet does not comprehend the whole. In the event that we are able to remove the obstruction caused by the brain and then comprehend the whole, can we still be said to be omniscient in light of the fact that we once did not comprehend? And if we eventually comprehend, what does that say about time, given that we went from not knowing to knowing?

Secondly, would you say that the human mind is inextricably linked to the brain? I ask because we humans were not always here (perhaps this is also up for debate) and in order for us to be, another mind must have thought (comprehended?) us up. Whose mind could that be?

Finally, I assume that consciousness would have to operate in a certain way, according to certain rules. Assuming it does, would it supervene on these rules? This might be irrelevant anyway.

plaetton:


But is the science the problem or the political and economic hegemons that we have all surrendered our wills to?

I often ask the same question about religion.

sinequanon:


A substantial amount is made up, though. The object is more to obtain funding, than to educate the public.

The most recent and shameless charade is the "discovery" of the Higgs Boson, or should that be "zoo of Bosons, blah, blah, blah", as they tried to dress it up?

The Large Hadron Collider clearly wasn't powerful enough to achieve what they wanted. They needed an upgrade.

How do they justify the huge cost, without something substantial to show for the initial investment?

They lie. They say they've discovered the Higgs Boson, and they give the guys Nobel Prizes, etc. etc. theatrics.

They use PR to market a blip as a zoo of bosons cum Higgs Boson, and the dance goes on.

The media plays along. What has anyone of importance got to lose?

Funny indeed.

At least you are completely unabashed about your irrational bias against scientific enquiry and the scientific method.

I wish you would man up and just confess so.
lol.

PastorAIO:


I often ask the same question about religion.

Agreed.
But science, unlike religion, never assumed or promised to take humankind to anywhere. It never even assumed or promised to bring out any good in humans. It is just an open system of enquiry that could lead in any direction at any given time.

undercat:


I have. It could be the process of recall. It's also been suggested that a difference in the perception of time, particularly during a dream, could be down to a change in the speed of brain processing such that the faster the brain acts the slower time appears to be. You can experience more in a given time than you normally would. This suggestion sits better with me, but then I'm nobody.

You know what I say? We've understood each other's point of view, and we make our choice. There is no problem having difference of opinion.

It is not as if either of us has no choice because we fail to understand the options.

We can continue to debate and explore other options/differences/similarities of opinion.

undercat:
It has the effect though of explaining away perceived time distortions as being caused by the brain, not that the brain momentarily gave way to a more effective perception tool.
I agree that we need to pay more attention to the fluctuations.

More effective perception with reduced brain function is what intrigues me. I was even more intrigued to hear the psychiatrist in the video say that the function of the brain's frontal lobe is to inhibit the rest of the brain.

undercat:
Sorry, I meant to say "omniscience" where I said "omnipotence". Looks like you understood anyway.

That is, the more we are able to bypass logical thinking, right?

Yes, that is my perspective. Logic is about filling in gaps. The more you know, the fewer gaps, and the less logic you need. If you were omniscient, there would be no gaps and no need for logic.

undercat:
I think I get it. I hope this doesn't sound nonsensical.

I always consider if it is my comprehension, before blaming the point. Let's see..

undercat:
In the first place, it is clear that our human consciousness as yet does not comprehend the whole. In the event that we are able to remove the obstruction caused by the brain and then comprehend the whole, can we still be said to be omniscient in light of the fact that we once did not comprehend? And if we eventually comprehend, what does that say about time, given that we went from not knowing to knowing?

Time exists, but no longer as a passage. In an omniscient state, perhaps we could reflect on time only as a tool we once used to organize fragments of perception. That's my take on it.

undercat:
Secondly, would you say that the human mind is inextricably linked to the brain? I ask because we humans were not always here (perhaps this is also up for debate) and in order for us to be, another mind must have thought (comprehended?) us up. Whose mind could that be?

Finally, I assume that consciousness would have to operate in a certain way, according to certain rules. Assuming it does, would it supervene on these rules? This might be irrelevant anyway.

I think "human mind" is mind in human condition -- hence an implied link. But I think the mind's condition migrates and survives the human condition. I equate the mind with consciousness, which I take to be fundamental -- nothing came before it or factored it.

I think the only rules are the rules the mind makes up and chooses to follow.

Hope I got your points.

Where would you say the "mind" and the "human mind" came from?

For anybody not aware of the equivocation over the Higgs Boson:

Talk about SPIN. Clearly, they don't yet know what they are looking at.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

[size=16pt]More data is needed[/size] to know if the discovered particle exactly matches the predictions of the Standard Model, or whether, as predicted by some theories, [size=16pt]multiple Higgs bosons[/size] exist.[3]

This is how it is hyped in the media -- New Scientist, for example:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26205-curtain-closing-on-higgs-boson-photon-soap-opera.html#.VHt9xTGsWnE

But over the past year, physicists at CERN have found that the Higgs boson is acting [size=16pt]exactly[/size] as the incomplete standard model of particle physics predicts, leaving us with no clues about how to extend it.

sinequanon:


I don't think that is a "yes" or "no" answer.

Humans do achieve states of mind (when dreaming for example) where TIME factors differently, or not at all.

A supposedly very "long" dream in fact takes hardly any TIME to apprehend.

Some people liken a dream to a download of something TIMELESS which our conscious mind then has to interpret using TIME. Our brains recall the dream using TIME, but the dream itself came from a TIMELESS domain. It shows that some part of us is comfortable without TIME. We revert to time in our waking life.

In mathematics and science, we often factor TIME out and visualize it using a chart or spatial axes, instead. A famous example is this one that helps us visualize the WHOLE.



Psychologically, I would say we are ALWAYS factoring TIME out, but only of a few seconds. (Our language confines me to use TIME to describe it). We hold a picture, not just of the instant, but of a short duration, using what we call "short term recall" and anticipation. We would not be able to make sense of the world if we couldn't do this. We apprehend the DURATION as one TIMELESS block.

These are things we can develop.

In more direct answer to your question, our comprehension is not incapable of escaping the envelop of TIME, and does in fact do it occasionally. Philosophers and science fiction writers understand the sorts of things involved.

(NB note how our language has evolved so that I even have to acknowledge TIME even when talking about TIMELESSNESS).

I want to know of your own personal experience of timelessness, how you achieved it and some of the benefits to you.

But answer this questions first if we as humans have finite lifespans is it feasible to spend every waking moment in a timeless state seeing as we are constrained by finite lifespans. If this was possible will it mean the state will cancel out the passage of time for the person thus enabling infinite longevity?

sinequanon:


You know what I say? We've understood each other's point of view, and we make our choice. There is no problem having difference of opinion.

It is not as if either of us has no choice because we fail to understand the options.

We can continue to debate and explore other options/differences/similarities of opinion.

True. One just has to work with a limited understanding.

More effective perception with reduced brain function is what intrigues me. I was even more intrigued to hear the psychiatrist in the video say that the function of the brain's frontal lobe is to inhibit the rest of the brain.

It is intriguing. If its true you have to wonder what nature could have meant by it. Developing a brain which it then inhibits. That's assuming nature can mean anything.

Yes, that is my perspective. Logic is about filling in gaps. The more you know, the fewer gaps, and the less logic you need. If you were omniscient, there would be no gaps and no need for logic.

Perhaps. But "why" questions are not ones you can answer by seeing things.

Time exists, but no longer as a passage. In an omniscient state, perhaps we could reflect on time only as a tool we once used to organize fragments of perception. That's my take on it.

The fact would remain though that there was some point at which we did not know the whole. I suppose we can explain this away as a sort of relation between events.

I think "human mind" is mind in human condition -- hence an implied link. But I think the mind's condition migrates and survives the human condition. I equate the mind with consciousness, which I take to be fundamental -- nothing came before it or factored it.

I suspected this. I was just wondering if we, all 7 billion plus humans, are actually the same consciousness with the one that precedes us, if any.

I think the only rules are the rules the mind makes up and chooses to follow.

By way of conjecture, the mind could not follow a rule that says the existence of a mind is impossible.

Hope I got your points.

You did.

Where would you say the "mind" and the "human mind" came from?

I actually don't know. As things stand though, given that we haven't seen a mind existing without a brain, I would say minds come from brains.

Of course one can say a spirit has no brain but it has a mind. Then I'll just hold my peace. I haven't seen a spirit.

Hmmmm

plaetton:


Agreed.
But science, unlike religion, never assumed or promised to take humankind to anywhere. It never even assumed or promised to bring out any good in humans. It is just an open system of enquiry that could lead in any direction at any given time.

You're making a false dichotomy between science and religion. If you want to contrast religion with something then it would have to be another ideology, at least a competing philosophy.

For example, Humanism. Humanism rose with Science in the west and it has informed a lot of the development of science.

Humanism makes a lot of promises.

Marxism and even Adam Smith's Market economics, which present themselves as scientific ideologies, they promise plenty. etc etc etc

sinequanon:


"In an instant" is begging the question, but yes (sort of). It would be a bit like experiencing a landscape instead of looking through a heap of snapshots of the landscape.

But even the event of experiencing has some element of progression. And 'standing' still at a point contemplates movement.

At some point in your 'theory', contradictions would be forced together in a single point. One would experience two exclusive states at a single moment. One would be both dead and alive at the same time.

I think consciousness pervades everything, so it is conscious.

Then I would be conscious of my creation of time. If I am not, it is either time is objective or the time creation process is unconscious.

PastorAIO:


If I may jump to the defence of Sinequanon, I believe what he meant was the Philosophy of Science, i.e. the attitude that informs a lot of science. Especially Materialism comes to mind.

the findings of Quantum Physics were not readily accepted because they confounded deeply held beliefs about Nature. Was it Einstein that said something about 'God and Dice'. Scientists have shaken off those attitudes and beliefs about nature when it comes to that field but that philosophy still informs the way they do Science in other fields.

Religion too has been afflicted with this way of thinking but definitely it doesn't apply to all religionists. It is a certain way of seeing the world that has informed both Science and Religion. Yeah Science is first off the mark to begin to shake of that attitude publicly, but many religionist are still stuck in that way of thinking. However many religionist, moreso in the past than in the present, are also open to learning new things.

I had a little talk with sinequanon about the impact quantum physics had on ordinary scientific assumptions.

sinequanon:


A substantial amount is made up, though. The object is more to obtain funding, than to educate the public.

The most recent and shameless charade is the "discovery" of the Higgs Boson, or should that be "zoo of Bosons, blah, blah, blah", as they tried to dress it up?

The Large Hadron Collider clearly wasn't powerful enough to achieve what they wanted. They needed an upgrade.

How do they justify the huge cost, without something substantial to show for the initial investment?

They lie. They say they've discovered the Higgs Boson, and they give the guys Nobel Prizes, etc. etc. theatrics.

They use PR to market a blip as a zoo of bosons cum Higgs Boson, and the dance goes on.

The media plays along. What has anyone of importance got to lose?

Science and Religion should be separated from their practitioners. If you looked at science for what it is, you wouldn't come to this conclusion.

Kay17:


Science and Religion should be separated from their practitioners. If you looked at science for what it is, you wouldn't come to this conclusion.

You've heard the expression, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".

Ironically, science spends a lot of time talking about empirical evidence yet wishes to be assessed in the abstract. What science IS, IS a standard of practice for PEOPLE. Science, as we are defining it, leverages human social organization, peer structure, social and philosophical exclusivity and philosophical universality in its standards. It defines soundness and validity in terms of these human factors. The benefit of science is to be judged in its practice.

Even if you were to claim that "what science is" is an abstract standard which we should strive towards, science dictates the social organization of that endeavour. So divorcing the practice of science from its philosophical standard is not only misleading, but ultimately valueless.

sinequanon:


You've heard the expression, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".

Ironically, science spends a lot of time talking about empirical evidence yet wishes to be assessed in the abstract. What science IS, IS a standard of practice for PEOPLE. Science, as we are defining it, leverages human social organization, peer structure, social and philosophical exclusivity and philosophical universality in its standards. It defines soundness and validity in terms of these human factors. The benefit of science is to be judged in its practice.

Even if you were to claim that "what science is" is an abstract standard which we should strive towards, science dictates the social organization of that endeavour. So divorcing the practice of science from its philosophical standard is not only misleading, but ultimately valueless.

This explains what informs your perspective. And your attitude towards science. You mentioned science 'leverages human organisations and peer structure' but what is science. Is its goal to merely create standards for men? In my view no. And indeed, we can isolate science as a concept, and deal with it accordingly.

Kay17:


This explains what informs your perspective. And your attitude towards science. You mentioned science 'leverages human organisations and peer structure' but what is science. Is its goal to merely create standards for men? In my view no. And indeed, we can isolate science as a concept, and deal with it accordingly.

You see the difference? I give examples of what and how.

You just ask a question. Give a blanket "no" answer, and repeat your belief. There is no further insight into your belief.

But fair enough, we can leave it their.

sinequanon:


You see the difference? I give examples of what and how.

You just ask a question. Give a blanket "no" answer, and repeat your belief. There is no further insight into your belief.

But fair enough, we can leave it their.

That's because I am not interested with talking about the ethical and peoples side of science. You want to be indulged with science and people - fine! But I feel it is a distraction and misrepresentation of what science truly is. I prefer to see science as a pure concept.

Op, a little about your warped view of science. You seem to think science is an institutionalized organization like religion. Fortunately, science is just a body of knowledge that is very dynamic and which does not have favorites.

I like the topic you brought up however, the concept of time could have been in existence because of the weakness in how our brain perceives events and in our limitations to space.
This is true considering that time can be cheated. A wormhole can be created which would get us a very long distance in a short time than would be possible if we were travelling linearly (if we can get a source of energy large enough and if we can contain it).

So all the past, present and future events can occur all at once, and an observer outside that dimension can witness it all at once. A mind outside that dimension can also start the reaction and watch it end all at once, however, those reactions will unfold sequentially to any observer within the dimension.

I hope that is the point you are trying to make.
I will let you confirm before I tell you why science is not stuck and why god is still not the answer or the guy outside our dimension.

Kay17:


Science and Religion should be separated from their practitioners. If you looked at science for what it is, you wouldn't come to this conclusion.

This sounds a lot like, 'judge christianity for itself and not by looking at christians'.

The point which perhaps sinequanon is trying to make is that Human activities will always remain human activities. We humans are filled with such pretensions. in the case above it is the claim to cold, rational, objectivity.

science is practiced by Humans, as religion. You cannot separate science from the humans that do it. As you cannot separate religion from the humans that do it.

It is a nonsense that christians spout when they say: religion is man's attempt to reach god while christianity is god's attempt to reach man. or words to that effect. It is a totally pretentious nonsense. It all comes from man.

It is a nonsense that scientismists spout when they claim that they are being purely objective.


As Nietzsche put it: Human, All too Human.

ooman3:
Op, a little about your warped view of science. You seem to think science is an institutionalized organization like religion. Fortunately, science is just a body of knowledge that is very dynamic and which does not have favorites.

My brother, Science IS institutionalised. Or rather I should say, Science is practiced by institutions. Science is not a thing that has it's own existence and lives it's own life whether or not humans exist.

You cannot remove Science from Humanity, with all it foibles. Just like you cannot remove religion from Humanity with all it's foibles.

^^^
And the point we continue to emphasize is that science has evolved a vetting system , a system of introspection, a process whose primary purpose is to weed out prejudices and maintain as much objectivity as possible.
That is good enough, and sets it worlds apart from religion.

You cannot compare a hotly debated scientific topics like TOE or global warming to a Papal Bull or an Islamic fatwa, or Joshua's vision where he supposedly watches European league soccer match with god.

It similar to democratic nation and a fascist dictatorship. But are run by humans, both are imperfect, but both are worlds apart on they achieve their goals.

sinequanon:
TIME

Time is at the heart of the confusion.

Time is only a side effect of human perception. It is not a property of the universe. It is a human psychological condition.

Imagine a brain scanner taking pictures of slices of a brain. The brain scanner only sees a two dimensional slice in an instant. The scanner sees the slice "CHANGING" in the two dimensions as the scanner sweeps through the brain.

But, someone who can see the WHOLE -- the WHOLE brain -- doesn't see these "CHANGES". To them it is ALL ONE instantaneous and comprehensive image.

The brain scanner creates TIME to measure these changes. But this TIME does not exist to the whole brain. TIME is just a side effect the scanner suffers due to its limited perception.

After creating TIME, the scanner then tries to explain the artificial CHANGES in terms of CAUSE AND EFFECT. But CAUSE AND EFFECT is just an illusion caused by the creation of artificial TIME.

The scanner goes on to ask about ORIGIN. Because of its limited perception, it sees one cell appearing before another. It thinks it is all due to CAUSE AND EFFECT. So, it asks, where does it all begin.

BUT the image is ONE. TIME is an illusion. CAUSE AND EFFECT is an illusion. ORIGIN is an illusion.

So it is, with humans. We create TIME because we do not comprehend the WHOLE. We seek ORIGIN because we have created TIME.

This leads religious folk to seek GOD.

And scientists to get STUCK.

Both are caused by illusion.

The answer is to transcend our perceptual limitations, and to comprehend outside the envelope of time.

"BUT the image is ONE. TIME is an illusion."

Okay, clearly you do not know a thing about what time is. Let me explain, Time is the semantic means we use to refer to progressive changes. Like rock, sand, wood etc. We create the term used to refer to those existences, we do not create the objects themselves. So, the passage of every moment say, from the time of your birth till now is measured by time (not the term, but the phenomenon which we refer to BY the term).

So I ask again, do you still think that time is an illusion that we create?

sinequanon:
CAUSE AND EFFECT is an illusion

Name one thing that is not as a result of cause and effect?

sinequanon:
ORIGIN is an illusion

Name one thing that doesn't have origin

sinequanon:
The answer is to transcend our perceptual limitations, and to comprehend outside the envelope of time

I would like to know how we could ever acheive that.

Get a decent knowledge about terms before you start throwing words around hoping to get a point out of some random nonsense

Thsuperiorman:
Okay, clearly you do not know a thing about what time is.

Since your mind is made up, I don't know what questions in the rest of your post are for. Each to his own.

PastorAIO:


This sounds a lot like, 'judge christianity for itself and not by looking at christians'.

The point which perhaps sinequanon is trying to make is that Human activities will always remain human activities. We humans are filled with such pretensions. in the case above it is the claim to cold, rational, objectivity.

science is practiced by Humans, as religion. You cannot separate science from the humans that do it. As you cannot separate religion from the humans that do it.

It is a nonsense that christians spout when they say: religion is man's attempt to reach god while christianity is god's attempt to reach man. or words to that effect. It is a totally pretentious nonsense. It all comes from man.

It is a nonsense that scientismists spout when they claim that they are being purely objective.


As Nietzsche put it: Human, All too Human.

Exactly. Well put.

And it is worth mentioning that, Time is an objective existence, if you die now tomorrow would still come. Seriously when I first saw your post I LMAO... But, we learn everyday, right? That's why I stopped by to acquit you of future crimes against science and/or terrible misconceptions about YOUR existence for that matter.

Go and sin no more

PastorAIO:

It is a nonsense that scientismists spout when they claim that they are being purely objective. [/b]

Lol... Do you know what being objective means for crying out loud? Subjectivity is the artificial knowledge OBJECTIVITY on the other hand is an independent existence. How on earth can someone claim to be objective? Or better still, Name JUST ONE scientist who claims to be objective. Lmao

1+1=2 is an objective fact. On the other hand, every nonsense you cough out that contradicts that or any other fact for that matter, is SUBJECTIVE. For god's sake

sinequanon:


Since your mind is made up, I don't know what questions in the rest of your post are for. Each to his own.

Ha ha.
Questions back to sender.
Lol.

Thsuperiorman:


Lol... Do you know what being objective means for crying out loud? Subjectivity is the artificial knowledge OBJECTIVITY on the other hand is an independent existence. How on earth can someone claim to be objective? Or better still, Name JUST ONE scientist who claims to be objective. Lmao

1+1=2 is an objective fact. On the other hand, every nonsense you cough out that contradicts that or any other fact for that matter, is SUBJECTIVE. For god's sake

You have to understand where sinequsnon is coming from.
He posits that science errs by focusing on a mechanistic universe, instead of...... ( he fails to tell us what).

He is yet to explain, even rudimentarily, what a nonmechanistic universe might look like or entail.

Like most religious folks, he knows what he is against( the scientific rationality), but little of what he is for.

This thread and the article sort of dovetails with the thrusts of our debates here.

https://www.nairaland.com/2025730/moses-jesus-mohammed-company-critical

plaetton:


You have to understand where sinequsnon is coming from.
He posits that science errs by focusing on a mechanistic universe, instead of...... ( he fails to tell us what).

He is yet to explain, even rudimentarily, what a nonmechanistic universe might look like or entail.

Like most religious folks, he knows what he is against( the scientific rationality), but little of what he is for.

Okay, but let's get one thing straight. He and other religious folks like him DON'T KNOW ANYTHING about science, he doesn't know what he's even against. People just go to every church activity, read the Bible 24/7 study CRK in school and claim they've found God, they study biology from ss1 to sss3 and think they know science, they attend GST211 (logic and philosophy) in 100 or 200 level and think they know logic or maybe have a way with words and think they can manipulate and conjur up a grammatically based logic.

How can someone even attempt to disprove what they don't know? It's impossible. He doesn't even know what time is and yet he thinks it's an illusion. If he meant the subjective meaning of time how hard is it to just say so?

Anyways, you don't have to respond, I'm just addressing the OP's problem, not yours

AllNaijaBlogger:



Science and religion are two very different entities.

I am assuming that you are a fellow christian.

Science holds various beliefs about time. I hope you know that there are many competing theories and hypotheses within and outside the big bang theory.


That being said, the bible is very straightforward on creation and time; God created everything, including time. This is what I believe.

If god created time, does it mean that God and the universe (whatever it was) were at a freezed state (absolute stagnation)? Even if that is true (which is evidently far from it). Don't you think there is an interval between when God comes out of being freezed to being unfreezed? That duration is time. What about the interval between when God did not create time and when he did, that too is an interval, which we call TIME gdmit.

And yet you boldly say that's what you believe. Your belief is irrelevant to the facts. Just like I said to the OP, How can you tell me how tooth ache feels when you don't have tooth ache?