General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

This should be required viewing for every debate:

http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html

"If you really want to rediscover wonder, you need to step outside of that tiny, terrified space of rightness and look around at each other and look out at the vastness and complexity and mystery of the universe and be able to say, 'Wow, I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong.'"

We know more about the processes. Great. We know more about the mechanics of this universe. Yay.
Don't get me wrong, it's a big achievement. Science is very powerful. It's brought good, it's brought bad. It's made life easier, it's made life tougher.
But it cannot account for the magic I witness in life. The manifestation of my consciousness, the joy of getting together, the love you may feel, incredible encounters one may have etc..

There is some very serious work going on in neuroscience right now that can and will explain the feelings you have been having. It may be another generation until things really come into focus, but the work is already going on.

We already have a whole area, neuropsychopharmacology, that studies how drugs affect human behaviour.

I admit I don't particularly like the idea that scientists are exploring, and will be able to explain our feelings like love and joy in terms of neuro-chemistry in the brain, we've always approached these things as though they're something more than pure biology. Something extra... like inside all the meat that makes up our body, there's a little ball of white light... and that white light is our love and joy and our unique genius and our outlook on the world and our sense of humour and our creativity and such...

But we may all have to face a future knowing that inside the meat is just more meat.

That's extremely disconcerting because then what the fuck are we? Like as a human is my brain just a super-awesome computer and my personality, my humour, my love and so on... that's all constructs of the software running in my brain?

That may be a bitter pill to swallow...for all of us.

But if their research takes us there... it is where we must go.

anyone here tried psilocybin?
Scientific experiments in america showed that a significant number of participants had a religious experience.

maybe if you really wanna know what this means (a spiritual experience blah blah blah) you should try this?

I'm not some hippy promoting drugs, far from it, but so far this is the only scientifically acknowledged observation of a religious experience.

How do the atheists feel about this?

anyone here tried psilocybin?
Scientific experiments in america showed that a significant number of participants had a religious experience.

That's what I'm talking about!

anyone here tried psilocybin?
Scientific experiments in america showed that a significant number of participants had a religious experience.

maybe if you really wanna know what this means (a spiritual experience blah blah blah) you should try this?

I'm not some hippy promoting drugs, far from it, but so far this is the only scientifically acknowledged observation of a religious experience.

How do the atheists feel about this?

i just giggled alot

Ahhh magic mushrooms...if I had a religious experience when I took those it was one close to hell.

Ahhh magic mushrooms...if I had a religious experience when I took those it was one close to hell.

obviously took them when you where too young! The horrors of existence bite so hard in youth!

i just giggled alot

you giggle because your body is experiencing something new. Its a natural reaction.
"Sting" was quoted in the British press as taking them in his 40's and having a totally different experience.
i.e MORE spiritual/religious etc etc

my point is..as a rational human being you can experience what religiuos folk feel by ingesting drugs.
You can then empathise with them.
This is what is lacking in the whole debate - empathy!

you giggle because your body is experiencing something new. Its a natural reaction.
"Sting" was quoted in the British press as taking them in his 40's and having a totally different experience.
i.e MORE spiritual/religious etc etc

my point is..as a rational human being you can experience what religiuos folk feel by ingesting drugs.
You can then empathise with them.
This is what is lacking in the whole debate - empathy!

Empathizing with the religious point of view isn't going to make it any more reasonable.

And taking acid or magic mushrooms is more like empathizing with a schizophrenic person or psychotic than anything else. They might be experiencing something other than normal but it doesn't mean it's true. There aren't really 'voices' or 'hallucinations' or else they wouldn't be considered crazy and in need of professional help/medication.

. They might be experiencing something other than normal but it doesn't mean it's true. .

oops sorry. Tell me what is true? I was drunk last night and what i percieved was "true". In the morning, sober,your saying i still accepted this as true. How patronising!
Ever slept with someone drunk and in the morning thought " oh noooooo".
Whats the difference??

My point is that until you have had a spiritual experience how can you empathise with believers in god etc???

oops sorry. Tell me what is true? I was drunk last night and what i percieved was "true". In the morning, sober,your saying i still accepted this as true. How patronising!
Ever slept with someone drunk and in the morning thought " oh noooooo".
Whats the difference.

You misunderstood. Their experiences are definitely real to them but that doesn't mean that their experiences are actually happening in reality. I could hallucinate Donald Duck and it could be very real to my mind, but we both know Donald Duck isn't really there.

The point is our senses and past experiences all carry with them limited information and bias and imperfect processing so we can't trust them completely.

My point is that until you have had a spiritual experience how can you empathise with believers in god etc???

I used to be a Christian and I had a couple of overwhelming religious experiences in my life. But when I allowed myself to step beyond what I experienced and looked at it objectively I became convinced they were confined to my head.

And taking acid or magic mushrooms is more like empathizing with a schizophrenic person or psychotic than anything else..

and being drunk and sleeping with a stranger is the same as empathizing with a sex addict!(irony alert for US posters)

hey guys - i just found a great excuse!

giggidy giggidy giggidy goo!

But when I allowed myself to step beyond what I experienced and looked at it objectively I became convinced they were confined to my head.

All experiences are in your head mate - you know worra mean?

All experiences are in your head mate - you know worra mean?

When you are involved in a car accident you went through that particular experience. But the car accident is something that happened separate from you, and it might have happened differently from how you remember it. And if you hadn't been there, it might have happened anyway.

When you do acid and talk to Donald Duck, you were involved with that particular experience as well, except that Donald Duck wasn't in reality there to talk to. It was completely in your head.

Know what I mean?

People's experiences might reflect some things that are happening in reality but then again they might not; experience is not all there is to reality.

If God was real, the evidence would be pretty overwhelming. There isn't any evidence that what people are experiencing when they experience god is actually happening outside their head; all we have are people's experiences, which could just as easily be written off as a mass delusion or mass acid trip.

If it's only happening inside their head, then it's not really real. It's just a function of the mind.

First Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a scientific law) teaches us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, an honest scientist will tell you that there is nothing in the observable universe that can explain either the origin of energy or matter. By logical extension, then, matter and energy had to come into being by some force outside the universe.

@mastertex (if you continue reading despite not posting)

explanation of scientific theory, fact, and law

there is no such thing as immutable truth in science. which is what i think you mean by "not a theory but a scientific law." these are separate things in science and not related in a hierarchy.

but it is true that scientists can't explain the origin of matter as of now. but to theorize that a supernatural force is behind it creates more questions than it answers.

the biggest one being, if some force had to create the universe, then what created that force? going back one more step doesn't actually answer the problem at all.

Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a law) teaches us that in every chemical or heat reaction, there is a loss of energy that never again is available for another heat reaction. This is why things break down if left to themselves, and why scientists tell us that the universe is headed toward a heat death.

This law teaches us, then, that the universe is headed toward increasing randomness and decay.

But what does the theory of evolution teach us? The exact opposite, that the universe is headed toward increasing complexity and order. You put up a theory against my law, I'm going to settle for the law, thank you very much.

this is using a description of the world to invalidate an explanation of the world.
[i tried to read the links that SCS posted, but that confused me even more!]

so i'll just use an analogy.

thermodynamics is the description such as "John always goes home at 5pm everyday."

evolution is an explanation such as "When John's job closes for the day, he must leave the building."

so even if both statements concern John, they are not some opposing beliefs or levels of beliefs or levels of truthiness that try to contradict each other.

and just to clarify something, evolution isn't about complexity and order at all. it's about suitability to the environment. the environment could be such that simpler organisms survive and more complex organisms die off, or that everything dies. it's not a theory concerning complexity.