Thread: We can prove dream sharing is real

Sivason:

Don't worry, I don't take any offense. I'm all for discussion.

You used the words "speaking of some deity or spirit or other such nonsense," as if you find all topics not firmly explained by science to be foolish and unlikely.

If it were true that all topics not firmly explained by science were foolish and unlikely, then there would be no scientific knowledge. All new ideas would be dismissed because there would be no previous understanding of them. Obviously this is not the case, as science evolves continually. It is not my opinion, and I do not mean to imply it, but I see what you're getting at.

I am thinking perhaps you have modeled yourself as a Atheist? It is ok for some to be a Atheist, if that is the case. However, can you tell me if I am getting the correct spin on what you are saying? Do you automatically claim (in your own mind) that all "mystical" things must be false?

Agnostic atheism is my opinion, and as such it is separate from proven fact. I am defined as atheist only as long as it is consistent with my convictions; I do not formulate my opinions on things based around my being called an atheist. The term atheist to me is nominal, it is not a set list of things that I believe and do not or cannot believe. Forgive my frankness but I believe that description is accurate for religion. Instead, it is just a useful word to better express my general opinion on the issue of gods and spirits. My opinion is that there are no gods or spirits in the sense of ethereal entities; I do not believe in ethereal objects.

Atheism literally means no god or gods, and that is as far as it describes me. Aside from atheism but related, I do not believe in heaven, hell, or similar rewards or punishments for human spirits or others. I do not believe that human beings have physical spirits, but would agree that we have spirits if spirits are defined as the personalities, thoughts, passions, and emotions of human beings. This is what deserves respect and preservation, and this is what will "live on" through the memories and experiences of our friends and families. In that sense, the human spirit, to me, is the legacy of a human being who has lived and struggled earnestly in their brief existence, and I call that beautiful.

Do I automatically claim that all "mystical" things are false? It is a fault of me when I do. I shouldn't, and try not to dismiss anything without giving it a fair look. However, I do automatically assume(I know assumptions are bad) that the "mystical" is not mystical at all, and can be properly explained. The origins of mysticism are ancient, practiced by ancient people with a poor understanding of the physical world. Of course, this is my poor understanding of mysticism and if it is more your area, then please explain its significance and why it is a proper and legitimate interpretation of the world.

Can you accept that not even a small part of reality fits into the biological and modern physics way of understanding? I am going so far as to say, it does not need to spring from evolution.

I can accept that there is much more to be known, but the passion of scientists is honest and sincere. I am confident that with only our senses and intellect, man will grow to know the universe as it truly is. I know that I'm romantic about science and I have chided others for romanticism regarding faith, mysticism, etc. I don't want my passions to effect what I am willing to believe and disbelieve, I want rigorous study and experiment to leave me no choice. There are an unfathomable number of things not yet addressed adequately or at all by science. These are the things that I will form opinions on based on the evidence available. When they receive proper rigorous study, then the answer that comes forth from true science will have precedence over my own selfish opinion whether I like what's true or not. I think it's silly that so much care is given to coddle and make comfortable religious or other institutions with irrational belief, because they have the liberty to believe and I will defend that with my life, but they do not have the rights to step in the way of scientific discovery.

It does not need to spring from evolution. By "it", I assume you mean life? Does life have to spring from evolution? Well, here on Earth it sure did, and he have developed the theory of evolution to describe it thoroughly. I can't say there are zero forms of life out there in the cosmos that were synthesized by something else, be that something else living things or machinery or something completely outside our conceptions of what exists. I cannot speak for the emergence of life elsewhere because I do not have the data to look at. But here on Earth, abiogenesis was the conception of life, and slightly flawed DNA and RNA reproduction is the mechanism of biological evolution. You have a doctorate, correct me if I'm wrong. I know lots of other things play in. You know how much evolution has permeated modern medicine, psychology, etc.

Big bang scientists now suggest that it expanded at many many thousands of times the speed of light. In fact it really appears as if everything suddenly popped into existance instantly. Some say it was all pressed into a point smaller than an atom, but that is only due to them hating to say it suddenly appeared.

I'm not an astrophysicist, and apparently, neither are you. First of all, they've been suggesting that since the 1980s, and I suggest you look into the theory of cosmological inflation. I'll readily admit we don't know everything yet, but, as always, I will add that we're working on it. "...only due to them hating to say it suddenly appeared." Woah there, excuse me? You've mixed your personal opinion with the facts. Yeah, those damned astrophysicists, making up things willy nilly so they don't look bad. Those hundreds of thousands of astrophysicists. But of course, the BB theory isn't the only scientific theory concerning our universe. M-theory multiverse theorists and others have their own ideas, and it isn't fair of you condemn science's attempt to understand things by bringing up one theory you don't like among many, albeit the most popular, any more than I can say voodoo dolls are silly so mysticism has no place in the world. I can't argue this one out because I simply and sincerely do not know.

Next is the theory of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Both theories are becoming widely accepted, yet they are nothing more than unkown variables being accounted for with a question mark and cute name. Dark Matter is not something anyone has detected or even pictured. Dark matter is just the term used because none of the modern physics models can account for the universe being here. It appears as if empty space can have lots of gravity or little. It is guessed that 98% of the gravity needed to make the universe models work is just emminating out of empty space. We are currently in one of those gravity fields and can not see or detect any source for the gravity. Dark Energy is just another unknown variable. It seems that there is way to much energy out there coming from no appearant source. It is adding energy to the system in vast amounts, even though standard science was saying, you neither create nor destroy energy. It appears that a fabulous amount of energy is just pouring in from some unknown factor.

I'll start by saying that these are separate theories, despite the name. "Dark matter has not been detected." Well, I don't know what you mean by detected because observing its effects is detection in my opinion, and observation of its effects lead Oort to hypothesizing it. "..or even pictured." Well, it sure as hell wouldn't be "dark" matter if we could take pictures of it. I don't think you have any concept of dark matter, because your argument doesn't take into account any sort of evidence. You seem to think people say it's there just to save their hides because they don't know. Here's the list of evidence from wikipedia:

Galactic rotation curves
Velocity dispersions of galaxies
Galaxy clusters and gravitational lensing
Cosmic microwave background
Sky surveys and baryon acoustic oscillations
Type Ia supernovae distance measurements
Lyman-alpha forest
Structure formation

Obviously that means nothing without looking into it and reading it but as I said, you're trying to prove that science doesn't know everything and that's exactly what science says about itself, then tagging on "but we're working on it." I can't post links yet, please read up on it though because your understanding is horribly flawed. One note on gravitational lensing though, I suggest looking up some pictures because it's pretty cool.

Dark Energy. I know even less about dark energy, but don't let my ignorance reaffirm your doubt in science. Wikipedia:

Supernovae
Cosmic microwave background
Large-scale structure
Late-time integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect

I don't know what you're going on about way too much energy, that doesn't come up anywhere. What is your source?

I'd like to point out that while I believe you are sincere in not attacking, and I'm not offended or anything, you didn't do squat for research on your 'examples'. Also, they were permeated with your own biased commentary to seem more unlikely, similar to when I said "spirits and other such nonsense".

...yet we are both able to accept that not everything will fall into the realm of Neutonian physics. If the universe at large is disobeying the very basis of our science, why not believe that locally, with in our lives experience, those laws do not govern everything.

Newtonian physics? Newtonian physics are obsolete, and I believe shadow's background with some physics can confirm this. Newtonian physics works great for common experience, it accurately predicts what is familiar to us and is pretty intuitive. However. At this day and age we have advanced to the realms of relativity and quantum physics. Admittedly, these two theories(with plenty of evidence) don't play well together. There's a space in-between huge objects and minuscule objects where, when used together, the result is infinite percent-- that doesn't mean its sure to happen, that means NA, its broken. Luckily, we have thousands of physicists working on it-- there aught to be more-- and I'm confident that the theories will merge nicely or be tossed out and replaced by something altogether more bizarre.

"universe at large is disobeying the very basis of our science..." Science is busy at work on that right now. "...why not believe that locally, with in our lives experience, those laws do not govern everything." You mean just give up and say, "Whelp, I'm not gonna know so I'll just surrender to ignorance." Science is not selfish. Scientists often do not expect to see the fruits their theories bare, or see their theories destroyed. It's a long process to study and theorize and verify, but it would be stupid to expect instant gratification. It is larger than one's own self. It is the collaborative work of mankind, spanning thousands of generations into the past, from the time of the first humans who looked around and wondered what might be out there and why things are as they are-- and didn't write everything off as spirits.

Again, no attack intended. I am honestly curious how you have structured your belief system, and if the atheistic spin I think I am picking up from you is accurate. If so, can you explain what process lead you to the conclusions you have?

"Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries; the questions that were once treated only in religion, and myth." Carl Sagan. Sagan has had a large influence on the person I have become. Especially Cosmos, with Carl Sagan. Wow, what a show. Please watch the first episode on YouTube. I swear, if I could only meet him, but he died like the rest of us will. That guy changed my outlook on life.

Like I said, you are accurate in picking up on my "atheistic spin". "...can you explain what process lead you to the conclusions you have?" I swear I could write fifty pages on that. I believe, from the context, you are asking about what lead me to the state that could be described as atheist? I have had not traumatic experience with religion, as some have, and it bugs me when people cite that as their sole reason for atheism. What a silly reason. No, I was raised by Catholics and went to Catholic elementary and middle school. I served as an altar boy and had religion class and am confirmed. Even now I sometimes lector for mass, because they don't know about my opinions on things. That must seem like I'm lying, I know. But they really appreciate it and all the old people well up and tell me I do such a nice job and how proud they are. It makes them happy, and I know they're old and sad and they're going to die, and I don't have the heart to say no. I just want them to be happy. All I want is for everyone to be happy, and it would be selfish of me to pass up a simple opportunity like this to make some people smile and feel better, just because of my own private opinion. I've talked to my priest about science and religion and some difficulties I have with the Church(they are numerous). He doesn't know that I do not have faith.

It seems like I'm an atheist simply because of Catholicism-- I'm not. I've done religious studies the best I can, I've had an open mind on religious matters and at one time was a very strong believer in something, be it the Abrahamic god or something greater. I have looked into Hinduism and Buddhism and the eastern religions, and to Islam and Judaism and the freaking 33,000 sects of Christianity. I have wondered to myself about spirituality outside of the main religions of the world. I have taken something from each ideology I have visited and it has helped me to grow as a person, I think. One good idea in a sea of ignorance is not proof that any sort of faith is "correct". Partially what lead to my rejection of faith is that I take comfort in constants and facts and predictabilities(though at first glance the organized chaos of the quantum world seems to contradict this, Einstein had the same problem), and also find it foolish that there are hundreds of thousands of religious beliefs, new and old, indigenous, proselytized, evangelized, apocryphal, end-predicting, sun-worshiping, etc., and that each and every kind believes on some level that they are correct and that everyone else technically has to be wrong, and yet there is no way to measure how much one belief without reason is better than, or more correct than another belief without reason. From this observation we can derive that correctness comes from reason. Reasoning is mutually exclusive from faith, by the very definition of faith.

I'm very passionate about people. I try to feel empathy, I try to admire them in their ordinariness and learn from their struggles. I try to alleviate what pain I can and bring people to learn to love the sciences, to be amazed and to dream and to cry at the beauty of the universe as we know it, without having to make up special parts that make us feel more important. We are fucking important. We're made out of the stuff of the fucking stars. That is important to know.

I've done a shoddy job at explaining myself, I really could describe to you much better what I feel, but it's time to wrap up this post. I hope you get where I'm coming from a little bit more.