Thread: Different philosophies, different strokes, different folks

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

All over the place on these forums, and indeed all over the internet, people are arguing about different points of view. But they boil it down to the atheist-religious debate. But the issue is much more complicated than that. It is not a two-sided debate. There are many, many, different views. I think that if we all understood exactly how we perceive our worlds, and that none of us are immune to seeing the world through a lens and interpretation of how we believe it to be, we can be more tolerant of other people's views. So just for clarity's sake:

• Religion- belief in a creator. Emphasis is places on faith and ethics and following a wholesome lifestyle in accordance with the wishes of the creator.
• Spirituality- belief in a higher power, emphasis on feeling this higher power in relation to the self and living a lifestyle that nurtures this connection
• Mysticism- Not a belief as such but a method for discovery and transformation based on intuition rather than logic. The human bodymind is the laboratory for experiments in consciousness.
  
• Gnosticism- 'Knowledge' the truth. Someone who has discovered. Emphasis is on 'knowing' as opposed to 'believing'.
  
• Agnosticism- Not 'knowing'. The point here is that a person can never know the truth of the universe is or if there is a creator or not.
• Atheism- Not 'believing'. Emphasis here is that without proof of God, one should not believe in a God. Emphasis is on doubt and rationality.
  
• Materialism- Belief that matter is the ground of reality. That there is no consciousness independent of matter.
  

• Phenomenology- A philosophy or approach to reality based on the experiencer. Basically it is the view that one should not conform their experience to their beliefs (or non-beliefs) but rather conform their beliefs to their experience.

And this is not complete either. In fact, everyone has their own unique view of the Existence. But you can kind of get the basic point here and the subtle differences between paradigms here.

I'd like to point out that some philosophies emphasize belief and faith, while some emphasize logic and rationality, while others emphasize intuition, and others emphasize perception. But all too often people who come from many different camps become entangled in the 'atheist-religious' argument.

I'd like to say that I appreciate and recognize the atheist's point of view. I agree with the need for doubt and questioning one's beliefs. I agree that blind faith is dangerous, and primitive. What I disagree with is the materialist's view.

I also appreciate the mystic's world. In fact, if I had to define myself into one of these categories it would be hard for me to choose between being a mystic or a phenomenologist. Of course these categories overlap some.

What I believe is important to understand here, is to notice the difference between belief and knowledge. Or belief and perception. An atheist's arguments are that just because you believe in God doesn't mean that there is a god, right? An atheist will not believe without proof. But even an atheist has assumptions and beliefs that he takes for granted, shit, we ALL do. We cannot function in this world if we did not have assumptions. For example: the assumption that consciousness originates in our brain is just that: an assumption. There is no scientific proof that consciousness is created by the brain. It has never been isolated to the brain. In fact single celled creatures and plants, jellyfishes, clams, etc. have consciousness. Scientists don't know, even though they may have a philosophical bias to the materialistic side.
I can understand both the materialist's and the spiritualist's conclusions of how they perceive the universe so I don't care to attack the materialist for having a different viewpoint than I do. I will, however, defend my experience and my point of view. And I will point out that I agree with atheists that there is no God, they should know that they have blind faith in the materialistic philosophy, which is only... just... a philosophy.

And the belief that rationality is truth. This is a belief. Just as theists believe that faith is truth. I believe that rationality is part of the truth and intuition is the other part. The Universe is not an altogether rational place, and neither are such things like love, hate, and all the deeper mysteries like consciousness and matter.

What really bothers me however, is the intolerance, and the small-mindedness of people who cannot see out of another's eyes and that tries to invalidate another's dream of the world.

I have a dream that there is another paradigm arising here that is more modern, yet also archaic, where phenomenology, atheism, spirituality, gnosticism, mysticism, and quantum physics all have in common and that is that consciousness and matter are one, and that perception and reality are inseparable. Where emphasis is placed on perception and experience rather than logic or faith, belief or disbelief. Where we honor other's conclusions about reality even if we don't agree with it. So nobody will have try to convert others and nobody will need to defend their point in this existence.

Are you certain of those definitions for Atheism and Agnosticism? I've always been taught that atheism is a definite denial of higher power, and agnosticism is the claim of uncertainty, but in the sense that one does not know, not the sense that one cannot know.

Ok, maybe you're right, I don't know. But I heard both. I here people all the time say "Nobody can ever know!" or "Anyone who tells you that they know is a liar because nobody can know!" They weren't denying that there is a higher power or a god or not just saying that nobody could know. But maybe you're right. I'm sure that there are people who believe that someday someone will know. And maybe an atheist is someone who believes that we already know that there is no higher power or a god. But is this splitting hairs?
Anyway, what do you think about the whole thing? About how the debate is not so black and white and there are many shades of beleif, assumptions, viewpoints, valid points to all points of view?

It is not true that philosophical arguments boil down to the atheism / theism debate. I have philosophical debates with many atheists, for a start.

For example, how does arguing about the inherent randomness of quantum events, or discussing Searle's Chinese Room argument, have anything to do with theism?

Originally Posted by Xei

It is not true that philosophical arguments boil down to the atheism / theism debate. I have philosophical debates with many atheists, for a start.

For example, how does arguing about the inherent randomness of quantum events, or discussing Searle's Chinese Room argument, have anything to do with theism?

I mean on these forums it seems to. And between people who are not educated on philosophy (like me, I have no idea of Searle's Chinese room).

I am pointing out that people mistake their viewpoint for reality and then argue about it calling each other names and stuff.

Maybe worldview or paradigms are better words.

Originally Posted by Licity

Are you certain of those definitions for Atheism and Agnosticism? I've always been taught that atheism is a definite denial of higher power, and agnosticism is the claim of uncertainty, but in the sense that one does not know, not the sense that one cannot know.

Atheism is a denial of God, but the definition above in the first post is correct. Agnosticism is not uncertainty about a god's existence, but contends you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a god and that it is pointless to try. Therefore the definition above for Agnosticism is also correct.

The only definition I have a problem with is Spirituality. As I do not think it means believing in a higher power. Spirituality is more focused on the self, a person's being and consciousness. I am an Atheist, but highly spiritual. But I do not believe in anything supernatural, mystical or divine.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

Atheism is a denial of God, but the definition above in the first post is correct. Agnosticism is not uncertainty about a god's existence, but contends you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a god and that it is pointless to try. Therefore the definition above for Agnosticism is also correct.

The only definition I have a problem with is Spirituality. As I do not think it means believing in a higher power. Spirituality is more focused on the self, a person's being and consciousness. I am an Atheist, but highly spiritual. But I do not believe in anything supernatural, mystical or divine.

Thanks ExoByte, so let me ask you this: Are you a materialist then? Do you believe that consciousness is a by-product of the brain? What do you mean by supernatural, mystical or divine? What is the relationship between consciousness and your self, your body, and the world? Is all matter energy or consciousness?
The Buddha was an atheist but attained 'enlightenment' where his consciousness united with the universal consciousness. Do you believe in things like universal consciousness or is that supernatural, divine, or mystical?

If not, then please speak more about what spirituality is for you. The root word for spiritual is spirit. Do you believe in spirit? If so, what is it? If not, then, yeah, please tell more about your spirituality.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Ok, maybe you're right, I don't know. But I heard both. I here people all the time say "Nobody can ever know!" or "Anyone who tells you that they know is a liar because nobody can know!" They weren't denying that there is a higher power or a god or not just saying that nobody could know. But maybe you're right. I'm sure that there are people who believe that someday someone will know. And maybe an atheist is someone who believes that we already know that there is no higher power or a god. But is this splitting hairs?
Anyway, what do you think about the whole thing? About how the debate is not so black and white and there are many shades of beleif, assumptions, viewpoints, valid points to all points of view?

There are different aspects to everything, many shades of belief and assumption and many many many viewpoints, but I disagree that everyone necessarily has points. There are some seriously convoluted ways of thinking out there... but then again, whether or not that's true can be debated as well!

For me spirituality is also partially, next to dreaming, the investigationg of the logical mind; i believe theres something really interesting about the structure of the mind. How paradoxes, good and bad, beauty and ugly, life and death form the very basis of our belief system, of our logical minds.

I've studied "formal logics". It's about algorithms and computer science, and basically it comes down to how logic and math, calculus, how we deduce proof is completely defined by a structured belief system; andd thats exactly how the logical mind of our brain naturally works and thats really interesting as it is the same way computers "think". I'm trying to say here that our natural logical mind seems to be designed. If you can see this, you can go beyond philosophy and play with your own belief system and really cool stuff starts happening like life becomes a dream..

I love you!

Was what I thought when reading it. Thank you!

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Thanks ExoByte, so let me ask you this: Are you a materialist then? Do you believe that consciousness is a by-product of the brain?

I am slightly materialist. While things like emotions, thoughts and even consciousness are created by material means, the meaning we attribute to these things, the concepts, understandings and way we react are not material in themselves, but by-products of materialism.

An example is love. While the emotion is created physically, why I love who I do is dependent upon situations, attitudes and other people. I love my girlfriend because of who she is. That is not material.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

What do you mean by supernatural, mystical or divine?

Supernatural, divine, mystical by my understanding are things like Gods, apparitions and 'magicks.' Magicks is not simply things like witchcraft, but ceremony or ritual that is supposed to have some unrelated effect. Sacrifice for better weather, the eating and drinking of the 'Body and Blood' of Christ in Christian ritual, and communicating with spirits. These kinds of things are what I define as supernatural, mysical and divine.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

What is the relationship between consciousness and your self, your body, and the world? Is all matter energy or consciousness?

I'm going to come back to this as I think this could be a whole other discussion on its own, and I have too much to say on the subject making it difficult to organize my thoughts.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

The Buddha was an atheist but attained 'enlightenment' where his consciousness united with the universal consciousness. Do you believe in things like universal consciousness or is that supernatural, divine, or mystical?

Excellent question.

I do not think a universal consciousness is beyond the realm of science. However, I do not believe nor disbelieve in even its possibility. I have no reason to favour either side. I feel as if, with our current understanding of the possibility of a universal consciousness, our interpretation (as a collective, in general) paints it as a more supernatural ideal.

However, very valid theories have been brought up for the ideal. Though they are not entirely solid, or able to be taken as concrete evidence, they allow for a broader look at the idea.

I think the best answer at this point would simply be, I don't know.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

If not, then please speak more about what spirituality is for you. The root word for spiritual is spirit. Do you believe in spirit? If so, what is it? If not, then, yeah, please tell more about your spirituality.

I do not believe in the spirit in the literal sense, but more in a figurative sense. Pride, Initiative, Character, Dedication, Loyalty, and other such elements can create a sense of spirit. I believe in spirit in the sense of 'High School Spirit,' taking pride in your work, and having character and initiative in and towards your accomplishments.

Spirit, to me, is personal experience and action. Your own feelings, thoughts, and most importantly, realizations based on your own experiences and actions. This includes simply taking time, sitting down and thinking.

Spirituality, to me, is a reflection on the self. Knowing thy self, and who you are. It goes further than just the self. Reflection on thoughts, daydreaming and entertaining ideas are all part of it. Thinking about the solar system, space and stars. The vastness of the universe, and how abysmally small you are in comparison. Thinking about government, corporation and conspiracy. Connecting yourself to victims of crimes and violence, as well as to recievers of charity.

All these are focused on others or on non-material concepts, but ultimately are entertaining your ideas, and therefore entertaining the 'ego' and finding what you believe and think based upon all the environment and all the information around you.



Now, I don't think I did good job of organizing my thoughts. I'm a little all over the place right now, so any clarification or questions are not only welcome, but encouraged.

Excellent topic, btw.

I feel that this is a good thread to copy and paste this paragraph I found by a scientist. This is his point of view:

What is the mind?
3 11 2008

Every once in a while, when I am overwhelmed with just how gob-smackingly beautiful humans can be and wonder at our amazing capacity to think, I remember why I’m a scientist but not a reductionist.

Some of the brightest minds have been brought to bear on what is called “the mind-body problem.” And some truly noteworthy discoveries have been made about just what influences our thinking. But nobody has yet succeeded in explaining how it is that thought – an apparently immaterial thing – is created by the brain, a set of complex bio-chemical and electrical connections that are wholly material.

Most of the scientific attempts have tried to show how the mind is really only a sophisticated physical reality. So brain research has discovered some amazing things about which parts of the brain are connected to various capacities – what parts of the brain are used principally for short-term memory, for recognition of pain of for faces, for speech, or for spatial analysis, for instance. This research has been outstanding and immensely helpful in medical treatment. It has demonstrated that consciousness is dependent on a functioning brain. But it doesn’t, ultimately, explain how the mind – thought and consciousness – can be reduced to be the same thing as the brain.

Richard Dawkins has tried to reduce mind to what he calls “memes,” cultural units that are passed from generation to generation in the same way that Darwin has shown that genes are past from parents to children. This is why, he says, we learn our particular ways of dressing and talking, how we learn what is considered to be polite in our particular culture, how we learn to count and read and drive a car. It’s a kind of mechanical process by which information is supposedly passed down through the ages.

Of course it is true that we learn far more than we usually realize from the generations before us. As Newton said “We stand on the shoulders of giants.” Even the giants do. But meme theory doesn’t explain how matter becomes mind – it simply ignores the question of consciousness and of human effort and will.

Trying to reduce consciousness to a set of physical and/or mechanical processes is the pursuit of a certain kind of scientific thinking. It’s officially called “reductionism,” for reasons that are probably obvious. Reductionist scientists tend, also for probably obvious reasons, most often to reject the idea of God.

There is undoubtedly something to learn from cultural studies and brain research. But it doesn’t explain everything. I think it doesn’t even explain the best, most astonishing thing about our existence.


AND another:



The elephant and the truth
16 01 2008

A great number of people in the world believe they know the truth. Many believe it with such passion and conviction that they are willing not only to dedicate their own lives to the service of this truth, but to kill and to die for it. They know they are right and anyone who disagrees with them are wrong.

When I was a fairly young child, I asked my father if a story I’d heard was “really true.” “What makes something true is a very complicated question,” he said, ”that takes great wisdom to answer.” Then he told me the story of the blind men standing around the elephant.

Six blind men stood around an elephant trying to discover what it looked like. The first one felt the elephant’s leg and reported that it was like a tree trunk. Another grabbed its ear and said it was like a big fan. The third got hold of the tusk and said it was like a large curved spear. The one feeling the elephant’s side concluded that it resembled a large wrinkled wall. The man who grabbed the elephant’s tail said it was a kind of snake, while the man at the other end who had hold of the elephant’s trunk said that it was some kind of water shower.

The men then started to argue, at first amiably, but as each insisted that he was right and had first hand experience to prove it, the arguments became more heated. Each insisted that the others who disagreed with him were wrong, and gradually each began to insist that the others were not only wrong but also stupid, and even blinded by sinfulness.

This story is thousands of years old and originated somewhere in the Far East. Some scholars think it was Buddha who first told the story to illustrate his insight that none of us ever have the complete truth. Truth exists, he believed, but most of us spend most of our lives like a blind man in front of the elephant – thinking that what we see is the whole truth, while we only see a small part of it.

My father used to tell me stories like this when I was young, many of which I couldn’t really understand at the time. The elephant story has remained with me all my life. It has convinced me that whether it is science or my religion that is the source of what I believe, I have not yet reached that level of wisdom where I see the whole elephant – that is the whole truth.

So even when people disagree with me, and I can’t see how both of us can be right, it might just be that each of us is examining a different part of the elephant.

It is an amazing world we live in, and all sorts of apparently opposite things can be true at the same time.



What is the God Particle?
18 09 2008

Scientists who recently switched on the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider (LHC) are looking for what has been called “the God Particle.” But what is the God Particle, and how did it earned its exalted name?

Right now scientists (let alone the rest of us) don’t understand how the Big Bang can possibly have happened or, for that matter, how the universe continues to hold itself together, although it clearly does. With Newton, scientists originally thought the explanation was gravity, but it turns out that gravity isn’t nearly strong enough to be holding the whole universe together on its own. There must be something else. What could that something else be?

The theory is that there is a huge field in the universe of something resembling sticky syrup that slows some particles down. Being slowed down is what “mass” really is. The professor who first proposed that this field exists is Peter Higgs (he’s retired now but still living in Edinburgh, Scotland). That’s why the field is called “the Higgs Field.” The particle that he proposes gets slowed down by the sticky syrup – err, by the Higgs Field – is called “the Higgs Boson,” If I understand correctly, the Higgs Boson controls other particles, slowing them down and giving them mass. And mass is what makes it possible for us to experience them. Mass, for that matter, is what we and everything we touch and feel and smell and see around us has. It feels like everything has mass, but that’s only because we cannot experience anything that doesn’t have mass, so things without mass feel like they don’t exist.

The Higgs Boson was nick-named the “God Particle,” because if scientists can find it, they can explain why the universe has mass instead of racing around in wild unconnected bits and explain how the universe – not to mention a leisurely cup of morning coffee – can possibly exist as it does.

So, depending on your theological stance, discovering the God Particle whirling around for a split second or two in the LHC could explain how God created the universe with a Big Bang.

Originally Posted by Licity

There are different aspects to everything, many shades of belief and assumption and many many many viewpoints, but I disagree that everyone necessarily has points. There are some seriously convoluted ways of thinking out there... but then again, whether or not that's true can be debated as well!

I agree, I find some CRAZY worldviews out there! It must make sense to them, but it is crazy as far as I'm concerned. Like Republicans. Or...Original Sin. Or an Angry God.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I agree, I find some CRAZY worldviews out there! It must make sense to them, but it is crazy as far as I'm concerned. Like Republicans. Or...Original Sin. Or an Angry God.

But, WHO AM I to judge? Although I find Nature beautiful I have a hard time finding the beauty in a tick, or a cockroach. But that is an issue of my own narrow mind or heart.

I may believe my viewpoint to be right, and true, or at least More Right and More True than, say, a Baptist's or a Republican's or a Satanist's, but I damn well try to find some common reference and try to understand. Yes, according to me, some people are crazy and deluded, but then again, they can say the same about me.

Even though this is an older thread, I'm glad I read it.

It is most unfortunate seeing the way a lot of people argue with each other. How insulting they are to one another, and above all how nothing gets accomplished.

To me, engaging in a discussion about something I feel strongly about is an opportunity to re-evaluate my own understanding of things, and my own bias. To make an effort to see things from another angle I've missed or underestimated.

But a lot of times I see both sides walking away with the same conclusion: "well that person is just too closed-minded to see things from any other perspective but his own. so that's why i'm right." It's so ironic.

If you're unwilling for even a moment to step outside your own worldview, even just for the purposes of communication, why would you expect the other person to? And if your only reason for discussion is to convince yourself and others that you're right...why bother engaging another individual?

I agree with what you said about intuition and facts being two completely different paradigms on which people construct their worldview. What boggles my mind is that some people feel like they can only learn from someone who's set of assumptions is the same as their own. Really? To me, that is the very definition of closed-minded.

If I were only willing to learn from people who think as I do...that's not learning at all. That's blocking out any voice of dissent.

It's possible--even easy, at times--to learn from someone who's worldview has origins that oppose your own. That's where the real insight happens, in my humble opinion.

You just have to stop acting as though you're both operating on the same sets of values and criteria. If you're not, accept it. Don't argue only with the latent claim that your worldview is "more correct", accept that theirs is different and work from there.

Only when you accept and understand those differences can you be open to real communication on any level. Then you can learn and grow.

Even though this thread could've brought me down, I'm pretty sure it brought me up. So thank you for it.


EDIT: I was just watching something that seems relevant:
Colbert: "I think this has been a great decade for civility...and anyone who disagrees with me can gargle my mansack"
Brokaw: "We will not be able to get through this country's profound challenges, in the short-term or the long-term, if everything ends up in some kind of food fight."

I know this is an old thread, but I'm going to respond to a couple of things.

Originally Posted by Licity

There are different aspects to everything, many shades of belief and assumption and many many many viewpoints, but I disagree that everyone necessarily has points. There are some seriously convoluted ways of thinking out there... but then again, whether or not that's true can be debated as well!

Too often when another's viewpoint strikes us as bad and wrong, we miss the beam in our own eye pursuing the mote in theirs (paraphrasing Luke 6:42). Identical sentiments have been expressed by HH the 14th Dalai Lama. I like the Bible quote because beyond the obvious surface contrast that a beam is large and a mote quite small, a beam is also a structural element which, if found in one's eye, one cannot see around. When we observe error in another person's view, our mind becomes concentrated on what is most often a surface irregularity, and we not only can't see the fixed structure being assumed by our own mind--the beam(s) being erected in our eyes--but we cannot see the deeper structures, the "beams" of the other person's position.

So, attacking another person's worldview is not the most skillful way to refine our own, nor does it indicate a state of understanding from which we might offer others guidance.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

Supernatural, divine, mystical by my understanding are things like Gods, apparitions and 'magicks.' Magicks is not simply things like witchcraft, but ceremony or ritual that is supposed to have some unrelated effect. Sacrifice for better weather, the eating and drinking of the 'Body and Blood' of Christ in Christian ritual, and communicating with spirits. These kinds of things are what I define as supernatural, mysical and divine.

Many of the religious doctrines, symbol sets and rituals that strike outsiders and laity as "supernatural" reveal themselves as technologies and reveal reality with greater clarity upon deeper understanding. Most adherents of any large religion will never achieve a terribly deep understanding or anything approaching a complete knowledge of their own symbols, doctrines and rituals, anymore than most people who drive a car could draw up the schematics, but the technology works for them anyway.

Someone with an especially rational, logical mind often cannot make sense of these things and has no use for them (without devoting one's life to a study of theology, comparative religion, or asceticism), but that doesn't make the methods false--you're just a nail staring at a screwdriver.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Many of the religious doctrines, symbol sets and rituals that strike outsiders and laity as "supernatural" reveal themselves as technologies and reveal reality with greater clarity upon deeper understanding. Most adherents of any large religion will never achieve a terribly deep understanding or anything approaching a complete knowledge of their own symbols, doctrines and rituals, anymore than most people who drive a car could draw up the schematics, but the technology works for them anyway.

Someone with an especially rational, logical mind often cannot make sense of these things and has no use for them (without devoting one's life to a study of theology, comparative religion, or asceticism), but that doesn't make the methods false--you're just a nail staring at a screwdriver.

Correlation does not equal causation. If a tribe sacrifices a family member every 2nd Tuesday, to appease the Gods for a good harvest and get one, this does not mean they are inter-related. Nor is their any revelation of any existing bond between stabbing the chieftain's daughter with a ceremonial knife while she lies naked on the alter, to strong soil and good weather. The belief in such a superstition implies a supernatural or divine connection that, most importantly, does not exist.

There is no sense to be made of the belief of correlation of such events.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

Correlation does not equal causation. If a tribe sacrifices a family member every 2nd Tuesday, to appease the Gods for a good harvest and get one, this does not mean they are inter-related. Nor is their any revelation of any existing bond between stabbing the chieftain's daughter with a ceremonial knife while she lies naked on the alter, to strong soil and good weather. The belief in such a superstition implies a supernatural or divine connection that, most importantly, does not exist.

There is no sense to be made of the belief of correlation of such events.

That's also a lousy characterization of virtually any extant religion (or many extinct ones), and a non sequitur with regard to what I said. I was just pointing out that the appearance of supernaturalism in actual religious beliefs and practices (as opposed to episodes of Johnny Quest) often derives from the unsophisticated viewpoint of outsiders and laity, as your earlier inclusion of transubstantiation demonstrates.

it would've been surprising about how crappy some people treat others on this site but i lived with a roommate that was an atheist and any time i spoke to him about my beliefs he'd call me names and made fun of me, crazy thing was he used to be one of my really good friends until i shared my point of view with him... it's crazy to me how people persecute others because of a difference in beliefs or perception... needless to say we aren't friends anymore, just because he couldn't stand the fact that i perceived the world differently than him...

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I have a dream that there is another paradigm arising here that is more modern, yet also archaic, where phenomenology, atheism, spirituality, gnosticism, mysticism, and quantum physics all have in common and that is that consciousness and matter are one, and that perception and reality are inseparable.

Why are you lumping in Quantum Physics with all this shit?

What's with new agers who at most only have a few high school physics courses under their belt starting to incorporate quantum physics into their dogma as if you even know anything about it? And no watching some video about it or reading some new agey article doesn't count.


I was watching an interview between Deepak Chobra and Richard Dawkins. At one point when he is discussing his system or whatever he starts throwing around words like Quantum Theory and so on.

After prodding Deepak, Dawkins discovers that he knows shit all about Quantum Physics and is in essence only using the words with Quantum in it or words associated with that type of physics to make himself look smart...It has shit all to do with the actual science. Just some words which he and other new agers have misappropriated to make themselves look smart.

Not to be confused with people who actually know their shit and have taken actual universities courses on the theory (in detail)...In other words don't confuse them with people who actually know what they're talking about.

I admit i haven't had the blessing of being able to afford to go to a University and study Quantum Physics.

I do however read as much as possible and always am teaching my self what i can. No i'm not as smart as most University students on the subject but from what i have learned i speak from.

Originally Posted by MementoMori

I admit i haven't had the blessing of being able to afford to go to a University and study Quantum Physics.

I do however read as much as possible and always am teaching my self what i can. No i'm not as smart as most University students on the subject but from what i have learned i speak from.

Reading a few articles which offer only brief facts(out of context) especially compared to an actual university course then incorporating those "facts" into the realm of new age pseudo science to assert an assumption is just bull shit.

I say out of context because when you learn something in a course it is linear. You learn how a concept, a fact relates to another.

An example is in High School science. You learn about Protons, Neutrons and Electrons inside the atom. You get some knowledge of charges and the like. Then in Physics you learn about positive and negative charges as related to electrical circuits and batteries. Thus your foundation builds.

I don't think you have the appreciation for how technical these things can go. Just because you, a layman, can read something in an article doesn't mean you can really understand it fully or grasp it.

In this last six months or so i have learned this:

When you are in the education system, it's like building a house. Bit by bit, course by course you are laying the foundation for more and more knowledge. Without the underlying bricks and structures at the bottom you cannot erect the house without it collapsing on itself.

You are trying to understand some of the most technical arenas of science without having a real foundation on which to build them.

Without a proper foundation, you will not be able to fully appreciate or understand the science behind it. All you will be able to do is falsely interpret it(because you have no real reference point in science to relate them to) and make connections that are not really there.

The higher up in science you go, the greater the chances for people making over simplified conclusions. This is my theory on how Quantum Physics and its jargon has been incorporated extensively by new agers.

i agree, but i speak for myself, and say that i look for lessons on the subjects i wish to learn about, and if in those lessons i find something that i do not understand or can't contemplate i pause my study and find material which i can learn of the subject to further my learning.

I happen to have grown up in a shitty school system for which i had to teach myself most of the things i know, and i love to learn so i am always trying to better myself by learning as much as i possibly can.

Originally Posted by MementoMori

i agree, but i speak for myself, and say that i look for lessons on the subjects i wish to learn about, and if in those lessons i find something that i do not understand or can't contemplate i pause my study and find material which i can learn of the subject to further my learning.

I happen to have grown up in a shitty school system for which i had to teach myself most of the things i know, and i love to learn so i am always trying to better myself by learning as much as i possibly can.

ahh ok dude. I can totally understand where you're coming from.

I came from a shitty school system too. I always just got marks barely above failing until i got kicked out. Like in english, i would always get an average of 56%; now that i'm doing the course by correspondence, i'm getting 94%.

It took getting kicked out for me to find out that they never taught us some really fundamental shit.