Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
We are all born with the idea of God
Options
Comments
-
-
How about "Bill Gates" and a bunch of other extremely successful mothers you are free to google for yourself?
Er no. Being a software engineer myself you won't get very far trying to convince me that Bill Gates did anything revolutionary beyond knowing when is a good time to sign an exclusive deal with IBM. :rolleyes:0 -
Well, I bet/hope nagirrac never claimed LSD&Co would boost your programming skills. Programming has little to do with extreme success. Business administration does.0
-
Well, I bet/hope nagirrac never claimed LSD&Co would boost your programming skills. Programming has little to do with extreme success. Business administration does.
So Bill Gates thought that IBM throwing money at him was a good idea because he took LSD? And other mere mortals would have said "No thank you IBM, you can take your exclusive deal and shove it"0 -
Pretty much. Supposedly a shift in perspective in a direction (or into a dimension if you will) was Gate's, Job's and the like competitive advantage.
What is important here, is keeping an open mind and, at least in my experience software people have a particularly hard time with that.
I understand that concentrating on software creation can be detrimental to other unrelated mental skills and that would explain why the impact of a mind-altering drug could be that significant.0 -
Advertisement
-
In fairness, that's an impossible level of proof that actually exceeds what it would be possible for science to uncover. I've no opinion as to which to ye is right on the substantial point. But all anyone would be able to say is "here's a list of achievements that occured in the presence of drug use." There's no way of positively confirming that those achievements either depended on drugs, or would have failed to have been achieved without drugs.You have presented no evidence that these ideas were incapable of being produced by a brain not on drugs or were produced by mental ability that were even produced by the drugs themselves..
Now, I suppose we could list achevements that were not known to have involved drugs and give that as evidence that breakthroughs don't seem to require augmentation. But we can't make dogmatic statements. We can only bring it to the point where the probabilities suggest that a particular explanation is needlessly complicated.0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »In fairness, that's an impossible level of proof that actually exceeds what it would be possible for science to uncover.
That's irrelevant surely? Either something can be supported or it can't.
If I said that there are invisible unicorns on Mars and someone said show us the evidence it would be rather silly to reply that it is impossible to show such evidence because no one has ever been to Mars (which is correct, but then how do I know there are invisible unicorns there in the first place?).
Its nagirrac problem if it is not possible to present evidence supporting his claims.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »I've no opinion as to which to ye is right on the substantial point. But all anyone would be able to say is "here's a list of achievements that occured in the presence of drug use." There's no way of positively confirming that those achievements either depended on drugs, or would have failed to have been achieved without drugs.
Which is probably a good reason not to assert that those achievements depended on the drugs and would have failed to have been achieved without the drugs.0 -
Pretty much. Supposedly a shift in perspective in a direction (or into a dimension if you will) was Gate's, Job's and the like competitive advantage.
Yeah because no one has ever made smart business decisions unless they are where on drugs :rolleyes:
In the case of Gates it wasn't even a particularly smart decision, it was an obvious one. Do you want millions of dollars, yes or no?What is important here, is keeping an open mind and, at least in my experience software people have a particularly hard time with that.
No what is important here is supporting claims with actual evidence and reason, not presenting any old idea because it sounds nice (oh, "mysticism", interesting) and then complaining when people expect you to actually back up what you are saying.0 -
Well, no, it is never as straigthforward as that. I think the issues around scientific proof were set out very eligantly in a well-known essay by Theodosius Dobzhansky on the subject of evolution.Either something can be supported or it can't.
That's all we're ever doing; providing explanations that seem to make sense of facts.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/2/text_pop/l_102_01.html
Parts of the Copernican world model, such as the contention that the earth rotates around the sun, and not vice versa, have not been verified by direct observations even to the extent the sphericity of the earth has been. Yet scientists accept the model as an accurate representation of reality. Why? Because it makes sense of a multitude of facts which are otherwise meaningless or extravagant.
That's grand and, indeed, it's possible to point out that invisible unicorns on Mars is an extravagant claim. But all anyone will be able to do is visit Mars, and gather such evidence as might be associated with such a claim. So they might be able to report sightings of hoofprints, and observe a strong correlation between the appearance of hoofprints and the disappearance of sugar lumps.If I said that there are invisible unicorns on Mars and someone said show us the evidence it would be rather silly to reply that it is impossible to show such evidence because no one has ever been to Mars (which is correct, but then how do I know there are invisible unicorns there in the first place?).
Clearly, sugar lumps might vanish for any number of reasons while in the midst of an inter-planetary mission. Hoofprints might be harder to account for. But, in the absence of the sugar lump evidence, there would be no particular reason to associate hoofprints with invisible equines, rather than any other invisible ungulates. However, whatever way we'd regard the invisible unicorn explanation, all we're ever going to see are the symptoms. In the same way, all we'll ever see are the achievements and the drug use. It's a matter of judgment as to whether we feel a particular explanation is extravagant.0 -
This sentence betrays not just a fallacy but I would say hypocrisy of your position. In post 122 I have already suggested you do some research if you want "evidence". Your obsession with the DOS story indicates that you are quantity/money-oriented while demanding evidence and presenting none to the contrary yourself. I understand that you won't just take my word for it but you will have to concede that in matters like that there can be no mathematical proof and that seems to be the obstacle your software-infested mind can't overcome right now. I gain nothing from widening your horizon and I can only wonder what you think you can gain by winning an argument.Yeah because no one has ever made smart business decisions unless they are where on drugs :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Well, no, it is never as straigthforward as that. I think the issues around scientific proof were set out very eligantly in a well-known essay by Theodosius Dobzhansky on the subject of evolution.That's all we're ever doing; providing explanations that seem to make sense of facts.
That is not what the quote means. Any explanation can seem to make sense of the facts if you have no standard of assessing what "makes sense of the facts"
For example when Katrina hit America the explanation "God is mad at the US because of the gays" was an explanation that made sense of the facts (God can cause hurricans, the US is more tolerant of gays). The issue with that is that it is an explanation that cannot hold up to any serious examination, which is where the scientific method comes in.
Anyone can look at two events (Steve Jobs took LSD - Steve Jobs lead Apple to be a multibillion dollar company) and "make sense of the facts" by saying that the two are connected and that the LSD did something to Jobs that ordinarily wouldn't have been possible.
But an actual explanation requires much more than that.
But of course a lot of people like a particular explanation a lot more than they like the correct explanation. The Christian Right in America liked the explanation that God is angry at gays because they wanted justification to reverse the gay rights movement.
nagirrac loves mystical supernatural explanations for things because, I'm assuming, it makes life seem more interesting to him. His posts are full of wondrous claims about the power of the human mind, and I've met plenty of people like that in my time and the thing that unites them is a strong desire for some mystical reality to be true in order to provide excitement for them.
The problem is that more often than not the actual explanation is, relatively speaking, boring or doesn't fit into any particular agenda.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »That's grand and, indeed, it's possible to point out that invisible unicorns on Mars is an extravagant claim. But all anyone will be able to do is visit Mars, and gather such evidence as might be associated with such a claim. So they might be able to report sightings of hoofprints, and observe a strong correlation between the appearance of hoofprints and the disappearance of sugar lumps.
Yes, but until they do that is there anything to support the claim that there are unicorns on Mars?
If not, then what grounds do I have for saying there is?GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »In the same way, all we'll ever see are the achievements and the drug use. It's a matter of judgment as to whether we feel a particular explanation is extravagant.
Well thank God humans are very good at making such judgements ... oh no wait, we are terrible at that sort of thing :P0 -
It seems more like human brains tend to try to explain everything in terms of what we currently understand. Out brains are very uncomfortable with unanswered questions, the unknown or any kind of gaps in knowledge about the world around us.
It's pretty obvious that we tend (more so in the past) to fill in the blanks with human-type explanations by personifying natural events as gods, spirits etc etc0 -
In fairness, it is, and he similarly advanced it as part of a refutation of ascribing a religious explanation as an alternative to evolution. But, you're right (if I'm not reading you wrong), the weakness is telling what constitutes extravagance.That is not what the quote means.
No, but bear in mind the point I'm taking issue with is the way you expressed the need for evidence. I'm pointing out that no evidence is going to meet the bar that you set, several posts ago. Plus, in the more recent comment, it's never a case of something being supported or not. It's about degrees of proof. A (very, very flimsey) case for the existence of unicorns would be "They must exist, or we wouldn't know what the word means. There seems to be none on Earth, so they must be somewhere else. That would have to be somewhere close to Earth, or we'd never have heard of them. So they must be on Mars. And as the Mars lander didn't see any, they may be invisible."Yes, but until they do that is there anything to support the claim that there are unicorns on Mars?
T'is true, and we usually only know how bad when it's too late.Well thank God humans are very good at making such judgements ... oh no wait, we are terrible at that sort of thing :P0 -
Present the evidence that drugs can cause the brain to be modified beyond its natural abilities and that "mystical altered states" actually produce new mental and cognitive abilities beyond what humans are normally capable of.
And no saying "Steve Jobs" is not presenting evidence of this.
You are arguing that all the testimony from people who claimed LSD, other psychedelics, and meditation enhanced their creativity should be discounted. Should we also discount all the evidence that anti-depressants relieve depression, that benzodiazepines relieve anxiety and panic attacks, that meditation techniques relieve OCD? All the evidence here, at least up to recently, is also based on testimony. Recent advances in fMRI and EEG allow us actually look at brains before and after treatment, and we can clearly see both physical structural changes and changes in the patterns of brain electrical activity.
Here is the evidence on LSD studies. There were thousands of scientific papers published betwee 1950 and 1966, before governments shut down the work due to LSD and other psychedelics being made illegal.
http://www.erowid.org/references/texts/show/7609docid6734
There is also a study which you can find online where treatment of alcoholics resulted in a 59% success rate. This is significantly higher than any other treatment options.
The strongest evidence today supporting my argument is neuroplasticity. You can find many studies online, Dr. Schwartz at UCLA is the leading researcher but there are numerous other researchers in the fild and more and more psychologists are using the technique. As an aside, how do you think psychological therapy works?, and it clearly works based on many studies for those that actually follow the treatment plan.0 -
Er no. Being a software engineer myself you won't get very far trying to convince me that Bill Gates did anything revolutionary beyond knowing when is a good time to sign an exclusive deal with IBM. :rolleyes:
Or knowing how slow Apple will be to patent their new GUI and walk out the door with it before it can be called theft (though in fairness they did the same to Xerox on an earlier iteration of it).0 -
If you think about most form very strong emotional attachments to our mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, girlfriend, boyfriend. These feeling are real and exist yet they are just another human being ,one of many billions on this planet.
Whether or not god exists the feeling and strong emotional / spiritual connection that are found in all civilisation to the deity would suggest that believing in god is an inherent human characteristic .
I've often though I am missing out on something by not believing in god especially in the shadow of the deaths of close friends and family,somehow having less of a human experience in life.
It'll be interesting to see where our believe in god goes in my lifetime . I suspect we'll try connect more to nature and Mother Earth . A new religion that can't be imagined at the moment ....I think John Lennon was on to something ..:-)0 -
It seems more like human brains tend to try to explain everything in terms of what we currently understand. Out brains are very uncomfortable with unanswered questions, the unknown or any kind of gaps in knowledge about the world around us.
It's pretty obvious that we tend (more so in the past) to fill in the blanks with human-type explanations by personifying natural events as gods, spirits etc etc
Indeed.
Consider the dawning of consciousness in our ancestors. Consider that much of their well-being and survival depended on what came from the sky, and hence rivers. Rain/sun.
What must they have made of thunderstorms...the power must have made them feel puny. They may have also being trying to figure out what the stars were. Hence , possibly, gods being placed in the sky.
Late rains or other such phenomena led them to rituals such as sacrifices to appease these gods as they assumed ordinary human motives such as displeasure to the actions of these "gods"
Then consider mate-bonding and the early conscious dealing with death of a mate or child....or fear of one's own death. If these were attributed to the actions of the gods, this could have given rise to the concept of an afterlife as solace.
As such beliefs take hold, they are passed on..and on...and on...
and this was before some genius decided how much power he could have if he claimed to understand how the gods were thinking and what they wanted.
Personally I believe, but am open to correction as I havent read anything about this, that religion entered and filled the gap between consciousness and knowledge.0 -
You are arguing that all the testimony from people who claimed LSD, other psychedelics, and meditation enhanced their creativity should be discounted.
I'm arguing that you haven't presented any evidence to support your claims.
You still haven't done that, and I suspect you know that because you are now trying a ton of different tactics to weezle out of it.
I have not argued that testimony from people on drugs be discounted because I haven't made a claim about what people on drugs are like.
You made the claim. If you are now saying that the evidence to support this claim is the testimony of the people on drugs, well I can certainly counter that.
Is that what you are saying?Should we also discount all the evidence that anti-depressants relieve depression, that benzodiazepines relieve anxiety and panic attacks, that meditation techniques relieve OCD?
So to be clear, the evidence you are presenting that LSD and other drugs enhance the mental and congestive abilities of the brain beyond what is naturally possible is the testimony of those who took the drugs?
That is what you are stating?All the evidence here, at least up to recently, is also based on testimony.
And are people generally able to assess in real time while on drugs if their brains are or are not acting beyond their natural ability? :rolleyes:Recent advances in fMRI and EEG allow us actually look at brains before and after treatment, and we can clearly see both physical structural changes and changes in the patterns of brain electrical activity.
And ... ? Who ever said the brain doesn't change when on drugs?
Being in a car accident will produce some interesting changes on an MRI scanner as well, but that doesn't mean the car accident has enhanced the mental and cognitive ability of the person.Here is the evidence on LSD studies. There were thousands of scientific papers published betwee 1950 and 1966, before governments shut down the work due to LSD and other psychedelics being made illegal.
http://www.erowid.org/references/texts/show/7609docid6734
Thousands you say. Well how about you pick out the ones you know support your argument, so I don't have to bother reading the thousands that don't.There is also a study which you can find online where treatment of alcoholics resulted in a 59% success rate. This is significantly higher than any other treatment options.
And ... ?
Surely by the fact that you are desperately trying to change the terms of your claim that you recognize now that the original claim cannot be supported?
Why not just admit that and move on?The strongest evidence today supporting my argument is neuroplasticity.
Based on your previous mentions of this I've a very strong suspicion that you don't know what neuroplasticity actually means.0 -
I'm arguing that you haven't presented any evidence to support your claims.
So to be clear, the evidence you are presenting that LSD and other drugs enhance the mental and congestive abilities of the brain beyond what is naturally possible is the testimony of those who took the drugs?
Thousands you say. Well how about you pick out the ones you know support your argument, so I don't have to bother reading the thousands that don't.
Based on your previous mentions of this I've a very strong suspicion that you don't know what neuroplasticity actually means.
I can now clearly see from this response that you have no understanding whatsoever of the issue being discussed and further dialog with you is a waste of time. You continue to argue I have not produced any evidence and when I produce evidence you ignore it and repeat I have not produced any evidence:(
The evidence from those who testified that LSD enhanced their creativity is the work they produced while under the influence of the drug or in many cases afterwards. The testimony is not the evidence, the work is the evidence. The musical output of the Beatles from Revolver onwards is the evidence. The problem solving of scientists while on LSD is the evidence.
Based on your inputs on this and other threads I have concluded you know diddly squat about any scientific topic. Stop appealing to science when you are clearly so far out of your depth. You think I don't know what neuroplasticity is, I work in that field, of course I don't understand it:rolleyes:0 -
You continue to argue I have not produced any evidence and when I produce evidence you ignore it and repeat I have not produced any evidence:(
I didn't ignore it. So you are confusing "ignoring" with "laughing at how silly your evidence is"
I first asked you to clarify that this actually was your evidence (because it is terrible if that was the case and I suspect you were going to try and hedge) and then pointed out why it was terrible.
No researcher past a leaving cert science course would consider the claim of a person on drugs that their mental ability had been enhanced beyond natural limits as actual evidence that this had taken place. How the heck would the subject know if this was or wasn't the case, what frame of reference do they use to determine that their brain is now operating beyond natural ability?
I suspect you know this which is why you attempted to drop in the straw man of researchers evaluating the success of anti-depressants based on whether the patient claims to be depressed or not.
You know how stupid your claim is so you are attempting to build support for it by laying the ground work for an analogy.
But of course you also must know that assessing whether a patient is depressed is nothing like assessing cognitive ability. You don't simply ask someone if they are doing something that is cognitively beyond the normal ability of their brain, particularly when they have already taken state altering drugs :rolleyes:
So once again all you have done is demonstrate that you have zero issue making wild unsupported claims and you will get ratty with anyone who points out that you haven't supported your wild unsupported claims.
But I guess it is ok because you are keeping such an open mind ... just be careful it is not so open your brain falls out ...0 -
Advertisement
-
I didn't ignore it. So you are confusing "ignoring" with "laughing at how silly your evidence is"
But I guess it is ok because you are keeping such an open mind ... just be careful it is not so open your brain falls out ...
You have clearly not understood my post (again), so I give up. The evidence is the produced work, not what the person is saying while high.
The rattiest poster on boards is calling me ratty, do I get an award?0
Advertisement