Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

All Is Physical


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 966 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 06:48:20 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 06:59:00 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Oct 2012 07:07:27 BDT
Tom M says:
Thanks richard for taking the time to reply to it all, but your are actually just ignoring the points for the most part. All of your categories are confused unfortuntately. You can't distinguish between image makeing and manipulation, and thinking, a distinctly , the distinct human activity.

If as you would if you were only determined physical activity, you lacked free will, then you are not responsible for your words. That makes for a pretty whacked world richard...

Accordingly you are not responsible for your arguments and you cannot know if they are true.

This runs contrary to the data of human experience, and from Wilder Penfield on.. who was no materialist.. not a single soul has found any determined behavior in the mind. Not a trace.

No offence, but it is apparent that the scientistic faith you have in neuroscience is not founded in science. My view is.

In any case, thanks for the effort at responding.

The point about the principles of triangularity being unimaginable is the evidence of them not being physical. We do not lack evidence at all for this stuff.

Of course , the confident hope of life after death is also predicated upon the clearly non-material nature of mind and thought which is of course intimately connected to brain activity.

Again, somewhat frankly, virtually every person who works in considering the mental and brain activity dilemnas agrees that our seeing colour is not explicable within physicalism.

Physics holds and teaches that all particles in physical things are made up of colourless , tasteless particles.

If you are only physical, you are only colourless bits all the way through.

If there is no colour in you, you cannot see colour.

It's pretty basic and pretty obvious. Please don't say there's "no evidence". Everyone remotely involved with the issues immediately sees the vexing problem this presents for physicalism.

Like free will, virtually no one denies it explicitly or impliciitly. We really aren't deranged automatons.

I must admit that I get a little vexed at the no argument or evidence claims on matters that are basic and known to be serious difficulties.

Cheers

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 07:08:29 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Oct 2012 09:37:11 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"The point about the principles of triangularity being unimaginable is the evidence of them not being physical."
What does that mean? You write so many meaningless sentences because you can just toss out phrases you heard. What do you mean when *you* say the principles of triangularity?

"Again, somewhat frankly, virtually every person who works in considering the mental and brain activity dilemnas agrees that our seeing colour is not explicable within physicalism."
Really, because I've only heard about it explained with reference to physical phenomena like lightwaves, optic nerves, rods and cones in the eye etc.

"Physics holds and teaches that all particles in physical things are made up of colourless , tasteless particles.

If you are only physical, you are only colourless bits all the way through.

If there is no colour in you, you cannot see colour."
This makes no sense though it is common. It even has a name: fallacy of composition. Physics also tells us that you are made up of atoms that are invisible to the naked eye, it's a false conclusion to extrapolate this and say you are therefore invisible to the naked eye.

"I must admit that I get a little vexed at the no argument or evidence claims on matters that are basic and known to be serious difficulties."
Your argument is: it's better to believe 'this' than 'that' so 'this' is true and 'that' must be false. Your evidence is: it's better to believe 'this' and I'll call it evidence so now it's evidence - don't you dare say different or I'll do my atheists are idiots spiel.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 07:29:03 BDT
N. Hutt says:
There is no physical science explanation of the interaction between non-physical and physical as applied to paranormal events like these,to my knowledge. It seems that science gave up trying after the 19th Century. The book by Dr Crawford I mentioned, you would have to read, to find out his spiritualistic theories as applied to his experiments. The Sir William Crookes book 'Researches in the phenomena of Spiritualism', classifies all the phenomena he was certain he experienced scientifically when he investigated, including table movements. He testified to the facts, but was open-minded about the source of the 'intelligence' or force he found as a part of the facts.

My example was not really a 'wobbly table', but never mind. Possibilities:
1. We couldn't see properly what was going on. The table movement was held in daylight in a hall.
2. The 3 foot square table was a trick table? I selected one from a stack and helped erect it, it had metal legs and a plastic top.
3. Ordinary physical force could cause similar movements. I tried my hardest to slide the table and also tilt it with my palms only on the top, but it was impossible to replicate what the medium did. Other attendees at the workshop also tried but failed. The only way to do it was by pushing on a side of the table, not from the smooth top.
4. When the medium placed her hands on the table, either on her own or with others, it slid quite quickly around the room as if on rollers, and tilted up at times, stayed there, and slowly dropped down. We all watched, and the medium's hands never left the table top at all times, according to myself and the others.
5. I re-checked the experiment on my own with the same table, but again failed to replicate what the medium did.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 07:38:11 BDT
N. Hutt says:
Do you mean the Faraday experiments, where he demonstrated that the unconscious involuntary movement of the sitters' hands caused the table to move? Yes that was scientific proof in that case. However it does not account for experiments by myself and many others who have seen tables or other objects move with no physical contact. See the Sir William Crookes book for a great scientist's testimony of his experiences

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 07:55:11 BDT
Drew Jones says:
I asked if you had recreated these experiment when moving hands were placed on the tables, the video evidence you have of this has at least an alternative and more parsimonious explanation. The claims you make to tables (why just tables anyway?) are unverified and the hypothesis for the movement is an argument from personal incredulity rather than an explaination of their movement.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 08:07:08 BDT
C. A. Small says:
NHutt- buy Deren Browns dvds- watch his tv series. He can do the tricks you mention with consumate ease. They are just tricks, nothing more.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 08:16:32 BDT
That doesn't sound like a very comprehensive investigation in order to rule out the entire physical universe. Illusionists can make objects appear to move.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 08:49:43 BDT
N. Hutt says:
It was not an illusion but just a very basic example of what physical science does not yet understand. I accept the entire physical universe, but there's a lot more to understand yet

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 08:53:53 BDT
Based on your posts, I don't think you've eliminated all of the possibilities, including that it could have been an illusion. It comes across as though you want a particular conclusion and are ignoring anything else.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 08:54:12 BDT
N. Hutt says:
I've already said there is no physical scientific explanation of their movement, and you didn't see it for yourself, so I don't blame you for
thinking it's down to my personal incredulity.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 09:14:24 BDT
N. Hutt says:
We will have to agree to disagree then. I think I did eliminate the possibilities inherent in the situation. It comes across to me that you have ignored any possibilty that it might be a genuine paranormal phenomenon, as you appear to have not taken proper account of the books I mentioned or other research, or my own example. You are entitled to your own opinion, as I am with mine.
I don't intend to post again as this is going nowhere.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 09:18:45 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Oct 2012 09:21:10 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"I've already said there is no physical scientific explanation of their movement..."
You mean there is no explanation because saying it's non-physical is not a explanation either.

"... and you didn't see it for yourself..."
No but neither are you claiming it is repeatable so at the moment your claim highly doubtful. As a scientist you must understand how anecdotal data means nothing.

"...so I don't blame you for thinking it's down to my personal incredulity."
But your argument is one of personal incredulity. You're saying you were there and couldn't explain it, other people can't access it so can't explain it therefore you're interpretation of what it's not is somehow valid. Well that's just a poverty of reasoning.

Again I ask did this only happen with tables? And why is there any touching, however light if it is non-physical forces working?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 09:22:47 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"It comes across to me that you have ignored any possibilty that it might be a genuine paranormal phenomenon"
No one has ignored the *possibility* only the likelihood or necessity for your experiences to relate to them.

"as you appear to have not taken proper account of the books I mentioned or other research, or my own example."
They are all anecdotal.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 09:33:09 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Neuroscience has not come within a mile of establishing that mental acts are physical."
I'd say that their focus on electrical activity in the brain is within a mile of establishing brain activity as physical.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 09:43:08 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
N.Hutt

'I know that by writing this I might lose credibility as a 'proper scientist'.'

Quite right. You've got a long way to go to convince me otherwise, I'm afraid.

K

Posted on 23 Oct 2012 09:50:20 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
Also, here's a thing that has always puzzled me - why, over my lifetime, have I never seen a table move independently? Or a ghost, objects flying around the room, angels, miracles ( apart from the birth of my children, of course), etc? I feel I've missed out on something.

K

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 10:11:00 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Hi Karen- I have seen "ghosts", and they have a perfectly rational explanation in my case. I suffered from sleep apnoea for most of my life. Now the apnoea is pretty much cured the night "visions" have gone.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 10:57:09 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
Hi Clive- sleep deprivation and lack of oxygen to the brain would explain it! However, I doubt if it's the case for the majority who claim to have seen visions and other psychic phenomena. How come some members of my family have 'seen' angels, UFO's, aliens etc, whereas I haven't? It calls into question, for me, the validity of any inexplicable claim which hasn't been witnessed - and those witnesses would have to be unbiased and reasonably sane. N Hutt mentions a 'genuine paranormal phenomena'. I doubt such a thing exists.

Best
K

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 10:57:44 BDT
That's the extent of your willingness to discuss it? A scientist needs to investigate and discuss far more than that. Eliminating the possible physical causes is just the first step in the process. We're nowhere near the stage of being able to attribute it to a non-physical cause let alone examining what that cause entails.
Can't see you having much of a scientific career if this is your usual methodology.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 10:59:24 BDT
Tom,

i have to say that i find your sentences extremely difficult to understand. they remind me of a complex combination lock to which i have no code.

your reasoning squirms around like a child needing the toilet and i just can't find the time nor energy/will to try and respond to most of it as i'd end up having to write reams.

you say.......................If as you would if you were only determined physical activity, you lacked free will, then you are not responsible for your words. That makes for a pretty whacked world richard.........................

i lack the brain power to try and deal with you not comprehending that determinism does not equal no responsibility.

you say...............................
Of course , the confident hope of life after death is also predicated upon the clearly non-material nature of mind and thought which is of course intimately connected to brain activity. ..................................

i have read this over and over, is this really clear to you? intimately connected! clearly non-material! nature of the mind!

no, i don't know where to begin so i'm just going to back out of this one.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 11:24:20 BDT
ThulŽatan says:
Hi light,

"So it appears that those who believe in what they are doing have a noticeable reaction in the brain."

That doesn't surprise me one bit - and do you see how it would confirm physicalism? The experience that we label 'belief' exists as a detectable physical state of the brain.

"Since you are practicing lucid dreaming you must believe in the possibility of finding what you are looking for otherwise you wouldn't be spending your time doing it, right?"

Yep! I would add that my expectations of this practice only go so far, and I am in many ways just experimenting to see what happens.

"Do you think that there is a possibility of our minds reacting to a greater mind, like that of the universe? A Universal mind that we have the ability to react to and learn from if we are trained to do it?"

I don't think it makes sense to say the universe (that is, the set 'all that exists') is or has a mind, since so little of it meets the requirements for a mind. The parts that do, eg. human organisms, appear to be self-contained systems that don't co-experience (but can communicate experience). I find this question a lot more interesting if you just call the universe 'the universe' rather than a 'universal mind' - in which case, we are aleady reacting to it and learning from it in new ways all the time!

"Do you think that there is information that can be accessed during lucid dreaming which may give understanding on how to heal these issues?"

Well, possibly, but not necessarily any more than just normal thinking about how we might heal those issues. To be clear, I don't think lucid dreaming is a way into a realm of special insight - all you're really 'accessing' is what's already in your head, but with the bonus of letting your imagination use your consciousness as a paintbrush and canvas. The act of lucid dreaming itself could have a therapeutic effect for some people for this reason, but that's not something I've looked into.

"By non-physical, I mean, something out there that science has not been able to detect as of yet. Something in the Ether or the air that contains information that can be accessed if someone is properly trained."

If in principle it can be detected - ever - and has attributes such as containment, information, and accessibility, then it's physical.

As much as it interests me, the lucid dreaming thing is tangential to this thread so let's leave it there. If it's something you choose to pursue, I hope you have fun with it :)

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 11:39:15 BDT
ThulŽatan says:
N. Hutt - I appreciate that recounting your experience here must seem like landing in the lion's den, and commend you for not 'aiming to convert anyone'. For my own part, I am less interested in questioning whether or not what you experienced really happened, and more in why you classify it as 'supernatural' or 'non-physical'. What I'm trying to get across with this thread is that those terms are non-concepts - they are meaningless, since the only properties anyone seems to be able to qualify them with are physical!

The irony is that unusual phenomona would stand a chance of being taken more seriously if they were not reported with such non-concepts attached.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 17:24:52 BDT
Joe. C says:
Atoms are bound together by the forces that govern them, they are still physical. The real space you refer to is between the nucleus of an atom and the electron cloud. Which is immense in comparison, but is only really empty space in any given single moment. In the way we perceive time, there is a single or several electrons flying around the nucleus (not really in an orbit,), but at a significant fraction of the speed of light giving the appearance of an electron cloud.
As electrons have a negative charge, they repel each other (unless bound by a stronger force). Giving us what we perceive as solid matter.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 19:42:13 BDT
Perhaps because such things are very rare?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Important Announcement from Amazon
158 1 day ago
Why are atheists without theism, which is to say why are atheists, atheists? 36 1 hour ago
Is President Trump right. Should we ban all Muslims and start deporting them in large amounts until they can prove they can accept civillisation and modern practices. I'm sure we all like history but the dark ages were the dark ages. 792 4 hours ago
Gay habits and God. Smokers and the devil. 249 4 hours ago
How do Christians decide which rules in the bible should be obeyed? 74 4 hours ago
Book (Snapping of the American Mind) shows Harvard tests showing parental neglect causes homosexuality 899 4 hours ago
A Syrian refugee with a criminal past and a history of assaults in Germany has today killed a woman with a machete. Come here, come to us said Merkel. She MUST STAND DOWN NOW. 23 5 hours ago
if you don't like and don't believe in religion nobody says you are religiousphobic. So where did the liberal myth of Islamaphobia come from. 2 5 hours ago
Why did it take precisely 7 days, not more or less, for Jahwah,God or Allah to create the universe? 70 6 hours ago
Does Christianity make any sense? 494 6 hours ago
The thread for all religion bashing homosexuals to come OUT on. You know you want to, George Michael never looked behind him when he came out. 10 9 hours ago
Should we take Jihad to the Jihadists. 17 14 hours ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  33
Total posts:  966
Initial post:  19 Oct 2012
Latest post:  1 Dec 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions