Because the world’s greatest philosophers and scientists all were directly involved with secret societies, such as the Rosicrucians and the Freemasons, and other. Science was alchemy, and alchemy is science.
We understand what gives rise to black holes and their spacetime geometries. We know how new species of life can evolve and the statistical rules that govern such processes. We even have a pretty good understanding of the exact moment in which the universe, and thus of all reality, came into existence. Yet With all that scientific explanations, we still dont understand our consciousness. That's why i believe we are still at dawn of science. I will always be open-minded and also skeptical. But, I will never dismiss that which we dont understand.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I don't know what you mean by dismissing claims we know nothing about, but it's axiomatic that there can be no evidence for any beliefs if we know nothing about them. I can be both agnostic and not believe claims when they are unfalsifiable. Why would anyone believe anything if they can know nothing about it?
" I will never dismiss that which we dont understand."
OK, I'm not sure who does though? However, do you generally believe things that we can't understand?
Because the world’s greatest philosophers and scientists all were directly involved with secret societies, such as the Rosicrucians and the Freemasons, and other. Science was alchemy, and alchemy is science.
Why do you call them secret societies when you know about them?
rmfr
Edit: this addenda (jumped the start gun again)
Statistics or statistical rules do NOT govern how new species evolve, nor the processes involved.
Wrong again. We know to within a Planck Time unit when the universe began to expand. NOT when it came into existence.
No we do not. But we have top specialists working on it. And they do have ideas.
There is hope for you yet.
were secret*
Thanks for the corrections, but dont hold your breath for an explanation of the consciousness any time soon. That's why I said, I believe we still are at dawn of science.
The unexplained is ... unexplained. Until it can be observed and studied, it is folly to put a name on it.
If it is an abstract concept in your mind, then guess what, it is not real, just a mental construct.
All I'm tryna say is rational materialism, at some point devolves to assumption.
Everything relies on some set of assumptions. The trick is to make those assumptions as uncontroversial as possible.
It seems you are assuming that humans are more than the sum of their parts; which is very controversial, imo.
Arent atheists who think the opposite? arent the atheists who debase ancient man as if his brain were some less evolved form? as far as I've researched our brain is of the same composition and dimensions as the Egyptian, Babylonian, Chinese and assorted cultures.
Yeah and those cultures are only a few thousand years old. A blink of an eye in the timeline of evolution. Ancient man, depending on your definition goes back 100,000 years plus. A whole different time scale.
I don't think that, and I can't say that I have ever met one who did.
Probably not a good idea to try to tell us what we think.
@adam22
"We even have a pretty good understanding of the exact moment in which the universe, and thus of all reality, came into existence."
You have asserted that what the universe "came into existence". Can you please provide proof?
Believing in things that exist and are not understood is not the same as believing in things that do not exist and are not understood.
Can a conscious mind ever truly understand consciousness?
I actually spent a fair amount of time pondering this point myself lately. The answer I got so far is: we are our memories, our consciousness is actually just memories of experiences. When we are unconscious normal input (experiences) and reading of our memory stops for the duration of the time we are unconscious.
Perhaps my view is tainted by the fact that I spend a lot of time coding and w/o the ability to store 1's and zeros for at least a fraction of a second, programing can do nothing.
I don't find the concept of consciousness especially profound. It is simply a state of being self-aware due to the senses and our ability to remember.
If a fly has a state of consciousness by being able to recognize sugar as food, that doesn't seem especially profound compared to long-chain molecules "knowing" how to bond together.
That's self-awareness. Self-awareness is a recognition of that consciousness.
But are we truly self aware? Maybe we are only a little bit self aware in its most basic rudimentary form. Very philosophical concept of course.
I feel like people must ignore true self awareness to stay sane. (I feel true self awareness is an ultimate form of nihilism, and then everything falls apart.)
Ride the pleasure chemical receptors in the brain's reward system instead! (Within reason! Cocaine is a shortcut that can have disastrous long term effects.)
You brought up an interesting point. The thing about Nihilism is it relies on upon complete denial of existing intuitions(conscience). I also believe the "why" will always be thought of or asked. Also is there no ending in the universe?
I too am amazed by consciousness. But I'm not well read or educated in how the brain works, so my amazement of consciousness is the same as my amazement at the size and age of the universe or how my blood adjusts its pH to keep me alive. All of those things are "unknown" to me in that I don't know everything about them, but I "believe" in them. However I don't claim to "believe in the unknown" because the things I listed are real, there are simply aspects of them that are unknown.
-If "believing in the unknown" means merely acknowledging that something exists but that you don't know everything about it, then you've made the target of the phrase so large that it's meaningless.
-If "believing in he unknown" means you believe things for which there is no evidence because you can use them to explain something else, then you are being weirdly illogical.
Either way, I think you need to rethink what you're thinking.
adam22: "the dawn of science".
I agree!
Humans have been around at the most 250,000 years. Science was invented during the 16tn century A.D. Now, the average 5th grader knows more about Nature than any iron age Priest, prophet, Rabbi, Mullah coulld ever have known.