"The ultimate triumph of science"

[Tsyal Makto]

It is a scientific theory, and scientists who support Lanza's concept say it is compatible with current understandings of quantum mechanics. It's not untestable, Lanza is looking for ways to put the theory into experiment. It's just a matter of determining how to do it. As theories go, it is still quite young and needs to evolve. It will be interesting to see where it is taken in the future.

Which is why we should examine our spiritual and philosophical lives as humanity as a whole, find the common links we all have when we look inward. The patterns emerge, and what we all have in common will help us define existential/philosophical/spiritual truths. For a very spiritual example, nearly all people who have NDEs have common visions of "the other side," independent of cultural or biological factors. This has even piqued the interests of some scientists. For example:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/349537...nce-afterlife/ (Not sure if the link will work, I'm on a phone right now).

I think this is the major difference between you and I. I am both scientific and spiritual, and I place equal value on outward and inward observations. Like I said before, I give epistemology a wide berth.

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

It is a scientific theory, and scientists who support Lanza's concept say it is compatible with current understandings of quantum mechanics. It's not untestable, Lanza is looking for ways to put the theory into experiment. It's just a matter of determining how to do it. As theories go, it is still quite young and needs to evolve. It will be interesting to see where it is taken in the future.

The theory is only scientific because it is repeating quantum mechanics. The scientific aspects of the theory are, I find, completely disjointed with the part you are interested in, being that consciousness makes everything. Just because some hard science is sprinkled on this conjecture does not, in my opinion, make it scientific. Just because it may be compatible doesn't make it true or even likely by any standards. A "theory" in regular terms can just be a conjecture, but a "scientific theory" must be testable by definition. Biocentrism is a rough hypothesis at best.

Edit: Some relevant quotes I agree with.
David Lindley asserted that Lanza’s concept was a "vague, inarticulate metaphor" and stated that "I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight. That's all very nice, I would say to Lanza, but now what? I [also] take issue with his views about physics."[15] Daniel Dennett, a Tufts University philosopher, said he did not think the concept meets the standard of a philosophical theory. "It looks like an opposite of a theory, because he doesn't explain how it [consciousness] happens at all. [...] He's stopping where the fun begins."[16]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Which is why we should examine our spiritual and philosophical lives as humanity as a whole, find the common links we all have when we look inward. The patterns emerge, and what we all have in common will help us define existential/philosophical/spiritual truths. For a very spiritual example, all people who have NDEs have common visions of "the other side," independent of cultural or biological factors. This has even piqued the interests of some scientists.

I believe you have gone from referring to an existential why to a discussion of Psychology as a subject. I don't see how they're related for the purposes of this discussion. It is guessing. Someone has a dream, and what does it mean? How can you be sure? (That was a rough example. If I had more of an idea of what you were specifically referring to, I could be more on topic.) Your example is one of semantics. Because, generally speaking, all cultures do believe in some type of after life, what is seen during an NDE is labeled as such regardless of what the experience entails.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

I think this is the major difference between you and I. I am both scientific and spiritual, and I place equal value on outward and inward observations. Like I said before, I give epistemology a wide berth.

Since I don't know really anything about you outside of your view on this, it is a shallow conjecture to say it is the most major difference between us. IMO, this is an example of drawing a conclusion before there is enough evidence, as you and others seem to when the matter is based on spirituality, faith, what have you. I also place equal value on these, but I believe they have almost no bearing on each other. However, if it is ever conclusively shown that they do, I'll be the first to contact you to say, "You were right! " And, I also consider epistemology very important, I am just more selective about what I consider to be knowledge. Don't be so quick to isolate yourself, ma tsmuke/tsmukan.

[Tsyal Makto]

Let it evolve and we'll see how it pans out. As a whole it seems like a rather polarizing theory. Hopefully some experiments can be done and this thing can start going places. Comparability might not be a be-all-end-all, but it's a good start. The critics of the theory make some good points, but so do it's proponents. Either way, this is only the beginning.

I'm not talking about psychology as the externalized study of the mind, I'm talking about the study of the many religious and spiritual and philosophical ideologies (internalized subjects) of the world and looking for common links. These links, to me, are signs of possible definitive philosophical and spiritual truths we all have in common. This is something more along the lines of (holistic?) epistemology, maybe I didn't make that clear enough. The NDE example might be, itself, more psychological in nature, but that does not subtract from it's equally high spiritual value.

All IMO of course.

Apologies if I said anything offensive. It just seemed like our values of the spiritual and philosophical were quite different, or at least, what role it should have in society. No harm, no foul, ma tsmukan?

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

I'm not talking about psychology as a study of the mind, I'm talking about the study of the many religious and spiritual and philosophical ideologies of the world and looking for common links. These links, to me, are signs of possible definitive philosophical and spiritual truths we all have in common. This is something more...holistic (?) than mere psychology.

All IMO of course.

Apologies if I said anything offensive. It just seemed like our values of the spiritual and philosophical were quite different. No harm, no foul, ma tsmukan?

Thanks for the clarification. Still, the similarities in these ideologies do not necessarily point to truths. This is a fine article about where religion likely comes from: The Biological Roots of Religion
Most of it is actually related to psychology, but in the form I like, being sociology
Edit: Another good one, as if you weren't tl;dr'd enough http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/projec...on_foundation/

I find the IMO disclaimer to be redundant. Everything anyone says is already technically in their opinion, and I don't know what the alternative to this would be

You did not offend me, I just found your claim to be ironically similar to the way of thinking typical to spirituality. Our values certainly are different to say the least, but that's not to say I don't value introspection in its own right. I just can't find a place in science for it to fit atm, and I'd rather not shove it into an area it doesn't belong. And, I'm a tsmuke

[Tsyal Makto]

Similarities at the very least help us find common grounds/links. What they mean is all in the eye of the beholder. Religion might have had biological links (and it sounds like something I might agree with), but it has definitely become much more, with the involvment of independent spirituality and philosophy, and to me has helped us find even more common links above and beyond the origins. All still, IMO (which I will continue to say, to keep conflict to a minimum. I'm trying to take Eltu's wish to heart).

Just to be clear, grey area topics aside (like the NDE thing), I do tend to keep science and spirituality separate. One should not be IN the other, rather, they should complement each other from their independent spheres.

A tsmuke? Sorry, sorry.

Now, if you don't mind, I think I'll take leave from this thread for a while, mainly because: 1) I want to gather my afterthoughts, 2) I need a mental break (*rubs temples* I really cracked the beehive with this one, didn't I? ), 3) I'm typing while holding a Powermat and I look like a jackass.

[Moco Loco]

I can agree with almost everything you said, general as you were, but I do believe spirituality, if it exists in any form, will fit in with science. Science is, after all, knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. IMO, the subject of knowledge should contain everything we know.

[Tsyal Makto]

Well with topics as broad as this, I really don't have much of an option about being general. Lest I delve into the many "isms" each encompasses and wind up with text walls.

That last post sounds good. Who knows, maybe as time goes on each will begin to emulate the other in some way? Maybe a ToE won't be the death of spirituality, it will be it's "ultimate triumph" as well? Or maybe not, maybe they will retain their generally separate/complementary spheres of influence. Either way, through epistemology in all it's forms, we march forward into each new day with more knowledge than the last. Interesting times we live in.

*keeps rubbing temples*

[Moco Loco]

lol, take a break Tsyal Clarke said that stuff about ToE-- I do not necessarily agree with that, in fact I am more inclined to agree with you on this one.

[Aquaplant]

Going back to the how/why debacle a bit.

Why is somewhat useless, since it's entirely irrelevant when stuff happens anyhow, according to how. Since in a way, they are the same when observed on a very simply level, but beyond that, it becomes somewhat different.

For example, if I were to take a bazooka and shoot the car that is parked on the other side of the road, it would accomplish the utter and complete destruction of said car. How did this all happen you might ask? Well I constructed a working bazooka out of some common household items, then aimed the thing at the car and pulled the trigger, resulting in one wrecked car.

Now why did this all happen you might ask? The answer could be the same if not asked more specifically, but once you ask why did I shoot the car, the answer becomes quite different. However, you have no way of knowing that my answer to that question would be correct, since I could have done it just for fun, or because I don't like cars, or because I don't like the person who owns the car and countless other arbitrary reasons. Also it really doesn't matter why I did it, because it will not change what has already transpired.

Why is like a fun flavor that makes things a tad more interesting. I like why, but it's not required anywhere, since nobody cares why you do things, except for crazy people like me, for they only care if you did something or not.

Originally Posted by Human No More

The many worlds interpretation (if true) still gives no special weight to choice - indeed, if anything, the opposite, since if it is to be believed, then all diverging chances have occurred separately, so any 'meaning' would be completely null and void in a majority of cases.

That theory is creepy indeed, but a choice would still have meaning for the version of you that your current conscious mind happens to be in. Also the other(s) you gets the short end of the stick when you choose the best option for you, and likewise every time you make a stupid decision, the other(s) you will be sure to thank you for your altruistic behaviour.

Or maybe you make stupid decisions because the other(s) you has/have already exhausted all the other possible options?

Problem officer? *insert trollface*

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

That theory is creepy indeed, but a choice would still have meaning for the version of you that your current conscious mind happens to be in. Also the other(s) you gets the short end of the stick when you choose the best option for you, and likewise every time you make a stupid decision, the other(s) you will be sure to thank you for your altruistic behaviour.

I think this idea is best addressed by something I said yesterday.

Originally Posted by Moco Loco

Neither of these (quality or quantity) are independently affected by the decisions we actually make. Only the individual universe is affected. You could lay in bed every day for the rest of your life, but in other universes, you could still be going out. Or, you could go out same as always in this universe, but there would be another where you stayed in bed every day. Regardless of which universe the "you" I'm typing this response to is experiencing, they both will come into existence. They will exist regardless of what you do, of any decision you ever make. The split of a universe into other universes is unrelated to intention.

This universe is significant to we who are living in it, but that is just the same way the other me's would feel about their own place in existence, and that is unrelated to intention.

[Aquaplant]

I was under the impression that the theory implied that only n-1 amount of parallel universes are created when a decision is made, where n represents the amount of possibles choices there are to this decision.

[Moco Loco]

It's not based on decision, it's based on whatever could supposedly physically happen. The decision is also occurring, but the fact that it is a decision is irrelevant.

[Eltu]

Looks to me like this thread has gone quite offtopic, especially considering the subforum in which it's placed.

Rather than simply moving it, however, I'd like to ask you all posting in it what you think - do you think the current topic should still be held in this subforum, or do you feel things could be more beneficial elsewhere?

[Sacred Tsahaylu]

<3 Morgan Freeman
Jus sayin