This is a serious problem . This attitude towards ourselves needs to be stopped . Not by polititcans , but by ourselves . Life evolves , so does its energy .
Spiritual beliefs shouldn’t be forced on others, though. The concept of souls existing isn’t really something that science needs to unpack for it to have meaning in your own life. Having said that, spirituality and science can coexist; to me, you don’t have to forsake one for the other when it comes to your personal beliefs.
Knowledge evolves---and in certain areas it seems to be evolving at an accelerating rate shoulders of giants and all that Not so long ago few scientists thought that we produced pheromones---(" we have evolved beyond that")---wrong few scientists believed that there were more than 3 or 4 glacial cycles in this ice age---wrong I once had a dog (raised from a 6 week old puppy) who knew that i was coming when I was over 30 miles out---and he would start howling when he howled that howl, my uncle would start a pot of coffee and I would be there in time to have a hot cup before heading out to my house How did that dog know? What we do not know still exceeds what we do know I believe that assuming the negative based on our current knowledge is prone to be a mistaken approach.
Absolutely Evolution , of Humanity , right there . As long as your beliefs are not detrimental to Humanity its self .
If you don't like a physicalist thought orientation and its constraints being treated as an ultimate or non-mediated by cognitive faculties reality... Then nothing is stopping you from personally choosing to regard the world of perception as the simulation of a prior-in-rank level that is radically different from the former's spatiotemporal one (so to avoid a homunculus fallacy or Matryoshka doll situation of repeating the same type of provenance endlessly). But that speculative possibility (among others that might allow your soul or whatever) isn't warranted for an educational system aimed at development and promotion of knowledge that is actually useful/practical for successful manipulation of the experienced and reasoned-about immediate world. OTOH, if postmodern offshoots and various anti-Western undulations (masquerading under "noble causes") get their way, all you might have to do is live long enough for all the pre-modern customs and myths of traditional cultures to return in terms of regulating influence on policy and academic institutions.
Or, if you want it stated more bluntly: Go play in metaphysics or speculative philosophy. Methodological naturalism via its very definition shuts the gate to invasive pseudoscience about spirits, souls, etc. This is no more peculiar than a basketball coach preventing a USRowing referee from interfering in the team's practices (they're different sports or occupations), if such a bizarre peculiarity ever arose. Yes, of course that would be nonsense advice to many crackpots eccentrics who want entry to and deference from science. Akin to some stalker who can't accept a celebrity saying "no". Either the ego or the monomaniacal momentum of the individual won't allow them to stop lingering at the closed gates or prowling around the perimeter. It may appear almost machine-like, an inability to accept the reality of a circumstance or adjust programming to pursue another alternative.
Spirits , Souls , Mind . Life is Not of the same energy state as plasmic ( Plasma) energy , and matter . Life doesn't make the rock , Plasma and matter do . Life manipulates minerals in order to get energy from . Life is a completeĺy different form of energy . Life evolves , Life thinks . The arrogance of science , mainstream science as the definition of truth of what has been , found , is now . Is hard to take really . Mainstream science is notoriously conservative . Because for the 95 to 98% of people who go into any science fields are not Einstein's .
What do you mean by that? How many "energy states" are there, do you think? How would you go about detecting the difference between the "energy state" of a living thing and the "energy state" of a rock? Please explain. What equipment would we need to make the relevant energy measurements, in each case? This is some kind of new record for you. I don't think I have ever seen you post something this long before. You say that "plasma and matter" make rocks. Do you agree that they also make life? All living things are composed of matter, for example. That much seems obvious. You really need to explain how you know that life is a "completely different form of energy". For starters, I don't think life is a kind of energy at all, but maybe you can explain why I'm wrong. What equipment can we use to detect the difference between different types of energy? Is there a general "energy type detector" available somewhere? If not, how did you identify that life is a "completely different form of energy"? Who said that "mainstream science" was the "definition of truth"? I'm not completely understanding your complaint. Is the real problem that you don't accept some established scientific truths? If that's the issue, why don't we discuss the parts of science that you disagree with, and your reasons for disagreeing? That would be more productive than simply complaining about the "arrogance of science", wouldn't it? Maybe science has earned the right to be "arrogant". Your life would be very different than it is now were it not for science. Don't you agree? You seem worried that most scientists aren't the same as Einstein. Why does that concern you? It seems to me that you're probably worried that scientists are getting things wrong because they aren't smart enough, in general. Is that what you think? Wouldn't it be more useful to discuss where you think science is going wrong, instead of making it a personality-based complaint about scientists being too arrogant and not being smart enough (in your opinion)? If your complaint boils down to a rant that "those arrogant scientists don't know everything!" then you really shouldn't worry. Scientists are well aware that they don't know everything. Are you? The great thing about science is that it is self-correcting. If you're convinced that science is wrong about something in particular, scientists will be very happy to listen to what you have to say. If your claims can stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny (just like all the other claims of science are required to), then science will be happy to revise to accommodate your important new contributions to knowledge.
Mainstream Science does . And it does by quashing any theory that goes against there collective grain . And Destroying the Person , Personally and Professionally . It has happened many times . If you deny this has not happened then you are just fooling yourself , not History .
(That's all you could manage in response to my last post?) I don't think you understand how science works. It's not a dogma. It's evidence-based, and self-correcting.
Yes but only within the thinking of the dogma . The BB theory of the Universe Confines our thinking .
"Mind" as in intelligence and cognition (outputted as body responses) are accounted for by complex and reciprocal interactions of components, the same as their mitigated instantiations in computer hardware. No need for "spirit" as something either supernatural or maverick-wise conflated with energy. Just as organisms are constituted of pre-existing atoms and molecules, so biological processes don't outrun established types of energy. While the idea of "pure energy" might be amenable to a speculative future (below)... In terms of current knowledge, the topic seems to be treating a quantitative property abstracted from concrete or detectable objects, slash organizations, as if it can float on its own (i.e., "spirit"). Akin to the verb "walk" itself walking (instead of a noun), or "work" itself working. Is There Any Such Thing As Pure Energy? https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ethan-is-there-any-such-thing-as-pure-energy/ EXCERPT (Ethan Siegel): . . . So the full answer to the question of whether pure energy exists is: For all of the particles that exist, massive and massless, energy is only one property of them, and cannot exist independently. For all of the situations where energy appears to be lost in a system, such as through gravitational decay, there exists some form of radiation carrying off that energy [like gravitational waves], leaving it conserved. And that dark energy itself may be the purest form of energy, existing independent of particles, but as far as any effect other than the expansion of the Universe, that energy is inaccessible to everything else in the Universe. As far as we can tell, energy is not something we can isolate in a laboratory, but only one of many properties that matter, antimatter and radiation all possess. Creating energy independent of particles? It might be something the Universe itself does, but until we learn how to create (or destroy) spacetime itself, we find ourselves unable to make it so. You could alternatively conflate "spirit or soul" with the mystery of phenomenal experience[1], but that impulse is likewise propelled by motivated reasoning. Which is to say, there's a prior existing desire for _X_ to be the case, and thereby this desperate looking around ensues for any unresolved or malleable territory that could harbor _X_. - - - footnote - - - [1] The manifested content of sensations (vision, hearing, smelling, feeling, etc) and introspective events is asserted to be an emergent characteristic of neural activity. But there's nothing "new" actually detected externally -- biological cells, molecules, atoms, particles are still limited to their usual measurable characteristics, whether particular or systemically aggregated. (And there's certainly no novel "field of consciousness" hovering about the skull that has been abruptly conjured, that the manifestations abide in.) If not for the private or subjective displays of various _X_s "being presented" in perceptions and thoughts that most if not all people report, then there would be no evidence for those experiences (nothing to explain, especially to a more sufficient level than mere correlation).
Highlighted Its does exceed what we do know . Yes when approached from this " shoulders of giants " , is the only way of thinking upon this Universe , thinkers of the absolute way of thinking period . If asked the question wether they think they knew it all , I think none of these giants would ever think so . And would know so because they are thinkers . And All of these giants were revolutionaries .
