-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History
- Thread starter stevevw
- Start date
Stopped_lurking
Active Member
- Jan 12, 2004
- 370
- 179
- Country
- Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
That is not an article about scoop marks at all, it is about using photogrammetry to calculate the rate of quarrying by pounders.
You have given me no article that shows that the scoop marks was made by softening the stone.
Why don't you read the articles you refer to, he's proposing by chemical means.
Article about the signatures from Egypt, would be nice.
I know it was in the article you referenced before, did you even read it?
Self-published, not in a journal. So how do we know that there conclusions are valid?
Where have they published the AC induced piezoelectric effects on the Egyptian quarries and the fragmentation of said Egyptian stone?
Yes, give me examples for this deeper (deeper in what way?) knowledge. What different realms are we talking about?
They can demonstrate whenever they feel like it.
Upvote
0
Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,441
- 7,575
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,441
- 7,575
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
So here's a thing that struck me that does need to be addressed:
All throughout it's history in the period we're talking about, Egypt was a very centralized kingdom. All the power was focused around the pharaoh, and it all boiled down to "If the pharaoh commands it, you jump to it, lickety-split!". This was also the same power setup in the Incan Empire and the Roman Empire, two cultures that unfortunately suffer from people very over-questioning "How did they do it?".
Because only in states with centralized power has the building force be so heavily and strongly commanded to build great works. We see it plain as day throughout history: Ur, Aztecs, Mayans, Chinese, Indian kingdoms; all the ones that had strong centralized power bases all had great works of architecture done. Let alone when we add in the religious aspects of a lot of these cultures too where the ruler was venerated as a deity on Earth.
Why? Because they had the man power and the upkeep and management skills necessary to command and wield that manpower to create such large works.
Some ancient Greek might have said "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it and I can move the Earth", but everyone seems to ignore that if you get enough people to do what you say when you have the right political power and you can easily build the pyramids.
All throughout it's history in the period we're talking about, Egypt was a very centralized kingdom. All the power was focused around the pharaoh, and it all boiled down to "If the pharaoh commands it, you jump to it, lickety-split!". This was also the same power setup in the Incan Empire and the Roman Empire, two cultures that unfortunately suffer from people very over-questioning "How did they do it?".
Because only in states with centralized power has the building force be so heavily and strongly commanded to build great works. We see it plain as day throughout history: Ur, Aztecs, Mayans, Chinese, Indian kingdoms; all the ones that had strong centralized power bases all had great works of architecture done. Let alone when we add in the religious aspects of a lot of these cultures too where the ruler was venerated as a deity on Earth.
Why? Because they had the man power and the upkeep and management skills necessary to command and wield that manpower to create such large works.
Some ancient Greek might have said "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it and I can move the Earth", but everyone seems to ignore that if you get enough people to do what you say when you have the right political power and you can easily build the pyramids.
Upvote
0
The centralized power of the Pharaohs was at its greatest in the 4th dynasty when they had full control over the nomarchs who were the equivalent of regional governors. Over succeeding dynasties this control vanished leading to collapse of the Old Kingdom at the end of the 6th dynasty when the nomarchs became rulers in their own right.
It's no coincidence when pyramid building was at its peak in the 4th dynasty when the Pharaoh's centralised control was at its greatest as they were able to command considerable human resources.
Fast forward to the 18th dynasty when Egyptian power was at its peak in the New Kingdom the Pharaohs were supreme leaders but not absolute rulers as their power was kept in check by the priesthood.
Upvote
0
The point of the image was to illustrate how useless it is to show a wide angle image of a phenomenon you describe as softening of rock which can only be analysed under microscopic conditions.
The nonsense of a disk of Po-210 used to soften granite which @Hans Blaster has shown not to be feasible in large quantities but for the purpose of this exercise lets assume ancient Egypt's alien overlords used a time machine to bring back Russian scientists involved in developing novel methods of political assassinations to produce Po-210 in large quantities.
Let's look at the effect on granite which can only be analysed on very thin cross sections using polarization microscopy.
b) one of the filters has been rotated 90 degrees to produce cross polarization light (XPL) enhancing details by reducing glare by cancelling out reflected polarized light.
The identifying labels in image.
| Label | Full name | Mineral group | How to identify in thin section | Role in granite |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qz | Quartz | Silicate | Gray/white in both PPL & XPL, undulose extinction, lacks cleavage | Framework mineral making granite resistant to weathering |
| Pl | Plagioclase feldspar | Feldspar (Na-Ca aluminosilicate) | Can show polysynthetic twinning (striped look), alteration to cloudy textures | Major component of most granites |
| Kfs | K-feldspar (Potassium feldspar; commonly microcline or orthoclase) | Feldspar | Perthitic textures, microcline grid twinning in XPL, often larger grains | Provides potassium; differentiates granite from tonalite |
| Ab | Albite | Sodium-rich plagioclase | Similar to Pl (because it is a member of the plagioclase series), often shows albite twinning | Indicates more sodic feldspar composition |
| Bt | Biotite | Mica | Brown pleochroic plates in PPL; bright to dark high-order interference colors in XPL, one perfect cleavage | Main ferromagnesian (dark) mineral in granite |
The alien supervised, Russian produced Po-210 disk will emit alpha particles which will attempt to burrow into the granite and produced telltale halos in XPL as shown in this image of a biotite crystal in granite from alpha particles emitted by radioactive uranium trapped in neighbouring zircon crystals.
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 29,958
- 13,415
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Your guy has a confusion...
The cognitive revolution was an intellectual movement that began in the 1950s as an interdisciplinary study of the mind and its processes, from which emerged a new field known as cognitive science.[1] The preexisting relevant fields were psychology, linguistics, computer science, anthropology, neuroscience, and philosophy.[2] The approaches used were developed within the then-nascent fields of artificial intelligence, computer science, and neuroscience.
en.wikipedia.org
The cognitive revolution was an intellectual movement that began in the 1950s as an interdisciplinary study of the mind and its processes, from which emerged a new field known as cognitive science.[1] The preexisting relevant fields were psychology, linguistics, computer science, anthropology, neuroscience, and philosophy.[2] The approaches used were developed within the then-nascent fields of artificial intelligence, computer science, and neuroscience.
Cognitive revolution - Wikipedia
Yep.
Upvote
0
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,711
- 1,924
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
I think any determinations about reality starts with observations. You can't do anything without observations. The difference is that in science its a 3rd party endeavour. Its looking from the outside in. Or rather removing the subject from the equation.
Whereas ancient and indigenous knowledge is including the subject. When you say by observation and (experience) I don't think science fully captures experience and especially conscious experiences as a layer or aspect of reality. They exclude this and for good reasons.
Science is only looking at one aspect of reality which is quantifiable in terms of a assumption that reality is fundementally physical or naturalistic and measured in terms of matter, particles, fields, forces and even epiphenomena that are caused by the physical such as consciousness.
So already we have a big gap or difference in how the world and reality is seen. Or before what is being measured as to what is reality. Science excludes a big chunk of human experiences and knowledge directly with nature and reality when immersed in it.
Before the age of Enlightenment and especially the further you go back we see a completely different worldview or reality. One governed by God or the gods or spirits or whatever transcedent belief was held. But fundementally the same.
So science cannot in the first place even understand this paradigm let alone make objective claims that all reality is tiny bits of matter and there is nothing beyond.
That is why I used the example of the Christian worldview and how this contains knowledge beyond the scientific material worldview. The observations at least with testimony are the same. Something happened beyond the naturalistic processes. The knowledge is different to the naturalistic explanations.
Thus on this basis unless you want to declare all religions and beliefs in such transcedent knowledge is all conspiracy and whacko. Which I think you can't because the methodology used is not even able to determine that. Then we have another layer of knowledge that is a reality itself and needs to be looked into as a real influence on reality, nature and the world.
Coming full circle now and after a few hundred years of Enlightement and science it seems strange that many areas of science are turning back to this fundemental idea that conscious experience and the role of the subject being immersed in reality which cannot really be seperated from it is gaining attention.
It seems we cannot really know reality when we seperate the subject out as there is always a subjective and transcedent element to it even in science.
So maybe the majority of our history being immersed in nature and reality as subjects and the knowledge that came from this was more real then perhaps what science tells us. Which came along relatively recent and purposely goes about seperating the subject out. Which actually also seperated a big chunk or knowledge about reality that seemed to be the majority of our history.
In fact not only seperates out but actively forces this aspect and knowledge out and thus we see the loss of Indigneous knowledge. Which I think points to this being more about belief than fact or truth ultimately or fundementally. In other words the methodology epistemically is forced over other ways of knowing.
Relegating the ancient and Indigenous knowledge as superstition or make belief when it was probably closer to reality than the material and naturalistic worldview. Or at least an important aspect that gives a deeper knowledge of reality.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
I march with Sherman
- Mar 11, 2017
- 22,991
- 17,141
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
what kind of "conscious experiences" are needed to make or measure stone vases?
That is how science works. If it didn't work that way it would not be science.
You might. I don't.
How is this about "experiences"?
They are not the same.
We looked. There isn't.
Your claim.
Your words.
Nothing to do with the topic.
They aren't.
There isn't.
I've been immersed in reality for 50 years. That reality matches what "science tells us".
What big chunk of knowledge about reality?
What is this "indigenous knowledge"? You've offered nothing but the vague notion of it for a couple of weeks and many many posts. Those claims lack any specificity.
Upvote
0
Stopped_lurking
Active Member
- Jan 12, 2004
- 370
- 179
- Country
- Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
There have been indigenous peoples living relatively undisturbed into the 20th century. Can you be more precise what you mean about indigenous knowledge, who could do what?
Upvote
0
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,711
- 1,924
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Yes and it showed that the dolerite pounders could not have been what created the scoop marks to get the obelisk out of the bedrock. So this defeats the claims that pounding is the cause of those scoop marks.
The article does refer to the scoop marks as like a cheese scooper.
Engelbach's experiment consisted of directly quarrying in one of the characteristic line segments in the trench around the Unfinished Obelisk, which he compared to a series of parallel and equidistant vertical cuts, as if it had been made by a gigantic cheese-scoop.
So he is agreeing at least in principle through scientific observation that the signatuires look like scoop marks rather than pounding. So thats the first step. Like other signatures look like modern machining or at least beyond what the traditional methods claimed. Thats the first step and some don't even admit this that at least they look different to the traditional or look more like machining.
I have given you evidence that stone can be softened or weakened and signatures in the works that support this such as what looks like melted stone and softened stone or stone that has been altered in its chemical and structural makeup.
See this is the whole point of looking at the works and then determining what caused them. The skeptics or those who insist on the traditional methods will do exactly the same. They will look at the signatures and determine a certain method.
If this is the case that we look at the signatures then we need to look at them all honestly. Admit when they don't conform and admit what they actually look like. Instead of blindly insisting one method.
Most say this is from heat, tremendous heat also causes vitrification. So I could say you have not studied how vitrification has occured. Even so a chemical change in the stone is still outside the traditional methods of shaping stones.
So what is the difference. I don't care if its chemical, heat, sonic pulses, or something that changed the constitution of the material. Its all advanced knowledge for back then.
Ok first all this is relatively new research. Especially that its happening as a result of modern tech that has really only come in the last decade or so. We have seen the new discoveries with Lidar. We hear of the discoveries under pyramids or ground penetrating radar.
If you want to look generally at how modern tech is discovering possible advanced knowledge and tech in Egypt which is probably the peak of knowledge then theres plenty. But for some specific aspects like the obelisk there is little at present but more in the pipeline coming.
So the first step once again is naked eye observations. What do the scoop marks look like. What would cause them. We already know now that it was not doleraite pounders. At least for major scoops on walls and underneath. They look uniform as though a scaper made them with a uniform scooping of scaping mark. Not the random and pulverising signature of pounding.
Step two is working out what actually caused them . This is ongoing. But the fact that these were not pounders and look like scoops from a uniform tool is telling. Telling about it not being ground down gradually but done in one sweep as though either the tool could cut easily into the hardest stones and take scoops out. Or that the material itself was weakened or softened.
Here is what looks like one of the pounders actually embedded into granite. I have shown you other signatures of sftened or weakened stone. How could this happen unless somehow the stone was not changed.
There are actually plenty os signs of stone softening in Egypt. The rocks in the first image are weird and look like they have been metamosphically changed in their structure. Certainly different to other stones and not the result of a natural process.
In the second pic it looks like some soft stone like substance has been squeezed into the gaps on the pavers outside the Great pyramid.
These examples come from the Valley Temple of Khafre. Notice how the pink granite stone melds into the other stone. Similar to the Sacsayhuaman fortress stones that seem to settle into the stones as though softened and making super tight joins. The second image is not a crack. This is a join between two walls at 90 degrees. The line looks as though the soft stone settled and followed the contour of the wall it was pressing against.
Also notice the texture of the granite which is similar to the strange texture of other softened rocks in Peru.
The tomb of Qar and eastern cemetry Giza and what appears like melted stone. Notice it looks very similar to the softened or melted stones in Peru at Sacsayhuaman and other places. Once again these weird changed stones in composition and texture.
In the second image we can see how the facia of the granite blocks left imprints on the basalt blocks as though they were softened. This is very similar to the imprints left on top faces of the stone block walls at Sacsayhuaman Fortress. You can see how the basalt blocks have fallen on the ground.
There are plenty more.
Yes and what about the article says this is false or not a possibility. It seems other archeologists recognised this. But today its all classed as superstition.
This is a misrepresentation of the articles credibility. This was commissioned by the Ministry of Culture of Peru. They used geophysicists and the original work had nothing to do with finding advanced tech. It was about sustainability of the ancient works in preserving them as they were sinking and deteriorating.
The findings about the chemical analysis of the stones and possible methods of construction were a by product of the chemistry and scanning analysis of the original project. So its just pure data and nothing conspiracy. Its not some self publisied group on social media but an official scientific project and report.
But more important your not even engaging in the actual contenmt as to whether it is valid. Your just tarring everything as an ad hominum.
Wow now your jumping. I don't think research has got that far. Though there is some research on possible energy sources or the metallurgy and radioactivity in some vases and works.
But this is a big filed and lots of data is needed. I don't think apart from say Dr Max or a couple of official programs have actually been done. You can't just walk in and do tests without permissions which is hard in itself.
From what I can find thats more mainstream and official I can only find a couple of articles.
Investigating the potential of using human movements in energy harvesting by installing piezoelectric tiles in Egyptian public facilities
Neutron diffraction reveals secrets of new piezoelectric material
Piezoelectric Phenomena in the King’s Chamber
Piezoelectric Phenomena in the King’s Chamber: A New Hypothesis for th
Strengthening the Pyramid Connection: Scientific Backing for Piezoelectric Properties and Energetic Phenomena The ancient pyramid of Giza is a marvel that was built using materials that have some physical properties that could explain the shroud of Turin. Firstly, the pink granite in the King’s...
dawnofegypt.co
Electromagnetic properties of the Great Pyramid: First multipole resonances and energy concentration
Electromagnetic properties of the Great Pyramid: First multipole resonances and energy concentration
Resonant response of the Great Pyramid interacting with external electromagnetic waves of the radio frequency range (the wavelength range is 200-600 m) is theoretically investigated. With the help of numerical simulations and multipole decomposition, it is found that spectra of the extinction...
ui.adsabs.harvard.edu
First-of-its-kind discovery in Egypt’s pyramids: There’s a strange form of energy
First-of-its-kind discovery in Egypt's pyramids: There's a strange form of energy
Scientists discovered the Great Pyramid of Giza focuses on electromagnetic energy, sparking new insights into ancient engineering and modern tech applications.
www.ecoticias.com
Firs do you think or believe that there is such a knowledge. An alternative way to know nature and the world through a more transcedent aspect than material and objective science methods.
Though much has been lost I liken this knowledge along the lines of religious beliefs. Rspecially Christianity which is most relevant to western sciences.
Firs on a fundemental basis science cannot refute God or belief in God or gods or spirituality or anything transcedent. So this in itself tells us science is not capable in the first place. All this will do is describe or explain in material terms whats happening.
So already epistemically we see a gap and that science cannot deal with. That in itself opens the door to alternative ways of knowing.
Second these alternative ways of knowing seemed to be the predominate way of knowing for all our history up until recently. This tells us that it has some basis. THird its still a relavant line of inquiry and in fact science itself is suggesting such alternative knowledge in quantum physics and other sciences like biology.
So the evidence has been and is already there. Its just rejected by skeptics using science as a sledge hammer to beat it.
Upvote
0
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,711
- 1,924
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
If ancients and Indigenous peoples claim their knowledge is being lost. Then what sort of knowledge is being lost. This testimony is speaking about their own cultural history of knowledge being lost. So something was lost. They say its great knowledge about the world that material science cannot know. In fact they say material western sciences have destroyed this knowledge.
So unless you think this knowledge is nothing, is superstition and make belief and is really nothing relevant or real to understanding the world we already have evidence in testimony.
It may also be that like knowledge was lost in the past todays indigneous peoples are mostly devoid of that knowledge with the modern world creeping in. Or just existing within a modern world that is harder to maintain knowledge.
Any examples left in the world may have already lost most of that knowledge or its practiced in small examples. Or that because the world around them is not longer like their own world they are gradually reduced to small groups who will lose their knowledge as time goes by as they are now living within a world that is different and dominating.
I know of some Aboriginals who still practice some of their ancient knowledge and are regarded as more advanced ways than science as far as nature and the environment is concerned.
Ancient knowledge is lost when a species disappears. It’s time to let Indigenous people care for their country, their way
Ancient knowledge is lost when a species disappears. It’s time to let Indigenous people care for their country, their way
Rather than sitting in the back seat, Indigenous Australians must be up front in managing the recovery of Australia’s unique and precious environment.
theconversation.com
What We Lose When We Lose Indigenous Knowledge
By mistaking a culture’s history for fantasy, or by disrespecting the wealth of Indigenous knowledge, we’re keeping up a Columbian, colonial tradition.
What We Lose When We Lose Indigenous Knowledge - JSTOR Daily
By mistaking a culture’s history for fantasy, or by disrespecting the wealth of Indigenous knowledge, we’re keeping up a Columbian, colonial tradition.
daily.jstor.org
Evidence of traditional knowledge loss among a contemporary indigenous society
Evidence of traditional knowledge loss among a contemporary indigenous society - PMC
As biological and linguistic diversity, the world’s cultural diversity is on decline. However, to date there are no estimates of the rate at which the specific cultural traits of a group disappear, mainly because we lack empirical data to assess how ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Upvote
0
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,711
- 1,924
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
No. science itself as an enterprise is designed to only measure the material world that is quantified in physical and naturalistic processes. This has nothing to do with atheism. Christians can be scientists.
The difference is they know its limitations when it comes to other aspects of reality that may not fall into the scientific paradigm.
In fact even within science there are conflicts about which paradigm is correct.
Look at say behaviour sciences where it use to be that all behaviour was conditions on the physical environment and conditioning. Thenm we discovered the Mind and psychology. Another aspect of reality different to the physical processes and not necessarily the result there of. In fact said to be the actual driver of the physical as well.
Now take this to the spiritual which is also a well acknowledged aspect of human behaviour. In fact a vital component that brings the higher ordered states of being that can bring new knowledge and experiences that the physical cannot bring.
Heres the point. Its when those who use science to refute these aspects is when it steps beyond just the science method to a belief. A metaphysical belief that the only way we can know reality is by the physical and naturalistic.
So when someone demands peer review from a hard sciences journal on this aspect they are in fact pushing a dogmatic belief that this is the only way we can know reality.
By the way, where did I bring in that science equals atheism. I usually speak in terms of epistemics. How we know reality. The different methods we use to measure reality. That no method has the complete picture.
Science is good at measuring the quantifiable aspects. A description or explanation and not anything about the actual nature of fundemental reality. But is this all there is to reality. Is there not non material aspects.
Even the so called epiphenomena is a sort of magic idea that the physical can pop out some unquantifiable aspect of reality like a genie in a bottle. That actually alters reality itself as a force. Without any evidence or explanation. Thats sound just as much a belief as in God.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Stopped_lurking
Active Member
- Jan 12, 2004
- 370
- 179
- Country
- Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
I'll start to answer you one question at the time.
They showed no such thing, read the paper. They assumed 12h work per day, they used the second smallest pounder of anyone that have tested it and nowhere in the article does it say that it is impossible. They only sampled 1(!) quarrying point. They were only allowed to work at it for 15 min. It is unclear if any of the reserachers had any pervious experience in dolorite pounders, and how that would affect quarrying ability. The authors don't say anything about pounders not being able to create the scoop marks at all. The only mention of scoop marks is when they refer to Engelbach observation. Engelbach who also measures the quarrying speed and has a very different result, which is in line with the timeframe written on the obelisk.
It was an article showing the feasiblity to photogrammetry for measuring the removal of stone in a experimental archeological context. Marian Marcis is also part of the inner circle around Karoly Poka and the Artifact Foundation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,711
- 1,924
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Is it just about the measures. What about the method of changing the material to then make the works. Measuring will only tell us about the end product and how precise or what looks like made it. It won't tell us exactly how it was achieved. Only that something more sophisticated was involved.
But say under the aspect of conscious experiences that this immersed ancients in nature more deeply. Not as in the sciences and measuring or qualifying reality. But as a relational aspect that allowed ancients into a deeper awareness or insight that gave them knowledge of how nature works and thus could manipulate it.
Just through sheer conscious experiences of nature. Remember that these ancients had no enlightenment or critical thinking in scientific terms. It was all experiential.
Yes so therefore when it oversteps its boundaries its no onger science but attempting metaphysical belief. When its used to rationalise the supernatural belief or transcedent aspects of reality as being unreal its overstepping the mark.
As a science method for what it does look at its very good. But this should be acknowledge that this is only one aspect or dimension even of reality. In fact there are emerging anomelies in this paradigm that point to a deeper dimension and paradigm. So its really paradigms competing with each other over what is fundemental reality.
A reasonable philsophical position would be to say exactly this. That science as a method only tells us a small part of nature and reality and that there are other aspects that don't fall into this paradigm which are just as relevant and real that need to be considered before anyone starts making ontological claims about what counts as real or fact or truth.
Yes because you believe and 'believe' is the destinguishing word that all reality is within the causal closure of the physical. In otherwords there is only one fundemental reality which is the physical, or material or naturalistic. So long as all causes stem back to a quantifiable aspect that can be measures in quantifiable empiricle measures.
So of course all aspects including epiphenomena, religious beliefs, consciousness, experiences are caused by the physical. For example conscious experiences as an epiphenomena of the physical brain. Nothing supernatural or transcedent in nature.
So by metaphysical belief you will only see the physical causes and force onto all phenomena a physical explanation ie miracles are some sort of biological anomely we have yet to understand. BUt physical in nature 100%. No Gods or miracles here.
Yet this is stepping beyond science because if there were miracles or the supernatural they will have a physical effect. Really all science is doing describing what is happening and explaining this in the physical terms it happens within. It says nothing about the nature of that phenomena. Thats how science has morphed into a belief that most cannot even see this and just assume like everything else its true. .
Everything is about experiences. How do you know we are not in some Simulation. Or at least a big part or some part is just a MInd conception of whatever is the latest view of reality. Can we actually step outside our minds to scientifically verify that how we concieve reality is correct.
I mean theres enough "experiential' knowledge and lived reality to say that all the religions, and transcedent aspects of humans is not just one big physical epiphenomena and most good philsophers will agreed. That we should take seroiusly what has basically been the default human behaviour for millenia. We are all not deluded and dumb science deniers lol.
Experience or rather conscious experience is probably the most reliable aspect from which we can know reality because its direct. Its not made into 3rd party science which actually detaches itself, or rather tries to from our direct contact with reality.
What is reality. We can know the physical objective data of how a house is constructed. Or how a mountain is made. So what. HUmans are meaning making creatures and the world is not about the coffee cups objective reality. But whats in the cup, what the cup represents in reality. Thats the experiential aspect of reality thats missing in science. Yet it is the most dominant and lived reality.
Ok your getting into semantics again. I mean the same as in all believe in some sort of transcedent existence or being or spirit of some sort. Its just different expressions of the same fundemental belief.
I can get the evidence on this if you want. From meta analysis of the different beliefs and cultural practices. They all home in on the same core beliefs. Just different expressions. Which is the subjective cultural part. But the fundemental belief is ingrained and as much a part of humans as the need to eat.
THis exactly proves my point that the scientific method oversteps and becomes a belief. You say this like its an ontological fact or truth. We investigated all religious beliefs and all the other paradigms of different knowledge and worldviews and we verified beyond doubt that there is nothing to all this.
Without even realising that even science itself admits there are different paradigms and that you are claiming that the paradigm you exist in or are using itself according to science cannot understand the paradigm its objecting to. Hense its based on an assumption and belief.
Not just that you have put yourself in a very small group of enlightened ones who claim the truth and that the majority of humans are deluded and therefore we must spread the gospel of enlightenment and metaphysical naturalism.
Ok my claims, my words, my beliefs like the majority of others. What are you saying here. Are you just repeating back that these are alternative beliefs and knowledge people can have. Or are you acknowledging that there are alternative ways of knowing reality besides your beliefs.
Another example of not even being aware that this is completely related. Is not this about alternative ways of knowing including advanced knowledge of the world, nature and reality. I mentioned conscious experiences as one aspect which includes phenomenal belief and other transcedent aspects.
So if as I pointed out that the paradigm of the scientific method only can deal with the quantifiable and at least some of this ancient lost knowledge is steeped in belief and conscious experiences of the nature.
Then saying that using the science method to even evaluate such knowledge is the wrong method. It cannot tell. IT has not the tools of method to even measure such knowledge. Yet you claim it can.
I won't even go into the vast amount of evidence for this. BUt merely say the fact you state that "they aren't and there isn't" is itself evidence that this is more a belief thatn fact or reality.
Hum so what evidence is there for beauty, the experience of music, colors, the sense of awe in looking at the universe and knowledge of something greater emerges and persistently so that people build things to the heavens and gods. At what point can science determine this is just make believe and not real knowledge that there is actually some transcedent aspect of reality that really and truelly is part of being human and is a reality beyond humans.
Show me the test. In fact show me the test that shows how the so called objective reality we live in right now is actually real itself and not some interface reflection of something deeper that looks nothing like what we see.
That I have to explain this means you will not be open.
Yes thats how western material science has always treated indigenous knowledge. As some vague superstition. Or in this case also atheism which basically aligns well with material science. Or rather metaphsyical naturalsim.
Upvote
0
Stopped_lurking
Active Member
- Jan 12, 2004
- 370
- 179
- Country
- Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
In what ways? What are they doing and why is it outside of the possibilities for science to study it?
Upvote
0
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,711
- 1,924
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
The best way I find to describe the difference between experiential knowledge and methological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism is the experience of colors. Frank Jackson thought experiment of Colorblind Mary who was a scientists and know everything there was to know about vision and connections to brain and light waves ect.
But Mary had never experienced colors like the vivid red of a sports car or a lucious red apple.
One day Mary wakes up and she can experience colors for the first time. She sees a juicy red apply and has her first experience of red.
We could say that Mary gained knowledge of reality that all the scientific explanations or physical processes off the brain and light waves could not tell or give her knowledge about. Since she knew already about all the physical explanations. Did her experience bring new knowledge.
Now apply this to all experiences and especially phenomenal belief. The idea is that if experience of colors can give us knowledge that science cannot give us about certain aspects of reality that are real. Then why not other knowledge that also cannot be reduced on the descriptions and explanations of the physical processes that only tell us about a certain aspect.
In this case science described all the processes of sight, brains and lightwaves, the quantifiable aspect. But could not tell us the experiencial aspect that gave additional knowledge of reality ie the experience of red. A new peice of knowledge and reality.
So already theres a different paradigm of understanding. If you look at everything throught the lens of metaphysical naturalism then all you will see is the physical aspects. The other aspects that bring knowledge are subsumed by the dominant naturalist worldview and this alternative knowledge is considered epiphenomenal to the physical and discounted.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Stopped_lurking
Active Member
- Jan 12, 2004
- 370
- 179
- Country
- Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
Eh, I know what qualia is supposed to be.
In what ways? What are they doing and why is it outside of the possibilities for science to study it?
I was asking what are the aboriginals you put forth as an example practicising, and why can't science study it?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
