About Those Beliefs You're Ashamed of Holding..

[karri0n]

While spiritual "energy" may not fit the scientific definition of energy, it acts in a similar fashion. I find it difficult to explain the phenomena of various different types of magic without any form of energy being involved. An explanation may be found in that energy doesn't act exactly the same on a different plane than the physical.

In addition, both thermal energy and sound has been measured coming off the hands of experienced qi gong healers. The "energy" that you are saying doesn't comply with the laws of thermodynamics can be felt when hands are lain on or above the body. The phenomena of energy meridians existing in the human body and being manipulated by skilled healers was described before the advent of modern science, so who is it exactly that is using the wrong term?

 

[zvuv]

Science and technology are deeply involved in creating art. The chemistry behind the paints, the electronics and accoustic technology that goes into modern instruments and the sound systems that they use, the manufacturing and distribution systems that make these products available to artists all over the world, the books, photographs and computers that make it possible to view works of art in distant places all these depend on scientific research and technology.

But what about the artistic process itself and its counterpart, the appreciation of art? As an atheist, I see no reason to think the brain is anything more than a meat machine whose functioning is entirely determined by natural laws. At the present time, we are overwhelmed by the complexity of the brain and the difficulties of understanding the strange internal language it uses to store information. Much about the brain is mysterious but mysterious is not the same as mystical. We don't know how it works. This doesn't mean it works by magic.

IMO the processes in the brain that give rise to the desire to make art and also the appreciation of art will eventualy yield to scientific investigation. It's my speculation that these phenomena are the result of the brain's nature as a pattern recognition machine and the fact that intelligent brains need play in order to develop fully. Art has its basis in the playful exploration of patterns. A speculation, nothing more. But it shows the possibility of a mundane explanation for the artistic and aesthetic functioning of the brain without having to invoke the supernatural.

 

[ginjawarrior]

In addition, both thermal energy and sound has been measured coming off the hands of experienced qi gong healers. The "energy" that you are saying doesn't comply with the laws of thermodynamics can be felt when hands are lain on or above the body. The phenomena of energy meridians existing in the human body and being manipulated by skilled healers was described before the advent of modern science,

sorry but have you got a credible source for that?

so who is it exactly that is using the wrong term?

a. the people who usage of it is so vague that even they cannot describe it properly
b. the people who have set out strict rules for it's usage and forms
one of thems right....

 

[Heisenberg]

While spiritual "energy" may not fit the scientific definition of energy, it acts in a similar fashion. I find it difficult to explain the phenomena of various different types of magic without any form of energy being involved. An explanation may be found in that energy doesn't act exactly the same on a different plane than the physical.

In addition, both thermal energy and sound has been measured coming off the hands of experienced qi gong healers. The "energy" that you are saying doesn't comply with the laws of thermodynamics can be felt when hands are lain on or above the body. The phenomena of energy meridians existing in the human body and being manipulated by skilled healers was described before the advent of modern science, so who is it exactly that is using the wrong term?

Please link to this literature. It doesn't seem unusual to me to detect heat and sound coming from a persons hands. I have no doubt some people believe they are feeling something, but that is not the same as saying there is something to be felt.

I am aware of this experiment

Some healers claim they can feel the energy of these elusive and ineluctable biofields, vibrations, auras, or rays. Therapeutic touch (TT) practitioners make this claim. Twenty-one practitioners, who knew from much experience that they could feel the energy around the bodies of patients, were tested. They had never been tested, however, in a situation where they could not see the source of the alleged "energy field." Nine-year-old Emily Rosa tested these energy healers to see if they could feel her life energy when they could not see its source. The test was very simple and seems to clearly indicate that the subjects could not detect the life energy of the little girl’s hands when placed near theirs. They had a 50% chance of being right in each test, yet they correctly located Emily's hand only 44% of the time in 280 trials. If they can’t detect the energy, how can they manipulate or transfer it? What are they detecting? Most likely they are detecting what has been suggested to them by those who taught them this practice. Their feelings of energy detection appear to be manufactured in their own minds. Krieger has been offered $1,000,000 by James Randi to demonstrate that she, or anyone else for that matter, can detect the human energy field.

So even though in preliminary testing, which in this case amounts to personal experience, there seems to be a detectable energy. When we apply only the slightest of controls, the effect disappears.

 

[Padawanbater2]

And the frustration comes because you guys should already know this stuff. If we each took the time to understand a claim and then went out and tested to see, or researched to see if it was true or false, there's no reason you can't do the same. Especially when people like Randi make it so easy.

Understanding the scientific method is extremely valuable, this is a perfect example of why.

 

[DelSlow]

Devil's advocate here, what if something happened to you that you couldn't explain? (I have no idea what it might be, use your imagination)

 

[zvuv]

I know of no reliable scientific study that has successfuly measured any kind of unusual energy coming from a person's hands. Such phenomena seem to vanish when subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny. If it can't be tested with reproducible results it's not science. These techniques may help a patient because of psychological factors. i.e. the placebo effect.

If healing energy does more than just alleviate pain and actually cures people then it must make observable physical changes in the body which would produce by products that should be detectable. Killing cancer cells for example would produce changes in the blood as it carried away waste products. Yet AFAIK these effects have not been detected.

Also, any physical changes require energy, physical energy, which is baffling because apparently healing energy is exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics which means it can have nothing to do with physical energy. Entropy is not some kind of add on, some kind of gotcha, it is fundamental to the modern understanding of energy itself. In fact it is the 2nd Law that drives life, it is responsible for its creation and its perpetuation. If anything can be called a 'life force' it is the 2nd Law.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Devil's advocate here, what if something happened to you that you couldn't explain? (I have no idea what it might be, use your imagination)

That's the thing, nothing is "unexplainable". Some people substitute "I don't know" for "magic!" because human brains are easily conditioned to think certain ways.

Do enough research and you will find an explanation for anything.

 

[DelSlow]

That's the thing, nothing is "unexplainable". Some people substitute "I don't know" for "magic!" because human brains are easily conditioned to think certain ways.

Do enough research and you will find an explanation for anything.

Ah, I see. That makes sense.

I don't really have any beliefs that I'm ashamed of, but some have told me I should be ashamed for believing that cannabis helps certain medical conditions. They also say that I should be in jail for smoking it. I'm so torn Lmfao!

 

[Padawanbater2]

Neither do I because I feel I can explain why I believe what I do.

If you believed in fairies, people would think you're crazy because there's no evidence for the existence of fairies, you would feel ashamed and embarrassed no doubt to hold that belief. This, I feel, is the same reason believers feel embarrassed or ashamed or automatically take offense to anyone questioning their beliefs.

Someone asks me why I believe the theory of evolution is a scientifically accurate account of life on Earth, I'll say "this is why, this is the data, here's the evidence, clearly it's correct, how could you argue with ALL that?". How accurate could your belief really be if the defense mechanism is to say "don't question it!"?

 

[DelSlow]

If we never asked questions, there would be no answers

 

[Heisenberg]

And what leads to questions better than doubt? In the end, the beliefs we should be ashamed of are the ones that we have not subjected to proper doubt, or we feel are above doubt, yet still defend to others. A lot of people come up with explanations and then go looking for evidence to support them, but very few laymen will then take the extra step of trying to prove themselves wrong. They have no problem quickly sighting evidence and deciding that evidence is conclusive, but spend no time entertaining the possibility that they could be mistaken. That neglect to think; the act of telling us you believe something and wanting respect for it without even understanding it yourself, the act of trying to belittle others when they critically examine the belief, should be the source of shame.

 

[rosecitypapa]

And what leads to questions better than doubt? In the end, the beliefs we should be ashamed of are the ones that we have not subjected to proper doubt, or we feel are above doubt, yet still defend to others. A lot of people come up with explanations and then go looking for evidence to support them, but very few laymen will then take the extra step of trying to prove themselves wrong. They have no problem quickly sighting evidence and deciding that evidence is conclusive, but spend no time entertaining the possibility that they could be mistaken. That neglect to think; the act of telling us you believe something and wanting respect for it without even understanding it yourself, the act of trying to belittle others when they critically examine the belief, should be the source of shame.

Although I agree with you, I think there's a fundamental double standard that is operating here - outside oriented looking in vs. inside oriented looking out.

Science has done much to expand our understanding of the natural world but if we were to look at the world today, the status of all living things. I doubt that one could hold the pursuit of science and the development of technology the ultimate answer to our collective problems.

Critical thinking can do much to discern what is worthwhile to believe but without a connection to the more advanced forms of information analysis such as intuition, hunches, and gut feelings, it too falls under the same criticism it promotes.

To me, it appears that the greatest achievements in science came from people who had a moment of insight, clarity or revelation - all inner experiences.


btw, for the scientifically inclined, how would you explain the cultural practice and phenomenon of fire-walking (uninjured)?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Science has done much to expand our understanding of the natural world but if we were to look at the world today, the status of all living things. I doubt that one could hold the pursuit of science and the development of technology the ultimate answer to our collective problems.

Who ever said science was "the ultimate answer to our collective problems"?

Those of us who support science and it's unlimited applications are only saying this is the best system devised by humans to date to determine the most accurate account of reality. Other systems have design flaws or don't account for human error, these systems are what we oppose because we know they are subject to error.

Critical thinking can do much to discern what is worthwhile to believe but without a connection to the more advanced forms of information analysis such as intuition, hunches, and gut feelings, it too falls under the same criticism it promotes.

Exactly what I mean. "intuition", "hunches" and "gut feelings" are not scientific. You cannot use these tools to figure out the world around you as they are all subject to human error.

btw, for the scientifically inclined, how would you explain the cultural practice and phenomenon of fire-walking (uninjured)?

[youtube]7dgpsI1MdQI[/youtube]

[youtube]-W5FRl0qhOM[/youtube]

 

[Heisenberg]

Although I agree with you, I think there's a fundamental double standard that is operating here - outside oriented looking in vs. inside oriented looking out.

Science has done much to expand our understanding of the natural world but if we were to look at the world today, the status of all living things. I doubt that one could hold the pursuit of science and the development of technology the ultimate answer to our collective problems.

Critical thinking can do much to discern what is worthwhile to believe but without a connection to the more advanced forms of information analysis such as intuition, hunches, and gut feelings, it too falls under the same criticism it promotes.

To me, it appears that the greatest achievements in science came from people who had a moment of insight, clarity or revelation - all inner experiences.


btw, for the scientifically inclined, how would you explain the cultural practice and phenomenon of fire-walking (uninjured)?

Fire-walkers actually walk on embers, not fire. Embers have a poor ability to transfer what small amount of thermal energy they have; a low conductivity. Foot skin has a moderate conductivity, and a capacity to hold more thermal energy than the embers. So, the embers don't have much energy to give, can't give it efficiently, have little time to accomplish any of it during a single step, and your foot can absorb a lot before heating up. Fire-walking is normally done at night to enhance the red glow of the embers, which makes them appear hotter than they are.

I would ask you to explain how intuition and gut feelings qualify as more advanced forms of information analysis than the scientific method. These are in fact things that have been well documented to distort research data, namely in the forms of bias. It amounts to background noise and as we place better controls on experiments we can eliminate their interference, something we see demonstrated in the decline effect. I am not sure how the state of the world today as compared to the past has anything to do with the validity of science, but I indeed agree that the pursuit of science/technology is not any sort of ultimate answer to societies problems. Who is making that statement?

"In cases where prior knowledge is available, the alternative to 'an open mind' is not a 'closed mind'. It is 'an informed mind'. In such contexts, any appeal to 'keep an open mind' is an appeal to prefer ignorance over knowledge. This is not advisable." - Ian Rowland

 

[rosecitypapa]

Neither do I because I feel I can explain why I believe what I do.

If you believed in fairies, people would think you're crazy because there's no evidence for the existence of fairies, you would feel ashamed and embarrassed no doubt to hold that belief. This, I feel, is the same reason believers feel embarrassed or ashamed or automatically take offense to anyone questioning their beliefs.

Someone asks me why I believe the theory of evolution is a scientifically accurate account of life on Earth, I'll say "this is why, this is the data, here's the evidence, clearly it's correct, how could you argue with ALL that?". How accurate could your belief really be if the defense mechanism is to say "don't question it!"?

Who ever said science was "the ultimate answer to our collective problems"?

Not specifically you, it's just the unscientific 'vibe' I get when I interpret people using science as a religion.

Those of us who support science and it's unlimited applications are only saying this is the best system devised by humans to date to determine the most accurate account of reality. Other systems have design flaws or don't account for human error, these systems are what we oppose because we know they are subject to error.



Exactly what I mean. "intuition", "hunches" and "gut feelings" are not scientific. You cannot use these tools to figure out the world around you as they are all subject to human error.

Actually, I would view it as human perfection. I don't subscribe to the idea of 'original sin' or that we are flawed in any way. Personally, I think humans are perfect. Perfection defined as a dynamic state of being that includes the capacity/ability to improve upon itself.

However, that still doesn't address that fact that most breakthrough achievements came in science from these states of mind that you define as subject to human error.

[youtube]7dgpsI1MdQI[/youtube]

[youtube]-W5FRl0qhOM[/youtube]

Interesting video, totally proves my point. The science guy burned his feet, the mystics did not (or at least claimed to).

Edit: oops didn't see the second vid. Ok, so they end with the claim that the science guy's confidence in the mechanics is what kept him unscathed.

 

[Heisenberg]

Make no mistake, the mechanisms behind fire-walking are well understood and well documented. The physics theory behind why fire-walkers are not harmed makes replicable predictions that explain whats happening, without the added assumption that consciousness is involved.

One theory works within the known laws of thermodynamics, the other introduces new information which must cause reexamination of everything learned about physics so far. The added assumption is not necessary, so why prefer it?

Not specifically you, it's just the unscientific 'vibe' I get when I interpret people using science as a religion.

In other words, it was a straw-man.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Not specifically you, it's just the unscientific 'vibe' I get when I interpret people using science as a religion.

Do you understand what the definition of 'religion' is?

How would one use science as religion?

Actually, I would view it as human perfection. I don't subscribe to the idea of 'original sin' or that we are flawed in any way. Personally, I think humans are perfect. Perfection defined as a dynamic state of being that includes the capacity/ability to improve upon itself.

That isn't the definition of 'perfect'. What you seem to be doing is taking words and ascribing your own personal definition to them, then calling it a day..

First, perfection is 100% subjective. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", similarly, perfection is as well.

What about our 'design' flaws? If humans were perfect, why would we have these?

-humans with glasses (eyes, clearly imperfect)
-hearing aids (ears, imperfect)
-pace makers (heart, imperfect)
-diseases
-baldness
-ego
-apendix
-midgets are perfect to you?

However, that still doesn't address that fact that most breakthrough achievements came in science from these states of mind that you define as subject to human error.

Right, and science does absolutely nothing to hinder human curiosity, infact, completely on the contrary, science promotes and improves upon human curiosity.

I've heard this argument plenty of times before, essentially what you're saying is "if something sparks an interest in someone, or leads someone to discover something, such as human intuition, a hunch or a gut feeling, that thing is automatically good, and can further be trusted/accepted/utilized in future science experiments." I have pointed out the flaws in this reasoning. Your intuition, your hunches AND your gut feelings are NOT SCIENTIFIC. It doesn't matter if that's what led you to a new discovery. The ends do not justify the means unless you properly use the scientific method.

Interesting video, totally proves my point. The science guy burned his feet, the mystics did not (or at least claimed to).

No, watch the second video, that's why I posted two..

The reason people don't burn their feet is because of physics and preparation, not because they're altering their state of mind somehow and "believing" they won't burn their feet. Carbon (which the what the embers of the fire they're walking on is made of) is a poor conductor of heat, so it doesn't transfer the heat from the coals to the feet very well.

 

[Heisenberg]

Right, and science does absolutely nothing to hinder human curiosity, infact, completely on the contrary, science promotes and improves upon human curiosity.

Science allows the experiences arsing from human curiosity to be counted as genuine. As you point out, rather than hinder or exclude intuition, science validates it.

I would not say that intuition and hunches are unscientific. The first three steps of the scientific method welcome human intuition.

1. Observation - see something happening, document

2. Ask questions, identify points of inquiry, research known facts

3. form a hypothesis

From this point on we start experimenting and applying controls in order to validate the hypothesis. We know that human intuition and bias ultimately equates to background noise, so we control for it. But we wouldn't even get to this step without intuition in the first place.

So science does not discount intuition and gut feelings, it simply evaluates them. But your point is not lost. The human experience is riddled with pitfalls, and can never be used to draw conclusions, it simply allows us to identify a starting point.

 

[rosecitypapa]

Fire-walkers actually walk on embers, not fire. Embers have a poor ability to transfer what small amount of thermal energy they have; a low conductivity. Foot skin has a moderate conductivity, and a capacity to hold more thermal energy than the embers. So, the embers don't have much energy to give, can't give it efficiently, have little time to accomplish any of it during a single step, and your foot can absorb a lot before heating up. Fire-walking is normally done at night to enhance the red glow of the embers, which makes them appear hotter than they are.

Since I've done firewalking and can speak from personal experience, you certainly have a point. However the only thing that got me across those coals was 'getting in state' as opposed to the scientific explanation of why I was in no danger. In contrast, if the science is sound, then why do so many get burned if they are not in the proper mental state?

I would ask you to explain how intuition and gut feelings qualify as more advanced forms of information analysis than the scientific method. These are in fact things that have been well documented to distort research data, namely in the forms of bias. It amounts to background noise and as we place better controls on experiments we can eliminate their interference, something we see demonstrated in the decline effect. I am not sure how the state of the world today as compared to the past has anything to do with the validity of science, but I indeed agree that the pursuit of science/technology is not any sort of ultimate answer to societies problems. Who is making that statement?

I am making that statement.

This isn't on the only source, but it framed the thoughts I had around the intuition as an advanced form of information processing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(book)


The discovery of benzene came in the form of a dream:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene


The discovery of DNA while popularized as happening while daydreaming may have occurred under the influence of LSD:
http://www.miqel.com/entheogens/francis_crick_dna_lsd.html