the END goal...

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

manored
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 02:05 pm
@TurboLung,
Thats something we can only guess. My bets:

*This universe is an experiment
*This universe is a game
*This universe somehow generates something necessary to someone

There are probally infinite bets like this, but, well... the more especific a bet, the lesser the chances of it being true Smile
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 02:09 pm
@TurboLung,
Why bet?

The universe is what it is. If we look hard enough we may learn a little bit about it. But I doubt anyone goes to their deathbed lamenting that life has not provided the ultimate answer.
 
manored
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 02:21 pm
@TurboLung,
It gives you ways to interpretate things... If I come across pacman I will know what kind of thing might be the reason Smile
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 02:44 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;69674 wrote:
Again, Rich, you have to fill in the it blank.

Let's pick something that we suppose to be genetic, like sickle cell anemia. You take people with sickle cell anemia (who all have anemia, and on a microscopic examination of their peripheral blood have sickle-shaped red cells). The most common protein in red cells is hemoglobin. If you do gene sequencing of the genes that encode hemoglobin, you find that patients with sickle cell anemia have a mutation at position 106 of the beta chain of hemoglobin.

What more do you want?


Hi Aedes,

What I am looking for are thoughts on where that all these things that you describe come from and why? The exploration of life.

I think it is fine that people go around observing things, documenting them, providing me with sequencing and other measurements, and do more research (they get money for this), to do more observations and measurements. However, it tells me nothing.

Suppose, I went around observing stuff, measuring stuff, naming stuff, and other such things. Would someone give me a research grant to do this? It would be a great job, but they probably wouldn't - unless of course I have a marketing pitch, such as, "if you give me money to do all of this observation and measurement, it may make you lots of money". So, the key idea behind any scientific marketing pitch is to give the money hook. Health, mechanics, computer technology, or whatever. If I came up with a good pitch, I too can go around observing, measuring, and naming, and earingn a pretty good living doing it.

But it takes Thought Experiments like Einsteins, Bohr's or Heisenberg's to move the understanding of life in a different direction for me. Do you have a Thought Experiment for me today? That is something I would thoroughly enjoy. Smile However, if you enjoy talking about observing and measuring things, I know that there are tons of people who enjoy that also. Each is OK.

Rich

---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 PM ----------

manored;69677 wrote:
Thats something we can only guess. My bets:

*This universe is an experiment
*This universe is a game
*This universe somehow generates something necessary to someone

There are probally infinite bets like this, but, well... the more especific a bet, the lesser the chances of it being true Smile


I sort of agree. I think it is about experimentation while playing games ... for its own amusement. :phone:

Rich

---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 PM ----------

Aedes;69679 wrote:
Why bet?

The universe is what it is. If we look hard enough we may learn a little bit about it. But I doubt anyone goes to their deathbed lamenting that life has not provided the ultimate answer.


Hi Aedes,

Not everyone, but I know that many people my age who do start thinking about all of these things. In the Hindu tradition, everything up to the age of 50 is just preparation for the what ever you are truly here in life to do. Lots of things happens to people after 50. Lots! Smile

Rich
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 03:04 pm
@richrf,
richrf;69690 wrote:
I think it is fine that people go around observing things, documenting them, providing me with sequencing and other measurements, and do more research... Do you have a Thought Experiment for me today? That is something I would thoroughly enjoy. Smile However, if you enjoy talking about observing and measuring things, I know that there are tons of people who enjoy that also. Each is OK.
Rich, I guess the question is what do you want to know? A scientific inquiry will answer mechanistic and materialistic questions, and it will similarly raise new questions. But if those aren't the kinds of questions that interest you, then there's no reason to judge your own questions against a scientific standard -- it will naturally leave you dissatisfied.
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 03:14 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;69700 wrote:
Rich, I guess the question is what do you want to know? A scientific inquiry will answer mechanistic and materialistic questions, and it will similarly raise new questions. But if those aren't the kinds of questions that interest you, then there's no reason to judge your own questions against a scientific standard -- it will naturally leave you dissatisfied.


Hi Aedes,

Scientists are limited to studying that which can be measured. Things I like to think about cannot be measured. Examples:

1) The nature of emotions?

2) Where did inherited characteristics come from?

3) What creates the sleep/awake cycle and is it related to the birth/death cycle.

4) Why do we switch between states of time/space and no time/no space (e.g. sleep). How does this happen?

5) What started it all going?

All these questions are equally part of the exploration of the Life. There are other parts such as playing basketball, dancing, measuring. I see all of these activities as equally valid. No one endeavor is higher in the hierarchy because I see them all on a circle. Sort of the way the Tarot pictures the journey through Life.

Rich
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 03:20 pm
@TurboLung,
Items 1 through 3 are thoroughly studied, without doubt. But I get the sense that the way scientists answer questions would kill the romance and mystery of them for you, and thus be dissatisfying however explanatory they may be. I don't quite get #4 except insofar as I'd respond that sleep is NOT a condition of no time / no space -- there is simply a lack of awareness. And #5 is the eternal question that science doesn't pretend to answer -- it just looks as far back as it can.

I'm fully imbued with the "miracle" of life when I look at my 1 year old son and think to myself my god how did we create this amazing, beautiful little being. I mean I know enough of the science to answer the "what" and the "how". It doesn't kill the romance of it for me -- I believe he's a miracle even though I don't believe in miracles, if you get my meaning.
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 03:23 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;69709 wrote:
I'm fully imbued with the "miracle" of life when I look at my 1 year old son and think to myself my god how did we create this amazing, beautiful little being. I mean I know enough of the science to answer the "what" and the "how". It doesn't kill the romance of it for me -- I believe he's a miracle even though I don't believe in miracles, if you get my meaning.


Hi Paul,

It is the miracle part that I am interested in. The non-physical which science cannot touch. And if there is any information about what are emotions I would be really interested.

We can begin with the scientific conclusions on what is Love? And while I don't want to muddy issues, if you can give me the scientific conclusions on how the mind switches from the awake state (time/space) into the sleep state (no time, no space), I would be fascinated. Exactly, what is a dream anyway?

Rich
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 08:34 pm
@TurboLung,
Rich, let me first say that these aren't things I've looked into in a lot of detail, but I do know some of the tools at the disposal of science. When neuropsychologists, cognitive scientists, etc ask a question about what is emotion, they often use objective measures (like PET scans or some other functional brain imaging) on subjects who are exposed to a scenario that reliably produces certain emotions. They then know what region of the brain is activated under these conditions. They can learn which neurotransmitters are released, and they can study people who have had obliterative lesions (like tumors or bleeds) in those regions to see what happens.

In other words, we can learn a lot about what it means to the brain when we experience love, anger, whatever. And we can learn for sure what are the things that trigger this response.

But that doesn't get at the "poetry" of it. We're greater than the sum of our parts. But that's perhaps only because we can't bear to think that we are only "things" -- in other words, we're only greater than the sum of our parts because we need to be in order to go on.
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 10:13 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;69788 wrote:
Rich, let me first say that these aren't things I've looked into in a lot of detail, but I do know some of the tools at the disposal of science. When neuropsychologists, cognitive scientists, etc ask a question about what is emotion, they often use objective measures (like PET scans or some other functional brain imaging) on subjects who are exposed to a scenario that reliably produces certain emotions. They then know what region of the brain is activated under these conditions. They can learn which neurotransmitters are released, and they can study people who have had obliterative lesions (like tumors or bleeds) in those regions to see what happens.

In other words, we can learn a lot about what it means to the brain when we experience love, anger, whatever. And we can learn for sure what are the things that trigger this response.

But that doesn't get at the "poetry" of it. We're greater than the sum of our parts. But that's perhaps only because we can't bear to think that we are only "things" -- in other words, we're only greater than the sum of our parts because we need to be in order to go on.


Hi Paul,

Yes, I agree. Some scientists understand the limits of their study and are content with their instrumentation and what it can produce - e.g. observation and measurement. Some scientists go further and suggest that that is ALL that is needed to be studied and explored. For me it is too boring to stop there in my life. I enjoy moving into the realm of metaphysics and interpretations of what is observed and measured.

Rich
 
manored
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 03:06 pm
@richrf,
richrf;69690 wrote:


I sort of agree. I think it is about experimentation while playing games ... for its own amusement. :phone:

You mean, the universe experimenting and playing games with and inside itself? Too much metaness for my brain, so I will stick to my simpler teories Smile

richrf;69690 wrote:

Not everyone, but I know that many people my age who do start thinking about all of these things. In the Hindu tradition, everything up to the age of 50 is just preparation for the what ever you are truly here in life to do. Lots of things happens to people after 50. Lots! Smile

Rich
Like trucks! Big Trucks!

Sorry, couldnt resist Smile

richrf;69711 wrote:
Hi Paul,

It is the miracle part that I am interested in. The non-physical which science cannot touch. And if there is any information about what are emotions I would be really interested.

We can begin with the scientific conclusions on what is Love? And while I don't want to muddy issues, if you can give me the scientific conclusions on how the mind switches from the awake state (time/space) into the sleep state (no time, no space), I would be fascinated. Exactly, what is a dream anyway?

Rich
Emotions are the drivers of logic. Thats why computers dont do things by thenselves, unless they have bugs... bugs are kinda like emotions, because they cause unlogical things to happen. Personally I see emotions as really complex logical chains, kinda like (If x > 10, do this, else do that)... but billions and billions more complex Smile

I have a teory for dreams and the awake/sleeping state as well Smile

Its based on some weird thing that happens to me then I sleep outside my usual sleeping time. This weird things is that I have "shallow dreams" wich are dreams that seen to be lesser than normal at everthing: I wake up with greater ease, I dont fell like I was sleeping, but rather in deep reflection, they dont seen as real as normal dreams, etc. It feels like my mind made a "low angled" entrance in the sleeping state rather than a dive.

based on this, I made up this teory:

*In our mind we have two kinds of thoughs, conscient and inconscient.
*Conscient thoughs are self-explanatory Smile
*Inconscient thoughs are those that show up winhout being summoned. For example: you are thinking about a situation of terror and suddently you realize there is a terror music playing in your mind.
*We have both kinds in our mind all the time, in different quantities.
*When we are awake, the conscient thoughs reign and the inconscient ones are minimal, almost imperceptible.
*When we are asleep, the opposite happens a thus the extreme profusion of inconscient thoughs form the dream. But a small part of conscience is still there, watching the dream, but in a reduced state where it lacks the logical capability necessary to realize its a dream.
*Eventually logic recovers control at wich point we usually awake. Personally I would like to be able to hold some dreams for a while after logic takes over, but I manage that very poorly Smile
*The weaker the logical part is at the moment, less likely the "im here" bell is to ring, hence why we dont notice then we are falling asleep and why we dont notice we are dreaming for most of the dream.
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 05:06 pm
@manored,
manored;69931 wrote:
You mean, the universe experimenting and playing games with and inside itself? Too much metaness for my brain, so I will stick to my simpler teories Smile


Yep. This thought derives from Heraclitus Logos, Daoism's Dao, with special mention to Itzhak Bentov. :-)

Quote:
based on this, I made up this theory


I think most people would agree that the experience of awake and the experience of sleep are different. [I am open to the possibility that for some people it is the same.]

So, what I contemplate is how the heck to we pop from one state (four dimensional space/time0 into the other state (no space no time). What the heck is going on that causes that sudden switch? So I am looking for a Grand Theory of Consciousness. Not one that attempts to explain only the Awake state while ignoring the Sleep state. Some theory that explains it all as one cohesive Consciousness and existence. I have my own theory, but if you think the above was too much, you are definitely not ready for this. :bigsmile:

Rich
 
manored
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 06:18 pm
@TurboLung,
Thats different. The "above" can be whatever I want, so I will make it simple Smile

As for a grand teory of consciousness: There is none satisfactory.

Why? Because I am my consciousness are one, its just language that make they seen different. I can never completly know myself therefore I cannot completly know consciousness.

I can ever completly know myself because that would be my end. I cannot end because I didnt begin.

I didnt begin because if I had that would have been an infinite amount of time ago.

Here we hit the fundamental question, Why I exist. Thats the one question that cannot be answered, for that would be the end of everthing. And, as everthing never started, it cannot end Smile

See, unsatisfactory.
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 07:20 pm
@TurboLung,
[quote]Precisely to the point. For me, saying the Genes did it, is exactly like saying God did it. What the heck is this material thing called a Gene that desires to live and pass on its attributes (all of them) to another Gene.[/quote]
At the end of the day, some intelligent being HAD to have programmed our genes/dna. If you think about it, it seems stupidly impossible for genes and dna [which are basically commands & programming] to have "accidently" fallen together. Like i said before, it would be like a tornado destroying a village but combining parts "accidently" to make a boeing 747.
[quote]Except you can find out which gene did it and its precise mechanism by using reverse genetics and molecular biology. I've yet to see a laboratory technique that leads us back to god.[/quote]

you can find which gene did it, but you can't say how the programming got into that gene.

[quote]But I doubt anyone goes to their deathbed lamenting that life has not provided the ultimate answer.[/quote]

i will. i constantly think about these types of things and i can't stand it!

[quote]We can begin with the scientific conclusions on what is Love? And while I don't want to muddy issues, if you can give me the scientific conclusions on how the mind switches from the awake state (time/space) into the sleep state (no time, no space), I would be fascinated. Exactly, what is a dream anyway?[/quote]

isn't dreaming supposed to be like 'de-frag' on your pc's hard drive? sorting out events and storing them in your mind. this is why you get things mixed up and weird stories kind of evolve...
however, i had a dream once that i was kneeling on red carpet and opening a cardboard box. inside was a broken vase. now, i woke up and remembered the dream as clear as a bell. I thought about the meaning of the black broken vase and told people about it. about 6-monthd later [this is when i was young and worked part time at Target], i was doing stock take at target. i was kneeling on the floor, red carpet] and was removing items from cardboard boxes to place on the shelf. i opened one and there it was; the broken black vase...
dreams though, i would normally say are nothing special. i mean, close your eyes. you can think and you are in a non-time, non- space arena.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 08:33 pm
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;69983 wrote:
At the end of the day, some intelligent being HAD to have programmed our genes/dna. If you think about it, it seems stupidly impossible for genes and dna [which are basically commands & programming] to have "accidently" fallen together. Like i said before, it would be like a tornado destroying a village but combining parts "accidently" to make a boeing 747.
I read this a lot, yet the thing is that no one in science actually believes that one day there was a bunch of organic garbage and the next day there was complex life.

It all happened one step at a time over billions of years. Going from primordial soup to TurboLung or Aedes is impossible.

But going from primordial soup to amino acids, to lipids, to 3-carbon sugars, over the span of millions of years, was probably extremely likely. Going from TurboLung's parents to TurboLung was extremely likely. Going to humans from our common ancestor with chimps may also have been very likely.

There were an infinite number of other ultimate outcomes besides us, long ago at the dawn of life. It just happens that the transitions were crossed that led us here. We were one of a billion possibilities.

No guiding hand needed. Only time.
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 08:53 pm
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;69983 wrote:
i would normally say are nothing special. i mean, close your eyes. you can think and you are in a non-time, non- space arena.


If you can lose the sensation of time ... but then, how does the mind do it?

Rich
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 10:00 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;69996 wrote:
I read this a lot, yet the thing is that no one in science actually believes that one day there was a bunch of organic garbage and the next day there was complex life.


"organic garbage" is life.

Dictionary:
http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifk)
adj. 1. Of, relating to, or derived from living organisms: organic matter.

so, i would find it hard to believe that in-organic matter such as rock, mineral, water and so on, could somehow gel to make an organic object, that is to say something that lives.

Scientisits have been trying to recreate life for years now in vaccum jars by striking electricity into water etc etc, with no success.

how could stupid, inanimate objects suddenly stick together in some impossible way to combine into a moving, living thing?

the only answer that make sense [which i am not saying is correct] is that there is a thinking being that started the process. i would not pin it on any God that people believe in, but possibly some being that really couldn't give two-cups-of-rat's-**** about us.



Quote:
It all happened one step at a time over billions of years. Going from primordial soup to TurboLung or Aedes is impossible.


regarding my comment above, i really don't think any amount of time would matter for life to accidently appear. you could put a rock in a jar of water and wait trillions of years and nothing i believe would happen [unless you believe 100% in quantum theory].

i understand your statement of time; yes, once life was kicked off, then time played a role in developing our species on this planet from microbes to us. but time in relation to creating life from nothing seems impossible.

Quote:
But going from primordial soup to amino acids, to lipids, to 3-carbon sugars, over the span of millions of years, was probably extremely likely. Going from TurboLung's parents to TurboLung was extremely likely. Going to humans from our common ancestor with chimps may also have been very likely.


okay, so you jumped the gap of actually getting to the primordial soup, and then the jump to lipids. do you think lipids are simple structures? they have complex design and purpose.

QUOTE:

The main biological functions of lipids include energy storage, as structural components of cell membranes, and as important signaling molecules.
Lipids may be broadly defined as hydrophobic or amphiphilic small molecules; the amphiphilic nature of some lipids allows them to form structures such as vesicles, liposomes, or membranes in an aqueous environment.

how did they get from the primordial soup, that [in what you say] is garbage? something HAD to make the first move. so, was it a metal that decided to attach itself to a mineral which then all of a sudden was organic?

Quote:
There were an infinite number of other ultimate outcomes besides us, long ago at the dawn of life. It just happens that the transitions were crossed that led us here. We were one of a billion possibilities.

No guiding hand needed. Only time.


i agree. we are are lottery. anything could have evolved, survived etc. but, you are jumping too far ahead. i am concerned with the bit between lifeless objects deciding to live. that connection seems unlikely to have accidently happened.

:perplexed:
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Thu 18 Jun, 2009 03:32 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;70016 wrote:
how could stupid, inanimate objects suddenly stick together in some impossible way to combine into a moving, living thing?

Impossible? The various chemical reactions are well understood, none of it is impossible. This video gives a nice primer into abiogenesis, which is the theory of how life began:

YouTube - 3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy (for schools)
TurboLung;70016 wrote:
Regarding my comment above, i really don't think any amount of time would matter for life to accidently appear. you could put a rock in a jar of water and wait trillions of years and nothing i believe would happen [unless you believe 100% in quantum theory].



Because a rock in a jar of water has no real correlation to the primordial soup.
  • The rock in the water is a static environment - the primordial soup was not.
  • Energy cannot be transferred to the jar like it was to the primordial soup (lightning, sunlight, ocean hot vents and so on).
  • There is no catalyst in the jar, there were catalysts in the primordial soup.
Also: Can you explain to me what quantum theory would have to do with it? I am interested in quantum but I don't understand it very well. I suspect you are just name-dropping but I would love to know how quantum would increase the chances of life occuring in jars of water.

Quote:
i understand your statement of time; yes, once life was kicked off, then time played a role in developing our species on this planet from microbes to us. but time in relation to creating life from nothing seems impossible.

Because once the process of abiogenesis is understood the only real objection to it occuring is the likelihood of the reactions needed to take place taking place.

Hence the need for time.

Quote:
okay, so you jumped the gap of actually getting to the primordial soup, and then the jump to lipids. do you think lipids are simple structures? they have complex design and purpose.


Just because something can be asserted it doesn't make it true.

Knowing what molecules would have been in the primordial soup and the conditions they were under it is easy to see why lipids would form given a modicum of knowledge of chemistry.

Without the properties of amino acids which attract lipids (a process that can be fully explained through natural selection) the lipids would have just floated singly, or formed bonds with one another.

The only purpose they can be said to perform for sure - the biological ones - need no designer to understand, they are explained fully through chemistry and biology. Their purpose is as a result of the chemical and biological processes, not for them.

Quote:
how did they get from the primordial soup, that [in what you say] is garbage? something HAD to make the first move. so, was it a metal that decided to attach itself to a mineral which then all of a sudden was organic?

Just elementary chemical reactions - no more special really than the formation of oxides or metals in the first place.

Quote:
i agree. we are are lottery. anything could have evolved, survived etc. but, you are jumping too far ahead. i am concerned with the bit between lifeless objects deciding to live. that connection seems unlikely to have accidently happened.

Well I hope watching the video will introduce you to the theory of abiogenesis and help allay any objections you might be having at the moment.
 
richrf
 
Reply Thu 18 Jun, 2009 08:47 am
@Dave Allen,
Hi,

There is a very good book by Bernard d'Espagnat, On Physics and Philosophy, in which he discusses the implicit limits to science. I am amazed that so many scientists do not recognize the limits that they place upon themselves. As physical observers of life, scientists are limited by what they can observe via instrumentation.

Words such as energy, catalyst chemicals, properties ... these are all simply words (symbols) placed on observable objects and phenomenon, but they do not explain what they are and where they came from. They mark the stopping point (at this time in history) of observable behavior.

Within the scope of metaphysics (beyond physics), I enjoy contemplating the the why and how of all of these phenomenon. Heraclitus, thousands of years, before there were any instrumentation that could observe quantum effects, thought via mind experiments about the possibility of a connected fabric within our universe and constant change caused by the connected aspects of mind and matter.

How did the whole thing start moving? What was the impetus? Why does something want to stick together? Is it related to the notion of curved space/time and gravity? Is gravity (attractiveness) related to love (attractiveness). And why does space/time disappear in the state of sleep? These are interesting questions for me.

For me, it is alright that those who call themselves scientists stop where they wish. It is their lives and if they are comfortable with the notions of energy, matter, catalyst, properties as being sufficient to explain everything, then that is fine for me. What bothers me is when they insist that these are answers and do not allow metaphysics to go beyond this. I am in a different space/time and from where I stand there is much more to contemplate and understand.

Rich
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Thu 18 Jun, 2009 09:45 am
@richrf,
richrf;70086 wrote:
Words such as energy, catalyst chemicals, properties ... these are all simply words (symbols) placed on observable objects and phenomenon, but they do not explain what they are and where they came from.

Yes - just like all words. Some understanding of the words is necessary to make more of them than simple symbols.

Quote:
Within the scope of metaphysics (beyond physics), I enjoy contemplating the the why and how of all of these phenomenon. Heraclitus, thousands of years, before there were any instrumentation that could observe quantum effects, thought via mind experiments about the possibility of a connected fabric within our universe and constant change caused by the connected aspects of mind and matter.

In the same way, Aristotle thought that animals probably changed into different species some 2,000 odd years before Darwin. However, it took Darwin to propose a scientific framework as to how evolution probably occurs that can stand up to rigorous scientific examination.

It's not to say that science has some remit to propose and solve problems or mysteries in and of itself. However, the answers to such questions are answered in a way which seems most pleasing to people as a gestalt through some application of the scientific method - in other words if it can be seen to be true and if demonstrations designed to falsify it do not work.

Quote:
How did the whole thing start moving? What was the impetus? Why does something want to stick together? Is it related to the notion of curved space/time and gravity? Is gravity (attractiveness) related to love (attractiveness). And why does space/time disappear in the state of sleep? These are interesting questions for me.

For me, it is alright that those who call themselves scientists stop where they wish. It is their lives and if they are comfortable with the notions of energy, matter, catalyst, properties as being sufficient to explain everything, then that is fine for me. What bothers me is when they insist that these are answers and do not allow metaphysics to go beyond this. I am in a different space/time and from where I stand there is much more to contemplate and understand.

Sure, science cannot adequately account for everything at the moment. However, in reference to this thread, science provides robust explanations for things like evolution and abiogenesis, and it shows more promise in divulging how the universe began and similar problems.

When it comes to "why" questions I think one has to be quite wary. In human afairs why questions are pretty important - because in order to understand the psychological impetus for human behaviour or the makeup of human cultures we have to ask about what factors may have brought them about. The diversity of choices humans are able to make means that anything involving humans demands a bit of why and wherefore in order to understand.

However, I think it's a sign of human ego that we tend to assume that other forms of life, or even inanimate objects require "why" explanations without being satisfied with a "here's how" answer.

Personally I find metaphysical musings on things that fall out of the current ambit of science pretty boring when other people propose them and quite fascinating when I think of them myself - but they do seem to be a product of human egos. Whilst I think we all have a metaphysical drive to find certain concepts such as how the universe began or what happens to consciousness when we die I don't actually mind that they remain unanswered. However, if anyone could propose a way we could discover them I would be interested - but only if it involved the scientific method. Whenever someone says "consider this this way like I do" using a method with no evidence or logic to how it might work - I think I can do that pretty well by myself.

So by all means contemplate and understand to your own benefit - despite your claims that people say you must think as they do I don't beleive anyone is trying to stop you. However I doubt the fruits of such personal soul searching will be as communicable or useful to others as scientific discoveries made in the meantime.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 04:46:37