From: Matt Paul (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 30 2009 - 15:08:01 MST
On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:35 PM, "John K Clark" <email@example.com>
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 "Matt Paul" <firstname.lastname@example.org
>> I don't know why you insist that everyone is stuck in some sort of
>> medival way of thinking.
> You're talking about something that the scientific method cannot
> that is nevertheless of enormous importance, just like the soul. And I
> don't care if these vital signals that make us be us come from
> heaven or
> the eleventh dimension the idea is indistinguishable from a soul.
It is very distinguishable, that's why I tried to use a science/math
perspective to illustrate. What I call a soul would not fit into the
concept of dimensions necessarily, and if it did, I would probably
have to stop calling it a soul. That's why I have NOT been talking
about a soul, because it doesn't fit into science. Dimensions do,
dimensions can be observed, etc.
> the worse crime of all is that your idea explains absolutely NOTHING,
> not one goddamn thing, it just pushes the problem upstairs just as the
> soul idea does. A dimension is just another direction, how in hell
> can a
> direction that I happen to have not experienced before explain the
> mysteries of existence?
How does 2 dimensions explain area? How does 3 explain volume?
Why do you assume that the only things that are key to your existence
are the things you have up to this point experienced consciously?
One day I think these will be observed, measured, and brought
comfortably into the realm of science?
Before anyone saw blood, was there blood in a body?
If anyone here is stuck in a medival mindset it seems to be you.
Do you doubt quantum mechanics?
Was everyone an idiot that thought about it before it was observable?
Do you think we have discovered everything already?
>> If everything you can't currently measure or detect is just a soul,
>> then why pursue science at all.
> You are postulating something that cannot be measure or detected to
> explain something that we're already doing a fine job of explaining
> without it, and to add insult to injury your addition doesn't explain
> anything, you just add another useless layer of complexity.
Ok, Occam's razor. Sure. But we aren't doing a fine job of explaining
Explain imagination, explain art.
Do that with the tools we already have, build me a machine that
imagines and I'll shut up.
> If you are a fan of the soul let me offer you an alternative,
> information is as close as you can get to the traditional concept of
> soul and still remain within the scientific method. Consider the
> The soul is non material and so is information. It's difficult to pin
> down a unique physical location for the soul, and the same is true for
> information. The soul is the essential, must have, part of
> consciousness, exactly the same situation is true for information. The
> soul is immortal and so, potentially, is information.
> But there are also important differences too.
> A soul is unique but information can be duplicated. The soul is and
> always remain unfathomable, but information is understandable, in
> information is the ONLY thing that is understandable. Information
> unambiguously exists, I don't think anyone would deny that, but if the
> soul exists it will never be proven scientifically.
Once again, not talking about soul.
I never said any of this was unfathomable, you did. I believe it is
only a matter of time.
Does dark matter exist? Has anyone produced a single particle of it?
Nobody can prove it does other than to say it must because mass is
missing. Non-existence of one thing doesn't prove the existence of
So does it exist? Are physicists just wasting grant money? What about
the so-called god-particle quest. Are the scientists at CERN just
chasing a soul or something like that, or are they looking for
something that they are having to figure out how to find?
So those who pursued dark matter were fools chasing some unfathomable
concept? Come on John.
You are being an ass just to be an ass.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 21 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT