• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Eternal Life - Pros & Cons. If not, why not?

but that isn't backed up by observation, no observation, no dice.
this statement is a belief. It is the belief (and an entirely human and fallible belief) that if science can not observe it, it does not exist.

however, as has been greatly evidenced in the past, there is much that was unobserved and unable to be observed - did atoms exist before science could observe them? By your belief no.

Science has chosen to believe and operate in a purely mechanistic world view / belief system ignoring any other world views and worse deriding them and deeming them 'myths'.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
 
this statement is a belief. It is the belief (and an entirely human and fallible belief) that if science can not observe it, it does not exist.

As you've decided to quote half a sentence I can say that is an illogical expansion of a specific point. I never said that unobserved phenomena does not exist, my full sentence reads:

'Telepathy is a myth, there are people that believe in it but that isn't backed up by observation, no observation, no dice.'

Telepathy is not unobserved phenomena, it is a mythical ability with no scientific evidence to back it up.

I believe in unobserved phenomena but I trust in science to verify the truth.
 
Telepathy is not unobserved phenomena, it is a mythical ability with no scientific evidence to back it up.

as per a very limited world view that excludes such things as 'myth' - the belief system that such things are mythical already precludes the possibility of it existing hence everything else I said still stands.
 
as per a very limited world view that excludes such things as 'myth' - the belief system that such things are mythical already precludes the possibility of it existing hence everything else I said still stands.

The fact that precludes telepathy existing is that it was never real in the first place.
 
The fact that precludes telepathy existing is that it was never real in the first place.

as per current 'scientific' belief systems. That belief may or may not be true. It may be quite observably true at some point in the future or not. Neither of us know that yet. Making such an absolute statement about what is or isn't real isn't sensible when faced with the facts about what science 'knew' with such certainty in the past, which subsequently turned out not to be true and vice versa.

People who make new leaps in knowledge like Einstein or Newton or Gallileo thought completely outside the limitations of what was assumed to be true at the time.
 
Don't forget Darwin.

Darwin ... true ... but as with other outmoded theories one day evolution will be on the rubbish heap, a mere historical curiousity that will fill people with amusement that there was a time people believed such nonsense, rather like we laugh at the notion of a flat earth ...

And I don't need ESP to predict that one ;) :p
 
But I do have a brain :) and I know better than to exclude the possibility :) based on past experience. Lessons of history and all that :)

Here's a history lesson then, of all the people that have claimed to be telepathic not one has been verified as being actually telepathic.
 
Here's a history lesson then, of all the people that have claimed to be telepathic not one has been verified as being actually telepathic.

that may yet be proved to be true but given the present outright opposition science has to such things, despite their supposed neutrality in experimentation, I'm not yet prepared to make an absolute statement on the matter. I think it is near impossible to think sufficiently creatively about a subject to devise a reliable method of observation / experimentation when your fundamental position is total disbelief.
 
Darwin ... true ... but as with other outmoded theories one day evolution will be on the rubbish heap, a mere historical curiousity that will fill people with amusement that there was a time people believed such nonsense, rather like we laugh at the notion of a flat earth ...

And I don't need ESP to predict that one ;) :p

You are funny, evolution is a theory based on observation which has led to a whole new branch of practiced science.

Telepathy is an ability that no one has been found to possess and consequently has never been observed.

You don't believe in evolution but you believe in the possibility of telepathy.

See the irony...
 
You are funny, evolution is a theory based on observation which has led to a whole new branch of practiced science.

Telepathy is an ability that no one has been found to possess and consequently has never been observed.

You don't believe in evolution but you believe in the possibility of telepathy.

See the irony...

see reply above - I believe that disbelief precludes accurate observation. Until science changes its belief systems about things it is so sure can not exist I'm not inclined to take their word for it.
 
see reply above - I believe that disbelief precludes accurate observation. Until science changes its belief systems about things it is so sure can not exist I'm not inclined to take their word for it.

That is why your argument is fundamentally flawed. Everything around us is subject to observation, theory and experiment. We can believe in anything but proving anything takes a bit more effort.
 
That is why your argument is fundamentally flawed. Everything around us is subject to observation, theory and experiment. We can believe in anything but proving anything takes a bit more effort.

I think we have both stated our positions clearly and shouldn't start repeating ourselves.
 
As you've decided to quote half a sentence I can say that is an illogical expansion of a specific point. I never said that unobserved phenomena does not exist, my full sentence reads:

'Telepathy is a myth, there are people that believe in it but that isn't backed up by observation, no observation, no dice.'

Telepathy is not unobserved phenomena, it is a mythical ability with no scientific evidence to back it up.

I believe in unobserved phenomena but I trust in science to verify the truth.

Radio waves cannot be observed. They can be artificially monitored through the use of instruments which were developed precisely for the purpose of validating a theory. These instruments were developed because someone took the time and effort to investigate with an open mind. Had they not done so any scientific discussion of radio waves would today be considered a pursuit of pseudoscience, as would any discussion regarding atomic theory or gravity.
 
On observation and theory:
I like to think of theory as a black box. We know the conditions and results of what happens (observation), but we do not know why things happen (the mechanism inside the black box). A theory is our guess as to what's inside the black box... If the theory can't be disproved, then it's good enough to be virtually true (until it's disproved, of course).

On celestial and planetary motion:
With all due respect but by direct observation the sun does appear to orbit the earth and the stars observably wheel across the sky with the earth at the center of the rotation. We needed to devise entirely new methods of observation before the 'evidence' our eyes was refuted. Without either endorsing or condemning ESP, just based on the history of science I have to allow for the possibility that we have not yet devised a suitable method of observing a phenomenon many people believe to be real, just as observing the true rotation of the earth was not possible prior to the invention of telescopes.

In fact without a telescope and certain kinds of measurements my eyes still tell me the sun and stars move and I don't.

And technically one can not observe the sub-atomic particles within the nucleus of an atom either.

Subatomic particles can never be directly visualized. First, the wavelengths that would interact with same are FAR too energetic, so you could never work with radiation of that wavelength. Second, since the smallest "tip" you can have in a microscopy type of technique is an atom, you cannot use that type of approach to visualize something smaller than an atom (and even the easy subatomic particles, such as protons, neutrons, and electrons, are millions of times smaller than whole atoms). However, since most subatomic particles are extremely energetic, they interact with matter in predictable ways. The classic way that they were indirectly visualized was with cloud chambers--atoms would be smashed together in gas, and when they would essentially explode you'd see lines and curves of bubbles forming in the gas in ways that could be mathematically predicted based on the knowledge of the particles. Many subatomic particles were also discovered in such ways, because people saw lines and curves in the bubble chambers that they couldn't explain, so they realized a new particle must exist.
On the contrary, while the sun does appear to orbit the Earth, the planets do not... And that observation was made many, many centuries before Copernicus postulated a heliocentric universe.
The unpredictable motion of the planets baffled astronomers, and many came up with complex theories to predict planetary motion (but ultimately could not). A heliocentric system was a simple solution to this complex problem, while still being able to predict the motion of other celestial bodies. But the idea was so thoroughly rejected in favour of a geocentric one. Why? Because the idea that the Earth was not the centre of the universe was simply unfathomable. Again, why? Because Aristotle.

Aristotle's philosophies had very strong influence at the time, and the church promoted Aristotle because a lot of his theories agreed with religious theology.
His geocentric universe (surrounded by perfect crystal spheres (in which were perfect spherical bodies; stars), outside of which was some force controlling the motion of the spheres) so agreed with the idea of God controlling the motions of the perfect, unblemished, heavens that surround our shitty planet that the theory became Pope-approved science!

Often you will find that the mistakes in our theories, and our resistance to change the way we think as a flaw of humans and our attachment to the pre-existing ideas (proposed by society, religion, and yes, science (or rather, the institutions and upholders of science that have become so powerful)) we have known all our lives. But it is not the fault of the scientific method.

On subatomic particles:
They are not directly observable, but we can observe their influence on the world. Essentially, they are the mechanism inside the black box...
(Just like how Higgs particles explain why some massless particles have mass.)

...

The fault of science is that it believes it's right and fails to learn the fundamental lesson of its own history. Existing theories may 'work' in terms of current knowledge but may, just may be overturned entirely tomorrow consigning it to the history books.

...

Why is it any different now? Science is as hampered by the limitations of its own belief structures as it ever was because people are people and are prone to being blind to things outside of their own beliefs.

Whether its the possibility of time travel, ESP or eternal life (or evolution) at any moment some one who can break through the barrier of the disbelief of belief can turn all we know on its head, as has happened so many times in the past.

I think that is a strength of science, and not a fault. It believes it's right, until it's not... and can then admit it's wrong and change it's theories to explain the observations that don't make sense. (Therefore it is forever right?)

Well, yes, all belief structures are like that, including science. To be otherwise is to be ambivalent...

Science is not infallible that's the whole point. Observations are made, theories are proposed based upon observation and experiments are devised to test the theories. When the experiments don't work or produce unexpected results the theories are superceded by new theories and tested with new experiments.

It doesn't require belief, it's method, when you say 'with our current ability this is what we can observe' that is very true of science in general. Science doesn't have to correspond with ancient unchanging books of myth and doctrine, what is observed is the basis of scientific enquiry, nothing more, nothing less.

Telepathy is a myth, there are people that believe in it but that isn't backed up by observation, no observation, no dice.

Science is a belief system (and if you want, it can be called advanced metaphysics). People don't have to believe in science (and they didn't at first), but science has become so powerful, and has proven it's worth time and time again. Something other belief systems have failed to do, science has gained credibility.

Telepathy isn't that far out there. We are already on the brink of using mind-controlled technologies (thanks to BCI's, they are available, mainly for the disabled, but very expensive)... what's to say telepathic communication won't be possible in the future too?
... That probably wasn't what you were thinking of...
 
Radio waves cannot be observed. They can be artificially monitored through the use of instruments which were developed precisely for the purpose of validating a theory. These instruments were developed because someone took the time and effort to investigate with an open mind. Had they not done so any scientific discussion of radio waves would today be considered a pursuit of pseudoscience, as would any discussion regarding atomic theory or gravity.

Radio waves can be observed... James Clark Maxwell based his wave equations on the observation of light.

Telepathy, no one has been verified as a telepath, there's no mechanism or detectable form of energy or any sort of theory. In other words nothing.

By the way observation includes any sort of instrument or sense.
 
Radio waves can be observed... James Clark Maxwell based his wave equations on the observation of light.

Telepathy, no one has been verified as a telepath, there's no mechanism or detectable form of energy or any sort of theory. In other words nothing.

By the way observation includes any sort of instrument or sense.


I think what many people are trying to say is that just because science does not have the technology/theory/whatever to prove or disprove telepathy, at this point in time, does not mean that it does not exist.
 
I have never maintained that humans have paranormal abilities, only that perhaps after many, many generations of natural selection the day may come when they will. The thrust [that part] of my argument is that science will not examine the possibility that the vestiges of such abilities may be present in the population. Why is it so impossible for scientists to accept that some people may have rudimentary sensory ability to know what is behind a wall and out of their sight but at the same time can accept the fact that we are able to know what is at the other side of a room without direct physical contact? The fact that I can stand on a mountain top and KNOW that ten miles away there is a river because I can see it is just as unbelievable, perhaps even more so, than knowing through another sensory channel what is behind a wall that I cannot see through which is only ten feet away. There is no proof that someone can know what is on the other side of a wall that they cannot see through but to maintain that this will NEVER be possible is both an irresponsible and chauvinistic position to take especially for scientists who I always thought were seekers of truth.

The main point I wanted to make in my original response to this thread was that the day may come when communication with other intelligent life forms in the universe may occur as a result of telepathic communication. Obviously this is currently impossible given our present physical, psychic and technology status. In the example I gave I was jumping eons ahead of our current evolutionary status to make the case that evolution is not over - it is never over as long as there are environmental stresses to be overcome. The example I gave suggested that telepathy may be the only way we would be able to communicate given the enormous distances and limitations of technology (as we know it today). I certainly do not think that communication will ever take place with physical machines (spacecraft) or radio waves ... our entire species will be extinct before radio waves can reach another civilization, and that is assuming we point the bloody transmitter in the right direction amid an infinite number of directions to start with, and then wait a few thousand centuries for the radio waves of their response to arrive.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top