|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 30, 2009 14:01:11 GMT -6
buddy:
There is nothing ridiculous about it. The strength of modern science rests precisely on not accepting any mysterious, supernatural hooey-balooey explanations or causes for things. By sticking to a strictly naturalistic, materialistic framework great advances have been made and great idiocies have been overthrown. Think of where we would be if scientists had merely invoked the supernatural or mysterious when dealing with things like electricity or magnetism or gravity. Sticking to a purely materialistic interpretation of the physical world has vastly improved our understanding of the way things work, vastly lengthened our lives, improved our health, brought us into contact with peoples and cultures we never would have heard of, and, of course, we wouldn't be able to even have this conversation in this kind of forum were it not for that. What is ridiculous is your appeal to an invisible intelligent source or an invisible over-mind as if those were some sort of explanations of something. Thought takes place by a series of chemical interactions, a series of simultaneous firings of synapses. Some advancement has been made in discovering how that takes place and there will be much more in the future. The best course for us is to try to discover what we really are in the context of modern science. The old metaphors no longer work. We need newer and better ones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2009 14:25:32 GMT -6
buddy: There is nothing ridiculous about it. The strength of modern science rests precisely on not accepting any mysterious, supernatural hooey-balooey explanations or causes for things. By sticking to a strictly naturalistic, materialistic framework great advances have been made and great idiocies have been overthrown. Think of where we would be if scientists had merely invoked the supernatural or mysterious when dealing with things like electricity or magnetism or gravity. Sticking to a purely materialistic interpretation of the physical world has vastly improved our understanding of the way things work, vastly lengthened our lives, improved our health, brought us into contact with peoples and cultures we never would have heard of, and, of course, we wouldn't be able to even have this conversation in this kind of forum were it not for that. What is ridiculous is your appeal to an invisible intelligent source or an invisible over-mind as if those were some sort of explanations of something. Thought takes place by a series of chemical interactions, a series of simultaneous firings of synapses. Some advancement has been made in discovering how that takes place and there will be much more in the future. The best course for us is to try to discover what we really are in the context of modern science. The old metaphors no longer work. We need newer and better ones. I don't think Newton would agree, his work was premised on looking for God in the natural world. The"strength of modern science" has nothing to do with embracing materialism, it's success is based upon inspiration, which is given by paramatma. When you seek to understand biology or math, physics or astronomy, geology or chemistry, etc, it isn't a prerequisite that you must rule out divine presence or non-material dimensions. In fact doing so as a rule will lead to dead ends in certain fields, e.g. origin of life, origin of mind/memory, cosmology, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Jun 30, 2009 19:56:48 GMT -6
You seem to be interested in nothing but ad hominem and other similar types of rhetoric, why even bother? Why not be happy with your baseless sense of superiority and smugness? Why must you share it with others? It ain't a pretty sight, I tell you what. Hee hee. Sorry Buddy, but what else do you expect when your "rebuttal" contains links to several webpages on "logic" and your responses to my points were completely illogical? If you think I am superior and smug, why is that a surprise when you have spent the last eight years acting the same way on internet forums? Atmavan manyate jagat, and all that. See? I know shastra. ;D I wish you would listen to Nitai much more. He is absolutely on the money when he basically suggests that one should know something reasonably well before presenting an idea of it. Failure to do so runs the risk of backfiring and exposing the speaker as an ignoramus. Since you speak with certitude, indeed what use is there in sharing my knowledge with someone who thinks they know it all? This is how I felt when I read your post. But never mind, let me take a stab at it and explain to you why you were incorrect. If reductionist metaphysical naturalism is true (the foundation of modern science) than memes have to be explainable in physical terms, e.g. the mind is supposedly the product of chemicals interacting with each other in the brain. Your first comment shows that you have not been following the discussion properly. It was Malati who was demanding that if Dawkins' meme theory was true, he should be consistent and explain memes in physical/material terms. What did I say in response to this? I said that the idea of that is ludicrous: memes are ideas, or thoughts, in other words. Is there a thing as a physical thought? Either way, Dawkins is to be credited with first presenting the concept of memes (comparing them to genes as he does), but if one were to go about investigating the 'physicality' of memes, Dawkins would be incapable of doing this. Why? Because Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and the demand being made here is within the domain of neuroscience. It isn't in Dawkin's remit to speak expertly of neuroscience as it isn't his field, that's why asking him to be consistent (per Malati's demand) is ridiculous. The point I am making here is that a convergence of various scientific fields would have to happen before an attempt is even made at investigating the "physicality" of a meme. Neither of you knew this, and that is why I said the idea is ludicrous. Incredibly premature at best. Oh, thank you very much for approving my opinion as correct. Did you know that the rest of your sentence was incorrect? Evolutionary biology is not the be-all and end-all of modern science. And when, pray tell, did a "hard" science like biology come on a par with a "soft" science like psychology? And evolutionary psychology, to boot? Do you know how harshly evolutionary psychology is criticised? It is one of the weakest areas of psychology, primarily because a lot of it is based on nothing more than speculation and guesswork. I feel bad about this because I admit I do have a soft spot for evolutionary psychology, but as someone with a scientific view of life I have to take into account various factors before I approach any issue. Either way, it is true that the majority of scientists present their findings which contributes to a material explanation of life. Bear in mind that 'material' is not the same as 'biological' and also has nothing to do with that nasty demonic type of materialism that ACBS rails against in his books. Material in this context simply means 'realist', a realistic view of life. You should ask yourself this question: if scientists do indeed present their findings which contribute to a material/realist view of life, ever wonder why that is? Is it because that is the way the evidence points? You see, this is why I find it so hard to take you seriously. You pretend to give me a lecture on logic (by posting three links to fallacies) and then proceed to shoot yourself in the foot with your own illogic. But as you have tried to be logical with me let me return the favour: ignotum per ignotius. Look it up and then look at your above comment again. See what I mean? You talk of reality, and then intelligence, but your proposal sorely lacks both elements by appeal to "mystery". Do you know what you are talking about or not? Look, and whether you like it or not is completely irrelevant, mainly because you aren't familiar with the evidence, but thoughts originate in the brain. The brain is the instrument that creates thoughts, comprehends them, and then decides what to do with them. "Minds are simply what brains do" (Minsky, 1986). A thought is intuitively considered non-material, but how can you be so sure? What if the future brings a scanning technique so sophisticated that it can track the generation, travel and settling of an individual thought within the brain? Modern fMRI-scanning can already do this but with some degree of vagueness, and there is certainly no need to appeal to dimensions of which you have absolutely no knowledge of, what to speak of any reason to believe why they might even exist. That's a serious case jumping the gun. But we getting off-track, I think. All in all, my main point is that expecting a 'physical' origin for memes, leave alone asking Dawkins to provide one, is unreasonable. The premises for the question are based on misunderstanding and/or ignorance. You can only really look for something when you have an idea where to find it. If you don't know that, then no one can help you. |
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Jun 30, 2009 20:23:31 GMT -6
I don't think Newton would agree, his work was premised on looking for God in the natural world. The"strength of modern science" has nothing to do with embracing materialism, it's success is based upon inspiration, which is given by paramatma. Newsflash, Buddyboy, Newton has been 282 years. Apart from that, you're not much of a science historian are you? It isn't at all surprising that Newton and many scientific geniuses in days gone by were religious and/or were inspired by religious thought. What do you expect from a world that was steeped in religion and largely ignorance of science, waiting for the contributions of greatly intelligent men to make the leaps and bounds in understanding that lead us to where we are today? Now you can be silly and think their inspiration was the more important thing, or you can analyse their contribution on their own merits and see where they stand in the world today. Because I tell you, Buddyboy, their findings have indeed made great contributions to the material worldview that predominates today. Perhaps if Newton and others were alive today, they may look at their own discoveries in the wider context of what has sine been discovered since their times, and repudiate their faith and inspiration by recognising it as a hopeless relic. It's a bit like how Nitai thinks what Rupa and Sanatana would be like if they lived today. All those scientific geniuses like Newton etc. made do with what they could work with, it says nothing of the state of things today. Times change, but continual research leads to evidence. See, Buddyboy, you probably think you were being clever when you spoke about Newton. I'll bet that you think it is rather like quoting shastra: the more ancient the scripture, the better the authority of the quote. Similarly, the older the scientists you can quote, and the more such quotes you collect, the greater your case is. And how amusing it is that you were that predictable to present a list of your favourite quotes in your next post! ;D Sorry to break your illusions but it doesn't actually work that way. In science it is actually the other way around: the more recent your evidence is, the better your case. After all, simply speaking, research turns up evidence at an exponential rate which sometimes leads to overturnings of previously-known facts. It makes sense then that the most recent findings tend to be based on perhaps stronger premises that previous ones, and thus carry a little more authoritative weight. Perhaps if you go back to school and get an education, as I've suggested many times, you may learn all of this and speak with a little less certitude. Bad Buddy! Go and stand in the corner. |
|
|
|
Post by Tulsi on Jun 30, 2009 20:41:27 GMT -6
Poor Ekantin, got his butt chewed up over at GR and comes here yelping his "science and edmucation" trash. Nothing like a generic 'intellectual' to set things straight among the ignorant masses. Lucky, lucky Nitai. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Rover on Jun 30, 2009 22:27:25 GMT -6
I thought buddy was the ultimate cyber id but Ekantin, mon the guy takes the cake. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by malati on Jul 1, 2009 1:16:07 GMT -6
My Buddy, sattva
Thanks for that information/explanations. Thanks for standing up to people like Ekantin while I was away.
Ekantin/ or maybe Dhyana because you say you are into psychology--that's my hunch at least): It was Malati who was demanding that if Dawkins' meme theory was true, he should be consistent and explain memes in physical/material terms. What did I say in response to this? I said that the idea of that is ludicrous: memes are ideas, or thoughts, in other words.
Whay is my request ridiculous? Dawkins proposed it within the purview of science (materialism reductionism: That existence is explainable solely in material terms, with no accounting of spirit or consciousness).
In the scientific community (whether its soft or hard sciences)before an idea/hypothesis can hold up it should be subjected to peer review. So are those scientists that required Dawkins to submit to their community standards ridiculous ? Dawkins first discussed it in 1976 since then not much has been added to the hypothesis.
The fact is as wikipedia says: Memeticists have not empirically proven the existence of discrete memes or their proposed mechanism, and memes do not form part of the consensus of mainstream social sciences. Meme theory lacks the same degree of influence granted to its counterpart, genetics. So I say, time to put meme in the back burner.
If Dawkins memes theory is valid then so does my GV world views. See my previous posts (that there are layers of reality).
News flash: Physicists are theorizing that there maybe 9 to 12 dimensions (not just 4 -timespace) to the physical reality. So they come up with the theory of multiverse. That there are not just 2 other universes beside ours but based on their computation as many as 10 to the 1000000th power. You get my drift?? That sounds like what Srimad Bhagavatam is talking about. Innumerable universes.
Ekantin/Dhyana: Hmmm. Despite our last exchange (page 3) over a year ago, it is plainly evident that buddysattva still hasn't taken my advice to go back to school and get an education.
On second thoughts, perhaps I am being too hard on Buddy-boy. Maybe he does have some interesting questions that are thought by many. The problem is that he does not phrase his questions as such, but phrases them as certainties. As if he possesses a level of knowledge and understanding that is irrefutable. After observing Buddyboy and his internet antics for, hmm, about 8 years now (?), this is all I can expect from him. The level of ignorance in his post is stratospheric (possibly more, but I'm being nice here) and I wouldn't know where to begin.
What pomposity of self-absorption not to mention brashness. Go get yourself a decent education in good manners and right conduct. Formal education does not make the world go round and round. It may hasten learning but its not the be all and end all. There are other sources of knowledge. As GVs we say the Bhagavata is one, revealation is another, intuition is another. Havent you heard when all else fail we rely on intuition?
I know of VERY intelligent people who is intelligent enough to say that "I know enough to know that I dont know enough". Having pointed that out , of course when we put forward an argument like on this thread we stand by it if we think its correct. What's the use of engaging in counter-arguments?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr Nodhyssewf on Jul 1, 2009 7:12:39 GMT -6
Malati, this is not Dhyanakunda but Gaurasundara, Sanjay, Brainiac, Ekantin, etc. Sanjay was into GVism until he decided to embrace psychology as a possible profession. He hung around GV for years quoting shastra, making extensive shows of knowlegability, except he never took the plunge, never took diksa, never became a practicioner. Then suddenly he became against religion, proclaiming himself knowledgable on all things science. But like his performance in GV, his understanding of science is childish at best, and has got him in trouble already. So much for psychology, at GR, the forum where he was hanging out before coming here lately, he was gently asked to tone down his disrespect for general opinions. Yes indeed, Sanjay is a troubled psychologist. At least Dhyanakunda is smart enough to ridicule theists only under her breath... Can you imagine being under the 'professional care' of such 'psychologists'? |
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Diesel on Jul 1, 2009 7:16:45 GMT -6
Can you imagine being under the 'professional care' of such 'psychologists'?
Like having Nitai lecturing you on Love and Sweetnesses. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Accelerator on Jul 1, 2009 7:52:51 GMT -6
Or, like having Tripurari lecturing you on Prabhupada Eternal Svarupa. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Supercollider on Jul 1, 2009 8:07:47 GMT -6
...Dawkins for a date... to the premiere of JThe Da Vinci Code. ...Michael Jackson for a nanny.  |
|
|
|
Post by Super Blackhole on Jul 1, 2009 8:10:27 GMT -6
Buddy without youtube!  Noooooo! Please nooooooo!! |
|
|
|
Post by quatummoleh on Jul 1, 2009 8:32:11 GMT -6
Meanwhile, at the University: 
|
|
|
|
Post by VS on Jul 1, 2009 14:19:05 GMT -6
Malati said: In the scientific community (whether its soft or hard sciences)before an idea/hypothesis can hold up it should be subjected to peer review. So are those scientists that required Dawkins to submit to their community standards ridiculous ? Dawkins first discussed it in 1976 since then not much has been added to the hypothesis.
The fact is as wikipedia says: Memeticists have not empirically proven the existence of discrete memes or their proposed mechanism, and memes do not form part of the consensus of mainstream social sciences. Meme theory lacks the same degree of influence granted to its counterpart, genetics. So I say, time to put meme in the back burner. I've not been able to read thoroughly through the comments here, but the above stood out to me. I was wondering, would anyone here classify "yoga" and "yoga psychology/theory/philosophy" as a "soft-science"? I know that medical doctors and scientists are coming out with a lot of research and material on the positive effects of yoga and meditation on both mental and physical health. The concept of "samskaras" is a yogic, as well as a Gaudiya Vaishnava concept, yet has that theory been "peer reviewed" or "tested"? Anyway, Malati (and others) might be interested in the film, "What the Bleep Do We Know", in case you haven't seen it yet. You probably have, I've been out of the loop and so have only heard about it a few years ago, and just started watching the first half of it a few weeks ago. At least the first half is about various theories in quantam physics. Haven't gotten to the second half yet. Here is the link to watch it online for free: www.moviesfoundonline.com/what_the_bleep_do_we_know.phpLast week I attended a monthly open house at a B'hai Center here and the power point presentation was by a mathematician who was trying to draw parrallels between a few quantam physics theories, a few mathematical axioms and the existence of the Soul and God. The beginning started off interesting and I therefore assumed that it would just keep getting better and better, however, it fell miserably on its own face when he tried to conclude that his religion was the only axiomatic objective "truth" and all the other religions out there were "subjective" opinions. I had to laugh a bit to myself coz I could picture in my mind's eye a western "devottee" attempting the very same thing and basically ending the same way. In fact, I think similar attempts have been and are being made by one or such other "scientist" within the western gaudiya vaishnava fold, are they not? I've heard as much, anyway. My conclusion was, as "spiritualists" who are not trained in the hard sciences, it might be best if we don't over-extend ourselves and just keep it to the first law of thermodynamics which states; Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.
In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same.{Om purnam-adah purnam-idam purnaat purnam-udacyate. purnasya purnam-aadaaya, purnam-eva-avashishyate} Anymore than that, we are overstepping our boundaries, a point that I brought up to the mathematician --- that there is no way to scientifcally proove that his religion is "objective" while others are "subjective", or vice versa. Krishna and Buddha are two of ten prophets that are accepted within the B'hai religion, which has it's origins in 19th century Iran. Their famous "Lotus Temple" is in the heart of New Delhi and the grounds there are very beautiful and well-kept. I remember being dropped off there one day as my guru-bhein went to meet an appointment elsewhere, and I wandered around the green, grassy grounds and picked up some books from within their Temple, they qoute from Krishna quite a lot. B'hai is actually one of the most "open", "neutral", and "gender-equal" religions that I've ever come across, therefore I was very suprised at the sectarian sort of presentation this mathematician gave, and that too in an attempt to be what he termed "scientifically objective". It was really a very shoddy attempt at looking "scientific" and I was embarrassed for him, on behalf of the entire global scientific and math community, as well as on behalf of all spiritualists. So, as spiritualists, we really should realize our limits in trying to explain our highly subjective, intimate and personal modalities (such as raganuga bhakti) in axiomatic "objective" scientific terms. We could end up looking and sounding like fools. Science and math also have their limits. The two worlds are separate and yet overlap in places. The problem is when we think they overlap in places where they don't. Like this man, who tried to "proove" that his religion was an axiomatic and objective scientific fact, simply by throwing out a few "theories" and mathematical equations! aradhyo bhagavati brajesh tanayaas tad dham radha kundam!(the above is not an axiomatic, objective "truth", just my own personal modality)  JAI SRI! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2009 15:34:17 GMT -6
Malati, this is not Dhyanakunda but Gaurasundara, Sanjay, Brainiac, Ekantin, etc. Sanjay was into GVism until he decided to embrace psychology as a possible profession. He hung around GV for years quoting shastra, making extensive shows of knowlegability, except he never took the plunge, never took diksa, never became a practicioner. Then suddenly he became against religion, proclaiming himself knowledgable on all things science. But like his performance in GV, his understanding of science is childish at best, and has got him in trouble already. So much for psychology, at GR, the forum where he was hanging out before coming here lately, he was gently asked to tone down his disrespect for general opinions. Yes indeed, Sanjay is a troubled psychologist. At least Dhyanakunda is smart enough to ridicule theists only under her breath... Can you imagine being under the 'professional care' of such 'psychologists'? I thought Ekantin was Ek from Gaudiya Repercussions, I haven't heard from "Gaurasundara" aka Sanjay Dadlani for quite some time, but I didn't know he was using those various aliases. I remember first encountering him years ago on various forums, for years he came across as a pretentious t-w-a-t who thought he was coming across as some sort of brainiac, I guess that is why he chose that name for himself at GR. But this recent bout of delusional mania is much worse than he used to act like. I didn't know he had renounced Vaishnavism, it wasn't that long ago when he was acting like Madhava/Ananda, e.g. writing about rasa and lila as if he was an expert. Maybe there is some sort of connection between them -- they both presented themselves as genius spiritual authorities on esoterica, but later lost complete faith in the tradition they claimed to have mastered enough to speak down to the unwashed masses about as if they were masters. I imagine he has made a lot of anonymous comments here in the past, I remember someone attacking GR out of the blue with no context a short while back. Señor Dadlani has apparently made enemies with Sathya Sai Baba followers. They have devoted a blog to him and web resources to making him look bad: [Links removed at Ekantin's request. Buddy-sattva, isn't this more than a little beneath you? Weren't you just lecturing us about ad-hominem logical fallacies? Two ad hominems do not make an ad veritas. Why not address his arguments instead of who he is (or who you think he is)? --- Nitai] |
|
Noooooo! Please nooooooo!!
