disarray

Strange: Again, one cannot expect Freud to meet the degree of rigor that is expected today, but he was a medical doctor (not a bohemian poet), and he attempted to use the scientific methodologies at his disposal at the time to pioneer a new field. The degree to which he succeeded in being scientific is neither entirely accepted or denied today: "Freud, his theories, and his treatment of his patients were controversial in 19th century Vienna, and remain hotly debated today. Freud's ideas are often discussed and analyzed as works of literature and general culture in addition to continuing debate around them as scientific and medical treatises." https://www.psychologistworld.com/psychologists/freud_1.php "psychoanalysts themselves would undoubtedly consider psychoanalysis to be a science, [though] many critics would disagree...[ironically] psychoanalysis is a scientific theory due to the fact that it is falsifiable and has, in fact, been proven false because other methods of treatment have been proven effective.” http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/beystehner.html In any case, I, personally, would not claim that Freud was reasonably successful in his attempts to investigate mental phenomena in a scientific manner, only that he made an attempt, albeit half-hearted, to do so. When you say that he was not scientific, one might understand this to mean that his methods were not generally considered later to be as scientific as he presumed them to be, which I would agree with. But if you say that he was not scientific in that he did not make any attempt to collect data and analyze it in what he thought was a semi-scientific method to do so, then I would not agree with you. So there is no real conflict in our assessment of him in this regard. Don’t know why this is an issue, particularly, but I when I, for example, cite Freud, I do not do so as if I expect readers to treat his work as scientific fact, but merely to anchor and thus clarify some concept that I am trying to delineate myself. Freud’s influence on modern thought has been immense, but I think that it is generally understood that neither his work nor his methodologies are considered to be scientific, particularly by modern standards. In particular, he was attempting to further apply Darwinian evolutionary concepts to the field of psychology, but his token efforts to be scientific were derailed by personal efforts to set forth an unpopular ‘worldview’ at any cost. Let’s face it, even evolutionary psychology, with all its research methodology and statistical analyses is often dismissed today as pop science, and I do not agree that psychology is definitely considered to be a solid science today, e.g., “[with respect of psychology's scientific status,]science cannot be redefined to such an extent that it no longer obeys time-honored criteria like testability and reproducibility” http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/is-psychology-a-e2809creale2809d-science-does-it-really-matter/ “Psychologist Timothy D. Wilson, a professor at the University of Virginia, expressed resentment over the fact that most scientists don't consider his field a real science.” http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713 “considerable problems arise from psychological science's tendency to overcommunicate mechanistic concepts based on weak and often unreplicated (or unreplicable) data that do not resonate with the everyday experiences of the general public or the rigor of other scholarly fields.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26348335 Again, I, personally, was not making claims one way or the other, but merely pointing out that it is a matter of controversy. As to matter of his findings being in some ways supported by modern neuroscientific research in a variety of ways (and I can provide a dozen articles that support this), I see no reason, apart from perhaps personal bias, to dismiss such evidences as “Lucky guesses” when neuroscientists themselves make such claims. Admittedly, not all neuroscientists support such claims, but the fact that many do and have written articles about it suggests to me that it is not a black and white matter, and certainly not one to be dismissed as just random chance. Again, I am not stating that any such correspondence between Freud’s theories and the findings of modern neuroscience is always valid, or always peer reviewed, or always accepted by peers. I merely note that some scientists draw that conclusion. Indeed, it is interesting in this regard, that Freud himself suggested that he hoped that someday neuroscientists would do research that would in some way support any of his theories. Straw man arguments aside, I think that it is ironic that you are making an issue of the, admittedly, unscientific nature of his work, since Freud was one of the great critics of religion in general, and of monotheism in particular (on the basis that it was merely an expression of biological drives, e.g., survival instinct, need for security, unresolved family dynamics, etc.). I say "ironic" because the thrust of this discussion is about the reasons that religious people try to invent conflicts between belief and science, and Freud (be he very scientific or not in practice) would certainly be able to give you reasons for that.

Strange: You claim that "Although modern psychology is (usually) a science, the work of Freud and Jung was definitely not scientific." I find it odd that you mention them both in the same breath in this regard. Are you aware that Freud broke his working relationship with Jung on the basis that Jung, in his opinion, getting too mystical and unscientific. Certainly Freud openly claimed that he was taking a scientific approach towards psychology, which is a questionable undertaking even today. Indeed, given that he was pioneering the field, we can hardly criticize his efforts to take a scientific approach anymore than we can say that Aristotle was not scientific in terms of what we know. "In accordance with his medical training, Freud confirmed that the knowledge that scholars possessed about the brain did not yet allow psychoanalysis to be based on biological foundations." from "Neuroscience-based Cognitive Therapy by Scrimali, p. 14 Indeed, various neuroscientists have suggested that many of his ideas have been confirmed, in one way or another, by modern science, though the exact nature and extent of such confirmation is open to interpretation. For example: "Researchers believe measurement of brain waves confirm Sigmund Freud’s contention that anxiety disorders such as phobias are the result of unconscious conflict." http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/06/18/neuroscience-study-supports-freuds-view-of-anxiety/40283.html Jung is a bit of a mixed bag in this respect, but Freud definitely attempted to be scientific, and did the best he could in terms of the developments of science at the time, as he himself pointed out.

Tar...You say, "For if it is, it is. If it is not, we can never get there to verify, so it might just as well be considered as having been created alone". Is this your way of saying "we don't know and we can't know, so it doesn't matter" ? If we don't know, why should we assume that we are alone any more than we should assume that we are not alone? Perhaps you mean, "We feel as if we are alone, and we don't have any reason to believe that we aren't, so we might as well accept it." This is, I think, an existentialist approach. A religious approach is something like, "We feel as if we are alone, but let's be positive, and assume that the universe has meaning, and that in one way or another, we are not alone." Perhaps the existentialist approach is more scientific, or at least more "realistic" given the lack of evidence that we aren't alone, as you say. The religious approach is more susceptible to self-delusion, but hey, they say that religious people tend to be healthier, perhaps, in part, because they are more optimistic.

Typically, the literature on the subconscious and unconscious does not speculate on the possibility of "spiritual" (for lack of a better word) considerations. Of course, one can read about the brain chemistry related to drug effects, and to a lesser extent, on dream states and out of body experiences. I dare say that they are not all explained by the same "metabolic" or neurological effects. When it comes to researching about the nature of subconscious phenomena with respect to the way that they interface with conscious states of awareness, one typically deals with a sort of hybrid literature that blends philosophy, neuroscience, and psychology. For example, I read a very good book on the neuroscience of psychoanalysis recently, and it covered the spectrum of relevant literature quite well, including Freud et al. (Indeed, Freud has been somewhat dusted off and refurbished in light of modern neuroscience). Anyway, the gist of the book was that children who have unsatisfied emotional needs because they did not get enough attention, grow up to be adults who expect their own children to look after their emotional needs, with the result that these children in turn do not have their emotional needs fulfilled because they are too busy trying to look after their own parents....and so a vicious cycle is set up. But at each step of the way, the author referred to parts of the brain, hormones, dopamine, serotonin, neural pathways, etc. etc. Then one can study NLP, which is a questionable therapeutic process that attempts to blend certain brain and mental activities with therapeutic thoughts. I could go on, but my point is that most of the literature that I have dealt with (I minored in psychology) has to do with therapy and the brain. When it comes to speculating about "spirituality" and the brain more specifically, then we are dealing with the likes of Sam Harris, Dennett, and Stephen Pinker, whose books I have also delved into. There is also an interesting material written by Carter Phipps in this regard. So yes, we know that consciousness is intimately tied up with physiology, though the key question is whether there is anything left besides the physiology, and though there are those scientists who adamantly say no, there also those who are equally qualified who say maybe. Though I don't have an open mind when it comes to such things as ghosts, UFOs, scientology, Creationism, angels, devils, gods, demons, prayer, hell, and a host of other superstitions, I do think, as do many scientist/philosophers, that it is worth pondering the scientific possibility that there is more to learn about consciousness and subconsciousness with regards to emergent qualities than is presently known. Yes, that is true. But I think that there is still a general tendency to think in terms of body vs. mind, or physical versus mental, or material vs. spiritual. Part of the problem is that the idea that consciousness might be somehow independent as well dependent upon the body has been actually besmirched, so to speak, in the eyes of scientists, because it has been the domain of superstitious religions (i.e., pretty much all of them), so that it is hard to ponder the issue without such connotations popping into mind. Hopefully, now that physicists have shown that there is no hard and fast line between so-called matter and energy (but rather a sort of continuum), the issue may be given some serious consideration.

I see nothing wrong with the phrase "test a null hypothesis" e.g., "In a test of the null hypothesis against the alternative hypothesis ...." http://www.svgs.k12.va.us/web/Math/APMathQuestionBank/StatsWebpages/1997_APSTATS_MC%2029_SOLN.htm And yes we can have a test in which we, for example, find the "likelihood of the alternative hypothesis" (though, yes, we are not technically 'testing the likelihood'). p. 196, of "Molecular Evolution" A Phylogenetic Approach And I am not so sure that one sets out to "gather data which you can show is significantly unlikely to be consistent with the null hypothesis" as you suggest, rather one collects data, and then determines whether it is actually significantly unlikely. The way you phrase it makes it sounds as if you are biased in the method by which you are collecting the data, which would give you biased and skewed results. Your comments about a type 1 error (what about type 2?) and about ethical controls or lack of evidence to date are beside the point. You still do not address my question as to what specific type of data one might collect. I might as well comment about how sensitive or specific I might be as I determine type 1 or type 2 errors, but that is all beside my original point as to what sort of data one might collect in the first place.

Strange: Your comment about Lucy not being a documentary has no content. As for the 10% myth, here is what Washington.edu kid's site has to say: "According to the believers of this myth, if we used more of our brain, then we could perform super memory feats and have other fantastic mental abilities... I do not know of any data that would support any of this." https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html In any case, to argue about what the 10% myth means, or whether it is a myth, is to follow you down a rabbit hole, since there are several variants: "The myth is not simply a static, misunderstood factoid. It has several forms, and this adaptability gives it a shelf life longer than lacquered Spam. In the basic form, the myth claims that years ago a scientist discovered that we indeed did use only ten percent of our brains. Another variant is that only ten percent of the brain had been mapped, and this in turn became misunderstood as ten percent used." http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp I am well aware that there are plenty of neuroscientific explanations for the phenomena I mentioned. I chose not to go into them because I was trying to put forth an overall model, not dismantle it with opposing ideas at the same time. Your assumption that I am not versed in the matter, or have not researched physical explanations is a rather gratuitous ad hominem. Indeed, there are plenty of a-religious based, scientific arguments made in favor of the nature of emergent consciousness, made by real life scientists (your sarcasm is catchy I guess). You seem to be given to journalistic generalizations in this regard, e.g., are you suggesting that Freud's work in total was fraudulent, or just couldn't be bothered deleting the word "fraud". Just what consitutes the subconscious is anyone's definition. Indeed, no one has seen or located any such animal, so to speak. It is a general term that is used in various contexts for various purposes in the literature. For you to claim that basic skills are or are not a part of subconscious areas of the brain, perhaps related to various configurations of neural pathways seems like another gratuitous criticism, given that there is no agreed upon usage of the term "subconscious" in the first place. But lets look at a few quotes in which we see motor skills (e.g., walking) associated with subconscious activity: “Your conscious actions eventually become subconscious habits. The basal ganglia, a brain organ is believed to “automate thinking and acting, turning focally conscious activities into quick, reliable, unthinking habit…Science has clearly shown that complex intelligent activities can be managed by your subconscious drives..” http://www.effective-mind-control.com/understanding-the-subconscious-mind.html “Subconscious learning probably is possible, say US researchers. What’s more, subconscious learning may affect our conscious decisions – without our realizing it. Takeo Watanabe and his colleagues at Boston University found that people who had watched a particular direction of subliminal dot movement during a letter-naming trial were significantly better at picking it out later.” https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1476-subliminal-study-shows-subconscious-learning-is-possible/ “neuro-anatomical schedules of development illustrate the important role sub-cortical primitive structures play in cognition at subconscious levels from Treatise on the Neurophilosophy of Conscious, p. 185 I could go on, but since you have made no genuine point except to be insulting and to say that your reading and thoughts are somewhat different from mine, I have nothing to go on.

I don't mind detail that contributes information as with regards to the distinction between rebirth and reincarnation that you brought up yourself in much detail. Did you think that I was being captious by pointing out that your entire response to my substantial list of relevant points was merely to say that I had made a grammatical error? I was really just trying to encourage you to focus more on the thrust of the discussion rather than the side issues. And this upsets you....seriously?

I don't think Buddhism is homogeneous any more than you do, and have repeatedly made that point, e.g., with regards to "flavors." Yes, Buddhism is in the eye of the beholder, so when I say that Buddhism maintains some belief or attitude, it is implicitly stated that I refer to certain Buddhists or people who hold beliefs and attitudes consonant with certain flavors of Buddhism (For you to point this out this grammatical nicety seems unnecessarily pedantic, don't you think, given that you ignored the many major points for discussion that I made regarding Eastern religion's conflict with science vs. Western religion's conflict with science?). ............................. As for the Middle East resisting the tide of modern science (for a variety of factors, many of which were connected to religion): "In Bernard Lewis's phrasing, "The Renaissance, Reformation, even the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, passed unnoticed in the Muslim World."6 Instead, Muslims relied on religious minorities -- Armenians, Greeks, Jews -- as intermediaries; they served as court physicians, translators, and in other key posts. With their aid, the Muslim world accomplished what is now known as a limited transfer of science and technology....In particular, the great theologian Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali (1059-1111) used the tools of the philosophers to undermine philosophical and scientific inquiry." http://www.meforum.org/306/why-does-the-muslim-world-lag-in-science And this, "the changes that occurred in Western Europe were not able to take hold in the Ottoman Empire as the Islamic belief of superiority suppressed new ideas [with regards to industrialization, ect.] out of Europe due to the thinking that they were inferior and useless. Furthermore, the interest groups such as the Ulama, the guilds, and the Janissaries were able to progress the decline as they feared that change would upset their role in society" http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=the_ottoman_empires_inability_to_industriali

imatfaal: I was trying to work with you in order to determine what sort of data one might expect to gather in order to test such a null hypothesis (or rather, test the likelihood of the alternative hypothesis). Of course, if there is no data or evidence of any kind, then there is no case for believing in something. (I took a course in epidemiology from the ex-head of the CDC epidemiology department, so you need not explain the basics of a controlled experiment to me). Memammal: I couldn’t agree with you more. Yes, as per your article, much of the subconscious is just liminal memory and what not that enables us to do even simple things such as walking without relearning them every day. But taken as an organized whole, I would suggest that the subconscious is even more (vividly) aware than the everyday conscious mind. (I prefer the term “subconscious” in this regard, as the literature does not make a clear and consistent distinction between the two. Moreover, the term “unconscious” has connotations of being knocked out, asleep, unaware, etc.). Indeed, if we posit a link between our brains everyday conscious awareness and that of a kind of extended subconscious that includes previous incarnations, then I would put the ratio at something like .00001% to 99.99999 (as an obviously wild guess) instead of the 5% to 95% ratio of everyday conscious to subconscious mental activity mentioned in the website you referenced. But now scientists consider that a fallacy. In this sense, I think that the movie “Lucy,” though not intended as a documentary, more accurately portrays what is meant by the saying that one only uses a fraction (e.g., 10%) of one’s brain power. We used to think that the saying meant that we could learn and remember a lot more if we studied, traveled, learn languages, etc. as much as possible, thereby using, say 80% of our brain power . However, the movie “Lucy” really, I think, takes that same saying with respect to the subconscious, and makes a valid point: It is not really a question of whether ones conscious mind survives death, but rather that ones conscious mind blends back in with the entire subconscious realm that was always there throughout ones life. Indeed, this is what happens, I think, to a very small degree when one is under the influence of certain drugs, or experiences certain states of awareness via meditation/lucid dreaming, or one has near death/out-of-body experiences (i.e., alleged astral travel). I realize that there is virtually no scientific evidence to suggest that consciousness survives death, but it is significant, I think, that the descriptions that people give from all three of these states of mind are often so similar. (Of course, discrepancies burgeon when people start interpreting and embellishing these experiences by convincing themselves that that they saw some god or their deceased aunt, or whatever). Again, I would think that the state of awareness found in the subconscious is so much more vivid than that of everyday consciousness that it would not be accessible to our usual 5 senses, and thus never perhaps accessible to empirical or scientific validation. Hence, the insistence of Eastern religions in general, and, say, Zen Buddhism in particular, that getting a glimpse of the subconscious (aka overself, higher consciousness, enlightened self, etc.) often means getting past intellectual/verbal efforts to understand such a state of awareness. Indeed, even if someone does have a legitimate experience in which they glimpse part of their own subconscious, they could not (apart from giving paltry verbal explanations) show this to another person ( a key component of the scientific method) because, as we all know, we never really experience directly what goes on in other people's minds/consciousness. As for your not agreeing with the idea in the article you cited that the conscious influences the subconscious, I think that it is typical of New-Ageish type therapies that they make rather overly-empowering (but false) claims that one need only visualize some goal or repeat certain positive statements over and over until, lo and behold, they become actualized (e.g., the book, The Secret, which is based on some alleged law of attraction and claims that positive thinking can create life-changing results such as increased happiness, health, and wealth). I guess this is sort of an unorthodox version of praying for what one wants! Of course, confidence helps in life, but no, I don't think that one sends vibes out into the universe and the universe responds by giving you what you visualized. But yes, I agree with you, and I think that there is far more sub-consciousness than we realize, and that this sub-consciousness is far more aware and vivid than we realize. I suppose we can’t access the subconscious very much, though that is often what psychologists try to do (e.g., via hypnosis), as we would be overwhelmed with sensations and information. We couldn’t function at all if we recalled everything we every said and did all at once, as well as all the various combination of everything we said and did (as our dreams tend to do with our memories), and clean the house as well. (The mind really does keep certain door either shut, jammed, or locked). Nevertheless, my guess is that the subconscious is there, hiding (like Blake’s Tyger in the Night), lying quietly in wait.

Prometheus You state that "I accept that the majority of Buddhists believe in rebirth, but the key point is that such belief is not necessary and can (if you want) be taken separate from karma." However, in Buddhism, if anything, what goes between stages, be they incarnation or spirits, is typically said to be "karma. However, there is no point arguing what Buddhism exactly means by "self," as Nirvana is, as I mentioned, a state where one is united with the whole, much like the metaphor of a raindrop returning to the ocean. So, no, I don't think that it is a place, and I have no idea what you mean when you state that you don't like my description of it, since I made no particular description. For me, the bottom line, again, is that why would one bother trying to escape from the cycle of rebirth (or reincarnation for that matter) in the first place if there is no self (in the sense of 'consciousness') at all that will escape from the suffering of rebirth and find repose in Nirvana? Indeed, I think that one can get hung up on the idea that Buddhism does not refer to the endurance of a self after death, so I prefer to use the word "consciousness": "If it is not the physical body that is reborn, then what is this “compelling force” that is at the core of rebirth? In Buddhism, the core of rebirth is described as the alaya-vijnana (storehouse consciousness)....When you die, your store consciousness (alayavijnana) is the last to leave your body, and the first to arrive in the next body" from the same website you gave me on "Reincarnation and Buddhism" http://www.alanpeto.com/buddhism/understanding-reincarnation-rebirth/ Yes, one can find selected early texts, or whatever, where Buddhism just refers to this life, but this is not generally what Buddhism refers to today, if it ever generally did, and if one wants to just restrict a definition of Buddhism to referring to one's temporal lifetime on earth, then Buddhism becomes no different than the idea that one should meditate to keep healthy. (Confucianism is also perhaps in this regard even more mundane and down to earth than Buddhism, as in not focusing (very much) on any sort of afterlife. As such, arguably Confucianism is even less of a religion than Buddhism.) But regardless of what one thinks the "Buddha" supposedly meant exactly with reference to what is transferred from one life to another, there is some sort of change of lives, and some transfer of something from one to the next, be it karma, or causality, or whatever. Thus, I too might find remarks about what the Buddha supposedly said about previous lives as well: "In the process of becoming enlightened, the Buddha is said to have recognized all his previous lives." http://www.alanpeto.com/buddhism/understanding-reincarnation-rebirth/ In any case, it is just as absurd to talk about what the Buddha supposedly said as it is to quote what Jesus supposedly said, and indeed, like Jesus, there are no written records about Gautama found from his lifetime or for some time (perhaps) centuries thereafter. So we are really back to the notion that there are many flavors of Buddhism, and to argue about what he said or meant exactly is just trying to make sandcastles in the wind. I am not sure even what your point is. On the one hand you point to the evidence that suggests that Buddhism doesn't believe in rebirth, and then you point to evidence to suggest that Buddhism believes in rebirth, but not reincarnation. I never claimed that Buddhism embraced reincarnation in the same sense that, say, Hinduism does. I do think that there are parallels as well as distinctions between the two terms as used by Buddhism as opposed to Hinduism. A lot of bayoneting of straw men going on here, I think, as well as a lot of semantic splitting of hairs. Unless you have some particular point, I would rather focus on the issue of the discussion, which is why people need to invent a conflict between belief and science. I do think that it is relevant to suggest that Eastern Religions (specifically, Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism) are often mentioned as embracing principles that are parallel to those of modern physics. I am under the impression that, broadly speaking, there does not seem to be as much conflict between Eastern "religions" today and science as is the case with Western monotheistic religions (i.e., Christianity, Islam, and Judaism). With this thought in mind, an interesting exercise would be to examine the reasons for this difference: Eastern religions generally put less emphasis upon the idea that there are absolute moral truths Eastern religions generally put less emphasis upon the idea that one's personal "ego" will be saved Eastern religions generally put more emphasis upon human's harmonious place in nature Eastern religions generally don't put as definite a line between human beings and animals Eastern religions generally put more emphasis on the cyclic aspects of Nature Eastern religions generally seem to have worldviews that are more compatible with modern physics. With respect to the last point, Dr. Capra, for example, states that ""Eastern thought, and more generally, mystical thought, provide a consistent and relevant philosophical background to the theories of contemporary science." http://www.hinduism.co.za/hinduism.htm Indeed, some historians suggest that Middle Eastern culture did not develop industrially as quickly as it might have because it resisted the discoveries and principles of science over the centuries, even more recalcitrantly than did Christian Europe.

Memammal: Having been informed that the great chain of being goes infinitely up to megaverses and infinitely down (to miniverses?), I am tempted to drink a little sacramental wine myself, just to see what other wisdom flows from the vineyards. One question though: Aren't all particles smaller than subatomic ones still subatomic?

Memmamal: In my experience, nonbelievers generally are not as vocal as believers, or, when they are vocal, they have often been on the receiving end of over zealous evangelstis who are quick to condemn those who don't subscribe to their religious morals and beliefs. It is often the gentlest of churchgoers who criticize others most openly, because they have come to believe what some might label as fear mongering themselves: If scriptures aren't taken literally, then people will decide for themselves what is right and wrong, and chaos and evil will rein If we don't help save other people's souls by showing them the one, true way to salvation via our religion, we are in danger of being condemned ourselves. If someone doesn't believe in (our) scriptures and our God, he/she must be evil or else his/her soul has been taken over by evil. If one doesn't pray regularly, God will not look after you. If someone doesn't observe our religious rituals, e.g., baptism, confirmation, marriage, he/she will not be saved. etc,

String Junky: 2cm is pretty amazing measurement. Though i am not sure that it is necessary to say that "time" slows down (even though we use "t" and " t' "in equations): If time dilation (always or usually) refers to objects with mass, why not just make the observation that under certain conditions, objects (particles, forces, or whatever) slow down relative to each other depending upon such things as velocity or magnitude of mass, rather than saying that "time" (which is ultimately a rather empty abstraction) slows down? And just to keep on topic, is there any reason to suspect that the rate that a person thinks (e.g., the rate that an action potential travels along a axon) slows down under the conditions that cause time dilation, since, after all, other biological processes are said to slow down (as per my quote above)? If so, might we further suggest that the condition of ones "consciousness" slows down in some respects? I pose this question as I am just trying to refer back to the topic of this thread, though no doubt, my question is a long shot: If we can show that consciousness is something that can be affected by time dilation, we might be able to claim that it is some "entity or property" that exists in nature.

Well, yes, whether it is Thatcher or H. Clinton, these are anecdotal. I was just half-seriously noting that testosterone causes a lot of unncessary violence in the world, particularly when mixed with alcohol. Not sure what you mean in particular by this statement. Again, just suggesting that violence should be a last resort....and I don't mind saying that to anyone. In most countries the law also says the same thing....the law doesn't just tell people it's up to them to make up their own minds as to whether or not they want to be violent. Part of the problem in the U.S. is that violence is so rife in the media and in the real world that people become jaded to it, and think that it is no big deal. Speaking of social disapproval, I think the general public needs to be a little more shocked and disapproving when violence and bullying occur..."Not acceptable" way to settle disputes and express dislike. And yes, we should try diplomacy before violence, though we needst be wary of the sort of fake diplomacy that Hitler displayed, e.g., with Britain, in WWII. As for the Syria example, I agree that the U.S. sometimes seems to be unaware of just how much hostility that military occupation of a country can create, even when the U.S. is trying to do the right thing by maintaining peace, e.g., as in Lebanon years back.

imatfaal: Yes, that is my understanding of the null hypothesis with respect to the issue. But that does not answer my question as to how one would test the null hypothesis. One needs data to begin with. Were I to test the connection between cancer and smoking, for example, I might look at the number of smokers who had smoked for 10 years and got cancer vs. the number of nonsmokers who had cancer. Or, I could set up a group of nonsmokers and smokers of equal numbers and track the development of cancer as time went on. But how would one test the existence of a soul? One needs data to begin with? I would just note that some scientists claim that consciousness does not exist per se, and the existence of emergence is also controversial in this regard. For example, Sam Harris states that: "The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world....this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle." https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness So, at this point we are left with non-empirical, perhaps intuitive inklings that consciousness (and perhaps consciousness after death) exists in its own right. I think that the term "soul" is too fraught with ambigous religious connotations to be of much use in terms of scientific verification." In any case, it is, I suggest, unscientific to assume that something does not exist because we don't have any scientific evidence i favor of it. We do have a lot of personal reports (as qualitative "evidence") that, for example consciousness exists, and even personal reports of consciousness outside the body or after a person has flatlined momentarilly (as I understand it)...though skeptics might point out that lost of people claim to see angels and ghosts and UFOs. Certainly, the existence of consciousness is not as bizarre as claiming that the earth is supported on a turtle and its turtles all the way down....so I don't know if there are criteria for assessing whether one totally unsupported (with evidence) null hypothesis is more bizarre and unlikely than any other null hypothesis, e.g., the whole range of alleged paranormal activity: Is it more ridiculous to claim that people can move objects with their minds than the claim that people can feel what their spouses hundreds of miles away are feeling at times, or that there are 5 inch high pixies dancing at the bottom of my 95-year-old neighbor's garden as she claims? Does the fact that she has alzheimer's and is short sighted affect my judgment as to how likely her claim might be? Stringjunky: I am getting used to the idea that time literally dilates (without some other physical explanation). As such, it seems that the Theory of Relativity as set forth by Einstein is complete, would you not agree? You must admit it is certainly something of an Alice in Wonderland concept. It seems to me that the whole thing springs from the fact that the speed of light is finite. Apparently time dilation even affects biological rates of aging: "In 2010, Dr. C.W. Chou and colleagues demonstrated an optical clock sensitive enough to distinguish the time flow rate differential between one's scalp and toes, [as] we can now also detect time dilation due to a change in height near Earth’s surface of less than 1 meter." https://www.quora.com/Does-gravitational-time-dilation-also-affect-biological-processes-like-how-quickly-our-bodies-age All very well to say time slows down. But it still seems that spacetime might be some sort of substance whereby it "thickens" so to speak, thereby causing things to move sluggishly, as if in slow motion. Perhaps there is some resistance that prevents light from going faster than it does.

Yes, we are indeed a country and world of hotheads. I think that there is a grain of truth in the idea that things would be a lot less violent if women ruled the world. Indeed, it might be worthwhile discussing why people so quickly lose their temper and become violent. The psychological basis for ethnocentrism and prejudice and phobia is a good place to start in such an investigation. As for your being misunderstood, I think that you might write a thesis statement once in a while in which you unambiguously state what it is exactly that you believe and/or are trying to express. Please take this as a constructive observation. You have some good thoughts, and i realize that some people often think in terms of stereotypes and generalizations...so all the more reason to hammer things home with a straightforward statement rather than just providing examples in the hope that others will be able to figure out the thrust of your argument.

Strange and Swansont: Yes, science is not technology. I think the real distinction here is really about the misuse of the technology that made use of science....an extreme example would be blaming the scientists who helped develop the atomic bomb. Indeed, blaming scientists is a little like blaming those who flew Enola Gay and dropped "LIttle Boy." (Indeed, the airmen were traumatized by their actions)....Don't shoot the messenger sort of thing. Yes, some people unfairly blame science and scientists for the harm that has been done to the environment by such things as roads and factories and cars. (In part, people who criticize cars and roads somehow forget that it would be hard to keep millions of people alive and healthy in a small area as is done in modern cities...Just look at what the conditions in big cities such as London were like a couple hundred years ago when technology was much more primitive than it is today. Back then, people road defecating horses through the streets and threw their garbage and whatnot out second story windows!). As another example, some scientists speak out against the way that, for example, nuclear energy is being misused and mismanaged. But yes, progress has been a mixed bag, and peripheral factors such as those listed by Strange are more relevant. No need to criticize science or its methodology whatsoever.

Tar: My sympathy if you have been misunderstood. I take your by-the-way point that hatred is often bred in the swamp of misunderstanding. However, my response to your last post is basically the same. When confronted with hateful and potentially violent bigots or extremists from either side of whatever fence, one should try, or at least think about whether one can apply, nonviolent means to address the situation (and I agree that an excessivley naive lovey-dovey, peacenik attitude may not always be a good nonviolent approach, as you seem to be suggesting). So yes, when all else fails, and unless one believes in passive resistance, then it may be necessary to resort to violence in an effort to fight violence with violence (as you seem to be suggesting). However, my main point stands, which is that, generally speaking, violence is an overrated means of resolving conflicts.

Imatfaal: Your comments are reasonable. Just to clarify, the null hypothesis would be that there is no soul. In my experience with a null hypothesis, one usually has some sort of control/experimental situation. I am not sure how one would set that up with regards to the existence of a soul. String Junky: I think we got on the issue of whether time was an illusion simply because people wanted to make the point that abstractions (such as time) can or cannot exist (or do or do not exist). If so, my response to such a claim would be not to generalize from one example (e.g., time).. The "concreteness" of abstract nouns needs to be examined on a case by case (i.e., word by word) basis. I am no physicist, but it seems to me, for example, that even as an element in spacetime, the reality of "time" as a "fundamental, physical" property of the universe, as opposed to being just a functional and useful abstraction, is still controversial. (Much like temperature was thought to be a fundamental property of the universe, but was later just regarded as being secondary effect of the motion of molecules). So we are back to the question as to what empirical evidence we have for the "soul" and whether we can make predictions about it, or measure it, or whatever. Short scientific answer is that no "paranormal" activity has been demonstrated to exist under laboratory conditions (as far as I know).

My guess is that John Jones is making the common criticism of science and technology that it inevitably, or at least in practice, levels trees in the amazon and replaces forests with highways, pollutes our air and water, fills the earth with plastic, etc. On the other hand, Swansont seems to be making the point that science deals with nature in a rigorous manner, and sees no need to introduce or examine supernatural factors or agents in its investigation of the world/universe. The two trains of thought are not on the same page (if I can mix my metaphors). I am reminded of Heidegger's efforts to have his cake and eat it in this regard. Writing in the Black Forest of Germany and feeling a sort of folk-love for German peasants who tilled the land, he openly decried the unnaturalness of modern technology and the way that science used, or rather, exploited and desecrated the environment (Germans were always big on the sacredness of German soil). Yet, on the other hand, he saw Germany/Nazis as being the vanguard of civilization, and praised its efforts to build superhighways, bridges, etc. As a further aside, I find it interesting that all the while Hitler refused to encourage nuclear research as he saw anything that had to do with impractical science (e.g, quantum theory) as weird and degenerate (much like his attitude towards modern art). Had his attitude been different, history would not be the same. In any case, I think that John Jones approach is an irrelevant "ad hominem," so to speak, where "science" is the 'person' who is being criticized as if science can't presume to know very much because it has done so much to harm the environment.

@Strange But by the laws of thermodynamics zero entropy is impossible. Hence a perfect vacuum cannot exist. When one actually measures the energy in any vacuum, it will then be a non-zero number. The extreme discrepancy between our theory and observation is known as the "vacuum catastrophe." Also, your definition of a "second" as per your links notes that the definition is based upon a theoretical condition of zero temperature, and, if we are to use Wiki, it is known that "Absolute zero cannot be achieved." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero Anyway, it's an interesting question, but I think we got away from the topic of the thread. (Whether time is an illusion is a pretty huge issue, though.) To get back on track, I will repost the following points for possible discussion with a bit more elaboration: Is a soul dependent upon motion and/or time as we know it, i.e., in terms of mass and spacetime? That is, can we conceive of it as something natural rather than supernatural? In what ways might science investigate the question as to whether there is a soul (e.g., a form of consciousness that survives physicial death)? Is it possible to collect any empirical evidence at all on this topic? Does a belief that we have a soul imply or require that ones consciousness survives physical death? Can science presume that a soul does not exist if it has no clue as to whether even "consciousness" is something that exists or not. Is the term "soul" so interwoven with other religious concepts that it is not a suitable topic for scientific investigation? Does having a soul imply that we must believe in a personal God or in any other religious beliefs?

Well, this sounds like the sort of discussion that could devolve into a semantic merrygoround. Yes, social disapproval is a powerful tool to help ensure that everyone in a community conforms to laws and social mores/morays. But I don't agree that hate is the best way to express such disapproval. For example, a parent might disapprove of a two-year-old walking off onto the road without looking and without supervision, but the parent does not hate the child. Similarly, a neighbor might disapprove of ignorant or lazy parents who don't supervise a two-year-old properly and let him/her wander off into traffic, but the neighbor need not hate the neighbor. Webster defines "hate" as "intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury." The implication here is that strong emotions are involved. In practice, I don't think that it is a stretch to say that hatred often leads to irrational thoughts and behavior, which in turn often lead to irrational and violent actions. So, whether one is referring to people who hate homosexuals, or referring to people who hate people who hate homosexuals, "hatred," per se, I would suggest, is not a very effective way to try to convince people that they are in the wrong, or that they should modify their behavior. Indeed, hatred and violence are often the sort of last resort ingredients for vigilante violence and war, e.g., the Civil War in the U.S. as way to settle a dispute that involves money and "colored" people being used as slaves (among other factors). Sometimes righteous indignation is effective, but these days, people are more than likely to think that the person who is angry, hateful and perhaps violence is not a person whom they should look up to and obey, but rather a person who is just being irrational, controlling, power hungry, and conceited. Therefore they will in act with anger, hatred, and violence in return....which just creates a vicious cycle of anger, hatred, and violence. That is why I suggest that everyone look for alternative ways to express disapproval as well as expressing empathy and moral guidance. Thus, it is my experience in dealing with angry, self-righteous people in general, that the best thing to do is to not get defensive, to remain calm, to not return hatred with hatred, to show that you are trying to see their side of things, to empathize with their feelings of hurt, to address feelings of having been treated unfairly, to encourage them to look at things from other people's point of view, and to allay fears that they are under an immediate threat (e.g., from colored people, or homosexuals, or people with different political beliefs, etc.).

Strange: Please give me the origin of your quote re "at absolute zero with no motion." in a Brief History of TIme, Hawking states that, “The increase of disorder or entropy is what distinguishes the past from the future, giving a direction to time.” From there, I am assuming that one cannot have directionless time. "Without entropy, which is an increase in disorder, then I don't know how there can be "time." Hawking notes that the arrow of time is consistent with the entropy of an expanding universe, and asks: “why does disorder increase in the same direction of time as that in which the universe expands?” Assuming that entropy can be defined here in the same way that it is defined in chemistry, e.g., randomness/freedom of motion, it seems to me, then, that without motion, there would be no time. In any case, even the early inflation period of spacetime implies expansion (and thus movement) of something, be it forces or particles (presumably with mass), I would think.

Meme? But isn't that exactly what Hawking concluded? And does not string theory also claim that time relates to motion: "Consistency of string theory at the quantum level therefore imposes equations of motion in the target spacetime" If one is not going to measure the amount of distance something has moved (aka engaged in motion) divided by its rate, how can one arrive at a quantity of time?

Again, I can't reply to vague generalizations. Give me a single question and I will respond to it.