Phi for All

Good points. I find myself always defending high human intelligence, but versatility is also a successful trait. Tigers are bigger and fiercer than leopards, and could easily beat one in a straight-up fight, but leopards are much more successful hunters in their niche because of their adaptability. Defending yourself by running away is very successful, often more so than with tooth or claw. And intelligence can help you figure out how NOT to stand out in your environment like a sore thumb. Comparisons need to be taken in context.

You're an adult now, so you should know. Science doesn't search for "truth". It constantly searches for the best supported explanations for natural phenomena. "Truth" is subjective, as you well know. Also, I really dislike the fact that you posit the "Laws of Physical Experiential Creation", and use them to support your concepts, without establishing any of it with evidence other than your own certainty or incredulity. The whole paper seems to be aimed at urging science to get over the idea that nature has physical qualities, and focus on your "fundamental reality" instead.

Right away, you call for an "objective reality" that transcends "physical reality". You don't bother to explain adequately how one can be objective when observing something other than the natural world. What is different in your objective reality that we can't observe in nature? I also stumble on your concept of "created reality". Is this all just some kind of intelligent design argument? Another reason is defensiveness on your part. Strange asked at least one question about the brain and physical reality that you ignored so you could rant about hidebound scientists.

! Moderator Note I do. It's a speculation, so I've moved it to our Speculations section, where you can defend your idea. This couldn't stay in Science News, since publishing a paper with a commercial organization like NeuroQuantology is simply a matter of commerce, not science. Please read the special rules for this section, and be prepared to support your arguments with evidence. We attack ideas here, not people, so this should be a serious yet civil review of your work.

Birds give up a lot in order to fly. They have almost no muscle that doesn't go into flapping their wings, to the point where they can't even swallow water normally. They've learned to take liquids into their mouths and then move their heads up quickly using wing muscles to force it down their throats. In a similar way, we've given up a lot to develop complex intelligence. You shouldn't say we're "barely even that anymore" just because we're finding it increasingly difficult to integrate all our strengths and capabilities as our population grows and our cooperative nature is tested. We're probably smarter than we ever have been, and we've filled a niche no other animal has. There are other animals who fill a place in their environments no other creature fills, so try to think of it that way. Why we evolved like this is more of a philosophy question. Why only us? It seems reasonable that we'd eliminate any competition to our high intelligence just by being more successful.

Unidentifowls.

! Moderator Note NO! You have too many misconceptions you need to address before advancing more "ideas". And this thread is 8 pages of unsupported soapboxing, so it ends now.

We can't be sure the BB event was a beginning. We can't even be sure the universe we observe "must have had" a beginning. We're dealing with something unique, and just like we have to think differently about its expansion (it didn't expand "into" anything the way we might intuitively think it "must have"), we have to be careful when making assumptions about its origins. We'd prefer not to run into the paradoxes religion creates in this vein (if God created us, who created God?). Why not stick with a model that gets within a fraction of a second of the beginning evolution of this universe, and be satisfied that we're clawing our way carefully towards understanding, rather than simply proclaiming it's turtles all the way down. Nobody claimed the universe sprang from nothing. Strawmen are pretty cheap reasoning, cheaply refuted. And that's another strawman. Having a beginning is NOT the same as springing from nothing. Argument undercut cheaply.

Flashed on that great line from Frieda on Orange is the New Black, about getting rid of a dead body. "I'd know better than to waste my time digging one six-foot hole when I could dig six one-foot holes. That's just murder math."

Recent evidence suggests this argument sprang from straw....

Except science isn't part of "either way". Science was never looking for definitive answers, but rather the best supported explanations (and research into ESP could never provide this support). Perhaps this is causing you to misapply the methodology.

Ignorance can be bliss.

I don't mean to criticize you personally. I try to correct people who think science is trying to "prove" anything. Proof isn't the goal, neither are answers. Science looks for the best supported explanations. I always hope to point people towards science as a way to describe nature, and trust that it seems more reasonable than religion.

Because our high intelligence relies on an extremely rich pattern recognition capability. Our brains are constantly trying to make the puzzle pieces fit. What you feel is that vague sense of incompletion when you try to make patterns where none exist. It's like aaaaalmost having a really good sneeze, but the feeling goes away before you can. Your pictures show considerable ignorance about what "prove" means, also the mathematical concept of "100%" and "two", and the definitions of "all", "simple", and "explain". In the last 400 years, your source hasn't proven the least bit fruitful. Science in the last 400 years, however....

I'd prefer 2000 words crafted with reason and critical thought.

I think it's more honest scientifically to say we can't know without evidence. The effect is the same, and it's intellectually more consistent, and it highlights the differences between beliefs based on faith and those based on trust.

You imply the "direct effect" involved sound beyond normal human detection ("It was silent BUT..."). I've seen dogs react to the fear or alarm they pick up from their owners (a smart cop won't hand a speeding ticket to an upset driver with a dog sitting next to him; he asks the driver to reach for it himself so the dog knows it's OK), and I've also heard one dog barking set off every other dog within earshot. Could it be that your brother saw the UFO, felt the hair stand up on his neck (understandable), and THEN his dogs went nuts?

We know certain claims can't be true, and we know where the writings err, but because of the way capital G God is defined, we can't know He can't exist. The Abrahamic God has chosen to be unobservable, and is therefore supernatural wrt science. Science can choose to ignore Him until He decides to pony up the evidence required, just like any other phenomena, but we can't claim He doesn't exist. He seems to have been created to withstand such reasoning. But you're right about what we ken nowadays. There's fewer gaps for guesswork and faith to creep into, and we see gods aren't needed the way they used to be as explanations for various phenomena. But the concept is still powerful, and the emotions behind wishful thinking are difficult to overcome. They seem most resistant to critical thinking.

The Abrahamic god being betrayed by his creations still offers a more unified basis for worship than the pantheons of all-powerful beings warring amongst themselves. It's a strain on anyone's faith when offerings to one god might enrage another. Monotheism offered stability at a level beyond the ken of mankind by removing many of the seeming paradoxes involved in multiple instances of omnipotence.

These words indicate you aren't doing science.

I'm not a believer as the OP describes, but to me faith is the strongest of beliefs based on the weakest of reasons. Faith demands total conviction because there's nothing to trust. It's strong conviction about something either wishful or frightening.

The various pantheons of gods never seemed to get along, and perhaps worshippers eventually saw that as non-deific behavior. A single god doesn't get betrayed by sibs and offspring.

Belief in the One Horn takes a special kind of person, and it's OK if you aren't enlightened, and don't understand the cosmic wisdom involved (I have a pamphlet if you like). Btw, unicorns destroyed all alien life eons ago, otherwise we'd see them, since aliens can't become invisible like unicorns. And I'm sticking to that.

Ultimately, a god seems to be a device for controlling perceptions. Everyone within a religion is allowed (within reason, after adhering to some basic tenets) to have a personal interpretation of what the god means to them, and within that definition the person CAN'T BE WRONG. The believer in a god wants to be perceived as faithful to the mysterious power, and often claims others can't understand what their god has placed in their hearts. It's not a dice game, it's more of a coin toss. Heads they win, tails you lose. Extra stretchy definitions are supposed to keep one from being trapped by reason.

Lasse, since you can't seem to accept standard definitions, and this bad habit leads you to make soapboxing statements like this one, I don't see how you're adding to the discussions here. You seem to be at odds with our purpose, which is to discuss science using critical thinking and rational discourse, not preaching and blogging and generally forcing your personal religious standards into every conversation. You like it or not, if you keep it up, you will be leaving.