Phi for All

That's awesome. Research like that is such a valuable investment. Thanks for actually being the supportive evidence in a study!

Can you imagine feeling how burning hot a stovetop might be if you touched it? Or what a sunflower looks like even though you're in a dark closet? How about a skunk, remember that smell? Memory and imagination, not spirituality. You hear a voice in your mind the same way you feel the stove in your mind. Nothing is triggering any auditory, tactile, olfactory, or visual receptors. You remember, and imagine new situations and scripts for the voice in your mind.

Others have pointed this out, but your definition of supernatural isn't helping you discuss this subject effectively. It's just causing everyone else confusion, so it doesn't matter if it makes sense to you. It ain't working.

I've heard many experts say that this particular popsci analogy, brain = computer, is responsible for a great deal of misunderstanding. It's not just that it's wrong, it often leads people to make several misinformed leaps that are very difficult to recover from once taken. It's a gateway analogy that leads to crackpotism.

I get the feeling this is leading up to a condemnation of science. Please remember that just because we don't know everything, it doesn't mean we know nothing. As to the unasked question, no, there are no parts of the brain we're completely baffled about. It's mostly trying to discover relevant details about an incredibly complex series of systems. We have questions about things like consciousness and perception and how they affect the way our brains operate, but we're certainly not as "in the dark" as many popsci articles would have you believe (I see a lot of "Top 10 Things Science Doesn't Know" misinformativeness going on out there on the www).

I think John means that such a trait would be so useful it would become ubiquitous. Vision is a universal trait for humans. It's part of the overall blueprint; we're all supposed to get eyes. They're so incredibly useful that many species have some form of vision as a universal trait. Being able to bring things that are out of your reach to you, or deflecting the rocks that are tumbling down on you, or reading someone's thoughts to better know how to deal with them, these are traits that would make one VERY successful at survival and mating. Hell, if you knew what creatures were thinking and could move them away/affect them/harm them at a distance, you might never have needed eyes. TK/TP would be a real game-changer. Therefore, if TK/TP were even remotely possible, they would most certainly become extremely probable. We would see MANY people that were able to survive and pass this trait along, as well as the evidence of their difference. Especially with all the security cameras around today, if it were possible, we'd be seeing unexplainable occurrences of people able to move things without touching them just about every day.

Smart phone app. Mention eugenics positively and you're automatically issued a ticket for the first round. It should make you smell bad too, in case you meet a girl on the way to the deletion center.

Proof of what? What did I propose, as you have, that I have no supportive evidence for? Or are you saying that my questioning your argument is without support? Because there's plenty of evidence that what we call "the mind" is a function of the brain and its systems. We also have no reason to believe our bodies are holograms, especially when empirical evidence heavily suggests otherwise. So why would you think your opinion is not ridiculous compared to what we have evidence for? My argument doesn't rely on opinion, and maybe that's where we're getting our wires crossed.

Which unsupported fantasies of mine are you referring to? Or is this just lashing out irrationally?

And this explanation helps us how? Is this a case where nothing really changes for us, but you get to believe your unsupported fantasies? It sounds like your belief doesn't impact me in any way, so go for it, if that's what you choose.

It's irrational to think any solution could work on everyone. And eugenics seems to show that what one person thinks is a solution may be everybody else's worst nightmare. I think the OP's stance is utopian and unrealistic.

It was a reflection, not a criticism. No Einsteins yet, but we're still waiting.

It's not important enough to me to argue if you truly think I'm off-topic. Enjoy, let me know if you want me to hide my post.

If you don't accept that religious teachings are "divinely inspired", then it was imagination that gave rise to religion. I mentioned nothing about superstitions, only about predictive imaginings turning into doctrine.

Don't forget the ones where a kid bursts into the lab and tells the scientists that despite the success of what they're doing, they're doing it wrong. Those always amaze me.

I think it all started because some early humans began imagining predators in the shadows, and the ones who were right more often gained prestige. Humans would listen to the warrior who can predict where the tiger is lying in wait. It would lead to more predictions about things they couldn't see, and again, the human who gets it right most often seems like a magic person, someone to be listened to and followed. Imagining something you can't see was a huge advantage in long-range planning, which leads to cooperative efforts at a better future for the tribe. While religion may have given early humans an advantage in some areas, I think it also was a detriment to critical thinking skills, something it took us a few thousand years to develop because of religious indoctrination. Once we started looking at the universe critically, and stopped accepting truths on faith, it's only taken us a few centuries to reach the stage we're at now. Perhaps religion is like training wheels for humans. Once you've grown past the need, it's time to take them off, otherwise they're going to hamper your bike-riding development.

Sweet bait that attracts the fish who didn't study in school, on small hooks so they're very palatable.

! Moderator Note This is way out of line for a discussion forum. And in this context, it's advising ignorance, and we don't like that here. Please stick to some science, and leave your personal attacks at home. I know you'll have a problem with this, so Report it instead of dwelling on it here.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum, and one of our rules states you can't require anyone to watch a video in order to participate. I notice both of your posts have involved videos. We aren't here to promote anyone's yootoob channel. Again, science, discussion. Please make sure any further thread starters give enough written information for anyone to participate. Thread closed.

Agreed. This thread isn't about why someone believes in god(s). It's about scientific explanations for various phenomena, and how nothing supernatural is needed in those explanations. They seem to cover everything we know. It's only when people start imagining by guesswork that unobservable, unsupported, unfalsifiable solutions are proposed.

Even science can't explain why a perfect god would create an imperfect world and then blame his children for disobedience and call it perfect love. But then, I wouldn't want it to bother.

No, you're not. You're a literary lion. You're a top shelf leader who needs to pave the way towards understanding with your words, before you couple that with cooperative action. People need to know what you stand for so they can decide to stand with you. There's no shy in print. By the time you need to meet the people you're to lead, they won't give you any reason to be shy. They'll be too busy cheering you. IF you start right now, that is. Oh, and do it well, that's important too. Nudge, nudge, NUDGE.

! Moderator Note Moved from Science News (which is for... well, Science News) to General Philosophy. Please don't open any more speculative threads in mainstream sections. Thank you.

Well then, you need to make a prediction about alien consciousness, and support it with some evidence we can validate. Otherwise it's just guessing, and we don't do that in the Other Sciences section. We need some mainstream knowledge to back up conjecture so we can trust it a little better.

! Moderator Note This is the Science News section. Do you have a link to the news story, so folks know what you're talking about?