Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×
User Journal

Journal zappepcs's Journal: Consciousness In the Human Species 9

I have to say, I just read something that nearly ruined a night of good beer drinking. It can be found at: If the link itself is not enough to warn you, let me: coughbullcoughshitcoughcoughfuckcough

However, one should ask the following question: Where did the results of atheistic science lead to? It seems that into a blind alley. Various theories exist within physics as the most prestigious science, being independent on each other. Some of them are contradictory from the point of view of classical logic or even one theory eliminates the other. Despite of this, each of them is considered to be valid, at least under strongly defined conditions.

First, science does not contradict. When a theory seems to contradict, it is merely indication that more works needs to be done to explain why this seems so. It is NOT a failure. It is simply reason to analyze more and study more to find why. The author continues on to almost prove that science is about reconciling known knowledge, even when it seems to contradict itself in places

The most visible example is the contradicton between two great theories of 20th century - the theory of relativity, which is mostly applied in macro-world and, the quantum mechanics, the manifestation of which becomes obvious at the extremely small values of physical quantities (micro-world, if we are talking about dimensions, but in general, the quantum phenomena can be observed in macro-world too, e.g. at the extremely small temperatures). The problem arises everywhere we are forced to apply both these theories under special conditions like in the world of particle physics or theory of black holes. Although it seems that the superstring theory is on the right way to comply with those two theories, looking in details it appears that satisfactory solution requires the modification of at least one of them - the most probably, the hottest candidate is the theory of relativity.

Okay, he's laid out some questions, basic high level analysis (someone else's obviously) but did nothing to persuade the reader that he is leading somewhere. Why exactly did the author mention all this? read on.

Thus I wanted to show the fact that different valid theories and systems exist, in spite of their contradiction in terms of classical logic. We should tolerate another systems and theories!

In all probability, boundaries of physics in terms it is known today are where begins the physics of consciousness. Let us mention namely Professor Jahn Robert, who is physicist and his affiliation is the research in the field of psychotronics (bio-communication).

Ahh, there we have it. Tolerance/acceptance of someone else's ideals simply because we do not yet have all the facts on the ideas we are working on. Yes, that makes sense. Right? Now, lets move on to allegory. If there is doubts in one science, it means that all other science fields have wiggle room to apply faith, or unsubstantiated beliefs.

The research of human counsciousness finds itself in a similary conflicting situation. As in theoretical physics we have here many different schools and philosophically based theories. While the one field discusses the doctrine of the free will of ego and the whole spectrum of schools of psychology based on the Freudian school and the classical philosophy, the other field deals with the conception of unconsiousness following the esotheric tradition of C.G.Jung, oriental philosophy (the hypnotic regress, holotropic breathing, transpersonal psychology) and biological mechanisms of personality.

There are also known arguments that genetics can provide us with all the answers to the philosophical questions.

The author then follows on with simple statement of belief, not anything scientifically factual, so you can dismiss any previous discussion of scientific value. Though, on this one topic, there may be wiggle room. Not because other science fields have some unsolved riddles, but because this particular scientific field is ... well, VERY open for interpretation.

He continues:

I disagree with this opinion and would like to emphasize the fact that genetics and unconsciousness are essentialy not oposing each other rather they are compatible like hardware (organism) and software (unconsiousness) naturally interacting and complimenting each other.

Consciousness as a subset of unconsciousness can not be defined by neurological processes only, which is a statment approved by many reputable experts in this field.

According to certain theories counsiousness is a link between idea and matter, from a point of view of quantum physics it is actually a kind of matter, and it is exceeds to the higher levels of the time space continuum.

Now, sit back tight in your seat. Here comes the kicker. I'm sure that I'll offend some, but meh.. this is MY journal. Here is a presumption with NO factual basis:

Few years ago I read a book "The Essence of Budhism" from already deceased theravadan Budhist monk Nyanasatta Thera (Martin Novosad) who lived his all life in a monastery in Sri Lanka. In this book he points out a fact that if we would approach the research of reincarnation with the same importance as given to the research in other fields of modern sience, the potential and credibility given to reincarnation would not be regarded so much as a "religion" but sientific fact.

If that part about reincarnation being science was not enough, he continues...

Of course it is natural that in order for Western science to accept the proof of reincarnation we have to base our project on the experimental and statistic methods native to this science.

Right back to the beginning of the argument? Without those 'native' investigative methods of validating a theory, it's not science. Uhmmmm Some Hindu's claim that the concept of zero was invented by their civilization. If so, kudos. Having had all this time, why has no-one yet applied 'real' science to it and proved reincarnation? Oh yeah, that's right, it can't be proved. Nobody comes back from the dead. The one person that claims to have done so isn't Hindu and doesn't believe in reincarnation. Go figure.

Okay, preliminaries out of the way, lets move on to why this perturbs me. First, consciousness is the one thing that confounds all religions. If it were not for our ability to ask existential questions, we'd not be having a philosophical discussion/argument at all. So there is the rub. When you are discussing the cause of your discussion, deep regression becomes an issue. Why do we think? Well, so far, what we know is that one school says 'god' made us that way. The other school says hey, evolution gave us this little twist of fate, a mutation that was very beneficial. Possible several such mutations. Walking upright and the thumb .. it turns out... are really fucking handy. So, here we are.. some tens of thousands of years ago... most believe in some sun god or similar. Eventually, this belief system 'evolves' into a good vs evil belief system, and that beats everything else available so spreads like wildfire across the globe (more or less). Turns out that the really strong and militant and warlike of our species really like this good/evil thing... That's something I'd change if I could.

Back on point. Now we have this thinking thing going on. Hmm how did that happen.. well, must have been god, right? Well, what does this god want us to do with life, what is our purpose? This is where man's new found creativity has shown its brightest. Long before scientific methods were discovered, men decided that the one who had the best story usually ended up with the most glory... writing and reading not needed. So, today we have a blogger who despite thousands of years of time to prove reincarnation is factual, decides that it only seems like 'religion' because nobody has devoted time to studying it.

Well, I'm here to do one of two things. My next post will be proof of the outcome. If there is any real god, Hindu or Abrahamic or any other.. .let them strike me dead right now, as I write this for doubting their existence. Let me not come back as anything, never mind something vile. Just obliterate me from existence. Go on? I'm waiting....... sigh

I guess you will have to endure a few more posts from me. You cannot prove a negative, so don't ask me to prove that reincarnation is not true. I can firmly and happily rely on the fact that wild claims need wild proof, and since there is no proof, I need not start worrying about becoming Hindu.

For some really nice quotes about religion and science and atheism, try this link:

Yes, I know that is an .asp site... sorry about that :-)

It was just pointed out to me that any idea can be good, might even save the human race from itself. The problem is that without proof, evidence, and repeatability it is ONLY an idea, and will eventually be shoved off to the realm of religion.

Flying cars and personal jet packs as well as reincarnation are cool ideas. Trouble is that of the three, only two have facts, evidence, and repeatability. Even if very few of us will ever experience first-hand the two that are real, they remain real. The third remains religion without proof. While there is not much in the way of flying cars right now, people are working on the problem, and it is one of engineering, not proving religion. Further note: the guy that used a jet pack to fly over the English Channel is a fucking hero. THAT was and will remain very cool, even if I never get to do anything like it. It's no longer just an idea.

For some further reading by people that seem much more educated than I:

And, of course, let us not forget real wisdom:

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Consciousness In the Human Species

Comments Filter:
  • It is also sad to disbelieve without evidence.

    Let us embrace the great unknown with a hearty sense of joy that there is yet something to be discovered.

    • It is not disbelief that I present. I have a healthy dislike of any proof yet offered for religion and god. Wanting to believe is one thing, believing without proof is altogether different. I am simply waiting for any kind of proof. Without it I refuse to believe in the fantasies. I also don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or the Great Pumpkin. Proof of any of these would change my mind as well, but sadly, there is no proof.

      I will state this clearly. I do not yet believe in god

    • More esoterically, I do believe in what does not yet exist. More specifically, I believe in mankind's ability to create, explore, and imagine. I can imagine mankind on other planets, mankind conquering space travel, mankind conquering diseases. Much if not all of that belief is based on facts, evidence, and extrapolation of fact. None of it is based on myth. I believe that what I can imagine will one day become fact. Mankind's curiosity is beyond being stopped. Even evil Nazi doctors were curious. Their exp

      • I too am skeptical of folks who would define the divine as if their feeble mortal minds could even grasp the scale involved. If you close your eyes, you can visualize five objects if you're average. Some people can visualize nine objects. 10^100 objects in 6^6 dimensions seems to be beyond us. You can grasp today, tomorrow, and maybe the day after. Stuff that happens in next week, or that happened a week ago you're taking on faith or lumping in the flat space of "The future" or "The past".

        To accept th

        • Thank you for posting your ID... atheists and non-believers need to be counted, to speak up, to fight for the right to not believe. Cheers

          • But I'm not one of the disbelievers. I'm just aware, as most people I know are, that belief is a choice. I choose to believe and I respect your right not to, or to choose - as long as you respect the right of others to believe or not as they choose. Once somebody starts trying to deprive people of that right, that's when I've got a problem with it.

            But as for me, I accept that I cannot understand and yet I believe anyway. Perhaps it's Pascal's matrix. Maybe it's that in the depths of the chaos in math

            • No matter which side you are on, you spoke evenly, and respectfully, and with a healthy dose of skepticism. With this, you are acceptable to all. I do NOT believe that I have any right to tell you what to believe or practice in the privacy of your home and heart. Despite what I might feel about your beliefs, if you choose not to push them on me, I have no truck with you. It is only those that feel I must believe as they do that I have an issue with. In the dark of night, and the heat of the moment of though

              • And thank you for bringing to mind a truth that I had forgotten.

                When others try to impose their beliefs on us, it's mostly because they doubt their own. They need the validation of fellows to reinforce their belief because they fear their own uncertainty. When they become bitter or hateful about it, it's because their doubt is strong and they fear their doubt.

                Such people are best avoided if it's possible. In extreme cases they can be physically dangerous.

                This is perhaps the cause of most strife among

We will have solar energy as soon as the utility companies solve one technical problem -- how to run a sunbeam through a meter.