| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| What We Know; Do we see with our eyes or mind? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 18 2006, 03:10 PM (567 Views) | |
| Lon Frank | May 18 2006, 03:10 PM Post #1 |
|
Member
|
In another thread today, a member (Alan) raised a very interesting concept in discussion of evolution / intelligent design. He postulated that men, even, or especially scientists, were prone to see data according to preconceived theories or assumptions. Following this train of thought, I remembered a recent documentary I saw on quantum physics. (I still don’t know physics from pistachios!) In this production, they stated the same essential argument; even to the point that our eyes physically refuse to see that which we do not believe or comprehend. An analogy was used: when the ships of Columbus neared the New World islands for the first time, the indigenous people could not see them. They saw the disruption of the water’s surface, saw the waves, but could not see the ships as they had no mental reference to them. Once the shaman used intuitive nature to recognize the phenomenon, he did see the ships, and then the knowledge of them spread to the people and they could also see. Carrying this to another plateau, we have been taught to recognize ‘matter’ within our existence. That chair you are sitting on is made of matter, and matter is made of atoms, right? The trouble is, atoms are anything but solid. The particles within atoms which are solid in nature, are simply infinitesimal, with the bulk being void. Therefore, that chair you are relying on to keep your butt off the floor is mostly void or vacant air. Understand? But, don’t worry, because the floor is mostly void as well, as is the butt bone you probably broke in the fall, and the ground beneath.... Well, that’s about it for my quantum physics nickel. Comments? - and remember if you are educated in quantum theory, (you know who you are!) use real small words and type slow.
|
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | May 18 2006, 03:49 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Jane
|
I saw the same show, Lon, but continue to question the idea that we cannot see what we do not know. I mean, a newbie human comes out of the womb and sees (albeit not real clear at first) "mama", who identifies herself by scent and sound and touch. Point is, the baby does "see" something... but his brain has to identify it. Those indians saw something, but had nothing previously learned that would help them identify it. I presume they didn't have boats of their own, but find that hard to believe, too. as babies grow and we take them out into the world, they see things and we tell them what they are seeing. we know they see them, because many times, they react in fear and cling to us until we explain the thing isn't dangerous. then.....the atoms thing. yes, it's true that nothing is really solid as we think of solid...everything is, in fact, holey, like swiss cheese, and also in motion, but you don't have to tell a kid that an object is solid... the first time he bumps into something, he knows it's solid. I mean, if the theory is correct and he didn't know it was solid, he should be able to just move right through it, but whammo, his body stops up against it and then he knows he can't walk through it. So.... I don't see how our knowing affects the thing we're seeing. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 18 2006, 06:02 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Member
|
I would tend to doubt this idea of the Natives not being able to see the ships of Columbus on strictly utilitarian grounds. I doubt the communications between the Spanish and the Indians was at a sophisticated enough level to even begin to discuss these types of concepts. So... what was the basis for this interesting assertion? The ships were made of wood - a familiar material to the natives - and flew white sails. I could believe the misinterpretation of the manifestation into a tree with clouds overhead, but flat out not seeing them? Nope. And it's not matter that keeps our butts from falling though the seat of a chair, but the repulsive force between the electron shells of the atoms making up the chair and our butts. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 18 2006, 06:09 PM Post #4 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Lon "He postulated that men, even, or especially scientists, were prone to see data according to preconceived theories or assumptions." This is what I posted in the other thread before seeing this one: "Actually, that's the prejudice of people, be they scientific, religious or whatever. The scientific method, which requires hypotheses that are testible by others, guards against this prejudice. Religion, because it requires conformity to an authority, does not provide this safeguard." To borrow Eric's metaphor, it's what moves meters that counts. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| Lon Frank | May 18 2006, 06:29 PM Post #5 |
|
Member
|
Okay, I also thought the story of the indians and Columbus was fictional; just used as an anology to the concept. I only half-watched the show, as I don't really believe in television anyway, and therefore have a hard time seeing some things at times. There were other ideas raised, if I remember right, and Jane can perhaps fill us in on them also. One was, 'what are thoughts made of?' And, of course, how do our thoughts affect those around us, or those who are the target of our thoughts? You know, Karma and such. They also claimed things like water having changed it's molecular structure slightly, after a blessing by a Buddist monk. I didn't actually see that part, but my wife told me a little about it. The trouble is, that when my wife starts to talk about molecular structure or such things, I usually run screaming into the center of the yard, wearing only my tinfoil hat. I do recall hearing something years ago, that proposed if you approached your computer with animosity, it would respond accordingly, with system failures or crashes. I tried sweet-talking my old box for a while, but I must confess I resorted to 'percussive maintenance' in the end. I've been nicer to the new one. |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | May 18 2006, 06:52 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Jane
|
well, I'm a believer in mind over matter (but only theoretically, because I don't like getting hurt
)... but I do believe it's possible because:1. Jesus told me so faith can move mountains2. there's a good portion of our brains that we aren't using....yet, so who knows what potential is in there? 3. and sometimes, people appear to be able to do the impossible... the impossible for the ordinary guy, I mean. 4. our thoughts are electrical impulses or something like that, so they are a "cause" that acts on something else. Theoretically, then, if the electrical impulses are strong enough, they might be able to act on another person's thoughts or make things move like uri geller can do. It's possible he's a charlatan, but if so, he's darn good at it. 5. and we have recorded cases of apparent "faith" healings (and not the oral roberts kind of show biz) plus, doctors know that the human will to survive has a lot to do with people overcoming really severe illnesses, etc. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| DocInBird | May 18 2006, 08:54 PM Post #7 |
|
Member
|
LOL, have you guys been sitting in the back while I have been doing this guest lecture thing at Stanford? I asked a similar question, but from the opposite side. Do our preconceptions keep us from being able to understand reality? When Alfred North Whitehead (the mentor of Bertrand Russell) described quantum physics a century before scientists "discovered" it, people asked what he had been smoking. When the Theravada Buddhists described it a couple of thousand years before that, people just blew it off as a wierd religious thing. On Monday, in my class, when I proved that two things can be in the same place at the same time, one student yelled out "Bullsh*t". Interestingly, the professors sitting in had no such qualms. Atoms are solid? How many types of particles are spinning around in the space inside an atom? We don't even have the tools yet to know whether there are spinning particles inside a quark. An atom is mostly space. When I think I understand something, it is time for me to camp in a university parking lot and go to their library. I do that often. On the first day of this guest thingie at Stanford, I asked if there were any Theravada Buddhists in the class. Most just looked confused or amused. But when I asked about the Dhamma-vinnaya, several hands shot up. When I mentioned the most common English translation of the word, Dharma, they were all engaged and talking about a TV show. I guess I will have to either Tivo it or get the DVD. A TV show that mentions Buddhism? Now I will have to check it out. Lon, our eyes also see things that do not exist, or at least our mind does. This is how I make my living. I design custom robots for industry. I read all the specs, look at all the drawings, and then I dream. I create the critter in my mind, in 3D and color. I watch it work and make adjustments until it works well. I'm sure that it sounds easy, but only one or two percent of humans can do this. While "dreaming for a living" might sound easy, it is exhausting. But it is a lot more fun that reading the specs or writing up the report. Back to your original idea. Once you understand the "nature" of things, can you ever look at that chair again, as a "solid" object? I live in a very complicated world. Air is not just "nothingness". I am colliding with molecules every time I walk. Did you know that some vegetables "scream" when they are cut? Without even getting into quantum physics, life is a very complex process, if you choose to be aware. Now, if you want to talk about quantum mechanincs.... |
|
--doc Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America. | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 19 2006, 05:11 AM Post #8 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Not to get off the subject but quantum physics explains the creation of the universe in terms of variations in probabilities, doesn't it? Spontaneous order results. This I believe corresponds to the Copenhagen interpretation of the double-slit experiment. I have trouble with the many worlds interpretation, as it seems to lead to the chaos of everyone has an opinion.. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 19 2006, 06:49 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Member
|
Ok, Doc... I'll bite. 1. Where, and how, did Whitehead describe quantum physics? 2. If not too technical, how did you prove two "things" can occupy the same "place" at the same "time?" I put those terms in quotes because, it seems to me, we first need to decide on mutually agreeable defnitions of thing, time and place. 3. Where, and how, did the Theravada Buddhists describe quantum physics? As one who will never be invited to lecture anywhere - much less Stanford - please be easy on me! |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | May 19 2006, 09:10 AM Post #10 |
|
Member
|
Lon... What an interesting idea! We cannot "see" the evidence of a designer, because it does not fit our pre-concieved ideas of how the earth "got here". I would love to use it to defend ID! But I can't. I have to agree with Eric, The natives saw the ship. They had no idea what it was and no words to describe it, but they did "see" it. I had a simiar experience once. I was just outside of Yosemete National Park, in my brother's car, heading west (going out of the park). About half way up in the sky, I saw a huge white triangle, bigger than the moon. I must admit, I got a little frightened at first, having no idea what it was. We turned on the radio, and after a while, we found out that it was a missle that had exploaded over the Pacific ocean. Since it did not look like an explosion, the thought had not entered my mind. A lot of other explinations did! I had to force myself to wait and get more info before drawing any conclusions. (Yes, I was a Christian at the time...) Actually the "sitting on atoms that have a lot of space between, making up a solid surface" thought more explains why we cannot "see" ID. A solid surface does not look like it is composed of atoms that are separated by space. The earth has a look of randomness to it, leading scientists to the evolutionary abiogenesis theory. I contend this randomness is an illusion. If you look at a complex mechanical machine, you see a lot of shapes that don't make sence to their obvious function. An example is the lobes on a crankshaft. We know they are counter balances, but at first glance, they don't appear to have an obvious function. Such is the "design" of nature. I think as our understanding of nature continues to grow, the evidence of design will become more apparent. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| passinthru | May 19 2006, 09:41 AM Post #11 |
![]()
John - Gainesville, FL
|
I wonder if that's why I can go through a drawer and can't find "something," and Cheryl can go through the same drawer and hand the "something' to me.
Or when we are looking for something and finally see it and say, "If it was a snake, it would have bit me," because it was right in front of us the whole time.
|
| Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money... | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 19 2006, 10:55 AM Post #12 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Alan "The earth has a look of randomness to it, leading scientists to the evolutionary abiogenesis theory. I contend this randomness is an illusion." What makes you think abiogenesis describes a random process? It follows known laws of physics and biology. That is not random. Is the illusion yours? "If you look at a complex mechanical machine, you see a lot of shapes that don't make sence to their obvious function. An example is the lobes on a crankshaft. We know they are counter balances, but at first glance, they don't appear to have an obvious function. Such is the "design" of nature. " Nay, such is the design of an artificial machine designed and made by man. Analogy is not an explanation of how life came about. Preconceptions alter perceptions. How would you suggest we guard against that? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | May 19 2006, 12:41 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Jane
|
Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 19 2006, 02:04 PM Post #14 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Train to ask questions, or accept answers? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | May 19 2006, 02:42 PM Post #15 |
|
Member
|
This is spin. Evolutionists do not like the word "random" because it exposes a huge problem with abiogenesis. Nope. This is the way I learned evolution. I think everyone else did to, and those that don't agree are just applying the spin. If ID is true, there is no coincidence that an artificial machine mirrors nature. Don't support theories. Don't speculate how lfe began. Just deal with provable laws. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









)... but I do believe it's possible because:

Or when we are looking for something and finally see it and say, "If it was a snake, it would have bit me," because it was right in front of us the whole time.
1:03 PM Jul 11