Expect Homeland Security to come knockin' at your door!
Nice thoughts but a bit simplistic since it doesn't offer any alternatives. (oh yeah:As a kid I read National Geographic for the aritcles )
If your child or sibling is participating in violence, theft, coercion, murder, etc. and you point it out, must you offer alternatives? (other that to stop immediately)
Peace (he does offer some well reasoned alternatives in his books and other videos)
(...) Humans have evolved to use a number of signals - including taste, smell and possibly silent chemical messengers called pheromones - to help us figure out whether someone is a suitable partner and a good person to reproduce with. A kiss means getting close to someone - close enough to suss out important clues about chemistry and genetics. At this range, our noses can detect valuable information about another person's health and perhaps even his or her DNA. Biologist Claus Wedekind has found, for instance, that women are most attracted to the scents of men with a different set of genetic coding for immunity than their own. This is probably because when there is greater genetic diversity between parents in this area, their children will have more versatile immune systems. The assessment occurs at a subconscious level, yet a bad initial kiss may be a result of a genetically star-crossed pair. (Which is something else to worry about during a new encounter: "What if the girl of my dreams rejects my genes?")
During a passionate kiss, our blood vessels dilate and our brains receive more oxygen than normal. Our breathing can become irregular and deepen. Our cheeks flush, our pulse quickens, and our pupils dilate (which may be one reason that so many of us close our eyes). A long, open-mouthed exchange allows us to sample another person's taste, which can reveal clues about his or her health and fertility. Our tongues - covered with little bumps called papillae that feature our 9,000 to 10,000 taste buds - are ideally designed to gather such information.
When we kiss, all five of our senses are busy transmitting messages to our brain. Billions of nerve connections are firing away and distributing signals around our bodies. Eventually, these signals reach the somatosenory cortex, the region of the brain that processes feelings of touch, temperature, pain and more.
Our brains respond by producing chemicals that help us decide our next move. A good kiss can work like a drug, influencing the hormones and neurotransmitters coursing through our bodies. It can send two people on a natural high by stimulating pleasure centers in the brain. The feeling has much to do with a neurotransmitter called dopamine, which is responsible for craving and desire and associated with "falling in love." When it's really pumping, dopamine spurs us to take things further. (...)
(...) Humans have evolved to use a number of signals - including taste, smell and possibly silent chemical messengers called pheromones - to help us figure out whether someone is a suitable partner and a good person to reproduce with. A kiss means getting close to someone - close enough to suss out important clues about chemistry and genetics. At this range, our noses can detect valuable information about another person's health and perhaps even his or her DNA. Biologist Claus Wedekind has found, for instance, that women are most attracted to the scents of men with a different set of genetic coding for immunity than their own. This is probably because when there is greater genetic diversity between parents in this area, their children will have more versatile immune systems. The assessment occurs at a subconscious level, yet a bad initial kiss may be a result of a genetically star-crossed pair. (Which is something else to worry about during a new encounter: "What if the girl of my dreams rejects my genes?")
During a passionate kiss, our blood vessels dilate and our brains receive more oxygen than normal. Our breathing can become irregular and deepen. Our cheeks flush, our pulse quickens, and our pupils dilate (which may be one reason that so many of us close our eyes). A long, open-mouthed exchange allows us to sample another person's taste, which can reveal clues about his or her health and fertility. Our tongues - covered with little bumps called papillae that feature our 9,000 to 10,000 taste buds - are ideally designed to gather such information.
When we kiss, all five of our senses are busy transmitting messages to our brain. Billions of nerve connections are firing away and distributing signals around our bodies. Eventually, these signals reach the somatosenory cortex, the region of the brain that processes feelings of touch, temperature, pain and more.
Our brains respond by producing chemicals that help us decide our next move. A good kiss can work like a drug, influencing the hormones and neurotransmitters coursing through our bodies. It can send two people on a natural high by stimulating pleasure centers in the brain. The feeling has much to do with a neurotransmitter called dopamine, which is responsible for craving and desire and associated with "falling in love." When it's really pumping, dopamine spurs us to take things further. (...)
Well, I believe that scientists will probably discover better remedies and/or cures for certain diseases such as cancer and diabetes, or perhaps be able to better understand the human brain enough to explain intellectual and behavioral differences among people. As I wrote before though, I don't think emotional or aesthetic experiences can always be explained by Science or by religion. Scientists can somewhat remedy things like depression, but that is chiefly by preventing targeted neurons from firing through the application of psychotropic drugs. The causes of depression are not fully physiological but the scientific treatment often is. I wouldn't know where to find such statistics, but I hazard to guess that there may be great numbers of people who take more solace in Faith to remedy their depression than they do in the consumption of psychotropic drugs. As to other riddles.........
Cancer will be treatable for the most part very soon,yes. We are getting better and better in so many fields of science.
Understanding the human brain is a no brainer.
Genes,sufficent nutrion and education is what makes a child smart. Add some "drugs",,in the 20' and there you go !
Eat right smoke only good stuff and exercise and you will have a healthy head !
And by all means..avoid any drumming and all religions !
We may someday be able to see each other's dreams; when we can it will have been due to a scientific advance. But without tools provided by science we couldn't even prove we had been dreaming. We can know something without understanding what causes it; if that's enough for you, fine—but believing in smallpox isn't enough to cure it. We don't have to understand the mechanisms of dreaming to dream but we wouldn't lose anything if we did. If anything we'd have that much more to marvel at, that much more to explore.
You are reallly missing the point 8... It is not whether we can prove dreaming... dreams exist, whether you can prove them or not is irrelevant. Being unwilling to accept that there are other ways of comprehending our experience of the world is the downfall of the bastion of science. But that is ok with me if you want to live excluding the realm of experiencing life and only give a nod af acceptance to what your scientific method can 'prove'. Pretty effen boring, if you ask me. No love. No happiness. No dreams... wow. But that ain't real is it? Because of course you love, laugh and dream. You are human, I presume. So either you are correct, that nothing exists if it cannot be proven real by the methods of science, or out of touch with the sensate experience of being in this world. I just don't buy it. Your method is rife with holes and looking the other way doesn't make them go away. Oh yeah... those holes? They are filled with the stuff of which dreams are made.
And none of it requires the presence of deity.
Yeah but they are just a state of mind, you cannot prove to me love exists, it's just a word that we use, you can't measure it. Same as hate, or happiness or any other emotion, do you love say, your wife more than you do your dog, if so by how much, by what measurement? Humans like stuff but you can't undeniably say love exists, it's just the best we can explain when we like something a lot, doesn't mean it's real.
Well, I believe that scientists will probably discover better remedies and/or cures for certain diseases such as cancer and diabetes, or perhaps be able to better understand the human brain enough to explain intellectual and behavioral differences among people. As I wrote before though, I don't think emotional or aesthetic experiences can always be explained by Science or by religion. Scientists can somewhat remedy things like depression, but that is chiefly by preventing targeted neurons from firing through the application of psychotropic drugs. The causes of depression are not fully physiological but the scientific treatment often is. I wouldn't know where to find such statistics, but I hazard to guess that there may be great numbers of people who take more solace in Faith to remedy their depression than they do in the consumption of psychotropic drugs. As to other riddles.........
Yes - I believe that those who practice Science will continue to answer many of the riddles of existence - I do not assert that they are incapable of doing so. Also, I did not mean to imply that (as of yet) scientifically "unanswerable" questions can only be answered by the presence of a "supernatural entity". I do believe that logically applied science will eventually answer most of life's riddles, but to maintain that there are only two possibilities is engaging a "false dichotomy" : there are infinitely more than two answers. I fully agree with Darwin's statement about ignorance begetting confidence, but I am not a devoted believer in the religion of Science in much the same way that i am not a devoted follower of any religion. In short, I am skeptical of anyone telling me that they know (or will know) all the answers.
We may someday be able to see each other's dreams; when we can it will have been due to a scientific advance. But without tools provided by science we couldn't even prove we had been dreaming. We can know something without understanding what causes it; if that's enough for you, fine—but believing in smallpox isn't enough to cure it. We don't have to understand the mechanisms of dreaming to dream but we wouldn't lose anything if we did. If anything we'd have that much more to marvel at, that much more to explore.
You are reallly missing the point 8... It is not whether we can prove dreaming... dreams exist, whether you can prove them or not is irrelevant. Being unwilling to accept that there are other ways of comprehending our experience of the world is the downfall of the bastion of science. But that is ok with me if you want to live excluding the realm of experiencing life and only give a nod af acceptance to what your scientific method can 'prove'. Pretty effen boring, if you ask me. No love. No happiness. No dreams... wow. But that ain't real is it? Because of course you love, laugh and dream. You are human, I presume. So either you are correct, that nothing exists if it cannot be proven real by the methods of science, or out of touch with the sensate experience of being in this world. I just don't buy it. Your method is rife with holes and looking the other way doesn't make them go away. Oh yeah... those holes? They are filled with the stuff of which dreams are made.
Exactly my point: The scientific method, while wonderful for matching up the threads of a nut to a bolt, is an inappropriate methodological approach when dealing with experiential perceptions. We can, and do, know the truth that dreams exist. When we insist on applying scientific principles to dreams, and other experienced perceptions, that is when the methodology falls apart, not because the scientific method is not valid, but because it is not the only method of apprehending some realities. When a person refuses to acknowledge that, and instead deems that dreams really don't exist because we cannot weigh/measure/put them in a jar, that is the moment the person has crossed over into fundamentalist Scientism. She blinded me with Science!
To recapitulate – bringing the scientific method to the verification of the validation of experiential perceptions is like bringing a saw to pound in a nail.
None of which requires a deity.
We may someday be able to see each other's dreams; when we can it will have been due to a scientific advance. But without tools provided by science we couldn't even prove we had been dreaming.
We can know something without understanding what causes it; if that's enough for you, fine—but believing in smallpox isn't enough to cure it.
We don't have to understand the mechanisms of dreaming to dream but we wouldn't lose anything if we did. If anything we'd have that much more to marvel at, that much more to explore.
As to a dichotomy—no, my point was quite the opposite (that is, I'm agreeing with you). As far as non-phyical phenomena being true or false: how can you prove what was in your dream last night? If it can't be proved we can't know the truth of it. Yet. We keep surprising ourselves with what we can know.
Exactly my point: The scientific method, while wonderful for matching up the threads of a nut to a bolt, is an inappropriate methodological approach when dealing with experiential perceptions. We can, and do, know the truth that dreams exist. When we insist on applying scientific principles to dreams, and other experienced perceptions, that is when the methodology falls apart, not because the scientific method is not valid, but because it is not the only method of apprehending some realities. When a person refuses to acknowledge that, and instead deems that dreams really don't exist because we cannot weigh/measure/put them in a jar, that is the moment the person has crossed over into fundamentalist Scientism. She blinded me with Science!
To recapitulate – bringing the scientific method to the verification of the validation of experiential perceptions is like bringing a saw to pound in a nail.
Just because something is non-objectifiable does not require the introduction of a supernatural actor. A dream, for example. You can't weigh it, can't measure it and it certainly won't fit in your scientific jar. We exist in an objective universe and live in a subjective reality. We can quantify the stuff around us, but how we respond and interact with that stuff is based upon our perceptions. It matters not that, in some unknown future, scientists may chart the analog pathways of perception, the perceptions themselves are still subjective. None of which require a supernatural actor or deity. The problem inherent within the supposed rational model you present is that it is an either/or didactic: something is either quantifiable, or it requires deity and is therefore not real. Perception is outside the bounds of the quantifiable and has no need of deity to explain nor sustain it as being a valid mode of apprehending our world. Perception is sufficient unto itself.
As to a dichotomy—no, my point was quite the opposite (that is, I'm agreeing with you).
As far as non-phyical phenomena being true or false: how can you prove what was in your dream last night? If it can't be proved we can't know the truth of it.
Yet. We keep surprising ourselves with what we can know.
And as Nietzsche's contemporary Charles Darwin wrote in 1871:
It has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known: Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
Yes - I believe that those who practice Science will continue to answer many of the riddles of existence - I do not assert that they are incapable of doing so. Also, I did not mean to imply that (as of yet) scientifically "unanswerable" questions can only be answered by the presence of a "supernatural entity". I do believe that logically applied science will eventually answer most of life's riddles, but to maintain that there are only two possibilities is engaging a "false dichotomy" : there are infinitely more than two methods of arriving at answers. I fully agree with Darwin's statement about ignorance begetting confidence, but I am not a devoted believer in the religion of Science in much the same way that I am not a devoted follower of any religion. In short, I am skeptical of anyone telling me that they know (or will know) all the answers.
I understand his points and generally agree with what he is saying; Nietzsche said all of it better about 125 years ago. However, one cannot apply the scientific method to everything. As I had mentioned in an earlier post, I am not at all anti-science; in fact, I am very much an advocate of Science, but Gervais is deifying "Science" - hailing it as some mystical, objective entity. Science - like religion - is practiced by subjective, opinionated, fallible human beings. (...)
And as Nietzsche's contemporary Charles Darwin wrote in 1871:
It has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known: Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
)
