In any event. This’ll seperate out the window dressing Christianity (pro-choice “christians,” for example) from the devout. The cardboard facade brand will be so busy chasing fads and pop culture to make themselves “relevant,” even they will recognize they’re not Christians. Maybe they’ll call themselves the Church of the Rolling Stone, or the Mtvists of the Holy Hipness. But, at least we’ll be clear on who’s who and what’s what.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
With some scientists claiming we only use about 10% of our mind when conscious, anyone who denies the possibility that there is unknown ability/power within the understanding of what we are not in control of isn’t just viewing possibilities through a shallow lens, they are about as UNscientific as one could possibly be.[/quote]
I’ve always heard that the whole 10% deal was a myth. Have you ever read anything to support that particular figure, or, if not specifically that number, anything that suggests large portions of our brain lay fallow over the course of our lives?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Science can not explain how life began.[/quote]
Actually, it probably can. Give it time.
We’ve only just begun to understand that time isn’t a force that acts in a straight line like we’ve assumed so far. We’re starting to delve into realms of science that deal with dimensions beyond our perception, so I predict major breakthroughs on that front will be few and far between from now on.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Professor X wrote:
With some scientists claiming we only use about 10% of our mind when conscious, anyone who denies the possibility that there is unknown ability/power within the understanding of what we are not in control of isn’t just viewing possibilities through a shallow lens, they are about as UNscientific as one could possibly be.
I’ve always heard that the whole 10% deal was a myth. Have you ever read anything to support that particular figure, or, if not specifically that number, anything that suggests large portions of our brain lay fallow over the course of our lives?[/quote]
Semi-myth. 10% of the neurons in our brain fire at any given time. 100% would be having a seizure.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Professor X wrote:
With some scientists claiming we only use about 10% of our mind when conscious, anyone who denies the possibility that there is unknown ability/power within the understanding of what we are not in control of isn’t just viewing possibilities through a shallow lens, they are about as UNscientific as one could possibly be.
I’ve always heard that the whole 10% deal was a myth. Have you ever read anything to support that particular figure, or, if not specifically that number, anything that suggests large portions of our brain lay fallow over the course of our lives?[/quote]
Semi-myth. 10% of the neurons in our brain fire at any given time. 100% would be having a seizure.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Science can not explain how life began. It has no clue at all. It creates theories of how but not one person on this planet, no matter how many lightening strikes they survive, has ever been able to make life where there was none previously. Therefore, one could even safely say we have no clue where LIFE itself came from if looked at scientifically.
I agree that certain questions are unanswerable, at least with current technology. You can create theories and test predictions based on those theories, but final proof is ephemeral.
The most honest answer in these cases is simply, “We don’t know.” Unfortunately, faith fails on that point, since you are choosing to believe in something for which there isn’t sufficient proof.
The entire game of life is about CHOICE. You have made the choice to believe that all religious beliefs are false.
Pulling ancient belief systems and acting like because ancient people believed non-scientific ideas that we now view as factually false, that this means all religious ideas are false makes ZERO logical sense
Please point to where I said current religious ideas are false because ancient religious ideas are false. What I said was that belief systems are subject to scientific scrutiny, while value systems are not.
Religious beliefs about the nature of the universe, like the ancient idea of Apollo’s chariot, or like the contemporary idea of faith healing, can be scientifically studied to determine whether or not those beliefs are based on facts.
However, you can’t put right and wrong in a lab. The determination of morality is ultimately subjective, and outside the realm of science.
So again, how has science disproven current belief systems, not belief systems from ancient people who thought evil spirits caused heart burn?
Here’s a more current example:
The study by itself doesn’t unilaterally disprove the power of prayer, but it offers one piece of objective evidence toward testing the prayer hypothesis.
It doesn’t prove or disprove anything. You can basically toss that in a heap with the other studies done that did show some effect…like those pointed out here; Harris Prayer Study
However, at the heart of all of these is the effect of positive thinking and hope, which anyone with any amount of exposure to a medical/clinical environment would have to claim with absolute certainty DO have some positive effect.
While you are focusing on religion (as if proving this wrong will somehow help your cause), the bigger issue is that we have not tapped into or even barely understood the power of the human mind. With some scientists claiming we only use about 10% of our mind when conscious, anyone who denies the possibility that there is unknown ability/power within the understanding of what we are not in control of isn’t just viewing possibilities through a shallow lens, they are about as UNscientific as one could possibly be.
Religion relates these happenings directly to prayer and divinity. It does not erase that at the heart of it is positive thinking and hope…along with praying in a group which may be the equivalent of increasing mind over matter simply because of group focus on one circumstance.
In short, things like this are why I believe people who laugh at these concepts miss the point entirely and may not be as “logical and reasonable” as they think they are…let alone intellectual.[/quote]
Prof, firstly when you say that we have no clue about abiogenesis this is simply not true. We have lots of clues. Hence the fact that there is a science called abiogenesis with people carrying out active research and recieving grants from funding bodies. There are a number of current theories on this which are being researched. You are right that we have not managed to replicate the process under lab conditions however that is very different from saying we haven’t a clue.
Secondly to state that scientists believe that we only use 10% of our brains is misrepresentation of the highest order. Which Scientists, in which fields of study? I am a scientist and I could say it however my BSc in Chemistry wouldn’t really make my viewpoint any more relevant than a local Tarrot Card readers. I very much doubt you will find anyone related to the study of the brain who will say it.
You make a good point about the power of positive thought, however this is a scientific phenomenon which is actually well studied. There is no need to relate it to a supreme being.
In general terms you are correct that you cannot disprove a God because it is always possible that an all powerful God is deliberately giving the impression of their not being a God by creating a system that has no need of a God for explanation however this kind of Meta-God-Universe functions just as well without the God so I choose to go with the potential illusion and assume that there is no God until I see proof to the contrary. I like to think of it as a kind of reverse Pascal’s wager.
I mean no offence in what I am typing and hope that none is taken. If you choose to believe in a God then that is your perogative however I should not be expected to adapt my life to fit in with the requirements of other people’s belief systems. I feel that there should be 100% separation of Church and state.
[quote]pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Science can not explain how life began. It has no clue at all. It creates theories of how but not one person on this planet, no matter how many lightening strikes they survive, has ever been able to make life where there was none previously. Therefore, one could even safely say we have no clue where LIFE itself came from if looked at scientifically.
I agree that certain questions are unanswerable, at least with current technology. You can create theories and test predictions based on those theories, but final proof is ephemeral.
The most honest answer in these cases is simply, “We don’t know.” Unfortunately, faith fails on that point, since you are choosing to believe in something for which there isn’t sufficient proof.
Pulling ancient belief systems and acting like because ancient people believed non-scientific ideas that we now view as factually false, that this means all religious ideas are false makes ZERO logical sense
Please point to where I said current religious ideas are false because ancient religious ideas are false. What I said was that belief systems are subject to scientific scrutiny, while value systems are not.
Religious beliefs about the nature of the universe, like the ancient idea of Apollo’s chariot, or like the contemporary idea of faith healing, can be scientifically studied to determine whether or not those beliefs are based on facts.
However, you can’t put right and wrong in a lab. The determination of morality is ultimately subjective, and outside the realm of science.
So again, how has science disproven current belief systems, not belief systems from ancient people who thought evil spirits caused heart burn?
Here’s a more current example:
The study by itself doesn’t unilaterally disprove the power of prayer, but it offers one piece of objective evidence toward testing the prayer hypothesis.
Prayer hypothesis? LOL! The idea of trying something like that is stupid. It’s like trying to weigh a thought.
You cannot apply empiricism to something that is purely metaphysical as “power of prayer”. The very concept is flawed because it is not subjective to anything. There is no way to measure it.
[/quote]
There is a way to measure something. You take 4 groups of people, recovering from heart surgery, large enough to be statistically valid. You pray for group 1 and tell them about it. You pray for group 2 and don’t tell them whether you did or not. You don’t pray for group 3 but tell them that you did. Finally you don’t pray for group 4 and don’t tell them whether they had been prayed for.
It is important that the healthcare staff who are measuring the wellbeing of the groups are unaware of which group an individual is in. You now have a double blind study.
Now you look for statistically valid patterns in the results. And what you find is that people who think that they are being prayed for tend to die quicker. Possibly because they are worried that if they need to be prayed for, they must be in a bad way (negative placebo effect.) Whether you actually pray for people or not however is totally irrelevant, there is no statistically valid difference between the groups.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Professor X wrote:
With some scientists claiming we only use about 10% of our mind when conscious, anyone who denies the possibility that there is unknown ability/power within the understanding of what we are not in control of isn’t just viewing possibilities through a shallow lens, they are about as UNscientific as one could possibly be.
I’ve always heard that the whole 10% deal was a myth. Have you ever read anything to support that particular figure, or, if not specifically that number, anything that suggests large portions of our brain lay fallow over the course of our lives?[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Science can not explain how life began. It has no clue at all. It creates theories of how but not one person on this planet, no matter how many lightening strikes they survive, has ever been able to make life where there was none previously. Therefore, one could even safely say we have no clue where LIFE itself came from if looked at scientifically.
I agree that certain questions are unanswerable, at least with current technology. You can create theories and test predictions based on those theories, but final proof is ephemeral.
The most honest answer in these cases is simply, “We don’t know.” Unfortunately, faith fails on that point, since you are choosing to believe in something for which there isn’t sufficient proof.
The entire game of life is about CHOICE. You have made the choice to believe that all religious beliefs are false.
Pulling ancient belief systems and acting like because ancient people believed non-scientific ideas that we now view as factually false, that this means all religious ideas are false makes ZERO logical sense
Please point to where I said current religious ideas are false because ancient religious ideas are false. What I said was that belief systems are subject to scientific scrutiny, while value systems are not.
Religious beliefs about the nature of the universe, like the ancient idea of Apollo’s chariot, or like the contemporary idea of faith healing, can be scientifically studied to determine whether or not those beliefs are based on facts.
However, you can’t put right and wrong in a lab. The determination of morality is ultimately subjective, and outside the realm of science.
So again, how has science disproven current belief systems, not belief systems from ancient people who thought evil spirits caused heart burn?
Here’s a more current example:
The study by itself doesn’t unilaterally disprove the power of prayer, but it offers one piece of objective evidence toward testing the prayer hypothesis.
It doesn’t prove or disprove anything. You can basically toss that in a heap with the other studies done that did show some effect…like those pointed out here; Harris Prayer Study
However, at the heart of all of these is the effect of positive thinking and hope, which anyone with any amount of exposure to a medical/clinical environment would have to claim with absolute certainty DO have some positive effect.
While you are focusing on religion (as if proving this wrong will somehow help your cause), the bigger issue is that we have not tapped into or even barely understood the power of the human mind. With some scientists claiming we only use about 10% of our mind when conscious, anyone who denies the possibility that there is unknown ability/power within the understanding of what we are not in control of isn’t just viewing possibilities through a shallow lens, they are about as UNscientific as one could possibly be.
Religion relates these happenings directly to prayer and divinity. It does not erase that at the heart of it is positive thinking and hope…along with praying in a group which may be the equivalent of increasing mind over matter simply because of group focus on one circumstance.
In short, things like this are why I believe people who laugh at these concepts miss the point entirely and may not be as “logical and reasonable” as they think they are…let alone intellectual.[/quote]
no scientist has ever claimed this since the 1800s. And the guy was a psychologist who had no way to even study neurons.
if we only use 10% then we should be able to remove the other 90% and have no ill effect since we don’t use it.
and even if you’re only discussing conscious thought, our entire brain is not devoted to conscious thought, most of it is not devoted to that.
listen to yourself dude.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
anonym wrote:
Professor X wrote:
With some scientists claiming we only use about 10% of our mind when conscious, anyone who denies the possibility that there is unknown ability/power within the understanding of what we are not in control of isn’t just viewing possibilities through a shallow lens, they are about as UNscientific as one could possibly be.
I’ve always heard that the whole 10% deal was a myth. Have you ever read anything to support that particular figure, or, if not specifically that number, anything that suggests large portions of our brain lay fallow over the course of our lives?
[/quote]
Cool read - thanks, man.
Thanks for chiming in as well, Mak (x2 for both posts!).
[quote]anonym wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
anonym wrote:
Professor X wrote:
With some scientists claiming we only use about 10% of our mind when conscious, anyone who denies the possibility that there is unknown ability/power within the understanding of what we are not in control of isn’t just viewing possibilities through a shallow lens, they are about as UNscientific as one could possibly be.
I’ve always heard that the whole 10% deal was a myth. Have you ever read anything to support that particular figure, or, if not specifically that number, anything that suggests large portions of our brain lay fallow over the course of our lives?
Cool read - thanks, man.
Thanks for chiming in as well, Mak (x2 for both posts!).[/quote]
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
no scientist has ever claimed this since the 1800s. And the guy was a psychologist who had no way to even study neurons.
if we only use 10% then we should be able to remove the other 90% and have no ill effect since we don’t use it.
and even if you’re only discussing conscious thought, our entire brain is not devoted to conscious thought, most of it is not devoted to that.
listen to yourself dude.
[/quote]
You are getting caught up on “10%” and YES I am discussing conscious thought.
http://www.signtific.org/en/signals/brain-activity-and-conscious-decision-making
Science is now finding that our subconscious plays a much greater role in our conscious decision making than previously thought. Our brain activity is relatively limited when conscious compared to unconscious activity.
You wrote, “listen to yourself”. Maybe you should try the same and consider someone may actually have a point.
I was aware when I wrote that of the controversy surrounding “10%” alone which is why I wrote CONSCIOUS there in the first place. Next time I will avoid using “10%” (as we have discussed this in detail in other threads in the past) since that seems to be what you got caught up on.
I didn’t imply anywhere that most of our brain is simply dead weight.
Back to the link I just posted, there is evidence that our subconscious mind fires ahead of our conscious action. We are just now beginning to understand how our brain works in detail. Your snopes link seems to imply that anyone believing this may lead us to new discoveries of what we are capable of mentally is somehow false.
That simply isn’t true.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
anonym wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
anonym wrote:
Professor X wrote:
With some scientists claiming we only use about 10% of our mind when conscious, anyone who denies the possibility that there is unknown ability/power within the understanding of what we are not in control of isn’t just viewing possibilities through a shallow lens, they are about as UNscientific as one could possibly be.
I’ve always heard that the whole 10% deal was a myth. Have you ever read anything to support that particular figure, or, if not specifically that number, anything that suggests large portions of our brain lay fallow over the course of our lives?
Cool read - thanks, man.
Thanks for chiming in as well, Mak (x2 for both posts!).
[/quote]
This is an interesting read, but the premise involves shutting down a portion of the brain, not enhancing it.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Prof, firstly when you say that we have no clue about abiogenesis this is simply not true. We have lots of clues. Hence the fact that there is a science called abiogenesis with people carrying out active research and recieving grants from funding bodies. There are a number of current theories on this which are being researched. You are right that we have not managed to replicate the process under lab conditions however that is very different from saying we haven’t a clue.[/quote]
A theory is not proof and none of them have settled on how life originated unless we are discussing the Big Bang theory and the like. Replicate under lab conditions? We haven’t initiated life from non-life AT ALL…ever. We don’t know how it started. That is the point, not whether people have ever thought of theories as to how.
[quote]
Secondly to state that scientists believe that we only use 10% of our brains is misrepresentation of the highest order. Which Scientists, in which fields of study? I am a scientist and I could say it however my BSc in Chemistry wouldn’t really make my viewpoint any more relevant than a local Tarrot Card readers. I very much doubt you will find anyone related to the study of the brain who will say it.[/quote]
Read my last reply. We have discussed in the past the relevance of “10%”. Had I known that anyone would harp on the number like this I would have left it out. It doesn’t change anything in my other post as the point is CONSCIOUS brain activity relative to unconscious brain activity.
So again, let me greatly apologize for using 10 fucking percent since no one can move past it to discuss the fact that we literally only understand about 10% of how the brain works at this point in time.
[quote]
You make a good point about the power of positive thought, however this is a scientific phenomenon which is actually well studied. There is no need to relate it to a supreme being.[/quote]
Need? The point is none of this DISPROVES the existence of some form of intelligent design.
[quote]
In general terms you are correct that you cannot disprove a God because it is always possible that an all powerful God is deliberately giving the impression of their not being a God by creating a system that has no need of a God for explanation however this kind of Meta-God-Universe functions just as well without the God so I choose to go with the potential illusion and assume that there is no God until I see proof to the contrary. I like to think of it as a kind of reverse Pascal’s wager.
I mean no offence in what I am typing and hope that none is taken. If you choose to believe in a God then that is your perogative however I should not be expected to adapt my life to fit in with the requirements of other people’s belief systems. I feel that there should be 100% separation of Church and state.[/quote]
Who the hell is telling you to adapt your life to someone else’s beliefs?
In fact, I already wrote that there should be no push in government to adopt “religiously moral” political stances.
You all are arguing with me because of “10%” while missing what the point of it was.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I didn’t imply anywhere that most of our brain is simply dead weight.[/quote]
Perhaps saying only 10% of our brain is devoted to conscious thought would have been better phrasing, not we only use 10% when conscious… which, despite what you may think, lead me (and, apparently, others as well) to believe that you were suggesting we could somehow teach ourselves to harness 90% more under our conscious control.
(feel free to insert a red crayon joke if you wish)
I get what you mean now, though, and I think it’s interesting, indeed.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I didn’t imply anywhere that most of our brain is simply dead weight.
Perhaps saying only 10% of our brain is devoted to conscious thought would have been better phrasing, not we only use 10% when conscious… which, despite what you may think, lead me (and, apparently, others as well) to believe that you were suggesting we could somehow teach ourselves to harness 90% more under our conscious control.
(feel free to insert a red crayon joke if you wish)
I get what you mean now, though, and I think it’s interesting, indeed.[/quote]
The thing is, not only have we discussed this before…but why the fuck does anyone here think I can’t use an internet search?
I could see if this were my first post here, but holy shit, I apparently get no credit for being able to read at all.
Half of the people on this forum don’t even use REAL WORDS yet I get held to the standards of a thesis paper based on anything I write.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The thing is, not only have we discussed this before…but why the fuck does anyone here think I can’t use an internet search?
I could see if this were my first post here, but holy shit, I apparently get no credit for being able to read at all.
Half of the people on this forum don’t even use REAL WORDS yet I get held to the standards of a thesis paper based on anything I write.[/quote]
I can’t speak for anyone else, but you DO, in fact, strike me as the type of person who can use a search engine.
Which is why I asked if you’ve happened across any research supporting what I assumed your stance was at the time (as I thought if would’ve been pretty badass if you had)… as opposed to jumping in and shouting that you were wrong.
I wasn’t aware that this has been discussed in the past.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
A theory is not proof and none of them have settled on how life originated unless we are discussing the Big Bang theory and the like. Replicate under lab conditions? We haven’t initiated life from non-life AT ALL…ever. We don’t know how it started. That is the point, not whether people have ever thought of theories as to how.
[/quote]
True, but that is not what you wrote. You wrote ‘we don’t have a clue’ which is clearly not true.
The problem is that this is also not true. We use all of our brains and our brains are fully mapped and pretty well understood. Yes there is lots more to learn but to say that we ‘literally’ only understand about 10% of how the brain works is not true.
Agreed, which led on to my next point.
Religious people, all of the time. There are plenty of threads on here where people are using their religion as a basis for how laws or policies should be changed.
Which I agree with.
[quote]
You all are arguing with me because of “10%” while missing what the point of it was.[/quote]
No, I was pointing out that the majority of your post was factually incorrect. Seriously no offense intended however you were propogating some commonly used phrases which are clearly incorrect. These misconceptions are still around because far too often people repeat them without being challenged on them.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
The problem is that this is also not true. We use all of our brains and our brains are fully mapped and pretty well understood. Yes there is lots more to learn but to say that we ‘literally’ only understand about 10% of how the brain works is not true.[/quote]
That was taken from this quote, “Ultimately, it’s not that we use 10 percent of our brains, merely that we only understand about 10 percent of how it functions.” from Do People Only Use 10 Percent of Their Brains? - Scientific American
I am sure science will be happy to know that we nearly understand how the brain works in its entirety. When do you plan on breaking the news?
I wrote that from that quote because I was sure someone like you would challenge it.
[quote]
Religious people, all of the time. There are plenty of threads on here where people are using their religion as a basis for how laws or policies should be changed.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but unless you are about to claim that all “religious people” think and act the same, you have no point at all. What is with the stereotypes?
[quote]
No, I was pointing out that the majority of your post was factually incorrect. Seriously no offense intended however you were propogating some commonly used phrases which are clearly incorrect. These misconceptions are still around because far too often people repeat them without being challenged on them.[/quote]
You obviously missed the point of the last few posts in this thread. You are not enlightening anyone.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
You cannot apply empiricism to something that is purely metaphysical as “power of prayer”. The very concept is flawed because it is not subjective to anything. There is no way to measure it.
If a person makes a claim that prayer leads to a greater rate of healing, then that claim is subject to scientific scrutiny.
And if something is not subject to scientific scrutiny, it is impossible to prove or disprove, so why in the world would you choose to believe in it, as opposed to the thousands of other beliefs that are similarly not subject to scrutiny?[/quote]
Science ain’t my religion, bud. It’s way to weak and hopelessly flawed.
You cannot measure the unmeasurable. You cannot apply empiricism to pure metaphysics. It’s stupid to even try. The whole “study” is invalid from concept.