REQUIRED VIEWING.

[Goggs Mackay]

Ok, I'm not one for demanding anyone do anything, especially in the forum, but if you are interested in the origins of life, religion, physics, chemistry, philosophy - all or some, just watch up to the ten minute mark and it's enough.
Perhaps some of you knew of this already but it blew me the f**k away.

What We Still Don't Know: "Are We Real?" - YouTube

 

[exo_doc]

Excellent!!!!!
This SHOULD be required viewing. I love stuff like this!

 

[boomerang]

Well worth watching.

I like the emphasis on complexity as an emergent phenomenon based on modular interactions governed by simple rules. This line of inquiry might prove to be the 21st century counterpart to the splitting of the atom. Maybe. What we know about the history of the universe looks 'emergent'. It's hard to escape the notion that principles of self-organization make the Darwinian scheme capable of building complex life using simple rules. Of course, a notion is not scientific evidence until tested or at least well modeled. I think this one eventually will be. (If it hasn't already)

Not sure how we can know that limits of biological intelligence have been attained in the human based on brain size. Invoking the silicon option is tempting as well. But we still cannot say what the next level of intelligence would look like in either biological substrate. Perhaps it would recognize us, but we not it. Especially if it retreats into its own virtual reality in a spanking new universe in lieu of this one (be it virtual or otherwise).

 

[stonehart]

Me like very much

 

[mike]

Watch the whole thing

"Trust me on this" to quote Pete Tyler

It explores a lot of whats been discussed in the substrate independant minds thread and others here

 

[Randall]

Perhaps some of you knew of this already but it blew me the f**k away.

You mean the little Life game? Ya, that's pretty neat. It's a similar thing with fractals. Or were you referring to something else? Just a warning that after the time point you mention, the video begins to introduce elements of New Age and Quantum or Pseudoscientific Mysticism, particularly the "Fine Tuning" argument allegedly supported by the Cosmological Constant, a concept that Einstein abandoned calling it his "greatest blunder" after Hubble's 1928 discovery that the distant galaxies are expanding away from each other.

 

[SLVA]

Thanks for sharing. Really enjoyed watching this. Especially the game "Life", quite amazing!

 

[Goggs Mackay]

You mean the little Life game? Ya, that's pretty neat. It's a similar thing with fractals. Or were you referring to something else? Just a warning that after the time point you mention, the video begins to introduce elements of New Age and Quantum or Pseudoscientific Mysticism, particularly the "Fine Tuning" argument allegedly supported by the Cosmological Constant, a concept that Einstein abandoned calling it his "greatest blunder" after Hubble's 1928 discovery that the distant galaxies are expanding away from each other.

No, you were right first time. I had heard of such things but never seen any animation and it so clearly resembles living matter that it's hard to escape any idea of self-organisation in the beginning of life. Without actual facts or theory to back it up, I've always though that intelligence was not only possible but inevitable in the universe. Intelligence is of course totally different than say biological reproduction but biology is perhaps the universes first choice for 'creating' intelligence.

 

[Jeff Davis]

You mean the little Life game? Ya, that's pretty neat. It's a similar thing with fractals. Or were you referring to something else? Just a warning that after the time point you mention, the video begins to introduce elements of New Age and Quantum or Pseudoscientific Mysticism, particularly the "Fine Tuning" argument allegedly supported by the Cosmological Constant, a concept that Einstein abandoned calling it his "greatest blunder" after Hubble's 1928 discovery that the distant galaxies are expanding away from each other.

Emboldened above is Ufology's opinion. Get used to it.

 

[Randall]

No, you were right first time. I had heard of such things but never seen any animation and it so clearly resembles living matter that it's hard to escape any idea of self-organisation in the beginning of life. Without actual facts or theory to back it up, I've always though that intelligence was not only possible but inevitable in the universe. Intelligence is of course totally different than say biological reproduction but biology is perhaps the universes first choice for 'creating' intelligence.

Sure, that sounds perfectly reasonable, especially since it's the way things seem to have gone here on Earth. It's hard to rationalize the belief that this is the only place in the entire universe that things would happen this way. BTW, look here, it's @Jeff Davis dogging me with a mini-flame. No big deal though. I'll try not to get pedantic about it .

 

[Jeff Davis]

Sure, that sounds perfectly reasonable, especially since it's the way things seem to have gone here on Earth. It's hard to rationalize the belief that this is the only place in the entire universe that things would happen this way. BTW, look here, it's @Jeff Davis dogging me with a mini-flame. No big deal though. I'll try not to get pedantic about it .

Because you are flaming what you simply do not understand. Anytime Ufology mentions the word Quantum, described mysticism is sure to follow. Almost sounds like Mary Had a Little Lamb.

 

[Randall]

Because you are flaming what you simply do not understand. Anytime Ufology mentions the word Quantum, described mysticism is sure to follow. Almost sounds like Mary Had a Little Lamb.

Indeed. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to find one of these Quantum Mystics citing Mary Had A Little Lamb as evidence for their beliefs.

 

[exo_doc]

Because you are flaming what you simply do not understand. Anytime Ufology mentions the word Quantum, described mysticism is sure to follow. Almost sounds like Mary Had a Little Lamb.

What do you find disagreeable about mysticism Jeff? Not flaming you or anything, just curious.
Before you answer, let me define mystcism as I understand it. Mysticism is the search for spirituality within oneself using all available knowledge to aid and guide.
Quantum mysticism incorporates quantum physics, or interpretations of QP, to further that search. Do you think there's a flaw to that?

 

[Jeff Davis]

What do you find disagreeable about mysticism Jeff? Not flaming you or anything, just curious.
Before you answer, let me define mystcism as I understand it. Mysticism is the search for spirituality within oneself using all available knowledge to aid and guide.
Quantum mysticism incorporates quantum physics, or interpretations of QP, to further that search. Do you think there's a flaw to that?

Wow, what a GREAT question exo_doc. You are RIGHT! And frankly, I have really thought about this whole thing for a few days now, and I have jabbed as much as I have been jabbed. BS is BS. I was wrong for declaring Ufology a troll just because he kept pricking me every time I'd prick him. It's easy to feel as though you're not being taken seriously, when you take yourself too seriously. That's just silly and self admittedly, very awkwardly, a bit shameful. He's just very familiar with his mind and stands his ground due to as much.

Now, on to "Mysticism". Mysticism can assuredly be defined as a pursuit of the truth if the subject involved in as much is on a spiritual quest. Sadly Mysticism these days however, is more so equated with what are vague speculations or beliefs without sound basis, and whereas I realize that this is the context that Ufology was initially expressing, I DESERVED IT due to my own fun making of his views. I admitted as much directly to him yesterday. In fact it's unfair to speak or express Ufology's mind apart from the man himself so I will just admit being wrong and contributing my half to what I feel was a needlessly exacerbated situation in which I was at very least 50% provocateur.

I would just hope that most will regard Quantum Physics & Mechanics as anything but mysticism. The hard science itself, the data, in no way wishes to express a result likened to direct communications with God or even what may be sometimes referred to as the ultimate search for truth and the ultimate reality. I am happy with my own, I just think these Quantum sciences propose a very important aspect of science yet unknown in working principle to most. Worthy of legitimate considerations apart from that which is left unexplained within a truly burgeoning field of real science that is taught literally across the board in just about every major university or college out there.

And in the same like manner exo, I must STOP this inane reference back to the ETH as being the work of over zealous science fiction fans.

 

[SLVA]

Props to you on that last post. So much in fighting in the field itself, it's good to see tolerance & unity on the forums.

 

[exo_doc]

Jeff, don't be so hard on yourself. Humans are human acting.
As far as mysticism goes, I do agree with you that the term "mysticism" is slung around and abused beyond it's original meaning.
To me, the inner search for your connection and your place in the universe blurs the line between science and.........something like spirituality but without the "religious" aspects or dogma of "YOU MUST DO THIS OR THIS OR THIS" is mysticism. Enlightenment could be one term used as the ultimate goal for mysticism, or even just a heightened awareness of who you are, and what's going on around you.
I don't see anything wrong with using any information, from philosophy to psychology to the hard sciences like physics to further that path of discovery.
In the interest of full disclosure for this topic, I believe there is more to life than what we commonly see around us. I think there are things we are unaware of that directly affect our lives everyday. And I do not think our consciousness ends when our bodies cease to function. The existence of a heaven or a hell makes no sense to me, but I truly feel, at a gut reaction level, there is something further on. I really have no idea what that would be.

 

[Randall]

... I don't see anything wrong with using any information, from philosophy to psychology to the hard sciences like physics to further that path of discovery ...

I like your attitude, but as they say, just don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. If one is going to use information from multiple disciplines, then have sound reasons for doing so. Cherry picking scientific phrases that sound good and combining them with ancient magical thinking in a manner that comes across to the undiscerning as something profound might make purveyors of such nonsense feel important, or enable them to extract fees from people who mistakenly think that they'll become equally enlightened and important if they can learn the same nonsense, but you won't find me buying into it and I make no apology for that. Like other exchanges I've had in the past where there has been some friction, @Jeff Davis and I appear to have come out the other side better off than we went in. That's how the process is supposed to work, and I look forward to more exchanges in the future. Besides, if we all simply agreed all the time with everything here, I think this would be a much duller and less credible place to discuss the unexplained.

 

[exo_doc]

I like your attitude, but as they say, just don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. If one is going to use information from multiple disciplines, then have sound reasons for doing so. Cherry picking scientific phrases that sound good and combining them with ancient magical thinking in a manner that comes across to the undiscerning as something profound might make purveyors of such nonsense feel important, or enable them to extract fees from people who mistakenly think that they'll become equally enlightened and important if they can learn the same nonsense, but you won't find me buying into it and I make no apology for that. Like other exchanges I've had in the past where there has been some friction, @Jeff Davis and I appear to have come out the other side better off than we went in. That's how the process is supposed to work, and I look forward to more exchanges in the future. Besides, if we all simply agreed all the time with everything here, I think this would be a much duller and less credible place to discuss the unexplained.

Couldn't agree more Ufology.
I like what Chris Rock said in the movie "Dogma" (paraphrased)....."It's better to have an idea than a beleif. An idea can change with new information. Beleifs hardly ever change, and people will kill to defend a beleif."
I prefer ideas, liberally interspersed with common sense.