What the Bleep do we know!?

[Stella_Omega]

================================================

Hello, helene. I read this thread earlier, and it perked my ears up, but I didn't feel I had anything new or relevant to offer, interested though I was.

Now, however, you ask: "Why not this?" (Whatever this "this" was, I don't remember.)

How about "anything?" I might now suggest based on something I just read.

"Like many ancient myths, the beginning of the universe, as seen by modern science, begins with nothing at all. There is no space; There is no time. There is not even a void. There is nothing.

"In an instant, the nothing becomes something. In an enormous flash of energy, the big bang creates space and time. Nobody knows where this energy came from -- perhaps it was just a random event, or perhaps it was one of many similar big bangs."

So, I ask again, why not anything since we have no idea where any of this came from, or how? Perhaps the universe is like a personality, created, changing, and obviously changeable. Hmm! Good luck with it.

The description is a gloss, describing one theory- there are many others. "Modern Science" is not a monolithic cohesive entity. Science is a process for exploring our world.

Where did you read this? Is it from a book on myths, or a book about science? Who is the author, what are his qualifications? and what age group was it written for?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

================================================

Hello, helene. I read this thread earlier, and it perked my ears up, but I didn't feel I had anything new or relevant to offer, interested though I was.

Now, however, you ask: "Why not this?" (Whatever this "this" was, I don't remember.)

How about "anything?" I might now suggest based on something I just read.

"Like many ancient myths, the beginning of the universe, as seen by modern science, begins with nothing at all. There is no space; There is no time. There is not even a void. There is nothing.

"In an instant, the nothing becomes something. In an enormous flash of energy, the big bang creates space and time. Nobody knows where this energy came from -- perhaps it was just a random event, or perhaps it was one of many similar big bangs."

So, I ask again, why not anything since we have no idea where any of this came from, or how? Perhaps the universe is like a personality, created, changing, and obviously changeable. Hmm! Good luck with it.

ahhhhhhh but Stella... read it like poetry...
the universe can be felt that way, too...

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Stella_Omega]

ahhhhhhh but Stella... read it like poetry...
the universe can be felt that way, too...

well, sure, but the subject is the valifdity of this film.

In my opinion, the film offered sentiment and emotional comfort as fact.

It tells people that, because some theories being explored by some researchers sound a little bit like some passages from the bible or some other familiar work,- then those similarities are proof that Joe Ignorant Blow knows just as much about the way the universe operates as anyone else, and that, therefore, uninformed people can be trusted to make important decisions. The emotion can stand in for knowledge.

And also, the movie fosters that same damn misconception of what science is- confusing technological advance with scientific study.

 

[rwattsIII]

Seen it yet?

Contemplations? Elaborations? Recommendations? Confrontations? All welcome.

www.whatthebleep.com

Watched the DVD twice. Been on the website. Might buy the book (Read the first 4 chapters that you can download off of the website).

 

[Stella_Omega]

===================================================
Stella, Stella, Stella! How doubtful you sound. How silly you seem to try to make me sound. What age group, eh? Okay, don't put any credence in anything I say, just keep on being sarcastic, and what not. Okay, end of thread hijack[/hijack].

If you really want to know anything of this, PM me with your specific questions, oh dubious minded one.

BTW, to muddle it all up some more, and give you more to poke fun at, what I "quoted" is in harmony with Buddhist belief. Oh, boy, have fun with me now, Stella. Bye, sweetie.

well, if you are quoting a book, and the quote pertains to a matter of scholarship, it's natural to ask for the source.
I apologise if I seemed patronising, but the quote is mighty simplistic.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Stella_Omega]

==================================================

Simplistic, huh? Okay, sweetie.

No attribution? Come on, don't be mad at me just cause I'm a clumsy dolt.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

It tells people that, because some theories being explored by some researchers sound a little bit like some passages from the bible or some other familiar work,- then those similarities are proof that Joe Ignorant Blow knows just as much about the way the universe operates as anyone else, and that, therefore, uninformed people can be trusted to make important decisions. The emotion can stand in for knowledge.

I don't disagree with the message (as you obviously do!)... I just don't think it has to be "proven" one way or the other.

I think we do have an innate sense of knowing, if we're willing to listen... it's that second part that's the rub...

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't disagree with the message (as you obviously do!)... I just don't think it has to be "proven" one way or the other.

I think we do have an innate sense of knowing, if we're willing to listen... it's that second part that's the rub...

This movie is bad science, and is a bad way of presenting the possibilities of science to the mainstream.
It promulgates the myths and falsehoods that the media and the (sorry to bring this up) religions have already created- that science is a belief. Because it shows these far-flung theories as if they are accepted fact- it reinforces the popular notions that scientific discoveries- the structure of the solar system, fossils, embryonic growth, the physical structure of the brain- can be dismissed if one doesn't happen to believe in them.
That intelligent design is a "meetingplace" between rational study and religious thought.
That anyone who uses the fruits of technology is a scientist.
That ANY particular Scientist has the authorityto speak for all of the scientific community.


okay... I guess I've made my feelings clear, huh? I'll slime my way off the soapbox now

 

[NoJo]

Intuition, hunch, inspiration, creativity, imagination, "6th sense" -- these are all the hallmarks of the great scientific discoveries.

But after all the mysterious creative process, you then have to check those hunches and feelings against experience (= experiment). And if those hunches are not confirmed by experience, you were probably mistaken.

It's what makes modern science so spectacularly successful in so many areas -- you use gut feelings and intuition during the creative stage, with rigour and doubt during the testing stage.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Intuition, hunch, inspiration, creativity, imagination, "6th sense" -- these are all the hallmarks of the great scientific discoveries.

But after all the mysterious creative process, you then have to check those hunches and feelings against experience (= experiment). And if those hunches are not confirmed by experience, you were probably mistaken.

It's what makes modern science so spectacularly successful in so many areas -- you use gut feelings and intuition during the creative stage, with rigour and doubt during the testing stage.

Yes;
Form your theory,
Test it empirically,
Revise it as your findings dictate,
Discard it if it proves to be wrong...
or accept it provisionally pending possible yet unseen evidence...

that is what the movie is missing.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Yes;
Form your theory,
Test it empirically,
Revise it as your findings dictate,
Discard it if it proves to be wrong...
or accept it provisionally pending possible yet unseen evidence...

that is what the movie is missing.

oh I agree fully with that!

 

[Stella_Omega]

oh I agree fully with that!

so far so good...

Shall we get comfortable and talk about this agreement thing some more? I have some theories that I'd like to test out- empirically as it were

 

[NoJo]

I think scientific method is almost as misunderstood as Darwin's theory (of the origin of species). But I find the latter way more subtle and easy to misunderstand.

I deal every day in the fringes of science: quite frankly, a lot of the people who are interested in the biofeedback devices which my company produces, are cranks -- people like Uri Geller, or merely whacky, like Rupert Sheldrake, who uses some of these devices to test his theory that people can sense when they're being looked at.

But as I said,it doesn't matter how way-out people's theories are, as long as you can test them, (and you don't cheat). Rupert Sheldrake's research team are all believers in his far-fetched Psi theories, but, to his and their credit, they seem to do fair experiments.

My personal area of interest is in "tells", the ways we give ourselves away when we're lying.

Certain people have a "6th sense", a telepathic way of being able to read other people's minds, but of course it's usually just that these people are extraordinarily good at reading "tells". And, in addition to being good at reading them, these people aren't even aware that they're doing it -- They honestly belive that they're reading people's minds through some sort of magic ray.

 

[JamesSD]

Seen it yet?

Contemplations? Elaborations? Recommendations? Confrontations? All welcome.

www.whatthebleep.com

Possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. Although I did like the dancing hormones in the middle.

The guy who did the water experiments is pretty widely regarded to be a quack who does irreproducable work. I believe he won an ig-noble prize.

As something to laugh at its an alright flick, a-la-Gigli.

 

[JamesSD]

My personal area of interest is in "tells", the ways we give ourselves away when we're lying.

That part was interesting, although I think most professional poker players could have talked about the same subject more compellingly.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

so far so good...

Shall we get comfortable and talk about this agreement thing some more? I have some theories that I'd like to test out- empirically as it were

all in the name of science... !

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Certain people have a "6th sense", a telepathic way of being able to read other people's minds, but of course it's usually just that these people are extraordinarily good at reading "tells". And, in addition to being good at reading them, these people aren't even aware that they're doing it -- They honestly belive that they're reading people's minds through some sort of magic ray.

I know people with this ability... that are actually the opposite, they wouldn't say they were psychic... but damned if it doesn't seem like they are!

There's a new show, Psych that kind of uses this principle... guy who claims to be psychic (he doesn't really believe he is) and uses his incredible powers of observation and deduction to appear to be... I only saw the first, wasn't a great show, but interesting concept...

 

[rgraham666]

There's an interesting book, been out for a few years. Been looking for a copy, but no luck so far. It's called The End of Science. The authour seems to feel that science is in some ways reaching the end of its useful life and complete hold over our imaginations.

I did read another book by the same authour, The Undiscovered Mind. In this one he covers all the various mind sciences from Artificial Intelligence to psycho-pharmacology, and decides they all come up a little short. For example, in double blind tests, placeboes often do as well as the drugs themselves in relieving psychological problems.

He comes to the conclusion that we'll never have a Theory of Mind. And that the best way to explore the human psyche is through literature. I agree with him.

But I'm a writer, so I would.

 

[NoJo]

That part was interesting, although I think most professional poker players could have talked about the same subject more compellingly.

Yeah, but they wouldn't have scratched their noses and cracked their knuckles while they spoke about it like I did

 

[NoJo]

... the best way to explore the human psyche is through literature.

Certainly, for some of the deeper questions. But let's not forget talking to people, too!

But when people have cognitive or perceptual problems, it's important to develop a theory of how we do that stuff before trying to help them.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't feel the need to give a scientific basis to spirituality... and frankly, I think it's kind of sad that we live in a culture where things have gone SO far into the realm of the scientific/rational that we feel the need to "prove" spirituality in the first place. I don't need evidence that life can be magical and inspirational... life IS those things. Have we let go of our connection so much?

That's the way I look at things too. If the hard truths of science aren't enough to stagger you with the incredible miracle of existence and consciousness and you have to go poking around in the trash heaps of psi and junk science to "prove" things, then you're just missing the entire point. This is the miracle, right here, right now, all around us, every day.

I still love what Sir Arthur Eddystone said: "The universe may not only be stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine."

 

[JamesSD]

He comes to the conclusion that we'll never have a Theory of Mind. And that the best way to explore the human psyche is through literature. I agree with him.

But I'm a writer, so I would.

As a scientist, can I both agree AND disagree?

We understand FAR more about how the human brain works on a physical and physiolocial level now than we did 20, 10, or even 5 years ago. It's hard to imagine that we won't keep increasing our knowledge and understanding. Yet, in many ways it's the output (i.e. communication) rather than the chemical properties of a person that are really the interesting stuff, and that's far better to explore with art and literature.


In the middle ages there were certain scientists and philosophers who were confident that they were nearing the end of science, that they were rapidly approaching complete knowledge of all there is to know. It seems quaint to us, but it's also quite possible that future generations will view ours in the same manner. I can imagine a conversation something like this:

Little boy: Why did they fight wars in the Middle East in the early 21st century?
Teacher: Because the Middle East had something called Oil
Little Boy: What's Oil?
Teacher: That's what people used to power their cars before people learned how to convert human waste into fuel
Little Boy: WEIRD!

I see another big, impactful scientific discovery/event happening in the next 10-20 years. Not sure what exactly it will be.