General Chat

Of all the bewildering elementary particles in the physicist’s inventory, the most ghost-like is the neutrino. Its existence was predicted in 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli, on purely theoretical grounds but it was not until 1956 that the actual neutrinos, emanating from the Atomic Energy commission’s huge nuclear piles, were trapped in the laboratory by Reines and Cowan

The reason why it took so long to detect them was that the neutrino has virtually no mass, no electric charge, no magnetic field and is not affected by gravity. It is not captured or repelled by the electric or magnetic fields of other particles whilst flying past them. A neutrino originates somewhere in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or perhaps in another galaxy and, travelling at the speed of light can go through the solid body of the earth as if it were empty space. It can only be stopped by a head-on collision with another elementary particle and the chance of that is infinitesimally small. Fortunately, there are enough around that collisions do occur which enabled them to be detected. In the time it takes to read this sentence billions, coming from the sun and other stars, are streaming through our skulls, our bodies and the earth beneath our feet as if such solids were non-existent. To the unprejudiced mind, neutrinos have a certain affinity with ghosts – which does not prevent them from existing. This is not just a whimsical metaphor. The absence of ‘gross’ physical properties in the neutrino’ and its quasi-ethereal character, encourages speculation about the possible existence of other particles which would provide the link between mind and matter. 96% of the cosmos is composed of ‘dark matter’. "Dark" in this context is a term meaning "unknown". Thus the eminent astronomer V.A Firsoff suggested that “mind was a universal entity or interaction of the same order as electromagnetism and there must exist a modulus of transformation analogous to Einstein’s E=mc² whereby ‘mind stuff’ could be equated with other entities of the physical world”. He further suggested that there may exist elementary particles of mind-stuff (consciousness) with properties somewhat similar to the neutrinos.

The universe, as seen by a neutrino's eye (if it had one) would look very unfamiliar. The earth and other planets simply would not be there or might, at best, seem as thin patches of mist. The sun and other stars may be dimly visible as they emit some neutrinos. A neutrino brain might suspect our existence from certain secondary effects but would find us very difficult to prove as we would elude the neutrino instruments at its disposal.

Our universe is no truer than that of the neutrinos - they exist but they exist in a different kind of space and probably, almost assuredly, other entities also exist but they are governed by different laws. In our universe, so far as is known, no material body or energy can exceed the speed of light because at this velocity it’s mass and so inertia become infinite. The neutrino, though, is subject to neither gravitational nor electromagnetic fields so that it need not be bound by this speed limit and may have its own, different time.

From earlier analyses of mental or conscious attributes, it appears that they have no definite location in the so called physical (or gravi-electromagnetic) space, in which they resemble a neutrino or even a fast electron. This suggests a special kind of consciousness-space governed by different laws - which is corroborated by the para-psychological experiments and findings made at Duke, Princeton, Freiberg, Edinburgh, Manchester and other Universities and respected centres of learning around the world. It seems that consciousness/ mind/spirit/soul, call it what you will, is subject to laws of its own, defining a different type of space-time. Another way of putting it is "another dimension"

The greatest field of exploration remaining to science is that of the mind. Most scientists still claim the mind to be a brain function and purely physical but emerging scientific evidence shows it is quite clearly non-physical and, therefore, not a product of the brain. It is not so fanciful to suppose that once we fully understand the enormous power of the mind and how to harness its product thought we will be on the threshold of a development far more revolutionary for humanity than the industrial revolution. Some scientists claim that the problem will never be solved because our brains are not equipped to understand our own consciousness. There are others, and I like to tag along in their wakes, who believe that there is a cosmic intelligence of which our consciousness may be part or from which it devolved (Jung’s Collective Unconscious?).

The generic term for the energy that pervades life and the universe may be called Life Force. Some cosily think of it personified in the shape of a little, bearded old man, with a harp, sitting on a cloud. Whether an Asian, Negroid or Caucasoid little old man the concept is infantile. In any case, why not a woman? Sceptics and some scientists do not believe in it at all, particularly the Geneticist Prof. Richard Dawkins who has published a book “The God Delusion” disposing of God. Dawkins is one of those narrow minded souls. He may be offended by being referred to as a soul, but there you go. These people never seem to stray beyond the confines of their own particular discipline. Professor H J Eysenck, who occupied the Chair in Psychology at London University and was Director of the Psychological Dept. at the Maudsley and Bethlem Royal Hospitals said "Scientists, especially when they leave the field in which they have specialised, are just as ordinary, pig-headed and unreasonable as anybody else, and their unusually high intelligence only makes their prejudices all the more dangerous".

Len:

"particularly the Geneticist Prof. Richard Dawkins who has published a book 'The God Delusion' disposing of God. Dawkins is one of those narrow minded souls. He may be offended by being referred to as a soul, but there you go. These people never seem to stray beyond the confines of their own particular discipline."

Do you actually have some basis for maligning an individual not here to reply, in this way?

Maybe you would go call him a "soul" directly, and see what his reaction is. I don't think he'd be "offended". I think he'd consider you a boor.

Hahahaha. I act as if Len might actually respond.


A list of Richard Dawkins' publicatins can be read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_publications_by_Richard_Dawkins

Would that I were so "narrow-minded" is all I can say.

Now Prof Eysenck, he apparently had a soft spot for the woo. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Eysenck

That's the point where the mind is so open it leaks. ;)

Caught you out Len - you have posted that one before!

Eldrick - you are in the finest form I have ever seen on here! More power to you!

Faith - the ultimate con trick!


xxxxxxx mick

If faith gives people comfort and courage in adversity and compassion for others and, if as so often it is, it is just intensely personal and not rammed down the non- believers throat...then is it fair to mock it? It may not be proveable, it may be a fools hope...but if it helps someone through a long dark night when there is nothing and no one else to hold on to...what does it hurt to let it be.

But of what use is false comfort?

It's all very well to believe something because it "makes you feel good",

But I would rather know the truth no matter how bleak that may be.


xxxxx mick

"a long dark night when there is nothing and no one else to hold on to"

is what it is to be *human*. I prefer to experience the full reality of that, myself.

Of course, myself, I don't initiate any discussion of anyone else's choices. Not unless we're already very, very familiar and I want to know what they'll say. Their beliefs are theirs, and they're entitled and welcome to them.

Unless and until they try to make the world in their image. And the plain fact is that very large numbers of them do.

Without their scripture to quote and their authorities to appeal to, how would they manage to campaign against things like same-sex marriage, women's reproductive rights, heck, the abolition of slavery?

It isn't me who wants to drag believers' beliefs out of their closets. ;)

That's remarkably brief and concise Janey - for you.

The difference is that I am an Evangelical Atheist -

I want to change their beliefs.

"There is no god, and Richard Dawkins is my prophet!"

Surely the point is, we are all entitiled to believe whatever we want to believe without having to justify it. I accept Eldrick (and like-minded thinkers) belief that scientists are Gods in their own right but, how does anyone know they are right? Just because they have done experiments and written a report you don't 'know' for yourself unless you have done those same experiments in the same conditions. I believe what I want to believe and would fight to the death to enable me to continue believing. That doesn't mean my beliefs are right - just that they are mine.

Oh Mick -- it's not that I don't *want* to change 'em.

It's just that it isn't seemly to try to. ;)



Beverley:
"Surely the point is, we are all entitiled to believe whatever we want to believe without having to justify it."

Actually, you're entitled to believe whatever you want to believe. Period. (To say otherwise would just be nonsense anyway -- how could anyone ever know what someone else believes, let alone prohibit them from believing it?? So entitlement, or rights, really don't come into it.)

Justification is only an issue if there is an attempt at prohibition -- if a government could show a genuine need to prohibit someone from believing something, and then the believer could try to justify believing it. If that even made any sense, of course.

Otherwise, no one *has* to justify any belief. And no one sensible would say they did. There's no punishment for having a belief, so how could justification for it be needed??

"I accept Eldrick (and like-minded thinkers) belief that scientists are Gods in their own right"

No you don't, unless I've missed Eldrick or someone else saying something incredibly stupid.

You just made that up, didn't you?

Why would you make up something incredibly stupid and pretend that someone else said it? Is that what "respectful" looks like?

"Just because they have done experiments and written a report you don't 'know' for yourself unless you have done those same experiments in the same conditions."

Read up on "evidence". It is evidence if it *can* be reproduced. If someone credible does the experiment, and someone else credible replicates it, and no one credible tries and fails to replicate it, we got us some evidence. (Calling Dawkins names doesn't make him non-credible, Len, in case you were wondering.)

I don't insist on waiting until the sun is up every morning before I'll believe it is going to rise.

Janey

During my debate with Eldrick yesterday, he said that my beliefs were 'ridiculous' (his words) because there was no scientific evidence to back it up. He (nor anyone else really) has any idea of my beliefs but he constantly requested 'evidence' for me to justify them.

Evidence can be (and is) falsified. Ask any lawyer, sales person or parent telling a child about Father Christmas.

Looking back through history, it seems to me that science as way of proving previous science wrong, every thing we believed to be true at the time changes with new evidence, take the world is flat wrong, world is the centre of universe wrong, ok then the Sun is the centre of the universe wrong, the atom is the smallest particle wrong the list goes on and on, we as humans learn more and more about the world and universe we find new ways to see things we constantly improve are methods, what we believe today as fact because that’s all are technology will allow at this moment, will tomorrow become wrong and new evidence will prove that, so no matter what you believe in today you can bet the future will prove you wrong.

You are right RB - but faith is timeless.

Bev, I don’t think it is, we have changed our beliefs many time over the past few millennium and think we are changing all the time, like when I was at school religious education was a compulsory subject, not today, Henry 8th changed it, you can look back and see many changes, we learn about so many different cultures now, many have different faiths, some are very barbaric so who’s right?

As I have been trying to say - it doesn't matter who is right or who is wrong. What I believe is right for ME. If I lived to be 10,000 years old (oh, please no) I would still have those basic faiths. Many are formed in early childhood. As years go by and I read and think more and speak to others, I have and will amend various aspects of that belief but the basics of my beliefs will stay with me until I die.

Beverley:

"Evidence can be (and is) falsified. Ask any lawyer, sales person or parent telling a child about Father Christmas. "

I'm feeling Eldrick's pain.

Did you actually read what I said, or did you just think you'd splash something around the thread that had nothing to do with it?

What *I said* was:

"It is evidence if it *can* be reproduced. If someone credible does the experiment, and someone else credible replicates it, and no one credible tries and fails to replicate it, we got us some evidence."

How does your statement about falsified evidence, let alone Santa Claus, respond to that? ???

Scientific *evidence* is not a tale told in a court or on the doorstep, or to a child on Christmas Eve. Really.

I'd have to see Eldrick's words. I wouldn't necessarily say, myself, that someone's beliefs are ridiculous *because* there is no scientific evidence to back them up. I might say they are ridiculous *and* there is no scientific evidence to back them up. If someone asked, or voluntarily stated them in public.

Bev, it must be very heart warming think like that, but I cannot, I like to think I can and do change my way of thinking, as we more forward with new evidence, the way I see things changes, so what I believe today will not be the same as tomorrow.

Running Bear:

"so no matter what you believe in today you can bet the future will prove you wrong. "

I actually don't expect that anything in the future will disprove my belief that the earth revolves around the sun, or that the earth is spheroid and not flat.

And since nothing in all this time has even begun to prove that anything supernatural actually exists, I'm fairly confident that nothing is going to.

Science does advance our *knowledge*, and thus the foundation on which beliefs are formed.

The shape of the earth, or the operation of the solar system, isn't actually a matter of belief, is the thing. It's a matter of fact. The question is whether we *know* the facts, not whether we believe X or Y about them.

That's really just very different from the question of the existence of the supernatural.

But that said, I'm an agnostic atheist.

Agnostic refers to *not knowing*. None of us knows, when it comes to the existence of the supernatural. We are all agnostics, even those who claim to have knowledge, since they plainly don't.

Atheist refers to *not believing*. No basis for any belief, and so no belief.

Different matters. ;)

Ahh yes Beverley! How does the old Jesuit maxim go -
"Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man"

It sounds as if you were well brainwashed in early childhood.


xxxx mick

Yes Mick

I'm pleased to say I was taught the world is good and people are good but bad things happen during the course of their lives. If that is brainwashing, then so be it - I've been brainwashed.