Re: The pedantic calumnies of Gwar

From: Puck Greenman (puck_at_pooks.hill.fey)
Date: 08/29/04 

Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 23:19:27 +0100

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 04:33:14 GMT, "George Hammond"
<research137@hotmail.com> wrote:

> OK... so what I want to try here is to actually resolve this
>ongoing argument by using "sincere, honest, plain, no-nonsense
>discussion" and avoiding all use of cliches or "pedantic one liners"
>
> The issue at hand is your statement:
>
> The brain doesn't modify the universe.
> If anything, it's the other way around.
> (Gwar)
>
>Now, obviously:
>
>1. Conventional Science supports your statement.

As does experimental evidence.

>2. Religion (I say) refutes your statement.

Refutes, or simply disagrees?

Personally, I know of no religion which even addresses the matter.

>
>OK.... what I want to do is RESOLVE this dispute, using honest
>and plain language, and show how "everybody is right" and that
>there is NO ACTUAL DISAGREEMENT here.... but in fact,
>that a new scientific fact has been discovered that EXPLAINS
>the Religious view.... and resolves the issue to the satisfaction
>of BOTH Science and Religion.
>
>
> BEAR IN MIND that there are
> people (the pedants) who do
> NOT want this issue resolved,
> and will use every pedantic trick
> in the book to obfuscate such a
> solution, simply because it will END
> the 2,000 year "pedantic industry"
> that has capitolized on this endless
> debate!

Bear in mind also, that accolades, and hence, funding, are more
likely to be won by turning scientific establishment on it's head,
than by meekly following the sheep in front.

If you show it to scientists, and it has any merit at all, they will
explore it more deeply.

To be the man who proves, beyond any doubt, that gods do, or do not,
exist, is to be the man who changes the world.

Do you really believe that *any* scientist, would turn down such a
chance?

>
>Alright.... the ground has been cleared.... and here is the explanation
>of why BOTH the Scientific and Religious positions are correct:
>.... that is.... why BOTH You and I are correct:
>
>1. Both Medicine and Physics agree that our senses..
> our eyes, ears, nose, fingers and tongue are "sensors"
> and they are used to "sense physical reality"... and
> that these signals are sent to our brain where an
> "image" of this physical reality is created.
>
>2. It is also known, because of this, that if something
> goes wrong with the brain (e.g. a crazy person)
> that his "image" of reality may depart radically
> from "true reality". He may even hallucinate things
> that are not there. And because this "perceived
> reality" is the only reality we actually see... such
> people can be highly dangerous.
>
>
>3. Because of this fact alone, we know that there are
> in fact "2 realities".... "perceived reality" and
> "true reality".

Looks to me, as if you are going to tell us that all perceptions of
reality, are flawed.

>
>4. OK.... it turns out "mental illness" is NOT the most
> significant cause of a "difference" between
> "perceptual reality" and "true reality". Even though
> mental illness is quite dramatic... it is not that common.
> Far more common is a fundamental biological
> phenomena noticed by Religion many thousands of
> years ago.... the phenomena of "braingrowth".
> Children, it can be noticed, do not see "true reality"
> until they reach the age of 18 (full growth).

There could be some truth in that. I was 18, before I was finally able
to let go of my childish, superstitious, religious beliefs, and face
reality.

>
>5. In fact, modern science has now discovered that even
> Adults, never in fact reach full growth. The discovery
> of the Secular Trend in human growth indicates that
> the average human may be as much as 15% short
> of full growth... including his brain.
>
>6. This means then, that the average human being
> CANNOT SEE "true reality". He only sees 85%
> of it.

That does not follow from the statements which you have, so far, made.

It also presupposes that there is something else to reality, which we
are currently unable to observe: I am tempted to ask you what it
might be, and why, with no evidence, you are asserting that it exists.

>Just like a child... the other 15% is "invisible".

You don't know much about kids.

Kids are excellent observers of reality, it is their ability to
observe reality, which enables them to learn to see, hear, reach out
and grasp, walk, and all of the other things which a baby has to learn
to do, to become fully functional.

What they are not, is experienced.

Experience is gained rapidly by the smart ones, more slowly by the
less smart, and never, by some.

The human brain grows somewhat more than 15% between birth, and
maturity, but there is no evidence that there is any detail of
objective reality, that can be observed by an adult, and not by a
child.

Why then do you think that another 15% would cause such a change?

>
>7. Now, this doesn't mean "everybody is a little bit crazy",
> but it DOES mean that no one is completely reliable
> in his judgement...

That is why all new discoveries are peer reviewed: Lots of different
view points, and lots of different people, intent on proving you
wrong.
Thus science advances, with fewer and fewer erroneous "theories", with
each passing year.

> and dangerous things CAN and
> do happen because of this.

Cars, boats, trucks, trains, planes, atom bombs, CNS drugs,
insecticides, antibiotics, and so on.
I doubt me that man has ever discovered anything, which could not also
bite you.

> Severe personal
> disagreements over "reality" can occur for instance...
> even wars can happen over it.

Oh yes. Every religious war has been because two people each think
that their imaginary reality, is the real one.

>8. Ok... this is what Religion discovered long ago... but
> they could never prove it....

You are going to have to provide evidence of that. URLs, for
religious texts, making these statements, will do.

> now Hammond has discovered
> a scientific proof of it.
>
>9. So... the scientific resolution of the problem that we started
> with is absolutely clear now.
>
> 1. There is an ablsoute reality, but no one can see it.

Rather begs the question; don't you think?

How do you know that this "absolute reality", exists, if it cannot be
seen?

Making assumptions without evidence, is not very scientific.

> We can only "infer" what it actually looks like by
> measuring it

If it is measurable, it is observable.

> and devising "Laws of Physics" which
> describe it (accurately).

We do not devise the laws of physics, we merely observe them, and try
to explain them.

I thought you would have known that.

> But we can't actually
> SEE it.
>
> 2. What we actually see is "perceived reality", and the
> DIFFERENCE between perceived reality and true
> reality is simply and clearly scientifically explained
> at this point.

Where?

>
>10. So OK, the difference between Science and Religion is
> simply the fact that Science calls absolute reality "reality"
> and Religion calls perceptual reality "reality". And religion
> calls the DIFFERENCE "God". Clearly, we see that "God"
> is a real thing.

Not so. Once more, your conclusion does not follow from your
statements.
Farther, I would suggest that science calls "objective" reality,
reality, while religion calls "subjective" reality, reality.

>
>11. OK, now we come to the problem of the "language of Religion".
> And here we get into a lot of "pedantism". In religion, "God"
> simply refers to a "100% grown Man".

Again, I must ask: Which religion?

> And as Science has now
> shown, there is no such thing. Therefore, "God" is referrred to
> as an "invisible man".

Do any of your conclusions, actually follow from your statements?

> Actually he's only "15% invisible" since
> we can see 85% of him walking around on the streets.
>
>12. Since, as we grow up, this "invisible man" turns into a "real man",
> and our ability to see "reality" increases

I'm afraid that "simple, common usage, English, is not enough to
explain that, so could you offer a more technical source?

But not your own site.

> from zero upwards to
> 85%.... we say that "God creates reality".

You might, we don't.

> But this is of course
> just a "one liner" for what I have described above... and
>immediately
> starts all kinds of arguments.. because people who don't know
> the full story interpret it in all kinds of ways. But, I've given
>you
> the actual true interpretation above.

Or more precisely: We create gods in our ignorance, and then attribute
"creation" to them.

>
>13. Because of the "God creates reality" phenomena described in 12,
> we see why Religion makes the further statement that "God created
> the world" when Man first came into existence 40,000 years ago.
> The explanation is exactly the same.... since that is when
>"perceptual
> reality" as we know it, first appeared. There is really no mystery
>to
> it, once you have the scientific explanation.

Philosophical garbage.

>
>14. OK, finally, we have to get into the advanced Physics of all this.
> The discovery that has actually been made shows that this
> "difference" between true reality and perceptual reality (caused
> by the growth deficit) is, believe it or not, mathematically
>described
> by a CURVATURE in Psychometry (perceptual) space.

I beg your pardon?

Psychometry is variously,1: the attempt to measure mental process, or
parapsychology, 2: the supposed ability to be able "read" objects,
and/or people simply by being close, or touching the person, or
object.
(2) is not a science, although it has been closely examined by real
scientists, researching claims for the para normal.

I can find no reports of (1), being shown to be accurate, or of (2),
being shown to work.

> Our
> view of "true reality" is CURVED by the braingrowth deficit.
> And this curvature is identical to the Einstein Curvature of
>Relativity.

Nothing in your explanation, indicates that.

> Because of this, further investigation shows that this curvature is
> actually caused by GRAVITY. If we call the curvature "God",
> then we see that (within the language of Physics) we can say,
> "God is caused by Gravity".
>
>15. Now the statement "God is caused by Gravity" gives more ammunition
> to the pedants. Using typical pedant argument they immediately
>start
> in with "if God created Gravity, how can gravity cause God". Well,
> knowing the full story we immediately see that they are simply
>playing
> word games. In the sense of "existence" God creates everything.
> However physics exists within "existence" and "within Physics" we
> can say "Gravity causes God". It is by mixing viewpoints and using
> the word "cause" in two different contexts that you can ENDLESSLY
> produce "pedant one liners" and debate endlessly and meaninglessly.
> In the end you simply have to refer to the "actual scientific
>facts"
> to end all this meaningless debate.

My problem with all of this, is that the only remark I found, in all
of that neurology, which even bears any resemblance to your
assertions, is to the effect that "There is a small portion of the
brain, which causes religious experiences".
I could find no references to experiments done in reduced gravity, or
zero G, nor did I see any references to experiments done at increased
acceleration/gravity.

Could you please point them out to us?

All I see here, is really only a variation on the creationist/IDer,
arguments for a god, the only thing lacking, is credulity.

>
>OK, Gwar.... there it is..... the "gospel truth" about the scientific proof
>of God
>in honest John language.
> If you can't understand it, or take issue with it, I'm going to be mighty
>suspicious that you have merely decided to join the "Eastern Front" like the
>rest of the pedants.
>
The pedants, being those who do not agree with you: Yes? 

--
    Puck Greenman
    
          #162
 
     BAAWA Knight.
               
Blesed is the self righteous xtian, 
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he 
comes out with:
    God told him to say it.
Quantcast