1 of 3
1
Universal Core Values
Posted: 29 January 2009 08:09 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2009-01-28

Hi,

This is my first post. Thanks, Sam, for hosting this forum and for your excellent books.

Rabbi Yehuda Berg says some 10,000 students of Kabbalah have been asked a simple question over the years, “What does a human being truly desire from life?” He notes that the responses to this query—including love, peace, freedom and personal fulfillment—cannot be located on a map, cannot be weighed or held in our hands.

In other words, they are non-physical, subjective, inner experiences.

If something cannot be tied to a specific spatial geography it cannot be measured. (Intuitively it makes no sense to say we are 25.7 in love or 98.6 peaceful.) That which is non-spatial is also, by default, outside of time, as Einstein proved space and time were interwoven into a single, unified continuum.

So, what people truly desire from life, according to Berg’s research, are spaceless, timeless inner experiences, which means they are also beyond the realm of quantifiable science, which ends at the edge of spacetime.

These core human values are, as Thomas Jefferson would suggest, self-evident truths. The experience of them is the only evidence of their existence, their measure and their worth. Given that these subjective, self-evident truths are what people want more than anything else from life, one who denies them—or denies the worth of inner experience in general—is denying what human beings want most.

“Deifying science at the expense of human truth,” to paraphrase Palmer Joss’ idea in Carl Sagan’s Contact. (Echoing Berg’s research, Joss challenges Ellie Arroway to prove that she loved her father. She can’t do it.)

If atheists truly want to slay the violence-inspiring god image of the Old Testament, I would suggest carrying out Berg’s experiment in every classroom, every organizational meeting, every joint summit with religion, to generalize the data. It’s a great tool for creating common ground in groups that share radically opposed views.

Repeat the question often with many groups and I believe you’ll find humans have a set of universal core values.

When science admits to the value of, and commits to prioritizing the illumination of human truth—subjective, inner experiences wholly beyond numeric quantification and spacetime itself—thereby accepting and realizing the limitations of its own paradigm, truly productive discussion can begin between science and religion.

Tom Whitney
http://www.whyamiaduck.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 08:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
Pixidis - 29 January 2009 01:09 PM

Joss challenges Ellie Arroway to prove that she loved her father. She can’t do it.

Nor can anyone demonstrate that it is necessary to prove it. It’s none of their goddam business. Ellie might want to show Palmer Joss that she loved her father, but it is all in the service of getting some nookie.

Rocks don’t roll uphill on their own. Anyone who says they do needs to prove it.

I smell blood in the water here, and the potential for an ongoing supply of brightly-colored gumballs with which to pacify the sharks.

[ Edited: 29 January 2009 08:34 AM by Traces Elk]
 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 09:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2009-01-28
Jefe - 29 January 2009 01:13 PM
Pixidis - 29 January 2009 01:09 PM

Rabbi Yehuda Berg says some 10,000 students of Kabbalah have been asked a simple question over the years, “What does a human being truly desire from life?” He notes that the responses to this query—including love, peace, freedom and personal fulfillment—cannot be located on a map, cannot be weighed or held in our hands.

In other words, they are non-physical, subjective, inner experiences.

Are you trying to dust off the ‘unmeasurable’ canard for emotion and internal cognition?

My point is that science is demanding physical, measurable proof of God, when there is no such thing even for the ordinary experiences—core values—humans value most in life.

The physical evidence of quantum mechanics suggests a non-local universe, which would preclude a separate, standalone self with “internal” emotion and cognition.  Einstein said our belief in separation from the universe was an “optical delusion of our consciousness” and a “kind of prison.” Sam Harris says:

“For millennia, contemplatives have known that ordinary people can divest themselves of the feeling that they call “I” and thereby relinquish the sense that they are separate from the rest of the universe…this phenomenon….is supported by a wealth of evidence—neuroscientific, philosophical and introspective.”

Even for a hard-core, “it’s all brain chemistry creating these emotions or internal cognitions,”  quantum mechanics answers that the brain cells creating these experiences contain wave functions that can be spread out over spacetime. So the idea of internal is a probability of location at best. A kind of prison, as Einstein said.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 09:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2009-01-28
Salt Creek - 29 January 2009 01:31 PM
Pixidis - 29 January 2009 01:09 PM

Joss challenges Ellie Arroway to prove that she loved her father. She can’t do it.

Nor can anyone demonstrate that it is necessary to prove it. It’s none of their goddam business. Ellie might want to show Palmer Joss that she loved her father, but it is all in the service of getting some nookie.

Rocks don’t roll uphill on their own. Anyone who says they do needs to prove it.

I smell blood in the water here, and the potential for an ongoing supply of brightly-colored gumballs with which to pacify the sharks.

Couple thoughts:
1.) They had already had sex by that time in the movie, so I have to disagree with the Getting Some Nookie theory.
2.) I agree, if someone says rocks roll uphill, they need to offer proof that can be quantified in the realm of physical science, because that’s where the rock exists.  If someone says inner experiences (what humans want most from life) are invalid, and tries to argue this position using the tools of quantifiable science, they are out of bounds.
3.) Looking forward to being your personal chum bucket.

Pix

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 10:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2009-01-28
Jefe - 29 January 2009 02:40 PM
Pixidis - 29 January 2009 02:38 PM

My point is that science is demanding physical, measurable proof of God, when there is no such thing even for the ordinary experiences—core values—humans value most in life.

Where?  Where is science demanding physical, measurable proof?

So you’re saying science does not demand physical, measurable proof of God’s existence? Could you point me towards their criteria, then?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 10:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02

Those who are prone to being dazzled with nonsense are already staring starry-eyed at whatever woo pusher beat you to the punch.

I cannot prove that I don’t like anchovies. I can’t prove that they stink. That is subjective. If someone tries to make me eat them, I’ll gladly insert them into that person’s rectum to demonstrate my distaste for smelly fish . That person may subsequently experience the feeling of being full of shit. What they are actually full of is provable; but I really don’t want to gather the data. We will both intuitively understand the futility of repeating the experiment.

If the self proclaimed ichthyologist still believes that someone should eat his chum, he should try peddling it to college sophomores. They’ll ingest nearly anything if they think it will get them into grad school.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 10:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
Beam - 29 January 2009 03:33 PM

If the self proclaimed ichthyologist still believes that someone should eat his chum, he should try peddling it to college sophomores. They’ll ingest nearly anything if they think it will get them into grad school.

You’re on a roll, big guy. Don’t stop now. This is even better than “Do not use this product if the freshness seal is broken prior to purchase.”

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 10:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
Pixidis - 29 January 2009 02:52 PM

2.) I agree, if someone says rocks roll uphill, they need to offer proof that can be quantified in the realm of physical science, because that’s where the rock exists.  If someone says inner experiences (what humans want most from life) are invalid, and tries to argue this position using the tools of quantifiable science, they are out of bounds

Naah, they’re just in another realm. You know, the one where non-material rocks roll up non-material hills. What humans want most from life is the subject of opinion polls. Don’t waste my time with opinions, which span a range. What this human being wants is for you to take your head out of your ass. It’s all for your own good.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 11:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02
Salt Creek - 29 January 2009 03:44 PM

Don’t stop now.

You already noted those points more concisely. I’m just exercising my solipsism.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 12:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2009-01-28
Beam - 29 January 2009 03:33 PM

Those who are prone to being dazzled with nonsense are already staring starry-eyed at whatever woo pusher beat you to the punch.

I cannot prove that I don’t like anchovies. I can’t prove that they stink. That is subjective. If someone tries to make me eat them, I’ll gladly insert them into that person’s rectum to demonstrate my distaste for smelly fish . That person may subsequently experience the feeling of being full of shit. What they are actually full of is provable; but I really don’t want to gather the data. We will both intuitively understand the futility of repeating the experiment.

If the self proclaimed ichthyologist still believes that someone should eat his chum, he should try peddling it to college sophomores. They’ll ingest nearly anything if they think it will get them into grad school.

Do you know any open-minded college sophomores I could talk to in this forum.

Pix

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 12:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  892
Joined  2007-12-04
Pixidis - 29 January 2009 01:09 PM

“What does a human being truly desire from life?”

The question is flawed from the beginning.

This individual asks an objective question to one where there is only subjective answers.

The question what does a human being truly desire as you can tell from the phrasing treats every human being the same, collectively as if there is a master human conscioussness with identical desires.

This question could be answered in a sense, where the answer is oxygen, a body heat of 37 centrigrades and a functional cellular system.

Because if you do categorize all human beings as one entity it will have to be the carbon based unit homosapiens.
To which any desires that are universal has to be measured in biology. That is, if you want to treat humans as one whole you must find a variable that is identical to all, an objective one.

If you on the other hand want the answer that was given, those are subjective answers and can only be given if the question is what do YOU desire from life.

A subjective opinion is never scientific. I desire happiness, social connections, intellectual fullfillment and various other things in my life. All are my own desires and my choices, its all subjective desires.

Since subjective questions are not science, they neither need nor can be proven scientifically.

With sufficient brain scanner technology in the future you can prove that my subjective desire is indeed the subjective desire I am having though.

But it still does not change the point, that Berg is an idiot.


You can apply this to god as well, if someone tells you that there is a god, who hears our prayers. Thats an objective question to which we must demand evidence.
“God came to me and told me venting gas is immoral”, screenshot or it didn’t happen.

If you do say, this rock is god to me. Thats a subjective point, you don’t need to prove it. It has absolutely not impact on me if you think that is the case.

 Signature 

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 12:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
Pixidis - 29 January 2009 05:17 PM

Do you know any open-minded college sophomores I could talk to in this forum.

Pix

Beggars can’t be choosers, Pix. Go bend your spoon.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 01:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2009-01-28
Jefe - 29 January 2009 03:34 PM
Pixidis - 29 January 2009 03:14 PM
Jefe - 29 January 2009 02:40 PM
Pixidis - 29 January 2009 02:38 PM

My point is that science is demanding physical, measurable proof of God, when there is no such thing even for the ordinary experiences—core values—humans value most in life.

Where?  Where is science demanding physical, measurable proof?

So you’re saying science does not demand physical, measurable proof of God’s existence? Could you point me towards their criteria, then?

No I’m asking you to point me to where you see science making demands.

I offer two examples from The End of Faith:

Page 35: “The appropriate response to the bin Ladens of the world is to correct everyone’s reading of these texts by making the same evidentiary demands [my italics] in religious matters that we make in all others.”

Can you point me to an example where a court, a scientist, an insurance company or anyone else has accepted evidence that was not physical and measurable? Is there some non-physical evidence you could point me towards that Sam might have been alluding to?

From page 77:  “....If Jesus came saying things like, “The Vatican Library has exactly thirty-seven thousand, two hundred and twenty-six books,” and he turned out to be right, we would then begin to feel that were were, at the very least, in dialogue with someone who had something to say about the way the world is.”

Is a demand for an exact, numeric book tally not a demand for physical, measurable evidence?

Did you read the book?

Pix

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 01:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2009-01-28
Salt Creek - 29 January 2009 03:49 PM
Pixidis - 29 January 2009 02:52 PM

2.) I agree, if someone says rocks roll uphill, they need to offer proof that can be quantified in the realm of physical science, because that’s where the rock exists.  If someone says inner experiences (what humans want most from life) are invalid, and tries to argue this position using the tools of quantifiable science, they are out of bounds

Naah, they’re just in another realm. You know, the one where non-material rocks roll up non-material hills. What humans want most from life is the subject of opinion polls. Don’t waste my time with opinions, which span a range. What this human being wants is for you to take your head out of your ass. It’s all for your own good.

How come the New Atheism makes so many references to the human ass? Hasn’t the human ass been around for quite some time now? Biologists, can you provide some insight?

Pix

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 02:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

Lets cite another study. Perhaps one that asks the same question to 10,000 secular, free thinking Americans. Or for Jefe’s sake, Canadians.

Perhaps they will not require the same woo. I, for instance, don’t indeed.

According to the believers, God created the universe.
According to neuroscience we have things still to learn about human consciousness.

Shouldn’t we require empirical evidence for both endeavours?

God would not be held to high standards if such extraordinary claims had not been made.

Everyone can live quite happily with not really understanding ‘why’ they love their daughter.

Many cannot live however, with people that choose superstition over science, and want to use it to rule all of our lives. For that kind of submission, we want evidence.

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 03:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
Pixidis - 29 January 2009 06:13 PM

Can you point me to an example where a court, a scientist, an insurance company or anyone else has accepted evidence that was not physical and measurable? Is there some non-physical evidence you could point me towards that Sam might have been alluding to?

Do you have some problem with providing intersubjective evidence if you want people intersubjectively to take seriously your pronouncements of woo? If so, you’re only a carbon copy of any other fuckwit who wants (more likely, desperately needs)  social validation of his subjective fantasies of higher realms. The people you are haranguing here neither know why you need this, nor do they much care. Don’t you get all the validation you need from your fellow woo-heads? Why should it trouble you enough to come here pestering a few gnarly, crusty evidence-based thinkers about their supposed unfairness?

Pixidis - 29 January 2009 06:16 PM

How come the New Atheism makes so many references to the human ass?

Not yet ten posts, and this Pixie has given up the pretense of serious inquiry. I smell a troll, and if Pixie is not a sock puppet for another poster who has worn out two or three other welcomes, he might as well be.

Oops. Looks like I was a little hasty there. Bad diagnosis. Bad. Way off. I’ve gone and had a look at the whyamiaduck blog, and realized that Pix here is not a troll at all. Just another pretentious, verbose spiritual quester eager to reinterpret the gibberish of pre-scientific “spirituality” to create a whole new brand of gibberish in light of string theory. And, of course, The New Atheism. Every new brand needs a new counter-brand. Over the counter, as it were, for a dime.

Speaking ex Blogedra, as it were, Tom writes, Swiftly:

Now from nine to five I make my dough doing marketing through my brand consultancy Pixidis.

Furthermore, we find that he and the erstwhile John Brand might be MFEO:

I have literally challenged everything I was taught about God to the core, holding only one truth as absolute: God is love.

Love is God, too, Tommy Boy, if you’re that into tautologies.

...through the perceptual spiritual psychology of A Course in Miracles, which I study daily.

Well, I can see your problem is not that you can’t believe it, but that you don’t know whom to sell it to.

In for a penny, in for a dime. Still and all, good night, and good luck.

[ Edited: 29 January 2009 05:42 PM by Traces Elk]
 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed