How does one actually know what the cat is feeling?

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by Relic

I'm wondering if there will ever come a day when science and religion (not sure that the right word, "faith", "mysticism", "occult", "superstition", paranormal"?) meet somewhere solidly in the middle.

I think there will be, one day.
Not in any sense to prove that one religion is superior to another or anything like that. I think the commonalities between different faiths is worth studying, minus all the dogma and such. Scrap all that for scientific purpose, as its all rhetoric. Focus first on what makes people believers.
I know there are a lot of studies focused on consciousness, just as I see more and more "faith" being rooted in consciousness. I think as more knowledge comes to light in that realm, spirituality and science will work alongside each other, rather than against each other, in resolving more of the Universes mysteries.

[bassinplace]

I've had to put my dog down before and it was pretty quick and peaceful. I've gone under anesthesia before and based on what I've witnessed I'd guess it's very similar to that, except obviously the animal doesn't wake up. They just unconsciously drift off and that's it.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by aborgman

I'd argue it's impossible.

Science, by definition - only deals with the NATURAL.

Religion, by definition, ties itself to the supernatural.

Supernatural - Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

If it's ACTUALLY supernatural - science can't comment, and if it isn't supernatural it isn't religion... just science.

I see your point. Once the "supernatural" becomes the "natural" meeting in the middle is a moot point. It's one or the other.

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

I think there will be, one day.
Not in any sense to prove that one religion is superior to another or anything like that. I think the commonalities between different faiths is worth studying, minus all the dogma and such. Scrap all that for scientific purpose, as its all rhetoric. Focus first on what makes people believers.
I know there are a lot of studies focused on consciousness, just as I see more and more "faith" being rooted in consciousness. I think as more knowledge comes to light in that realm, spirituality and science will work alongside each other, rather than against each other, in resolving more of the Universes mysteries.

I agree. I think that man's seeming drive and need for religion (or science for that matter) to explain and maybe even give meaning to his existence is absolutely fascinating. Is it simply because we're "just like that" or is it because somewhere in the brain there's this inkling in knowing that there's more to "reality" and existence than that which we can grab onto with our 5 senses? Maybe part of our evolution is just that - when that inkling evolves into understanding..? Trippy man... pass the bong

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by aborgman

I'd say that exact same argument could be made about ANYTHING which is based on faith.

So would you say that there isnt anything worthwhile to gain by discovering the existence of the soul/spirit?
Unlike a teapot in orbit, I think much more understanding about humanity could be gained by the former.

I see a very distinct difference between holding a possibility and having faith in it.

An infinite number of things are possible. Investigating any of them, even those with no evidentiary support - I understand.

Believing things on faith? I'll never get it.

I guess I dont see the same distinction. I think believing something is possible without yet having the evidence is truly what faith is, despite its current definition.

Funny enough - the history of science is as full of people providing evidence for something they actively disbelieve as people providing evidence for something they believe.

If the possibility of disproving another exists - people are going to bother looking into it.

And thats a good start. However, too often people state that the onus to provide evidence is on those who make the claim. Sure, there could those who through trying to prove the soul does not exist come across evidence that it does. There is no reason why both theories cannot, or shoud not be studied. Thats one way we acheive a balance, and have both sides keeping the other in check, and likely even from missing something.

I'm not interested in proof. Science doesn't deal in proof.

I'm interested in the preponderance of evidence.

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

-Karl Popper

Well, I think you know what I meant, and that where I used the word "prove" in that quote it should be substitituted for "provide a preponderance of evidence" (ie- "or it could be that we dont yet have the means to provide a preponderance of evidence for it) Maybe you didnt know thats what I meant, so I'll edit my original statement.

Absolutely.

...but we've pretty much got an answer to that question. Humans seem to have an innate need for answers/patterns. Saying "I don't know" seems to revolt a lot of folks - and they would rather choose an unsupported position than just remain undecided on matters.

Humans are amazingly good (thanks evolution) at pattern matching - problem is that we have a bad tendency to have "false positives" in that we often find patterns where none exist.

I wont disagree with that, but that answer alone is not a sufficient end in itself. It leads to the next question, "why is it that so many people see the same patterns?" Of course thats a bit rudimentary, and likely not the best thought out next question, but Im 15 minutes late for lunch, and Im hungry. Thank you for your reasonable discourse on the matter.

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by aborgman

I'd argue it's impossible.

Science, by definition - only deals with the NATURAL.

Religion, by definition, ties itself to the supernatural.

Supernatural - Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

If it's ACTUALLY supernatural - science can't comment, and if it isn't supernatural it isn't religion... just science.

Again, maybe its an issue of semantics. I think religion, by definition, deals with the spiritual, not the supernatural (it may be worded that way because we currently see the spirit as something supernatural). If we can one day deduce that the spirit does exist, its no longer supernatural, and thus the definition of religion would have to change from "supernatural" to "spiritual". Religion would then tie itself, by definition, to the spiritual. Religion (or spirituality), thus being natural, could then be commented on by science.

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

So would you say that there isnt anything worthwhile to gain by discovering the existence of the soul/spirit?

I'd say that is completely indeterminate.

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

Unlike a teapot in orbit, I think much more understanding about humanity could be gained by the former.

Or it could be used as just another excuse for human tribalism and the innate human need to separate into an "us" and "them".

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

I guess I dont see the same distinction. I think believing something is possible without yet having the evidence is truly what faith is, despite its current definition.

Believing something is possible is more akin to having faith in the possibility, not in the tenet.

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

I wont disagree with that, but that answer alone is not a sufficient end in itself. It leads to the next question, "why is it that so many people see the same patterns?"

Because we're reasonably functionally ALL the same.

Why do almost all people see the same (I'd argue at best similar) patterns? For the same reason almost all people (regardless of culture) find facial symmetry attractive, almost all cultures have Bigfoot legends, almost all cultures have incest prohibitions, etc.

We've evolved not only to pick out patterns - but to pick out SPECIFIC types of patterns, particularly those related to cause and effect. Humans are VERY prone to the classica logical fallacy of "false cause".

[Tituscrow]

I think we'll have a space elevator before we quantify and measure anything resembling a soul or a spirit.

My old man died and was cremated 20 years ago. His 'spirit' exists as memories in the heads of those who loved him. When I die, our 'spirits' will not be reunited in some ethereal, eternal nirvana. Neither will the 'spirits' of any of my pets who have died, or the 'spirits' of any grass I've cut or flies I've swatted.

All IMHO, of course.

And for the record, I think I said on the first page that this woulda make a great lobby discussion

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by aborgman

I'd say that is completely indeterminate.

Well, you dodged the question there. Let me rephrase the question then... if we were able to determine the existence of the soul/spirit, do you think there would be something worthwhile to be gained from it? More so than a teapot orbiting the Earth?

Or it could be used as just another excuse for human tribalism and the innate human need to separate into an "us" and "them".

I think if we determined the spirit to be real, that would do the exact opposite, and unite us less on religious dogma, and more in a science based spirituality. Of course, thats my perspective on the matter, of which there are many.

Believing something is possible is more akin to having faith in the possibility, not in the tenet.

I think its just a more intellectually honest version of faith. Believing that something is possible, while holding enough faith to make research into the idea worthwhile.

Because we're reasonably functionally ALL the same.

Why do almost all people see the same (I'd argue at best similar) patterns? For the same reason almost all people (regardless of culture) find facial symmetry attractive, almost all cultures have Bigfoot legends, almost all cultures have incest prohibitions, etc.

We've evolved not only to pick out patterns - but to pick out SPECIFIC types of patterns, particularly those related to cause and effect. Humans are VERY prone to the classica logical fallacy of "false cause".

And why is that? Why are we prone to pick out patterns in relation to cause and effect? It could be that there is some innate reason humans are prone to think this way. Maybe, maybe not.

Originally Posted by Tituscrow

I think we'll have a space elevator before we quantify and measure anything resembling a soul or a spirit.

My old man died and was cremated 20 years ago. His 'spirit' exists as memories in the heads of those who loved him. When I die, our 'spirits' will not be reunited in some ethereal, eternal nirvana. Neither will the 'spirits' of any of my pets who have died, or the 'spirits' of any grass I've cut or flies I've swatted.

All IMHO, of course.

And for the record, I think I said on the first page that this woulda make a great lobby discussion

But thats just it... of course thats your opinion, based on your belief. Is that a good enough reason to close off all possibility to the extent that your opinion might not be the correct one? Im willing to admit that mine not be, but until anything is proven one way or another I doubt anyones opinion will be changing. From my perspective, that just proves all the more reason of why these things should be looked into.

Also, Id absolutely agree with you that we're likely to see a space elevator before we can quantify and measure anything resembling a soul or a spirit. I just dont see that as a reason not to try.

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

Well, you dodged the question there. Let me rephrase the question then... if we were able to determine the existence of the soul/spirit, do you think there would be something worthwhile to be gained from it? More so than a teapot orbiting the Earth?

I think the answer is completely indeterminate.

I have no idea whether there would be something to be gained from it, and no faith there would be any more (or less) to gain from it than discovery of the teapot.

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

And why is that? Why are we prone to pick out patterns in relation to cause and effect? It could be that there is some innate reason humans are prone to think this way. Maybe, maybe not.

Why is that? Because the humans that had that adaptation were more successful at producing offspring than those that did not. The same answer as all evolution.

It's the same reason we see optical illusions.

Same reason whales live in the ocean today, unlike their land dwelling predecessors.

Mutations are completely random. Anywhere they provide a reproductive advantage, they become prominent.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by Tituscrow

I think we'll have a space elevator before we quantify and measure anything resembling a soul or a spirit.

My old man died and was cremated 20 years ago. His 'spirit' exists as memories in the heads of those who loved him. When I die, our 'spirits' will not be reunited in some ethereal, eternal nirvana. Neither will the 'spirits' of any of my pets who have died, or the 'spirits' of any grass I've cut or flies I've swatted.

All IMHO, of course.

And for the record, I think I said on the first page that this woulda make a great lobby discussion

Lobby or not, it's actually been an awesome thread so far. I would LOVE to be sitting in a pub right now with you, matt, and aborgman having a few while discussing this. These are the threads I live for

To respond though - I'm not even sure how I feel about something like a "spirit" to be honest. On one hand, I very highly doubt the existence of a sentient glowing echo of who we used to be watching us from the shadows, always staying just one sliiiiiight step ahead of the proof...it's kind of corny to me TBH. But, can I dismiss the existence of some form of unknown energy, or some other dimension, or some other reality....? No, me personally? I can't, I just feel that there's more to it all. And we all know this to some even subconscious degree that drives us to learn more, reach out more, and try to explain it all whether it be through the mystics of religion, or the arena of science, we're always reaching out for more, why?
Like I said before, I'm of the mind that we can only understand what we're designed to understand. If there's no need for us to understand more, then we wont and cant. That doesn't mean we wont try though...

[Tituscrow]

Lay off the bong, man

[Relic]

Originally Posted by Tituscrow

Lay off the bong, man

haha! gave that up a while back!

[Tituscrow]

Oh and by the way, if we were all in a pub, Matticus would have tried to snog me by now.

[bolophonic]

Originally Posted by Tituscrow

I think we'll have a space elevator before we quantify and measure anything resembling a soul or a spirit.

My old man died and was cremated 20 years ago. His 'spirit' exists as memories in the heads of those who loved him. When I die, our 'spirits' will not be reunited in some ethereal, eternal nirvana. Neither will the 'spirits' of any of my pets who have died, or the 'spirits' of any grass I've cut or flies I've swatted.

All IMHO, of course.

And for the record, I think I said on the first page that this woulda make a great lobby discussion

The fact that you are equating all things esoteric with "going to heaven" speaks volumes, dude.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by RadioactiveGuy4

The most common method of Euthanasia in the US is an overdoes of Sodium Pentobarbrital an anaesthetic that when given in the proper dose causes the central nervous system to shut down. There are three methods of injecting it into the body.

That's the same death juice that's generally used over here too.

[Tituscrow]

Originally Posted by bolophonic

The fact that you are equating all things esoteric with "going to heaven" speaks volumes, dude.

You get born, you live, you die.

As do all organisms.

That doesn't mean that memories, thoughts, feelings, emotions etc - whilst you are alive - are in some way invalidated, but I see them merely as the product of that wonderful organ in your - and other animals - heads.

You can go all esoteric on me if you like, but I'm not going to argue. If that stuff floats your boat and gets you through the night, good luck to you.

Dude.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by Tituscrow

You get born, you live, you die.

As do all organisms.

That doesn't mean that memories, thoughts, feelings, emotions etc - whilst you are alive - are in some way invalidated, but I see them merely as the product of that wonderful organ in your - and other animals - heads.

You can go all esoteric on me if you like, but I'm not going to argue. If that stuff floats your boat and gets you through the night, good luck to you.

Dude.

As does EVERYTHING.
That's what I find to be so cool. Rocks, the air we breathe, the planets, galaxies.... it's all in a constant state of perpetual transformation. It might take milliseconds, it might take billions of years but it seems to be constant and eternal with only the foggiest notion of a "beginning" and a "theoretical" end. In that respect, we're no different than anything else. What that "beginning" or "end" for us might be...? Science can explain it in nice neat terms, religion in grand spiritual terms but in the end, we really don't know... just have some "best guesses" is all.

[Tituscrow]

Originally Posted by Relic

As does EVERYTHING.
That's what I find to be so cool. Rocks, the air we breathe, the planets, galaxies.... it's all in a constant state of perpetual transformation. It might take milliseconds, it might take billions of years but it seems to be constant and eternal with only the foggiest notion of a "beginning" and a "theoretical" end. In that respect, we're no different than anything else. What that "beginning" or "end" for us might be...? Science can explain it in nice neat terms, religion in grand spiritual terms but in the end, we really don't know... just have some "best guesses" is all.

I know what you mean in terms of the constant circulation, recycling and conservation of atoms, elements and compounds, but that is just simply how it is. There are a finite number of particles in the universe, and over time they chop and change their positions, their behaviours, their 'partners' and so on.

I just think that this quest to find some sort of higher, mystical, ethereal 'power' or 'force' behind it all is pointless, because there is no such thing. In my opinion/experience.

But like I said to the previous poster, feel free to keep searching if that's what tickled your fancy. And if, like MM, you are blessed to have some grand 'reveal', then again, enjoy it. Just don't expect others to share the feeling of wonder. I get my wonder looking at rainbows, or dew-glistened cobwebs, or clouds, or Serengeti migrations, or tadpole metamorphosis....and so on.

The world is a beautiful and wondrous place. I'm happy to just see things as they are without looking for any deeper, hidden meaning.

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by Tituscrow

Oh and by the way, if we were all in a pub, Matticus would have tried to snog me by now.

LIES! You'd have to pay the bar tab first

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by Tituscrow

The world is a beautiful and wondrous place. I'm happy to just see things as they are without looking for any deeper, hidden meaning.

Bingo.

As Richard Feynman said:

I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty. [...] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.