Is Thought the Actual Force Behind Creation

This thread is a metaphysical one, based on metaphysical thinking, which I'm not opposed to. Further, speculation is the mother of all knowledge. Einstein said his own theory of relativity was largely the invention first and formost of his imagination. Yet I constantly witness in threads such as these, the put down of imagination ... calling it nothing but fantasy, etc. Imagination is the greatest gift bestowed upon us along with the ability to think. Also, what is the brain? What is Mind? No scientist has ever provided an adequate definition.

For you I'd suggest acquiring enough knowledge to know what scientists are talking about before casting your aspersions.

does one need to know everything the scientist knows in order to realize that the scientist has not proven a particular hypothesis?

I know enough to know that no scientist has solved the mystery of life or has any answers to the mystery of creation and existence.

Are you suggesting that before I can come to that conclusion I first have to know every scientific suggestion ever made?

Aedes,

are you telling me that a scientist somewhere has uncovered the secret to the origin of life and the origin of the universe?

Aedes,

are you telling me that a scientist somewhere has uncovered the secret to the origin of life and the origin of the universe?

because if you are I would really like you to direct me to that so I can see what they have proven.

Pathfinder, if I'm going to indulge you in conversation, I expect you to read my posts with a shred of honest fidelity and attention. Respond to what I write and not your flights of fancy.

Now lets not confuse metaphysical questions with scientific questions.

The trick I think is to incorporate what science tells us into ones overall worldview. It would be better if your worldview did not directly conflict with established facts or well supported scientific theories. There are many spiritualistic and theistic views which are not in conflict with science. But, special creationism is not one of them for instance.

You can still believe in various forms of god, in spirit expressed through matter by process and evolution. You just can not believe each species was independently created by special creation in a matter of days.

Well you can believe it, I suppose but no rational educated person will give it serious consideration.

I am ready and willing and cooperative aedes.

What I do acknowledge though is that there is a force beyond our ability to comprehend that lies at the root of all that we experience and exist within. And this force is the origin of life as well as creation as we know it. What that force is remains a mystery to us all..

Biological explanations of the origin of life only presume that life is a particular kind of physical thing.

But this presumes that you derive conclusions about material things from systematic observations of material things. And these observations are the constituents of science.

So what will the point be in, say, 1,000,000 years from now? Even 1000 years from now? Who is ever going to remember you? On a small scale, your life would seem to have some point from certain very specific perspectives, but on a longer timeline, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that there is any real point to any of this. For any of us.

I won't speak for you, but the 'point' of my life is not to be remembered a million, a thousand, or even a hundred years from now.

Those longer timelines you speak of exist only in your mind, or my mind, or any mind which thinks about such things;

if a person believes that they will remembered forever in their last moment of life, that's the same as actually being remembered forever; they won't know the difference.

The journey is in fact the destination.

..and then the obvious question; why are you posting?

Then try again and I'll happily keep conversing.

Let me be clear, Pathfinder:

Biological explanations of the origin of life only presume that life is a particular kind of physical thing. You may not like this, because life at a metaphysical level is mysterious and wondrous, but that's not how biology regards it. There is no "life force" that enters a living thing and departs a dead thing.

Science by definition strings explanations between observations. There are historical things like linguistics, astronomy, geology, and evolutionary biology, that can never observe their areas of study real time, so there are all the limitations of retrospective study, including incompleteness.

But that's not really an indictment. After all, you can go to a crime scene and piece together what is most likely to have happened without knowing 100% for sure from observation. If someone is found dead, and they have a candlestick shaped indentation in their skull, and the candlestick is lying next to the victim, and it's got Colonel Mustard's fingerprints on it, and you know that Colonel Mustard had previously been heard threatening the victim, then you are much more likely to believe it was Colonel Mustard and not Mr. Plum who killed the victim. You've put the pieces together coherently, even without having observed it real time. (This was a Clue reference if you didn't get it).

So it is with the origin of the universe, the origin of the planet, the origin of life (abiogenesis), and the diversification of life (evolution). The story is pieced together with evidence. There is much we don't know, but there's a hell of a lot we do, and in fact it's overwhelming. It would take an openminded jury 2 seconds to reach a verdict.

But this presumes that you derive conclusions about material things from systematic observations of material things. And these observations are the constituents of science. The terminology may be daunting, the presentation may strike you as haughty, but sorry, it is what it is, and doubters have every opportunity to challenge the methodologic validity of evidence collection or to collect their own evidence.

It is demonstrable that thought itself is the action of neurons.

Actually, you're wrong. The universe of the past can be observed. Astronomers do it everytime they look through a telescope and so do we, when we look at the moon or the Sun or distant stars. We're looking at radiation emitted by all those objects, not the objects themselves. The universe -an idea? No, I don't think so. It's a fact. So are all the things contained in the universe. They are not ideas. 'Superman' and 'Batman' and 'Utilitarianism' are Ideas.

Actually, you're wrong. The universe of the past can be observed. Astronomers do it everytime they look through a telescope and so do we, when we look at the moon or the Sun or distant stars. We're looking at radiation emitted by all those objects, not the objects themselves. The universe -an idea? No, I don't think so. It's a fact. So are all the things contained in the universe. They are not ideas. 'Superman' and 'Batman' and 'Utilitarianism' are Ideas.

Well, what we are actually seeing are some shapes that our mind is currently processing. Because our mind (collective mind) has formed an idea that light travels at a certain speed through space (whatever space and time are), we then create another idea, in our mind, that the objects and shapes we are creating in our mind are from the distant past.

When I look at the Sun, I do not think that it is something in the past, I think that I am viewing it now. However, I can create additional ideas in my mind that make me think that it is the past. It is all going on in the mind now.

Rich

Jeeprs: I'm exploring the idea that neurons receive or transmit thought. You know the picture on the television is information riding on a carrier wave. The receiver separates the information from the carrier and sends it to the part of the TV that fires the screen (LCD's for most of us these days.) I don't know how far this metaphor goes... but the idea of there being a 'carrier' of thought waves is fun.

Ummm...no.

Aedes, you cannot say that there is no lifeforce that enters a thing and exits a thing. You are making assumptions based on nothing.

They are doing a fine job when they stay on the course. They are making fools of themselves when they begin to make declarations in the face of great mysteries.