2012 debunked extensively

[jbark]

Beliefs are not founded on anything verifiable, repeatable or founded on anything subject to infallibility.

What about Buddhist beliefs? They are founded on verifiable, repeeatable experiences. They have been reproduced by tens of thousands of not far far more individuals over thousands of years. They are subject to infallability, but just as much so as an equal number scientists coming to the same conclusion about an experiement.

Verifiable and repeatable SUBJECTIVELY. So not the same as "as an equal number scientists coming to the same conclusion about an experiement"(sic). science strives for objectivity insofar is that is possible. No one can show another an objective result of a thought experiment - or "enlightenment" for that matter. In short, the method is verifiable and repeatable, but unfortunately, the most important part, the result, clearly is not.

tens of thousands of not far far more individuals over thousands of years

Ginseng proof. Not real proof. Millions upon millions of things and experiences and beliefs are attested to by "tens of thousands of not far far more individuals over thousands of years" (sic). Does not make any of them true or valid. Is jesus the son of god? By your logic the proof that he is is simply that people believe he is and wrote books about it.

This is neither proof (you must agree), nor good enough for me.

JBArk

 

[jbark]

Science is by nature humble: it admits its errors and builds other models. Religion is arrogant: it admits no errors and creates unproveable and unchallengeable propositions and stagnates in its own foetid mess.

To put it even more bluntly, science is an instrument of long-term profound change and progression by virtue of its tenets' disprove-ability and its admission of fallibilty, whereas religion is for short term immediate change and, frankly, the status quo - being institutions that are unwavering in their exclusion of new ideas and the notion of evolution and change.

This would be true if we lived in a perfect world, in which we do not. Science by nature is humble, but you forget science is practiced by human beings, which may or may not be humble. Burnt is an excellent example of science not being humble, but instead being arrogant.

Science is slow to admit errors, though over time erroneous beliefs will be righted through continued evidence and experimentation. There is a status quo in science as well which is reluctant to change. Again because we are working with human beings, no one likes to see their life's work destroyed in an instant by some new discovery. I can understand it, but I do not condone it. The guardians of the status quo oftgen exclude anything that is too far out from the mainstream, even if there is good evidence for such...they stick to paradigms even when there is substantial observational evidence which calls those paradigms into question.

Some religions are as you describe, but not all of them.

science is slow to admit errors !!!???

you measure time in years and decades. Relgious time is thousands of years, with NO change whatsoever. In the grand scheme of things, going from believing the earth was the centre of the universe to having probes on mars, from Newtonian classical physics to relativity to quantum mechanics to string theory in a matter of a few hundred years is EXTRAORDINARILY fast, no?

Science is humble. scientists may not be, but they don't last long. And their theories are ALWAYS built upon or discarded. The same cannot be said of any religion I am aware of. they are by nature vehicles of faith, and thus do not admit of change. Not slowly. Not ever. it goes against its very nature. Which is arrogant - to suppose that one doctrine provides all the answers to everything and is irrefutable and inflexible is the very essence of arrogance, no?

Whereas the scientific method has this safeguard built into it. In our lifetimes, science may seem stubborn, but what's a lifetime? a speck of time.

JBArk

 

[jbark]

BTW all - i am a very spiritual person. But probably not in the way a lot of you are. And i believe a lot of crazy things outside the scope of science. But I would never say i am certain about them, nor assert that they are provable. A belief is a belief, "the sky is blue" is an objective consensus, and thus a fact.

Wouldn't want y'all to think I was "pure and applied"

JBArk

 

[jamie]

:d just ask the mushrooms. Forget the rest.

 

[jbark]

:d just ask the mushrooms. Forget the rest.

I only ever report what they tell me!

And they say i am always right!8) 8) 8)

JBArk

 

[MooshyPeaches]

Wow this thread has really changed topics. Everyone is trying to force their perspective and understanding of reality onto each other. EVERYONE, even the greatest physicist or religious prophet must understand that our understanding is based on ignorance, we do not understand what we are apart of just like how the cells of our body do not know they are a part of a larger picture. The only conclusions we come to of the nature of reality and how it works is in the form of seven billion of us experiencing it as this earth and our sensory perception. Yet we live in the age of know-it-all's, which should be: we believe we know, which should be: I do not know but will work with what is there.

Science will never be able to understand everything of reality and if you make it a part of your ego conditioning and your belief system of what reality is/is not, than your consciousness and awareness is drastically limited to whatever science ALLOWS you to see.

To say 2012 is just another Y2K is nonsense. Y2K was mass hysteria of the number 0.

There are ancient pyramids built thousands upon thousand of years ago where we can STILL not move the 40 ton blocks. These pyramids which are coincidentally built by ancient civilizations all over the world, separated by vast oceans, and are EXTREMELY accurate in nature. I don't think people realize just how geometrically, geographically, accurate some of these pyramids are to the very last decimal place of the latitude/longitude/angles of where they are and the astrological preciseness of their creation is of such significance that we cannot replicate it with technology today.

We're talking about calendars that can predict events occurring hundreds of years into the future, with just the understanding of the galaxy and the sky, this is people of THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, didn't we only discover pluto like forty years ago? These pyramids just HAPPEN with all this preciseness which just HAPPEN to be impossible to have built back then without even the pulley invented yet, and just HAPPEN to be created by ancient civilizations all over the world, just HAPPEN to contain such a complex nature of them we are only understanding it now and many of the more significant ones just HAPPEN to point at the same date in time as a great pinnacle era that has been waited for for eons, clearly a message for those that would be around experiencing the time for when it comes. They didn't just all do this simultaneously for fun... If you somehow manage to just blow it off as nothing, than you have managed to rationalize a delusion of clear thought, or have left yourself uninformed.

For anyone to state what is going to happen or if nothing is going to happen is just your past experiences trying to make sense of a future. We are a extremely young species that still has no idea about the working of the galaxy or even what the nature of reality itself is. We have no idea. NO IDEA. So stop your damn ego from coming to conclusions based on your own personal ignorance and own personal tiny amount of information and true understanding we actually contain. But then again it doesn't matter right? Because if something's going to happen its gonna happen right? Right.

All I really want to say is that life and existence itself may be a lil more complicated and a lil more mysterious than has been previously (enmass) known for the last 2 thousand years. The scientific, very solid material world we live in now has been created by us and has somehow made many forget WHO and WHAT they are. A great time of change is coming now, if you cannot see/feel it RIGHT NOW, than just keep your eyes open to what is happening in the next year on global scales. Do not let your reason, knowledge, understanding and past history cloud your inner judgment; a chosen separation from realization.

Also look into china russia and mexico finding HUNDREDS of more pyramids by the government in the last 3 years to 6 months.

 

[jbark]

Mooshypeaches wrote:

Wow this thread has really changed topics. Everyone is trying to force their perspective and understanding of reality onto each other. EVERYONE, even the greatest physicist or religious prophet must understand that our understanding is based on ignorance, we do not understand what we are apart of just like how the cells of our body do not know they are a part of a larger picture. The only conclusions we come to of the nature of reality and how it works is in the form of seven billion of us experiencing it as this earth and our sensory perception. Yet we live in the age of know-it-all's, which should be: we believe we know, which should be: I do not know but will work with what is there.

Science will never be able to understand everything of reality and if you make it a part of your ego conditioning and your belief system of what reality is/is not, than your consciousness and awareness is drastically limited to whatever science ALLOWS you to see.

You have misunderstood the posts, if you are in any way referring to mine. I never claimed that science could explain or help us understand everything. I don't believe anyone here has. We are disputing the distinction between belief and fact, with, for me, the understanding that facts are consensual and verifiable "objectively". And beliefs are not, by their very nature. They require faith, to which proof is anathema. If anyone here really thinks about this, i think they would have to agree: the whole notion of "faith" is that it is NOT subjected to proof. And science IS. I still can't believe anyone would reasonably dispute this.

The problem with an "all is possible and admissible" approach is that in the real world it leads to apathy and nothing gets accomplished and no progress is entertained. At some point you have to choose A over B and commit to it. And if you can't even admit the nature of a fact, then you are in a philosophical quagmire to which there is no escape, and ideological drowning is the only option.

And there are know-it-alls on both sides of the fence, BTW.

And i know next to nothing. But the two ways I will arrive at some limited understanding of things is through :

A) subjective experience, which can neither be shared, nor proven or disproven
B) "objective" fact, which is verifiable, consensual, provable and as objective as possible in this world of many consciousnesses (or one multi-divided - as you wish)

A more interesting question is why do we need knowledge? what is progress? why does it seem a biological imperative that we evolve, branch out, strive for understanding and knowledge.

i think it is an adaptive strategy that assures our survival. And i think both sides play a part in this. But when I get on a plane, I will trust the engineer's assessment of its ability to fly over the mystic's.

JBArk

JBArk

I am both. 8)

 

[MooshyPeaches]

I can never share the love I have for ALL OFFFFF YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

 

[Saidin]

Well maybe I am incorrect in saying so but isn't it the date of the end of the long count in the Mayan calendar? That would roughly correspond with the end of a millenium or whatever other aribitrary date rollover you can think of. Its like when your odomoter rolls over on the car, its cool and uncommon but carries no intrinsic meaning. The units of measure are to some degree arbitrary. Y2K is a result of our having inherited the arabic system of numbers which is a base 10 numbering system. If we had a different numbering system these kinds of numerical rollovers would happen at different times. But none of it changes the fact that it is still just an artifact of the counting system used. All of the significance that is attached to it is not from the Mayan's own writings from what I understand. The significance is attached by other people who choose to interpret a deeper meaning in it. There is a nova episode about decoding the Mayan writing which is pretty informative. It doesn't really address the hype around 2012 but it does explain the dating system they use and what the date (end of the long count) means from a purely factual basis.

Yes it is the end of their long count, which corresponds to 5125 years. Y2K had nothing to do with cycles of time, it had to do with computers supposedly not recognizing the changeover from 1999 to 2000, which was in fact just 99 to 00(early computers needed all the space they could get due to their lack of memory, so the majority of them only counted years with 2 units). It was a potential computer problem, recognized only a few years before 2000...and had nothing to do with cycles of time as the Mayan Calendar does.

In addition, the Gergorian calendar is linear(and until recently highly inaccurate), whereas the Mayan is cyclical (and extremely accurate, in fact far far more accurate when it was created thousands of years ago than the one we currently use today). Big difference.

I have watched that Nova program, it is a very good one, but only goes into how they eventually deciphered the symbology of the Mayan writing, but did not go into any more detail about what it actually said besides lineages. There are writings about the significance of each cycle of Mayan time, those of Chalam Balam which contain Tun and Katun predictions. These are from the Mayan's own writing.

Then why are we talking in terms of 2012 at all? If it has nothing to do with a date then we could just as well be talking in terms of the 21st century in which case you would probably get a lot less objection.

Becasue it is about a process that happens over a period of time. They are guideposts to when certain changes occur due to the cyclial nature of time. It is not as if anything changes on one particular day, but the time period around that is where the change occurs. The 20 year period around 2012 is when the changes are to take place, but they begin before that date as well...building in intensity.

It could just be a huge coincidence that the world is changing so fast and significantly at this point in time, a point in time predicted by a calendar made 3000 years ago. 3000 years ago...and they are hitting the nail right on the head...coincidence, maybe, but that is pretty remarkable. We are on the verge of a discovery, or a revalation that will change us forever. I don't know what it is, but can't you sense or feel it? We are on the verge of a paradigm shift.

Which is essentially what I am saying. Maybe you took offense to my sarcasm or irreverence, if so I apologize. I certainly did not mean offense to anyone on any side of the issue, I was simply pointing out (in my own way, however ineffective it sometimes is) that the significance and meaning attached to the date (because the thread title says 2012) is not generated from the same elements as the date itself. The Mayan calendar is not a count down to the end of the world any more than our calendar is.

That has been the point of argumentation on this thread. The OP stated that 2012 had been debunked thoroughly because someone gave some evidence that the end of the world was not a legitimate interpretation of the calendar. To which I agreed, but it missed the real meaning of this period of time.

It is a countdown to a new cycle of time, as every beginning is some other beginnings end.

 

[Saidin]

Verifiable and repeatable SUBJECTIVELY. So not the same as "as an equal number scientists coming to the same conclusion about an experiement"(sic). science strives for objectivity insofar is that is possible. No one can show another an objective result of a thought experiment - or "enlightenment" for that matter. In short, the method is verifiable and repeatable, but unfortunately, the most important part, the result, clearly is not.

Does not a scientist verifiy experiements subjectively and come to the same conclusion? I said it was subjective, using objective processes. You set up a methodology, that method is followed by the experimenters and they come to the same results. It is not that different. I cannot verify experiments done in physics unless I take years worth of classes to get to the point where I can reproduce them accurately. Same with meditators, they have to study and train for years in certain diciplines in order to be able to reproduce the experiements themeselves. Where is the difference?

I guess the difference is that all those who use this objective framework to experience this knowledge subjectively could be deluded or lying. But wouldn't you have to apply this same questioning to science? I'll take the word of experts on the matter, just as I trust scientists who have gained knowledge which I cannot duplicate without enormous effort.

Learn to meditate, practice for years and see if you come to the same conclusions...do the experiement youself to see if it has validity. Or trust that they have gained knowledge which has been verified and repeated by others who have done the experiment over a period of thousands of years.

The method is verifiable and repeatable, and the result most certainly is. That was my point. Call it ginseng proof, but so to is the nature of the atom, or the existence of DNA, because these results through methodology have been carried out in exactly the same way.

Your need of proof is a double standard. Inexperiential proof is ok with certain things but not others...even when the rigors of experimentation are exactly the same.

 

[jbark]

Saidin wrote:

The method is verifiable and repeatable, and the result most certainly is.

I said as much in my post about the method. The results however are certainly not.

If I (or you) observe a physicist taking measurements and conducting experiments, we will see EXACTLY the same results as he does. So will anyone observing the experiment .Without years of training. The phenomena is observable by all.

If I observe a monk for 50 years I will NEVER see the results of his meditations. Because they are subjective. By definition, Saidin.

The sky IS blue. The sky in your meditational space may be blue, but that is unprovable by definition. it is your impression of a subjectively conjured "sky". you can argue that it is no more or less true or real than the sky that is observable by all, but you can't prove its blueness. So stop saying you can!:shock:


I know you know what i mean - and I hereby accuse you of playing Saidan's advocate!

Are you going to make me re-explain this 50 different ways?

i might have to evoke god's prosecutor...8)

JBArk

 

[Saidin]

science is slow to admit errors !!!???

you measure time in years and decades. Relgious time is thousands of years, with NO change whatsoever. In the grand scheme of things, going from believing the earth was the centre of the universe to having probes on mars, from Newtonian classical physics to relativity to quantum mechanics to string theory in a matter of a few hundred years is EXTRAORDINARILY fast, no?

Science is humble. scientists may not be, but they don't last long. And their theories are ALWAYS built upon or discarded. The same cannot be said of any religion I am aware of. they are by nature vehicles of faith, and thus do not admit of change. Not slowly. Not ever. it goes against its very nature. Which is arrogant - to suppose that one doctrine provides all the answers to everything and is irrefutable and inflexible is the very essence of arrogance, no?

Yes, science is slow to admit errors. The plodding nature of cosmology, evolution, just about every major breakthrough in science took a long time to be accepted by the mainstream. The current Big Bang nonsense, it still goes on to this day.

Religions have changed their views on morals and ethics, which is the only venue they have any appropiate say in. Some change quicker than others, but they do change. Religion has no basis to speak about the how of life, they can only speak to the why, and how to live in accordance with nature. Anything outside that beyond their true mandate. Just like science cannot answer the why, or what values and morals are. They move within their own circles, and conflicts occur when one oversteps their bounds into areas in which they truly have nothing to say.

The moral/ethical stance on slavery, civil rights, sufferage was a relatively quick turn around don't you think? Measured in decades/centuries just as you have said with science. Ethics and morals have to change as new paradigms come into existence, new understandings. The ability of these institutions to change to new ways of thinking is essential for their survival.

I agree science is humble, because it is value neutral. Scientists are not value neutral, they are human beings subject to questionable morals and ethics. And please indicate how a non-humble scientist doesn't last long? Humility has nothing to do with it if his/her theories are interpreted as correct. You produce new testable hypothesis you are accepted no matter how you may go about it. He could be a gigantic ass but that is irrelevant to science.

To suppose that one doctrine provides all the answers to everything is arrogant, deluded, and fails completely in the face of logic and reason. The same goes with science. To suppose that science is the only doctrine which provides all the answers to everything is also arrogant, deluded and fails completely in the face of logic and reason.

Organized religion vs. Scientific materialism...two polar opposites, and as always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Saidin]

I said as much in my post about the method. The results however are certainly not.

If I (or you) observe a physicist taking measurements and conducting experiments, we will see EXACTLY the same results as he does. So will anyone observing the experiment .Without years of training. The phenomena is observable by all.

If I observe a monk for 50 years I will NEVER see the results of his meditations. Because they are subjective. By definition, Saidin.

I know you know what i mean - and I hereby accuse you of playing Saidan's advocate!

i might have to evoke god's prosecutor...8)

JBArk

1+1=2
1+1=2

What is the difference if I do the calculation in my head or on a caluclator? The results are still the same.

If the monk descibes the technique, the methodology, and the expected result and you sit with him and meditate and come to the same conclusion, how is that different than watching a scientist fiddle with apparatus which needs to be explained to you in so far as technique, methodology and expected result. You are taking his word for it that he knows what he is doing, and explaining to you accurately what your subjective observations will be. You are verifying his subjective experience of the experiment. When enough people find that their subjective experience is the same, then we term it "objective" proof.

Sure the sky is blue, but is your blue the same as mine?

I do know what you mean I'm just trying to show it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

 

[jbark]

Slavery to civil rights was a quick turnaround? Must i cite theroman empire and all subsequent empires?

Sufferage? I think women would be aghast at your suggestion. It took the entire history of democracy up to 1906 (in finland) and 1920 in the states for them to have the vote.

The only way either of these seems quick is if you indulge in an ameri-centric view of history and choose to dismiss thousands of years!:shock:

so i maintain again that faith, religion & systems of belief take an enormous amount of time to change because they are structured to withstand and resist change.

JBArk

 

[Saidin]

Slavery to civil rights was a quick turnaround? Must i cite theroman empire and all subsequent empires?

1860-1964 A bit earlier with the British, and Im sure there were civilizations which did not condone slavery even before that. Then again slavery still exists to this day...

Sufferage? I think women would be aghast at your suggestion. It took the entire history of democracy up to 1906 (in finland) and 1920 in the states for them to have the vote.

1776-1906(20)

The only way either of these seems quick is if you indulge in an ameri-centric view of history and choose to dismiss thousands of years!:shock:

Earth centric universe...4000BC-1500AD

so i maintain again that fith, religion & systems of belief take an enormous amount of time to change because they are structured to withstand and resist change.

I agree, they are structured to resist change. But if you think you already have the answer (whether it is right or wrong) why keep looking? This is not unique to religion, but to any system of belief, in which science is included.

 

[burnt]

Yes, science is slow to admit errors. The plodding nature of cosmology, evolution, just about every major breakthrough in science took a long time to be accepted by the mainstream. The current Big Bang nonsense, it still goes on to this day.

The Big Bang is not nonsense. Its not complete and no one pretends it is. But its evolved dramatically in the last 50 years. Modern big bang theory has quite a lot of theoretical and experimental evidence to support it. Evolution is only about 150 years old. It was accepted by a huge number of biologists by the turn of the century 18th to 19th century which was only a few decades.

Science is only as slow as the evidence it takes to build theories is discovered. Modern science evolved further in a few hundred years then anything else in the previous 200,000 years of humanity.

Religions have changed their views on morals and ethics, which is the only venue they have any appropiate say in. Some change quicker than others, but they do change. Religion has no basis to speak about the how of life, they can only speak to the why, and how to live in accordance with nature. Anything outside that beyond their true mandate. Just like science cannot answer the why, or what values and morals are. They move within their own circles, and conflicts occur when one oversteps their bounds into areas in which they truly have nothing to say.

Islam? Fundamentalist Christianity? The only people who claim to be religious and change from its teachings are people who reject half the teachings of their religions origins. But that's people changing not the religion itself. The Bible is the Bible it can't change unless you add or subtract a few scrolls. The Quran is the Quran it can't change its the absolute word of a made up god. People can ignore parts of it that's all. When religions change fundamental teachings it just shows how man-made it all is or how fickle and stupid god is.

Religion has no fundamental claims over morality either. The origin of human morals is ancient and never came from god. It came from humans. It came from our evolutionary need to work together to survive.

To suppose that one doctrine provides all the answers to everything is arrogant, deluded, and fails completely in the face of logic and reason. The same goes with science. To suppose that science is the only doctrine which provides all the answers to everything is also arrogant, deluded and fails completely in the face of logic and reason.

Your right. But most scientists don't claim or think that. Only religion and really warped people claim to have answers to things that it can't possibly have answers too.

Organized religion vs. Scientific materialism...two polar opposites, and as always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Scientific materialism doesn't claim to have answers for things which it doesn't have answers for. Materialism just means you think that everything is made of matter/energy that's it. The reason people think that is because that's all there seems to be within our limited scope of knowledge. There is no evidence for a spiritual world. If there ever was evidence for other realms of existence they would be made of some material too it just might be different from the matter/energy we are used to dealing with. How can something be immaterial? It doesn't even make sense really when I think about it. Even if there were spirits or ghosts or any of this stuff it would still be made of something. So basically materialism just guesses that when and if we discover new stuff it will also be made of something. How could it not?

 

[burnt]

About meditation.

Meditation can induce reproducible conscious states. This is well known by its practitioners and has been confirmed by fMRI studies. The difference is in the interpretation. Spiritual people may have a sensation of being connected to everything while meditating. An objective analysis may show that that this sensation is caused by parts of the brain involved in creating the sense of self not functioning anymore. Your brain actively creates your sense of self and this sense of self can become obstructed thus making you feel like you are part of everything when clearly your not.

 

[jamie]

I dunno about it being so clear that I am not a part of everything..at the root of it all everything is connected..otherwise how is chaos theory plausible? I am directly conected to everything else through indirect circumstances.

 

[burnt]

^^Yes that's true I mean in some sense everything in the universe is connected but not instaneously all at the same time. It all might have the same origins etc etc. But I didn't mean that. I meant that you are still an individual in a body. You are not a rock you sit on. Its made of different stuff it doesn't hold your awareness and conscious self. This boundry becomes confused in certain brain states. Its well documented.

 

[jamie]

ok agreed.