ilovefuzz.com

snipelfritz wrote:More importantly, how can these discoveries lead to awesomer effects pedals?

time travelling delays.....

Blackened Soul wrote:science is merely a ruse so you don't get in the way of those that practice magic

"The method of science, the aim of religion."

...after marrying a future physicist, a sister of a researching physicist and a daughter of a chemist I've been well informed of the science news. But yeah, this seems interesting. Probably not as revolutionary as the news present it as, but definitely making an important adjustment to the working theories in use.

Fermilab's going to try to replicate the results, so we should know inside a year if anything interesting is going on, or if it's a fluke.

Bassus Sanguinis wrote:Probably not as revolutionary as the news present it as, but definitely making an important adjustment to the working theories in use.

If its true it will be pretty revolutionary relativity and cause effect go out the window.

Ironbird13 wrote:

snipelfritz wrote:More importantly, how can these discoveries lead to awesomer effects pedals?

time travelling delays.....

This is why I love this board.

fiddelerselbow wrote:

Ironbird13 wrote:

snipelfritz wrote:More importantly, how can these discoveries lead to awesomer effects pedals?

time travelling delays.....

This is why I love this board.

this reminded me of this http://www.premierguitar.com/Magazine/Issue/2011/Sep/Think_You_ve_Got_the_Latest_Greatest_Gear.aspx

i'm sorry if i sounded like i was dissing magic with or without its "k"...i was more referring to those Michio Kaku guys who are always trying to find some scientific way to explain/explain away religion, which i think is kind of fruitless. approaching spirit with the precision of science: good. trying to use science as a shortcut to spirit: pointless.

dubkitty wrote:approaching spirit with the precision of science: good. trying to use science as a shortcut to spirit: pointless.

That's because it doesn't exist. And you can't get two 'spiritual people' in the same room who have the same definition of what it's supposed to be, or can maintain a cogent description of what it's supposed to be for more than a handful of sentences, and even if they could they still wouldn't be able to show you exactly how they know that in the first place.
Science is a great bullshit detector.

devnulljp wrote:

dubkitty wrote:approaching spirit with the precision of science: good. trying to use science as a shortcut to spirit: pointless.

That's because it doesn't exist. And you can't get two 'spiritual people' in the same room who have the same definition of what it's supposed to be, or can maintain a cogent description of what it's supposed to be for more than a handful of sentences, and even if they could they still wouldn't be able to show you exactly how they know that in the first place.
Science is a great bullshit detector.

I agree, the scientific method is a great one, and Science helps us move forward. But I do disagree that the spiritual doesn't exist.
It is like: trying to take a reading of your sick sister with a tricoder from a videogame you're playing. I could tell you this amazing story about fractals, but I can't even start
Anyway, my point is that the spiritual and material are just two sides of a same coin, but each of them knows it's still a part of a coin, and that there's another side, but they just can't see themselves.

But yeah, science is great for the material.
You need serious logic to try to tackle spirituality imho (I'm failing at it btw). And often I hear scientists telling about ideas that are the same thing I concluded in my meditation, for instance. Bah, it's all pointless anyway. We're all making our realityes up in our brains anyway. Perception is relative xD

Sooooo, nevermind
Also, the idea of defragmenting the brain. How to do it yourself, without aids?

alexa. wrote:But I do disagree that the spiritual doesn't exist.

OK, so what is it then? And how did you determine that? Andwhen you come backto it next week, will your definition be the same? And if not, why not?

alexa. wrote:It is like: trying to take a reading of your sick sister with a tricoder from a videogame you're playing. I could tell you this amazing story about fractals, but I can't even start

worst. analogy. ever.

alexa. wrote:Anyway, my point is that the spiritual and material are just two sides of a same coin, but each of them knows it's still a part of a coin, and that there's another side, but they just can't see themselves.

Dualism is very common (and Descarte's greatest error).
Here, an interesting read: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~deenasw/Ass ... cience.pdf

devnulljp wrote:

dubkitty wrote:approaching spirit with the precision of science: good. trying to use science as a shortcut to spirit: pointless.

That's because it doesn't exist. And you can't get two 'spiritual people' in the same room who have the same definition of what it's supposed to be, or can maintain a cogent description of what it's supposed to be for more than a handful of sentences,

who says it needs to be that long of a description in the first place :P

and personally i think "how" is an unnecessary question in many fields.

anyways, theres usually a flaw with applying science to philosophy which is inherently immaterial.

Gearmond wrote:

devnulljp wrote:

dubkitty wrote:approaching spirit with the precision of science: good. trying to use science as a shortcut to spirit: pointless.

That's because it doesn't exist. And you can't get two 'spiritual people' in the same room who have the same definition of what it's supposed to be, or can maintain a cogent description of what it's supposed to be for more than a handful of sentences,

who says it needs to be that long of a description in the first place :P

and personally i think "how" is an unnecessary question in many fields.

anyways, theres usually a flaw with applying science to philosophy which is inherently immaterial.

Philosophy =/= spirituality
Not all philosophy = immaterial
Not all science = material

Gearmond wrote:anyways, theres usually a flaw with applying science to philosophy which is inherently immaterial.

you can though!
it just take A LOT of work
more than most are willing to do.

devnulljp wrote:OK, so what is it then? And how did you determine that? Andwhen you come backto it next week, will your definition be the same? And if not, why not?

You could determine it, but our science is not that advanced yet IMHO. I wouldn't have any argument why it's there, than the one that it's in our head. We would have to talk philosophically, so I'm afraid there is no concrete measurement I can provide. Also, for my semantics, 'the spiritual' has a different meaning than other people tend to give it.

devnulljp wrote:worst. analogy. ever.

You believe it is so, I look at reality from that perspective. I am an explorer. If proven wrong, great, just more gas to go further and find the truth. I work with ideas, philosophy, and a everdeveloping logic. Scientists work with hard facts. I seriously do not see a difference between a scientist and myself, apart from the domain our research encompasses. Mine is the middle way. I don't reject anything, but what is known and proven wrong is excluded, or put on hold.

devnulljp wrote:Dualism is very common (and Descarte's greatest error).
Here, an interesting read: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~deenasw/Ass ... cience.pdf

Think I'll rather find something about Descartes and dualism if you don't mind

Derelict78 wrote:

Gearmond wrote:anyways, theres usually a flaw with applying science to philosophy which is inherently immaterial.

you can though!
it just take A LOT of work
more than most are willing to do.

Agreed.