Why spirituality is more advance than todays Science

Antonio Alejandro · 6th October 2003, 10:16 AM

Why is Mysticsm more advance than todays science?
Science has not yet realized that nothing exist until after we perceive it
A scientist would say: The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.
The mystic would say: The perceive speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.
In mysticsm, the nature of concepts are studied thoroughly, and nothing about it is assumed.
Where science chooses to gain knowledge by examining concepts, mysticsm examines the nature of concepts.
Science's knowledge are of a conceptual nature.
Mysticsm's attempts to go beyond the conceptual.
We use logic and reason to survive and make our lives better.
Mysticsm tries to understand why ultimately, everything ends.
I personally do not discount science and conceptual truths, however, I understand that there has to be more than a conceptual realm.

Upchurch · 6th October 2003, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Science has not yet realized that nothing exist until after we perceive it

Proof of this?

edited to add:

That is to say, what proof have you that nothing exists until after we perceive it? I wasn't asking for proof that "science has not yet realized..."

Andonyx · 6th October 2003, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro

In mysticsm, the nature of concepts are studied thoroughly, and nothing about it is assumed.

Really, when and how? Do you have evidence of this? to what mysticism are you referring? Ancient Judaism, Norse, pagan, Celtic, eastern, Indian?

Or is there a blanket Mysticism movement I am unaware that in fact studies the nature of concepts thoroughly? I thought the ancient greek philosophers did a pretty good job with Platonic forms and Lucretius' examination of physical matter, but apprently you are aware fo some better stuff out there, so if you have, please don't hold it only for your self.

Quote:

Where science chooses to gain knowledge by examining concepts, mysticsm examines the nature of concepts.

See, that's so funny, because I thought the scientific method involved recording observable evidence of physical phenomena and then examining the hard data that is both reproduceable and lab controlled. I always thought the concepts came after and subordinate to the physical evidence, but again, you seem willing to make an authoritative statement that this is not the case... that science is in fact some mystical mumbo-jumbo. (Note use of adjective in preceding sentence.)

Quote:

Science's knowledge are of a conceptual nature.

Really? I was unaware that volumes of recorded data, repeatable expirements and careful observation were of a conceptual nature. I thought data was just data...

Quote:

Mysticsm's attempts to go beyond the conceptual.

Into what? The meta-conceptual?

Quote:

We use logic and reason to survive and make our lives better.

Yep, sounds pretty good to me....and also pretty reliable, practical, and grounded in reality.

Quote:

Mysticsm tries to understand why ultimately, everything ends.

Well, good luck. While mysticism is busy TRYING to understand, science has a pretty good handle on why living things die...why the universe will either crush itself or fizzle out, why stars explode, and galaxies collapse, why orbits decay, and fires go out....etc. Does mysticism have something more valuable to add, or have you just not read enough good science books? In the meantime I'd rather go home to my nice warm house, crack open a can of beer, and watch the game than sit in a cave in the dark somewhere debating pointlessly about why everything must come to an end.

Quote:

I personally do not discount science and conceptual truths, however, I understand that there has to be more than a conceptual realm.

There is, it's called evidence, experiementation, and demonstrable cause and effect.

You keep using this word, "Science." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Bluegill · 6th October 2003, 10:54 AM

What is your definition of "more advanced"?

Crossbow · 6th October 2003, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
...
Science's knowledge are of a conceptual nature.
Mysticsm's attempts to go beyond the conceptual.
...

I think these two statements in your post about sum it up.

Science does one thing whereas religion does something else.

EdipisReks · 6th October 2003, 11:12 AM

my pet snail is more advanced than spirituality because spirituality only tries to apologize for ignorance, and my pet snail tries to cover everything in slime. this statement is roughly as valid as the one that began this thread.

Nyarlathotep · 6th October 2003, 11:18 AM

To claim that Mysticism is more advanced than science is absurd.

The computer on which this little screed was typed is a product of science, not of mysticism. Several years ago I was involved in an accident that, had it occured even a generation ago would have cost me my leg if not my life, today I walk around with only a slight limp and the surgery that made it possible was a result of science, not mysticism. If I care to learn about dinosaurs, other planets or just about any subject you care to name, the facts about these things are revealed through science, not mysticism.

Here is a short list of the benefits that mysticism has bestowed upon me personally or mankind in general.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I can't see how the original poster could make his calim and keep a straight face.

Antonio Alejandro · 6th October 2003, 11:35 AM

I am sorry i cannot respond to this. You have not demonstrated that you understand what is mysticsm. I cannot discuss prejudices ...as prejudices are illogical.

Nyarlathotep · 6th October 2003, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I am sorry i cannot respond to this. You have not demonstrated that you understand what is mysticsm. I cannot discuss prejudices ...as prejudices are illogical.

If you think I don't understand what mysticsm is and you actually want to discuss the subject (as opposed to merely wanting to say your piece and leave) then it seems to me that you ought to explain what YOU mean by mysticsm. mysticism is one of those words like 'religion' that means different things to different people.

EdipisReks · 6th October 2003, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I am sorry i cannot respond to this. You have not demonstrated that you understand what is mysticsm. I cannot discuss prejudices ...as prejudices are illogical.

strange, that is exactly what my pet snail said. i can set you two up on a date, if you'd like. btw the way, prejudices aren't necessarily illogical, if one's prejudice against something is based upon examination of that subject.

whitefork · 6th October 2003, 11:51 AM

Can the mystical be shown if it cannot be said?

The right method of philosophy would be this: To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other -- he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy -- but it would be the only strictly correct method.

- Wittgenstein Tractatus 6.53

Upchurch · 6th October 2003, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I am sorry i cannot respond to this. You have not demonstrated that you understand what is mysticsm. I cannot discuss prejudices ...as prejudices are illogical.

Antonio, there were only a handful of responses to your post and yet you've already decided that we do not "understand what is [sic] mysticism." If you find prejudices to be illogical, then abandon your own and continue the discussion.

Surely you didn't expect that your claim would go unchallenged?

edited to add:
Why is it that smug hit and run posters bother me?

Pahansiri · 6th October 2003, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
...as prejudices are illogical.

I agree . But yet you show prejudice towards science. That is illogical.

Be well my new friend.

Antonio Alejandro · 6th October 2003, 12:05 PM

This computer is not a product of science. Science is lifeless actually.. This computer is directly the product of the mind, of knowledge and of creativity. Long before someone defined science, people were making tools, wheels and thing to make life better. Long before there were grand institutions, there were the creative few that challenged paradigms.
You can however say that a computer is a product of science. I choose to say that a computer is a product of mental elements (creativity, knowledge and insight).

Andonyx · 6th October 2003, 12:12 PM

Oh jeez, another poster with an alliterative name and Interesting Ian's same "it means what I say it means," perspective....

Nifty.

In the meantime, Mr. Safire, would you care to define "mysticism, " for us?

Upchurch · 6th October 2003, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
This computer is not a product of science.

How wonderfully off topic.

How does this back your claims above?

Ian Osborne · 6th October 2003, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
You have not demonstrated that you understand what is mysticsm.

'Mysticism' is the attempt to discover the secrets of the universe by someone too lazy to study physics.

shemp · 6th October 2003, 12:20 PM

Ian Osborne · 6th October 2003, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Long before someone defined science, people were making tools, wheels and thing to make life better. Long before there were grand institutions, there were the creative few that challenged paradigms.

Just because science (and engineering) had yet to be defined, it doesn't mean they didn't exist. And what do grand institutions have to do with creativity?

Andonyx · 6th October 2003, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ian Osborne

Just because science (and engineering) had yet to be defined, it doesn't mean they didn't exist. And what do grand institutions have to do with creativity?

Wait wait wait...Ian...remember he already told us that nothing exists until you observe it.

Antonio Alejandro · 6th October 2003, 12:22 PM

It would be nice to have some clear understanding of what some of the things we are discussing. No one here has said anything indicating that they have some kind of understanding what is mysticsm. To some, mysticsm is some kind of wizard with a pointy hat and a magic wand. To others, it has something to do with god, the bible, angels, getting nail to a cross. How can you blur out arguments against something which you are not sure what it means. How can you properly counter a remark.
Also I defined existence as that which has duration and space.
However. I can work with your definition of existence.

Andonyx · 6th October 2003, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
It would be nice to have some clear understanding of what some of the things we are discussing. No one here has said anything indicating that they have some kind of understanding what is mysticsm. To some, mysticsm is some kind of wizard with a pointy hat and a magic wand. To others, it has something to do with god, the bible, angels, getting nail to a cross.

Actually, several people have asked you to define it...you have ignored them.

Up to this moment you have done nothing to demonstrate that you have any understanding of what mysticism is.

Upchurch · 6th October 2003, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
How can you blur out arguments against something which you are not sure what it means.

That is why it is your responsibility to clarify precisely what you mean.

Chanileslie · 6th October 2003, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
Why is Mysticsm more advance than todays science?
Science has not yet realized that nothing exist until after we perceive it
A scientist would say: The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.
The mystic would say: The perceive speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.
In mysticsm, the nature of concepts are studied thoroughly, and nothing about it is assumed.
Where science chooses to gain knowledge by examining concepts, mysticsm examines the nature of concepts.
Science's knowledge are of a conceptual nature.
Mysticsm's attempts to go beyond the conceptual.
We use logic and reason to survive and make our lives better.
Mysticsm tries to understand why ultimately, everything ends.
I personally do not discount science and conceptual truths, however, I understand that there has to be more than a conceptual realm.

Actually, the real difference between science and mysticism is that science deals with facts and evidence, while mysticism manufactures the evidence and makes up the 'facts'.

Lord Kenneth · 6th October 2003, 12:25 PM

I think this guy is simply delusional...

Andonyx · 6th October 2003, 12:29 PM

I'm just gonna claim AA = II's sock puppet.

Actually probably not...he hasn't called anyone something really offensive yet. But the message is the same.

Crossbow · 6th October 2003, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
It would be nice to have some clear understanding of what some of the things we are discussing. No one here has said anything indicating that they have some kind of understanding what is mysticsm. To some, mysticsm is some kind of wizard with a pointy hat and a magic wand. To others, it has something to do with god, the bible, angels, getting nail to a cross. How can you blur out arguments against something which you are not sure what it means. How can you properly counter a remark.
Also I defined existence as that which has duration and space.
However. I can work with your definition of existence.

I do not know what mysticsm is and I have not said that I do.

Perhaps if you would be kind enough to define what mysticsm is, then others could post a cogent response.

Nyarlathotep · 6th October 2003, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
This computer is not a product of science. Science is lifeless actually.. This computer is directly the product of the mind, of knowledge and of creativity. Long before someone defined science, people were making tools, wheels and thing to make life better. Long before there were grand institutions, there were the creative few that challenged paradigms.
You can however say that a computer is a product of science. I choose to say that a computer is a product of mental elements (creativity, knowledge and insight).

Yep, and long before there ws such a thing as a cookbook people were cooking anyway so does that make thise worthless too?

Yes, knowledge creativity etc. are all very important elements in making anything new. But those things are not mysticism. In fact, they are more closely related to science, since science is, at its most basic level, a way of taking the ideas that we come up with and seeing if they are true. Mysticsm has always seemd to me to be more about taking certain ideas and just assuming them to be true, evidence or lack thereof be damned.

Even when people had no concept of sceince as such, they were still doing it in a primitive way. Millenia ago when some anonymous caveman first figured out how to make fire, he was engaging in science. He figured that rubbing two sticks together might make fire (his hypothesis) and he went out, got two sticks and tried it (his experiment). He may not have been able to rationalize it as such, he may not have even thought about it at all but it was sceince on a very basic level. All that has cahnged today is the level of complexity.

So therefore this computer is a product of science. Someone (or more accurately a bunch of different people) had certain ideas and then by testing them, found out which ideas worked and which ones didn't. They then used the workable ideas to come up with the basic ideas behind the CPU, the monitor, etc. After that, all that remained was for someone else to come along and actually build the devices theorized by the ideas. a few years of this and further perfecting the ideas and thus the devices and, voila, your computer. Without the science to filter these ideas and find which ones work and which ones don't (or, later, which ones work better than others) no computer. Your 'Mental elements' are science by any other name.

roger · 6th October 2003, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Andonyx
Up to this moment you have done nothing to demonstrate that you have any understanding of what mysticism is.

Nor science. I wonder why he feels he can "blur out arguments against" it.

Antonio Alejandro · 6th October 2003, 12:39 PM

I should define mysticsm?
There are quite a few post here.
Why are all of these post here? Why remark about something which you have very little knowledge of? No one here needs to define science for me. I can adequately remark about science.
In actuality I did not expect people in this forum to be verse in Eastern Mysticsm. However, I did make a statement, (that nothing exist until after we perceive it) because it can lead to an introduction to what mysticsm is about. But so far all i get are negative remarks about a subject which you clearly do not understand.
If you want to educate yourself about what is mysticsm, go to google and type mysticsm.
After you read a little bit about what it is, come back and remark intelligently.

Andonyx · 6th October 2003, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I should define mysticsm?
There are quite a few post here.
Why are all of these post here? Why remark about something which you have very little knowledge of? No one here needs to define science for me. I can adequately remark about science.

Actually, no you can't. Nothing you've said about science so far is remotely close to the truth....and before you try some puffery be aware of the actual amount of real live scientists here on this board.

In the meantime. I did in fact ask you which type of mysticism you were referring to, and one of the possibilities I offered was Eastern mysticism.

So not only are you talking a lot of trash about a subject you quite clearly do not comprehend. You are too lazy to even read the posts repsonding to you thoroughly.

Nyarlathotep · 6th October 2003, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro

After you read a little bit about what it is, come back and remark intelligently.

You should take your own advice but replace the word 'myticism' with 'scientific method' since you seem to be pretty clueless on the subject yourself.

In fact that would be easier since if you ask 15 people for a definition of 'myticism' you will get 16 differnet responses. Since you are the one claiming that "Mysticism is more advanced than science" then you should explain what you mean, i.e. what variety of mysticism are you talking about.

Ian Osborne · 6th October 2003, 12:50 PM

As several people have pointed out, mysticism means different things to different people. The next step in this thread must be for you to define how *you* see mysticism, otherwise the discussion will go nowhere.

At present, i'm sticking to my defenition - mysticism is an attempt to unlock the secrets of the universe by someone too lazy to study physics. Can you tell me where, or if, I'm going wrong?

Upchurch · 6th October 2003, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
But so far all i get are negative remarks about a subject which you clearly do not understand.

Antonio,

I think you'll find on this board that negative remarks are usually brought about by poor or rude behavior rather than subject of your posts.

Further, this is a skeptic's forum. If you make claims and do not support or clarify them, why do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 6th October 2003, 12:52 PM

Boy, we do get an interesting assortment of people here, don't we?

~~ Paul

Marquis de Carabas · 6th October 2003, 12:57 PM

All right, I did my research. Since you do not feel obligated to define what you mean, I shall have to pick, from my research, the definition I choose to use. So I go with the following:

3. Vague, groundless speculation.
from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mysticism

So, why is vague, groundless speculation 'more advanced' than science?

LawnOven · 6th October 2003, 01:05 PM

oh, my my my...

well I'm thoroughly convienced that mysticism is better than science, why aren't the rest of you?

I don't get it.

I mean it should be quite obvious that "Vague, groundless speculation. " is far superior to science in everyway.

Yahzi · 6th October 2003, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro
I am sorry i cannot respond to this. You have not demonstrated that you understand what is mysticsm. I cannot discuss prejudices ...as prejudices are illogical.

You have not demonstrated that you understand what science OR mysticism is.

Marquis de Carabas · 6th October 2003, 01:16 PM

On further reflection, I feel I must concede that mysticism is far more advanced than science. Science still has to deal with all that tedious stuff like backing up what you say, attempting to falsify hypotheses, and, horror of horrors, conforming to the world and the forces and objects in it. Mysticism is so much more freeing than that. It gets at the reality behind all that boring science stuff. Don't speak to me your causes and your effects. I will now shoot myself in the head. Your science tells me I stand a high chance of dying, yet that is just your bigoted Western mind's way of seeing things. I think the bullet will open my mind to exciting new possibilities. Vague? Yes. Groundless? Yes. Advanced? Y-- <bang>

Nyarlathotep · 6th October 2003, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch

Antonio, there were only a handful of responses to your post and yet you've already decided that we do not "understand what is [sic] mysticism." If you find prejudices to be illogical, then abandon your own and continue the discussion.

Surely you didn't expect that your claim would go unchallenged?

edited to add:
Why is it that smug hit and run posters bother me?

Now that this thread has gone on a while I wouldn't say he is a hit and run poster (i.e. Billiefan) but I don't know which is worse, the hit and runners or people like this guy who post in defense of their ideas but don't actually say anything except "Hmph! None of you understand what I'm talking about!"

It's as if they don't realize that if no one understands what you are talkinga bout, then you might not be making any sense.

6th October 2003, 10:16 AM	#1
Antonio Alejandro Student Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 40	Why spirituality is more advance than todays Science Why is Mysticsm more advance than todays science? Science has not yet realized that nothing exist until after we perceive it A scientist would say: The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. The mystic would say: The perceive speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. In mysticsm, the nature of concepts are studied thoroughly, and nothing about it is assumed. Where science chooses to gain knowledge by examining concepts, mysticsm examines the nature of concepts. Science's knowledge are of a conceptual nature. Mysticsm's attempts to go beyond the conceptual. We use logic and reason to survive and make our lives better. Mysticsm tries to understand why ultimately, everything ends. I personally do not discount science and conceptual truths, however, I understand that there has to be more than a conceptual realm.
Antonio Alejandro Student Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 40	__________________ No one can do the knowing for you...you have to do your own knowing

6th October 2003, 10:24 AM	#2
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Re: Why spirituality is more advance than todays Science Quote: Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro Science has not yet realized that nothing exist until after we perceive it Proof of this? edited to add: That is to say, what proof have you that nothing exists until after we perceive it? I wasn't asking for proof that "science has not yet realized..."

6th October 2003, 10:54 AM	#3
Andonyx Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,834	Re: Why spirituality is more advance than todays Science Quote: Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro In mysticsm, the nature of concepts are studied thoroughly, and nothing about it is assumed. Really, when and how? Do you have evidence of this? to what mysticism are you referring? Ancient Judaism, Norse, pagan, Celtic, eastern, Indian? Or is there a blanket Mysticism movement I am unaware that in fact studies the nature of concepts thoroughly? I thought the ancient greek philosophers did a pretty good job with Platonic forms and Lucretius' examination of physical matter, but apprently you are aware fo some better stuff out there, so if you have, please don't hold it only for your self. Quote: Where science chooses to gain knowledge by examining concepts, mysticsm examines the nature of concepts. See, that's so funny, because I thought the scientific method involved recording observable evidence of physical phenomena and then examining the hard data that is both reproduceable and lab controlled. I always thought the concepts came after and subordinate to the physical evidence, but again, you seem willing to make an authoritative statement that this is not the case... that science is in fact some mystical mumbo-jumbo. (Note use of adjective in preceding sentence.) Quote: Science's knowledge are of a conceptual nature. Really? I was unaware that volumes of recorded data, repeatable expirements and careful observation were of a conceptual nature. I thought data was just data... Quote: Mysticsm's attempts to go beyond the conceptual. Into what? The meta-conceptual? Quote: We use logic and reason to survive and make our lives better. Yep, sounds pretty good to me....and also pretty reliable, practical, and grounded in reality. Quote: Mysticsm tries to understand why ultimately, everything ends. Well, good luck. While mysticism is busy TRYING to understand, science has a pretty good handle on why living things die...why the universe will either crush itself or fizzle out, why stars explode, and galaxies collapse, why orbits decay, and fires go out....etc. Does mysticism have something more valuable to add, or have you just not read enough good science books? In the meantime I'd rather go home to my nice warm house, crack open a can of beer, and watch the game than sit in a cave in the dark somewhere debating pointlessly about why everything must come to an end. Quote: I personally do not discount science and conceptual truths, however, I understand that there has to be more than a conceptual realm. There is, it's called evidence, experiementation, and demonstrable cause and effect. You keep using this word, "Science." I do not think it means what you think it means.
Andonyx Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,834	__________________ Andonyx www.andonyx.com Shy Gypsy Slyly Shyly Tryst By My Crypt.

6th October 2003, 11:05 AM	#5
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,293	Re: Why spirituality is more advance than todays Science Quote: Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro ... Science's knowledge are of a conceptual nature. Mysticsm's attempts to go beyond the conceptual. ... I think these two statements in your post about sum it up. Science does one thing whereas religion does something else.
	__________________ A man's best friend is his dogma.

6th October 2003, 11:12 AM	#6
EdipisReks Custom Title Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The 'Nati Posts: 1,952	my pet snail is more advanced than spirituality because spirituality only tries to apologize for ignorance, and my pet snail tries to cover everything in slime. this statement is roughly as valid as the one that began this thread.
	__________________ "Candy to rot your teeth. Bible to rot your brain." --EvilDave (7-24-2003) "I read the Book Of Mormon once. Wasn't it about Uma Thurman, um, thrumming a Theremin?" --epepke (9-22-2004)

6th October 2003, 10:54 AM	#4
Bluegill Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Louisville Posts: 1,188	What is your definition of "more advanced"?

6th October 2003, 11:18 AM	#7
Nyarlathotep Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,514	To claim that Mysticism is more advanced than science is absurd. The computer on which this little screed was typed is a product of science, not of mysticism. Several years ago I was involved in an accident that, had it occured even a generation ago would have cost me my leg if not my life, today I walk around with only a slight limp and the surgery that made it possible was a result of science, not mysticism. If I care to learn about dinosaurs, other planets or just about any subject you care to name, the facts about these things are revealed through science, not mysticism. Here is a short list of the benefits that mysticism has bestowed upon me personally or mankind in general. . . . . . . . I can't see how the original poster could make his calim and keep a straight face.
	__________________ Why stay sane in a sick world?

6th October 2003, 11:35 AM	#8
Antonio Alejandro Student Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 40	I am sorry i cannot respond to this. You have not demonstrated that you understand what is mysticsm. I cannot discuss prejudices ...as prejudices are illogical.
Antonio Alejandro Student Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 40	__________________ No one can do the knowing for you...you have to do your own knowing

6th October 2003, 11:47 AM	#9
Nyarlathotep Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,514	Quote: Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro I am sorry i cannot respond to this. You have not demonstrated that you understand what is mysticsm. I cannot discuss prejudices ...as prejudices are illogical. If you think I don't understand what mysticsm is and you actually want to discuss the subject (as opposed to merely wanting to say your piece and leave) then it seems to me that you ought to explain what YOU mean by mysticsm. mysticism is one of those words like 'religion' that means different things to different people.
	__________________ Why stay sane in a sick world?

6th October 2003, 11:50 AM	#10
EdipisReks Custom Title Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The 'Nati Posts: 1,952	Quote: Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro I am sorry i cannot respond to this. You have not demonstrated that you understand what is mysticsm. I cannot discuss prejudices ...as prejudices are illogical. strange, that is exactly what my pet snail said. i can set you two up on a date, if you'd like. btw the way, prejudices aren't necessarily illogical, if one's prejudice against something is based upon examination of that subject.
	__________________ "Candy to rot your teeth. Bible to rot your brain." --EvilDave (7-24-2003) "I read the Book Of Mormon once. Wasn't it about Uma Thurman, um, thrumming a Theremin?" --epepke (9-22-2004)

6th October 2003, 11:51 AM	#11
whitefork None of the above Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: aka kullervo Posts: 2,339	Can the mystical be shown if it cannot be said? The right method of philosophy would be this: To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other -- he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy -- but it would be the only strictly correct method. - Wittgenstein Tractatus 6.53
	__________________ Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies - Nietzsche

6th October 2003, 11:58 AM	#12
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Quote: Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro I am sorry i cannot respond to this. You have not demonstrated that you understand what is mysticsm. I cannot discuss prejudices ...as prejudices are illogical. Antonio, there were only a handful of responses to your post and yet you've already decided that we do not "understand what is [sic] mysticism." If you find prejudices to be illogical, then abandon your own and continue the discussion. Surely you didn't expect that your claim would go unchallenged? edited to add: Why is it that smug hit and run posters bother me?

6th October 2003, 11:58 AM	#13
Pahansiri Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,380	Quote: Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro ...as prejudices are illogical. I agree . But yet you show prejudice towards science. That is illogical. Be well my new friend.
	__________________ "If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility."...H.W.Longfellow

6th October 2003, 12:05 PM	#14
Antonio Alejandro Student Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 40	This computer is not a product of science This computer is not a product of science. Science is lifeless actually.. This computer is directly the product of the mind, of knowledge and of creativity. Long before someone defined science, people were making tools, wheels and thing to make life better. Long before there were grand institutions, there were the creative few that challenged paradigms. You can however say that a computer is a product of science. I choose to say that a computer is a product of mental elements (creativity, knowledge and insight).
Antonio Alejandro Student Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 40	__________________ No one can do the knowing for you...you have to do your own knowing

6th October 2003, 12:12 PM	#15
Andonyx Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,834	Oh jeez, another poster with an alliterative name and Interesting Ian's same "it means what I say it means," perspective.... Nifty. In the meantime, Mr. Safire, would you care to define "mysticism, " for us?
Andonyx Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,834	__________________ Andonyx www.andonyx.com Shy Gypsy Slyly Shyly Tryst By My Crypt.

6th October 2003, 12:15 PM	#16
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Re: This computer is not a product of science Quote: Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro This computer is not a product of science. How wonderfully off topic. How does this back your claims above?

6th October 2003, 12:18 PM	#17
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,383	Quote: Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro You have not demonstrated that you understand what is mysticsm. 'Mysticism' is the attempt to discover the secrets of the universe by someone too lazy to study physics.
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

6th October 2003, 12:20 PM	#18
shemp Timothy, Timothy, where on earth did you go? Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: trapped in a cave-in with Joe Posts: 12,885	Re: Why spirituality is more advance than todays Science
	__________________ Church on Sunday, sleep and nod Tryin' to duck the wrath of God Preacher's fillin' us with fright Tryin' to tell us what he thinks is right He really got to be some kind of nut (I can't use it!) Tryin' to make it real - compared to what?

6th October 2003, 12:21 PM	#19
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,383	Re: This computer is not a product of science Quote: Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro Long before someone defined science, people were making tools, wheels and thing to make life better. Long before there were grand institutions, there were the creative few that challenged paradigms. Just because science (and engineering) had yet to be defined, it doesn't mean they didn't exist. And what do grand institutions have to do with creativity?
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

6th October 2003, 12:22 PM	#20
Andonyx Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,834	Re: Re: This computer is not a product of science Quote: Originally posted by Ian Osborne Just because science (and engineering) had yet to be defined, it doesn't mean they didn't exist. And what do grand institutions have to do with creativity? Wait wait wait...Ian...remember he already told us that nothing exists until you observe it.
Andonyx Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,834	__________________ Andonyx www.andonyx.com Shy Gypsy Slyly Shyly Tryst By My Crypt.

6th October 2003, 12:22 PM	#21
Antonio Alejandro Student Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 40	Definitions It would be nice to have some clear understanding of what some of the things we are discussing. No one here has said anything indicating that they have some kind of understanding what is mysticsm. To some, mysticsm is some kind of wizard with a pointy hat and a magic wand. To others, it has something to do with god, the bible, angels, getting nail to a cross. How can you blur out arguments against something which you are not sure what it means. How can you properly counter a remark. Also I defined existence as that which has duration and space. However. I can work with your definition of existence.
Antonio Alejandro Student Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 40	__________________ No one can do the knowing for you...you have to do your own knowing

6th October 2003, 12:24 PM	#22
Andonyx Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,834	Re: Definitions Quote: Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro It would be nice to have some clear understanding of what some of the things we are discussing. No one here has said anything indicating that they have some kind of understanding what is mysticsm. To some, mysticsm is some kind of wizard with a pointy hat and a magic wand. To others, it has something to do with god, the bible, angels, getting nail to a cross. Actually, several people have asked you to define it...you have ignored them. Up to this moment you have done nothing to demonstrate that you have any understanding of what mysticism is.
Andonyx Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,834	__________________ Andonyx www.andonyx.com Shy Gypsy Slyly Shyly Tryst By My Crypt.

6th October 2003, 12:25 PM	#23
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Re: Definitions Quote: Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro How can you blur out arguments against something which you are not sure what it means. That is why it is your responsibility to clarify precisely what you mean.

6th October 2003, 12:25 PM	#24
Chanileslie Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 2,378	Re: Why spirituality is more advance than todays Science Quote: Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro Why is Mysticsm more advance than todays science? Science has not yet realized that nothing exist until after we perceive it A scientist would say: The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. The mystic would say: The perceive speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. In mysticsm, the nature of concepts are studied thoroughly, and nothing about it is assumed. Where science chooses to gain knowledge by examining concepts, mysticsm examines the nature of concepts. Science's knowledge are of a conceptual nature. Mysticsm's attempts to go beyond the conceptual. We use logic and reason to survive and make our lives better. Mysticsm tries to understand why ultimately, everything ends. I personally do not discount science and conceptual truths, however, I understand that there has to be more than a conceptual realm. Actually, the real difference between science and mysticism is that science deals with facts and evidence, while mysticism manufactures the evidence and makes up the 'facts'.

6th October 2003, 12:25 PM	#25
Lord Kenneth Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,623	I think this guy is simply delusional...
Lord Kenneth Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,623

6th October 2003, 12:29 PM	#26
Andonyx Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,834	I'm just gonna claim AA = II's sock puppet. Actually probably not...he hasn't called anyone something really offensive yet. But the message is the same.
Andonyx Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,834	__________________ Andonyx www.andonyx.com Shy Gypsy Slyly Shyly Tryst By My Crypt.

6th October 2003, 12:30 PM	#28
Nyarlathotep Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,514	Re: This computer is not a product of science Quote: Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro This computer is not a product of science. Science is lifeless actually.. This computer is directly the product of the mind, of knowledge and of creativity. Long before someone defined science, people were making tools, wheels and thing to make life better. Long before there were grand institutions, there were the creative few that challenged paradigms. You can however say that a computer is a product of science. I choose to say that a computer is a product of mental elements (creativity, knowledge and insight). Yep, and long before there ws such a thing as a cookbook people were cooking anyway so does that make thise worthless too? Yes, knowledge creativity etc. are all very important elements in making anything new. But those things are not mysticism. In fact, they are more closely related to science, since science is, at its most basic level, a way of taking the ideas that we come up with and seeing if they are true. Mysticsm has always seemd to me to be more about taking certain ideas and just assuming them to be true, evidence or lack thereof be damned. Even when people had no concept of sceince as such, they were still doing it in a primitive way. Millenia ago when some anonymous caveman first figured out how to make fire, he was engaging in science. He figured that rubbing two sticks together might make fire (his hypothesis) and he went out, got two sticks and tried it (his experiment). He may not have been able to rationalize it as such, he may not have even thought about it at all but it was sceince on a very basic level. All that has cahnged today is the level of complexity. So therefore this computer is a product of science. Someone (or more accurately a bunch of different people) had certain ideas and then by testing them, found out which ideas worked and which ones didn't. They then used the workable ideas to come up with the basic ideas behind the CPU, the monitor, etc. After that, all that remained was for someone else to come along and actually build the devices theorized by the ideas. a few years of this and further perfecting the ideas and thus the devices and, voila, your computer. Without the science to filter these ideas and find which ones work and which ones don't (or, later, which ones work better than others) no computer. Your 'Mental elements' are science by any other name.
	__________________ Why stay sane in a sick world?

6th October 2003, 12:32 PM	#29
roger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2002 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 11,021	Re: Re: Definitions Quote: Originally posted by Andonyx Up to this moment you have done nothing to demonstrate that you have any understanding of what mysticism is. Nor science. I wonder why he feels he can "blur out arguments against" it.

6th October 2003, 12:39 PM	#30
Antonio Alejandro Student Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 40	Definition of mysticsm I should define mysticsm? There are quite a few post here. Why are all of these post here? Why remark about something which you have very little knowledge of? No one here needs to define science for me. I can adequately remark about science. In actuality I did not expect people in this forum to be verse in Eastern Mysticsm. However, I did make a statement, (that nothing exist until after we perceive it) because it can lead to an introduction to what mysticsm is about. But so far all i get are negative remarks about a subject which you clearly do not understand. If you want to educate yourself about what is mysticsm, go to google and type mysticsm. After you read a little bit about what it is, come back and remark intelligently.
Antonio Alejandro Student Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 40	__________________ No one can do the knowing for you...you have to do your own knowing

6th October 2003, 12:42 PM	#31
Andonyx Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,834	Re: Definition of mysticsm Quote: Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro I should define mysticsm? There are quite a few post here. Why are all of these post here? Why remark about something which you have very little knowledge of? No one here needs to define science for me. I can adequately remark about science. Actually, no you can't. Nothing you've said about science so far is remotely close to the truth....and before you try some puffery be aware of the actual amount of real live scientists here on this board. In the meantime. I did in fact ask you which type of mysticism you were referring to, and one of the possibilities I offered was Eastern mysticism. So not only are you talking a lot of trash about a subject you quite clearly do not comprehend. You are too lazy to even read the posts repsonding to you thoroughly.
Andonyx Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,834	__________________ Andonyx www.andonyx.com Shy Gypsy Slyly Shyly Tryst By My Crypt.

6th October 2003, 12:44 PM	#32
Nyarlathotep Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,514	Re: Definition of mysticsm Quote: Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro After you read a little bit about what it is, come back and remark intelligently. You should take your own advice but replace the word 'myticism' with 'scientific method' since you seem to be pretty clueless on the subject yourself. In fact that would be easier since if you ask 15 people for a definition of 'myticism' you will get 16 differnet responses. Since you are the one claiming that "Mysticism is more advanced than science" then you should explain what you mean, i.e. what variety of mysticism are you talking about.
	__________________ Why stay sane in a sick world?

6th October 2003, 12:50 PM	#33
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,383	As several people have pointed out, mysticism means different things to different people. The next step in this thread must be for you to define how you see mysticism, otherwise the discussion will go nowhere. At present, i'm sticking to my defenition - mysticism is an attempt to unlock the secrets of the universe by someone too lazy to study physics. Can you tell me where, or if, I'm going wrong?
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

6th October 2003, 12:51 PM	#34
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Re: Definition of mysticsm Quote: Originally posted by Antonio Alejandro But so far all i get are negative remarks about a subject which you clearly do not understand. Antonio, I think you'll find on this board that negative remarks are usually brought about by poor or rude behavior rather than subject of your posts. Further, this is a skeptic's forum. If you make claims and do not support or clarify them, why do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

6th October 2003, 12:52 PM	#35
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	Boy, we do get an interesting assortment of people here, don't we? ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

6th October 2003, 12:57 PM	#36
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	All right, I did my research. Since you do not feel obligated to define what you mean, I shall have to pick, from my research, the definition I choose to use. So I go with the following: 3. Vague, groundless speculation. from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mysticism So, why is vague, groundless speculation 'more advanced' than science?
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.