Spot on! Why can’t they answer this?
Can’t answer or won’t answer?
1 Like
I’m not necessarily affirming that this is true or that all intelligent phenomena are real, but I find it very suspicious that all the things science negates (such as phantoms, aliens, spirits, Santa Claus, fairies, etc.) imply some form of intelligence. Of course, many of them could be projections, but… what if there is another less visible problem here? Perhaps our inability to deal with the intelligent dimensions of reality is the issue.
Maybe these dimensions don’t behave as we expect them to.
Sounds like you’re softening up a bit from your initial assertion-laden stance. If so, good for you!
Or… and I’m just speculating…
Phantoms, ghosts, pixies, gods may just be utter bollocks!
Also it’s interesting how all of these phenomena are intrinsically linked to hope/control.
Why?
Science doesn’t negate ideas, it gathers and examines data, and if something doesn’t present any data for it to examine, then this doesn’t infer a flaw or limitation of science.
Science can’t examine unicorns, or mermaids, now if someone chooses to imagine those with intelligence, is that suspicious to you, if so why? Imagination is a vitally important part of the scientific methods, but just as important is to understand when what we have imagined does not reflect reality, and discard it.
3 Likes
Don’t mean to interrupt but, the preferred term is non-player character (NPC)
3 Likes
You DON’T HAVE A POSSIBILITY, how do you not understand this, at this point? Possibilities need to be demonstrated. You have mind-candy. An intrusive thought. An imagination. And, none of this amounts to the level of ‘possibility.’ NONE OF IT!
3 Likes
The survival of our species depends on us to achieve interstellar space travel, really? We’ll annihilate ourselves first, of that I am positive.
Something/someone will go wrong and we’ll nuke the planet before that ever happens.
And when you find a methodology that works equally well, provides results that are equally objective, and, can be used in an equally effective manner, science will adopt it and update itself. THAT’S HOW SCIENCE WORKS. If you think science is deficient in exploring some phenomena, develop a method of studying it, study it, submit your findings to a journal, and see what happens.
1 Like
No, we’ve already achieved space travel, it’s only 62 miles away, @rat_spit claimed interstellar travel was possible, then shifted his position to would be possible, neither claim has been evidenced obviously. For example how a significant number of humans will survive travelling light years to a (potentially) habitable planet. That’s before we address surviving on it. The reality is that we live on a planet where all life is only possible because of a dying star, and worse we have an exponentially increasing human population on a planet with finite resources, reliant on a finite supply of fossil fuels, that have already caused a massive shift in climate change.
1 Like
But it’s possible we would all learn to eat radiation for breakfast and convert it into nutritional substances for our bodies. Then space travel would be no problem at all. Then it’s possible we can live by sucking moisture out of rocks on planets like Mars because once we are on those planets’ evolution will accelerate and we will adapt. 'It’s Possible because possibility does not have to be demonstrated. Everything is possible until you prove me wrong.
1 Like
It’s a brave new world, where the phrase “it might be possible”, is a synonym for I like this fantasy, and so I’m going to imagine it can be real. I’m going to watch Back to The Future again, right at the end when his time travelling Delorean comes back, and it flies, and the fusion reactor can run on the contents of a waste bin (garbage can). Ah the POSSIBILITIES are endless…when you do away with pesky facts and objective evidence.
Well rats can develop immunities to disease and even strong poisons very quickly, as they have such a fast reproductive cycle. Maybe that’s where he was coming from?
1 Like
And then we have real Ninja Turtles and Tin Men, not these imitation things running about the world today. And apes will evolve a sixth toe that allows the to fly just like the ones in the Wizzard of Oz. I think I feel my toes changing now.
2 Likes
Aww, dammit! You finally figured out I’m just a fignewton of your imagination… (heavy sigh)… Although, in all fairness, I suppose I should be happy it took this long. Just do me a favor, though, please. Just don’t stop imagining or believing I exist, okay? If you stop believing in me, I end up floating around in a bunch of infinite nothing until somebody else starts believing I’m real. And I HATE IT when that happens. 
Oh, and it’s only fair you should know that when you stop believing in me, those who still believe will treat you as an outcast and label you as rebellious and evil. So it’s in your best interest to keep believing, you know, just in case. Anyway, kudos to you for finally waking up to reality, but in the interest of playing it safe… 
“… Don’t stop… Believin’… Hold onto that feeling, yeah…”
1 Like
Change the word stop to start, and it loses nothing for me. 
1 Like
Yeah… we’ll even give you your own personal pronound. ‘That, it, and thing.’
I LIKE it! 
That (not me) is to say, I like the idea, not myself. Well, okay, I DO like myself (most days), but in that (not me) sentence I wasn’t talking about myself. Basically, just trying to tell you I think it is a good idea. That I rather like referring to myself like that. I mean, it could be worse, right. Although, what if it isn’t exactly what it appears to be? That could possibly mean I’m not it, right? Uhhh… Wait a sec… 
… Uh, is it just me, or was that sorta confusing just then?
Yea, yea, yea, yea, well, lets not talk about that any more.
1 Like
Cue duplicitous assertions of “bias” in science in 3 … 2 … 1 …
It may also be possible that you’re talking out of your arse on a subject you know nothing about, but that’s a possibility you won’t entertain because of your bias.
It’s hilarious to see comments like yours, given that scientists have not only alighted upon vast classses of entities and interactions, that the authors of pre-scientific mythologies were incapable of even fantasising about (along with various assertionist “philosophers”), but have placed said classes of entities and interactions into usefully predictive quantitative frameworks of knowledge, of a sort that said authors of pre-scientific mythologies (and assertionist “philosophers”) would have regarded as magic.
Indeed, every time some magic supernatural entity has been asserted to be “necessary” to explain a phenomenon, scientists have later determined that said phenomenon can be explained exclusively in terms of testable natural processes, and as a corollary, magic supernatural entities have been rendered superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. There have been zero exceptions to this.
For that matter, scientists are now reaching the point where they can begin formulating models for the origin of the universe itself. The cosmological physics literature now features numerous such models, along with suggestions for testing those models to see if they are in correspondence with observational reality.
Frist fo all … you’re surprised that humans fabricate imaginary sentient entities?
Second, not all things negated by science involved intelligence. Phlogiston being a prime example. The luminiferous aether being another. The Ptolemaic model of the Solar System being a third. The 19th century Newtonian model of the atom being a fourth. The statement “Nature abhors a vacuum” being a fifth.
Third, scientists don’t discount the possibility that life exists on bodies other than Planet Earth. NASA wouldn’t be planning missions to Europa and Enceladus to search for indigenous life if they did. Scientists wouldn’t be spending time examining exoplanets in distant star systems for signs of life, if they discounted this possibility.
Do you bother actually thinking before posting?
3 Likes