BNPR

[zinnat]

First of all, the term BNPR stands for beyond normal physical reach. I am referring to such things which cannot verified by physical means at all, even scientific, still we think (or, some of us at least) that they exist.

As I promised to some posters here, very recently and in the past too, I am going to argue that something beyond our normal physical reach and understanding (at least so far) exists in each and every living entity. Nomenclature (soul, consciousness, Spiritual entities, deities, god, different dimensions, higher realms etc) is not a matter of discussion here.

[u] The only pertinent issue in this thread is weather something of that sort exists in reality or not. I am not interested here about its type of existence or qualities.

Again, for clarification, this thread will deal only with the issue whether something unexplainable, unrecognized and metaphysical (means merely beyond normal physical reach; BNPR) is an essential part of all living entities or not. That is all. What it is, what should we call it and how exactly it integrates with life forms, are not of the same importance here. Secondly, I will not use any religious or faith based arguments or spiritual evidences here and expect the same from the other posters too. Only scientific or conventional philosophical arguments/explanations are welcome, either in favor or against[/u].

Means, either “the Bible or Quran says so” or “it is wrong just because any religion says so” is not allowed at all. Even, “i experienced this in person so it must be true” is not welcome, if the presenter cannot put any evidence forth of his personal experience. Leave everything such aside, which others cannot see and verify. Any argument, either for or against, must be supported by logic, reasoning or evidence, not any belief or personal isolated experience…

Thirdly, and most importantly, I want to see only proper arguments here, supported either by reasoning or evidences, not mere hollow claims. Means, the famous tagline that “it would be achieved one day for sure” is not acceptable here as an evidence/argument. Leave all futuristic assumptions aside (even scientific) and take account only such things which have been proved/verified empirically so far.

All posters are welcome to join. But, please keep your language civil, refrain from any personal remarks, and be on the topic. I am interested only discussing the issue in hand, not posters. Thus, I will not reply to any uncivil, personal or off topic remarks. I expect others posters to do the same.

Lastly, though this issue seems to be related with R&S section, but actually it is not. There would be nothing in this thread that would be entitiled to go there. So, i would like to request mods to look at the content of the thread before tranferring it there.

The post is long thus i will post it into parts. It may take me 1-2 days to complete. Please bear with me.

with love,
sanjay

[turtle]

IDK

[mafdet]

I was raised in a religious household, and I accepted these things as true, because I reasoned that nobody would have any reason for making such things up. As I grew and matured, I realized that some people can and do have motives for trying to make you believe such things, other than the reason that it might be true.

I decided that whatever I was going to believe about this BNPR, as you call it, would only consist of what I myself could personally verify about it, and I was going to dismiss any assumptions that were not supported by any solid proof. When you do this, while keeping an open mind, you find that hard proof is really hard to come by. Nevertheless, I do see evidence of this BNPR, and if there is an intelligence associated with this BNPR, then it seems to me that it has only one way of making itself known to that which is physical, and as far as I can tell, it is just this one way only.

[turtle]

so are you saying an intelligent god exists…

[zinnat]

@mafdet

I was raised in a religious household, and I accepted these things as true, because I reasoned that nobody would have any reason for making such things up. As I grew and matured, I realized that some people can and do have motives for trying to make you believe such things, other than the reason that it might be true.

I decided that whatever I was going to believe about this BNPR, as you call it, would only consist of what I myself could personally verify about it, and I was going to dismiss any assumptions that were not supported by any solid proof. When you do this, while keeping an open mind, you find that hard proof is really hard to come by. Nevertheless, I do see evidence of this BNPR, and if there is an intelligence associated with this BNPR, then it seems to me that it has only one way of making itself known to that which is physical, and as far as I can tell, it is just this one way only.

I understand and agree with you. Even being a religious person, I believe in only those things which I can verify in person.

But, at the end of the day, every theory has to be demonstrated publicly to be accepted as truth. It does not matter much what you have experienced in isolation.

That is why I am attempting to prove the existence of BNPR using only scientific evidences, not religious/spiritual ones.

Let us see what happens.

With love,
Sanjay

[zinnat]

@turtle

so are you saying an intelligent god exists…

turtle,

Pay attention. This thread has nothing to do with the God.

The only issue here is whether any kind of BNPR exists in each and every organism or not. That is all.

With love,
Sanjay

[turtle]

@zinnat

@turtle

so are you saying an intelligent god exists…

turtle,

Pay attention. This thread has nothing to do with the God.

The only issue here is whether any kind of BNPR exists in each and every organism or not. That is all.

With love,
Sanjay

yes zin…but I am asking you now whether you believe in an intelligent god…I hope you will do this…for me
it does have to do with bnpr…I do know we are intelligent beings because of evolution from bacteria on earth…
bnpr to me means we are intelligent and so were our ancestors…

[Carpophorus]

Sanjay, simply by defining something as beyond normal physical reach you immediately appeal to the physical sciences which are and always will remain incomplete. The fact that general relativity and quantum mechanics, the predominant schools of physical analysis and inquiry in the 20th and 21st century, are incompatible, is proof enough that something beyond current physical reach exists and can be inferred. In that sense you are sort of begging the question aren’t you?

Insofar as this question is in the philosophy thread, I would only say that the mysteries that nature reluctantly and sparingly reveals to us and the wonder that the never-fully-comprehensible perceptual world impresses upon philosophically minded individuals are the root cause of this phenomenon. The more we know indeed reveals more that we know that we don’t know, or in other words, every acquired knowledge leads to a deeper and more complicated set of questions as man engages in his noble, but futile, efforts to understand all that is to be understood: a theory of everything.

It is this elementary component of human consciousness, this spiritual (for want of a better term) battle between brave a noble inquiry and nihilistic futility that causes the emergence of religions, which, by and large, are vampiric methods of control which feed upon mans hopeless endeavours to be ‘fully aware’ and his need to quell his existential anxiety in a universe which is not harmonious and which produces countless instances of emptiness or chaos for every perceived order. Men have projected deities, utopias and ideals all of which falsely posit that all CAN be known if only by some higher form of consciousness and/or future state of currently unimaginable perceptual awareness.

In short, what you are referring to is the thirst of the wonderer, a by-product of an emerging consciousness, which can never and will never be quenched. How a person deals with this in their own life is what, in my opinion, defines them most.

[barbarianhorde]

What a good subject. To help the discussion along, I can just observe that thought is almost entirely BNPR. It is produced between the brain and the situation and is completely intangible, and we don’t know, unlike with emotion which can be triggered with some accuracy by chemicals, what its consistency is. Firing synapses are involved, we know of this correlation, but we can not physically put together or deconstruct a thought. So it is BNPR. Maybe this is not what you mean but it is what I think when I read it.

[James_S_Saint]

Sanjay, you have spoken of scientific and religious methods of understanding. You have not mentioned rational or logic methods. Logic is the bane of magic (the inexplicable) and reaches where observational science or religions cannot.

There is nothing within the human construct that logic cannot explain - nothing magic, merely magical to those who can’t handle logic. People want to believe in the mysticism of consciousness, so they keep it mystical (while they get snared and undermined for being so willing to be deceived).

[barbarianhorde]

@James S Saint

Sanjay, you have spoken of scientific and religious methods of understanding. You have not mentioned rational or logic methods. Logic is the bane of magic (the inexplicable) and reaches where observational science or religions cannot.

There is nothing within the human construct that logic cannot explain - nothing magic, merely magical to those who can’t handle logic. People want to believe in the mysticism of consciousness, so they keep it mystical (while they get snared and undermined for being so willing to be deceived).

In that case, it would be great i some logician would step up and explain it to the scientists.

But I disagree. Logic is part of consciousness, it can’t be expected to reconstruct its own origin.

Logic is not as honest as you may think.

[James_S_Saint]

@barbarianhorde

Logic is not as honest as you may think.

Or you think that it is not as honest as it is.

Today all people are supposed to distrust all things and thus all things are obfuscated and lied about. Logic is no exception to that. It has been lied about, for political and religious reasons. There is absolutely nothing in logic that even I personally can’t explain and attest to directly. If you don’t understand logic, it is probably because you have been misled into thinking that it is something that it isn’t (much like consciousness).

[barbarianhorde]

@James S Saint

@barbarianhorde

Logic is not as honest as you may think.

Or you think that it is not as honest as it is.

Today all people are supposed to distrust all things and thus all things are obfuscated and lied about. Logic is no exception to that. It has been lied about, for political and religious reasons. There is absolutely nothing in logic that even I personally can’t explain and attest to directly. If you don’t understand logic, it is probably because you have been misled into thinking that it is something that it isn’t (much like consciousness).

Are you gonna bark all day, little doggie, or you gonna bite?

I don’t think you can challenge my point even if you tried, but we’ll never know.

(If you hadn’t realized, making unverifiable and unsubstantiated claims is not logic, it’s called opining. And yeah I know many people cant’t tell the difference.)

[James_S_Saint]

@barbarianhorde

Are you gonna bark all day, little doggie, or you gonna bite?
I don’t think you can challenge my point even if you tried, but we’ll never know.

(If you hadn’t realized, making unverifiable and unsubstantiated claims is not logic, it’s called opining. And yeah I know many people cant’t tell the difference. No hard feelings… :-" )

You had a point?
The only thing that I saw was an opinion.
… “no hard feelings. :-” "

[Orbie]

@barbarianhorde

@James S Saint

Sanjay, you have spoken of scientific and religious methods of understanding. You have not mentioned rational or logic methods. Logic is the bane of magic (the inexplicable) and reaches where
observational science or religions cannot.

There is nothing within the human construct that
logic cannot explain - nothing magic, merely magical
to those who can’t handle logic. People want to believe in the mysticism of consciousness, so they keep it mystical (while they get snared and
undermined for being so willing to be deceived).

In that case, it would be great i some logician would
step up and explain it to the scientists.

But I disagree. Logic is part of consciousness, it can’t
be expected to reconstruct its own origin.

Logic is not as honest as you may think.

I don’t know whether to agree to disagree or the other way around, but I think agreement and disagreement are a spinoff of trying to think about the relationship between logic and language.

Language is acquired through logical means, so it seems it isn’t something acquired before.

It is a part of consciousness, but also the means by which consciousness becomes that tool of magical systems of understanding. Zinnat great topic.

[zinnat]

@turtle

@zinnat

@turtle

so are you saying an intelligent god exists…

turtle,

Pay attention. This thread has nothing to do with the God.

The only issue here is whether any kind of BNPR exists in each and every organism or not. That is all.

With love,
Sanjay

yes zin…but I am asking you now whether you believe in an intelligent god…I hope you will do this…for me
it does have to do with bnpr…I do know we are intelligent beings because of evolution from bacteria on earth…
bnpr to me means we are intelligent and so were our ancestors…

turtle,

Though, this thread does not allow me to say anything about my perception of the God, but as you insisted, I cannot refuse.

I know (sure) about intelligent Higher Spiritual entities/Deities but cannot say the same about the God.

Please, do not ask anything such further here. I want this thread to stay strictly on the topic. You can ask whatever you want in other two R&S threads, in which you are participating. I would be obliged to reply there.

with love,
sanjay

[zinnat]

@Carpophorus

Sanjay, simply by defining something as beyond normal physical reach you immediately appeal to the physical sciences which are and always will remain incomplete. The fact that general relativity and quantum mechanics, the predominant schools of physical analysis and inquiry in the 20th and 21st century, are incompatible, is proof enough that something beyond current physical reach exists and can be inferred. In that sense you are sort of begging the question aren’t you?

Yes and no.

I am using scientific evidences to prove my spiritual/religious premise of BNPR by the methodology of conventional analytical philosophy, without the help of any spiritual/religious inputs.

@Carpophorus

Insofar as this question is in the philosophy thread, I would only say that the mysteries that nature reluctantly and sparingly reveals to us and the wonder that the never-fully-comprehensible perceptual world impresses upon philosophically minded individuals are the root cause of this phenomenon. The more we know indeed reveals more that we know that we don’t know, or in other words, every acquired knowledge leads to a deeper and more complicated set of questions as man engages in his noble, but futile, efforts to understand all that is to be understood: a theory of everything.

True.But, that is not what i am aiming at. I do not want to go that far.

My limited point is whether any kind of BNPR exists in each and every organism or not, and who predates whom, or who depends on whom? That is all.

@Carpophorus

In short, what you are referring to is the thirst of the wonderer, a by-product of an emerging consciousness, which can never and will never be quenched. How a person deals with this in their own life is what, in my opinion, defines them most.

No. The refutation of that perception of one can believe whatever he likes, is precisely my aim. And, i want (or try at least) to do it scientifically and philosophically accepted way only.

with love,
sanjay

[zinnat]

@barbarianhorde

What a good subject.

Thanks.

To help the discussion along, I can just observe that thought is almost entirely BNPR.

That is true by my proposed definition of BNPR.

It is produced between the brain and the situation and is completely intangible, and we don’t know, unlike with emotion which can be triggered with some accuracy by chemicals, what its consistency is. Firing synapses are involved, we know of this correlation, but we can not physically put together or deconstruct a thought. So it is BNPR. Maybe this is not what you mean but it is what I think when I read it.

Thoughts are certainly BNPR but i do not have any scientific evidence to prove their existence. But, the existence of the mind (not brain) can proved scientifically. And, that is precisely my aim in this thread.

with love,
sanjay

[zinnat]

@James S Saint

Sanjay, you have spoken of scientific and religious methods of understanding. You have not mentioned rational or logic methods. Logic is the bane of magic (the inexplicable) and reaches where observational science or religions cannot.

There is nothing within the human construct that logic cannot explain - nothing magic, merely magical to those who can’t handle logic. People want to believe in the mysticism of consciousness, so they keep it mystical (while they get snared and undermined for being so willing to be deceived).

James,

My understanding of scientific and philosophical method entails rationality and logic.

Yes, i am also of the opinion that there is nothing mystical or magical in the whole of this cosmos. Magic is only what we cannot understand or explain. But, there are always some rules and regulations behind everything.

Having said that, i do not want to go beyond publicly demonstrated/demonstrable evidences for deriving deductions. If you have noticed, this thread is precisely the answer to the signature phrase of iamb ; in your head. Thus, i want to use only what is on the ground and down to the earth.

with love,
sanjay

[zinnat]

@barbarianhorde

Are you gonna bark all day, little doggie, or you gonna bite?

bb,

Please refrain from using such language. That does serve not any purpose to either side. Secondly, you do not need that crutch at all. Only mentally disabled or incompetent people use that kind of language to hide their shortcomings.

If you do it next time, i will have no option but to report it. I hope that you will not force me to do that.

with love,
sanjay