Scientific Proof of the Existence of God

True statements, but not my point at all.



It is a given that your eyes move in their sockets. I am not saying that eye function changes reality. I am not making any claims that reality is changing in any way in this experiment.



Nah, when I close my eyes, the world ceases to exist. (kidding)



No, if you set up a dual-camera system to simulate the placement and orientation of the eyes and ran this very same experiment using the camera setup to observe itself as if they were the eyes, you would get a wholey different result.

You can also do this same experiment but instead of looking at your eyes, look at your eyebrows. Your eyes will nolonger be observed dead on (they're clearly tilted up) in your peripheral vision, yet the phenomenon is still observed.



Well, you're getting closer to the mechanism I am trying to get you to reveal through EXPERIMENTATION but none of our scientists appear to want to DO any science. I have yet to see any results of experiments posted.



True enough in many ways. Why do you think that is?

-Ghoti

Maybe all of "our scientists" don't have access to mirrors because they are all at work.

Possible. Guess we'll see.

-Ghoti

It seems simple enough to me. Science is based in empiricism; hypothesis, observation, and - if the observations bear out that initial guess, and it seems to be repeatable, theory. Someone honestly following the scientific method knows observation can be flawed, so I don't quite get your point, which seems to be just that.

Perhaps it is my loss, but I am suffering a total failure in understanding what, exactly, you are intending to say. "Observations can be imperfect" seems to be my guess, to which my response is "well, duh." That's why the people that do this for a living are insistent about doing things multiple times, having the work reviewed by others, etc, etc...

... which, to bring it all around full-circle, folks like the one who inspired this thread are very reticent about doing, and hence my own disregard for it. If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is a matter of opinion.

You've brought up an interesting scenario without actually stating or defending a thesis. What exactly are you trying to say?

~Ulrika~

Yeah, and at this point I've had to talk around it so much, I don't know if I even care about an answer anymore.



Well, I can only guess that you have not read Amit Goswami's books nor investigated him beyond the article that started this thread. Prejudice (it means to pre-judge, i.e. form an opinion before gathering the facts) can't be called science either.

-Ghoti

I'm trying to say "Do the experiment. Report back your findings. Let's discuss."

-Ghoti

What's your thesis?

~Ulrika~

A mound was raised out of the primeval waters personified by the goddess Nun. Upon this mound the first god created firstly him self, and then the gods Shu (air) and Tefnut (moisture), These in turn gave birth to Geb (earth) and Nut (sky).

At this point, my thesis is that we have a bunch of scientists that are either uninterested in experimentation, or are afraid of what some rambling mystic is requesting of them.

My hypothesis is that they're afraid Bloody Mary is going to jump out of the mirror and eat their eyes (its around that time of year afterall).

My original hypothesis was that no one would take this seriously and would simply blow it off and ridicule it. In this, it looks like I was correct (though I do have additional discussion surrounding the results I know you will get by doing the experiment).

Do you honestly require that someone tell you what results to expect before you conduct an experiment?

At this point, screw it. I don't care this much about chasing after other people's opinions.

-Ghoti

oh? then why the consistent failure of general unification theories. I doubt very much any scientists would, if pressed, commit to one hard a fast reality. Science is, after all, based on theories and observations of relationships, but they sound a lot like buddhists when you try to peg them on reality.

Yes you can come to a consensus understanding of practical "reality" for purposes of the experiement, but ultimately that is a scientific fiction in teh same way a corporation is a legal fiction. Thus you are not really asking what observations are real, but what the consensus would be.

Which brings me back to the buddhist point about reality.

So:

Your hypothesis is that scientists, who require a stated hypothesis to engage in an experiment, who are not going to engage in an experiment without a stated hypothesis - that when, not if, they are disinterested by the experiment with no hypothesis, it will prove that they are afraid of magick.

I... See...




I hope it's a success.

Okay Ghoti, here's what I'd like you to do... go stand in front of a mirror. Place one hand on the top of your head and the other hand on the bottom of the opposite foot. Hop up and down on the foot you have still on the ground. Report back with your observations. I'll tell you why I had you do it when you get back.

Sorry, I'd like to see the kibble before I roll over.

This helpful documentation should provide an independent variable for your experiment.

Without a consensus there would be no reality. And vice versa, or something.

Hey, look at the elephant!
|
|
|
V

I can play along. So I went and did this. What I noticed is that I looked quite silly hopping up and down in front of the mirror with one hand atop my head and the other on the foot opposite. I also found that Tai Chi prolly is indeed helping me with my balance and coordination, but its still a little awkward of an activity.

-Ghoti

Something like that, lol.

-Ghoti

Well, I guess that means no one needs to do anything since your hypothesis proved your conclusion. Thanks for playing.

Ciabatta, C-I-A-B-A-double-T-A, Ciabatta. *Muah* Peace out.

It seems to me that the hypothesis is inherent - that the individual doing the test is unable to observe a particular phenomenon (eyes moving a little bit) but the friend will be able to observe it.

I have not actually performed this experiment, mostly because anyone here would find it very odd if I invited them into the men's room for unknown purposes.

So in a Gedanken Experiment, let us presume that I did not observe my own eyes moving, but my imaginary helper in the men's room did.

Let us proceed forward with your analysis.

You are so wrong. So wrong.

I'm not the one trying to prove God, here. His claim, his ball.

Excellent. Now I promised to tell you why I had you do that... it's because I'm juvenile and easily amused.

I hope you'll share your hypothesis anyway for those of us too lazy to actually perform the experiment.

Ok I'm closing them, you'll let me know when to open them again won't you, coz I wanna read the rest of this article, it got 10 pages of responces so it must be good..

Come on I'm really bored.. I'm gonna open them!.... But what if this has catastophic consiquences?!!? I'll keep them closed a little bit longer..

*10 minutes later*

I wanna open my damn eyes! *opens* ITS HORRIBLE! I mean..

Yes the world was still there, I could hear my computer buzzing away the entire time, and someone knocked on the door, I tried to answer but I fell down the stairs trying to do it with my eyes closed..

If you mean me, I'm not trying to prove god. Selective reading leads to ignorance of the facts. It's amazing how it went from me posting "here's an interesting article, lets see how people react" to now I'm trying to prove the existence of god. I did not open this thread nor did I write the article that prompted it. I happen to think the man that was interviewed in the article (Amit Goswami) is a frickin' genius and anyone that would dismiss his theories out of hand is a fool for doing so, not to put too fine a point on the matter.

The little experiment that everyone appears so afraid (or lazy) to participate in had absolutely nothing to do with the existence or lack there-of of a so-called 'supreme being', nor did it have anything to do with the article at hand. The experiment has to do with a natural process of our brains called a saccade, in which we literally are unable to process the visual information coming into our brains for the length of time that our eyes are moving (it has to do with eliminating blurred visual data). While to the person looking in the mirror it will appear that their eyes do not move, the outside observer will clearly see the eyes shift position.

I was trying to get people to contemplate the process of observation.

I bet you're a load of fun at parties.

-Ghoti