Super intelligent beings.

[Looking Up]

Introductory sections of many Meteorology texts will

briefly note that explaining meteorological phenomena by appeal to

gods, angles, or spirits had to be given up before a science of meteorology

could develop. Alternately, it is said that using supernatural

(intelligent superhuman agency) to explain occurrences necessarily

leads to the death of science. Are these claims accurate? Can one have a

science that nonetheless allows for the activity of intelligent

superhuman beings? Explain why or why not.

 

[bgruagach]

Science doesn't claim that there are no entities that are more intelligent than humans. It just shows that things like the weather are perfectly natural processes that happen all on their own, independent of any need for intelligent direction.

There might very well be creatures that have intelligence much greater than humans have achieved. Some of these creatures might even live here on Earth alongside us (whales, etc.) The fact that we haven't noticed them or come into contact with them yet in a conclusive way is more a testament to our own limitations rather than proof that we are the only intelligent species.

 

[InLove]

I believe it is possible that we have lost our ability to fly. I wonder if science would care to explain this--probably not. I doubt that most religions would, either.

Still...I believe....

InPeace,
InLove

 

[spiritualbee]

Science doesn't claim that there are no entities that are more intelligent than humans. It just shows that things like the weather are perfectly natural processes that happen all on their own, independent of any need for intelligent direction.

There might very well be creatures that have intelligence much greater than humans have achieved. Some of these creatures might even live here on Earth alongside us (whales, etc.) The fact that we haven't noticed them or come into contact with them yet in a conclusive way is more a testament to our own limitations rather than proof that we are the only intelligent species.

We are not our own intellect. Not our own feelings for as far what we call our own.
Science approach is litterly but life is not litterly. We really therefore need a heart to understand life instead of know life.
Science try to feed people desire. But people's desire is from a wrong reason namely their status quo.
The government can not ask from scientist what belongs not to that field.
What is science?
Science only task is to give us details and catagories. For example, a flower has a Petals, the number of petals, the color, the stem, the leaf, the shape of the leaf and the stamens and pistil, male or female. But these particles do not show the unity when you say plant or flower. Science is the reason that in order to appear intelligent, people have to think separately and no longer see or know what the flower or plant is. Even scientists can't do that anymore.

 

[spiritualbee]

Scientists are also psychological beings just like all humans.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Scientists are also psychological beings just like all humans.

Yes, I agree .. they are not gods.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Science try to feed people desire. But people's desire is from a wrong reason namely their status quo.

What are you talking about

 

[Dhammañāṇa Bhikkhu]

What are you talking about

While his first sentence of the imput is right, the second lacks of good investigation. What fools see as super intelligent, wise recognize as super deluded and so driven by desire.
An intelligent person seeks to abond desires and it's cause (unintelligent view), good householder.

 

[TheLightWithin]

While his first sentence of the imput is right, the second lacks of good investigation. What fools see as super intelligent, wise recognize as super deluded and so driven by desire.
An intelligent person seeks to abond desires and it's cause (unintelligent view), good householder.

The reader has to do the work here.

Interpretive work. Plenty.

I'm still not sure what is meant by "science tries to feed people desire"
Which science? Which people? What is meant by feed?

In fact, it reminds me of modern poetry classes in college.

 

[Dhammañāṇa Bhikkhu]

The reader has to do the work here.

Interpretive work. Plenty.

I'm still not sure what is meant by "science tries to feed people desire"
Which science? Which people? What is meant by feed?

In fact, it reminds me of modern poetry classes in college.

Science: ideas that suffering can be solved by material supplies.
Desire: wishing to have, greed, hunger thirst, seek for support, seek for gaining release from unease. There are three general kinds of craving (desire): sensual craving, craving for becoming (being), craving for not-becoming (being).
People: usually denoting living beings which gained a human existence.
Feed: providing of food (four kinds of food: either gross food sensual, touch, feelings, intention).

Simple, if not "standing on the pipe", eg. caught in certain ideas, inflexible related to useless concepts, good householder.

The simpler, the easier to see through the net (yet this net is assumed as real and worthy to hold on): requires good amount of intelligence.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Science: ideas that suffering can be solved by material supplies.
Desire: wishing to have, greed, hunger thirst, seek for support, seek for gaining release from unease. There are three general kinds of craving (desire): sensual craving, craving for becoming (being), craving for not-becoming (being).
People: usually denoting living beings which gained a human existence.
Feed: providing of food (four kinds of food: either gross food sensual, touch, feelings, intention).

Simple, if not "standing on the pipe", eg. caught in certain ideas, inflexible related to useless concepts, good householder.

The simpler, the easier to see through the net (yet this net is assumed as real and worthy to hold on): requires good amount of intelligence.

Very funny.
I know what the words mean.
But his sentences doesn't make sense. No context.
What I mean is, it makes no sense to say "science" (which could mean the scientific method, the body of knowledge gained by science, or the people and institutions involved in science) it makes no sense to say that ALL of that somehow "feeds" "People" (which people) I know what the word people means... I assume you're trying to be funny but you're not really helping.
Vague broad meaningless statements like "Science feeds people desire" just do nothing for me.
I will try for a time to figure out what someone is trying to say, if their crypticness comes from a language barrier or lack of articulacy or writing skill
Eventually I won't.
You may be sincerely trying to help and somehow just don't get what I am asking
Or you are trying to be funny

 

[Dhammañāṇa Bhikkhu]

I know what the words mean.

Certain not.

But his sentences doesn't make sense. No context.

It's because of desire for context and lack of intelligence to proper attention.

Vague broad meaningless statements like "Science feeds people desire" just do nothing for me.

Because not even aware that constantly eating.

Or you are trying to be funny

Birth, aging, sickness, and death aren't any funny. Science uses to feed it as entertaining and speeds on the wheel.

 

[TheLightWithin]

That's a common unintelligent reaction, yes. TheArrowWithin the own heart.

You are rude. I've had enough of you.

There's a lot that could be said for.... what did you call them - "unintelligent replies" and looking at yourself quite carefully.
Your replies are incoherent.
This adds nothing positive and I'm done with this.

 

[Dhammañāṇa Bhikkhu]

This adds nothing positive and I'm done with this.

Positive for what? "Don't touch my failures and not-knowing" at least it's mine?"
Santa Clause doesn't fall into the category of even intelligent. Not getting things isn't something inherent, and supply and support of defilements neither intelligent nor compassioned.

Yes, science provide just desired feeds and batches ugly that it seems to be admirable, but that for destruction of even the last amount of intelligence.

 

[Thomas]

Science: ideas that suffering can be solved by material supplies.

The types of suffering within the remit of the physical sciences can be solved ... food supply, energy supply, fresh water, medicine ... there are any number of ways the physical sciences benefit humanity ... to dismiss science as such is ignorance.

Desire: wishing to have, greed, hunger thirst, seek for support, seek for gaining release from unease. There are three general kinds of craving (desire): sensual craving, craving for becoming (being), craving for not-becoming (being).

But there are other aspects of desire, so you're focussing entirely on the nagative.

People: usually denoting living beings which gained a human existence.
Feed: providing of food (four kinds of food: either gross food sensual, touch, feelings, intention).

There are other kinds of food.

Simple, if not "standing on the pipe", eg. caught in certain ideas, inflexible related to useless concepts, good householder.

And your arguments are narrow-based and ill-conceived.

The simpler, the easier to see through the net (yet this net is assumed as real and worthy to hold on): requires good amount of intelligence.

Does it? Are you sure? I disagree – I think 'intelligence' can be an impediment.

I'd trade intelligence for wisdom any day of the week.

 

[Thomas]

Yes, science provide just desired feeds and batches ugly that it seems to be admirable, but that for destruction of even the last amount of intelligence.

Some science ... and some ill-uses of science ... but all science? No. Your philosophy is a science.

 

[spiritualbee]

The types of suffering within the remit of the physical sciences can be solved ... food supply, energy supply, fresh water, medicine ... there are any number of ways the physical sciences benefit humanity ... to dismiss science as such is ignorance.


But there are other aspects of desire, so you're focussing entirely on the nagative.


There are other kinds of food.


And your arguments are narrow-based and ill-conceived.


Does it? Are you sure? I disagree – I think 'intelligence' can be an impediment.

I'd trade intelligence for wisdom any day of the week.

Absolute true what you say. One but only. I study rays. That is esoteric about the seven rays.
There are seven ways to cure. One of them is praying. Every person seeks his way to cure. Sometimes hurbs work. What a person needs you also can find in someone personal horoscope. We respect all under no matter what Ray you fall. I am from the third ray. I know this from Benjamin Creme whom I asked my rays. I like to stusy rays. It is so knew and helpful.

 

[Dhammañāṇa Bhikkhu]

The types of suffering within the remit of the physical sciences can be solved ... food supply, energy supply, fresh water, medicine ... there are any number of ways the physical sciences benefit humanity ... to dismiss science as such is ignorance.

So they found how to let rain manna? Somebodies sensual ease requires many other beings death and pain, good householder. Certain it had increased manifold.

But there are other aspects of desire, so you're focussing entirely on the nagative.

What could good householder trace as good desire? It's not so that there aren't skilful desires, but what yours regard as intelligent is certain incapable to provide stilling of such. Why? Because it would quickly show that science is total useless in regard to overcome even sensual-worlds suffering and pain, not to speak of higher and beyond.

There are other kinds of food.

There aren't. All food falls into one or another of the four.

And your arguments are narrow-based and ill-conceived.

What's the amount of ill-will telling one that release would start to withdraw from "standing on the pipe". The idea that pain should be supported and cherished?

Does it? Are you sure? I disagree – I think 'intelligence' can be an impediment.

That was what told. Ignorance cherried as intelligence actually blocks everything.

I'd trade intelligence for wisdom any day of the week.

There isn't any difference if both words are objected to describe the capibility to trace a way out of stress.

 

[Dhammañāṇa Bhikkhu]

Some science ... and some ill-uses of science ... but all science? No. Your philosophy is a science.

So well then, may good householder tell of which science does not simply serve and exist on and for this or that gross worldly gain. Which doesn't serve the food chains (suffering and stress) in the sensual world by feeding on others for it's increase. There will be hardly any which even holds on and serves basic moral as pillar of their undertakings.

 

[Thomas]

So well then, may good householder tell of which science does not simply serve and exist on and for this or that gross worldly gain. Which doesn't serve the food chains (suffering and stress) in the sensual world by feeding on others for it's increase.

Your argument rests on:
a) Straw Man Fallacy
b) Ad Hominem

A scientist – a doctor – was called in to treat a patient with an unknown respiratory disease. The scientists happened to be a world authority ion his field, and on holiday in the region at the time – he used to go off with a bag of medicines and treat the poor and needy in inaccessible places.

The scientist realised very early on ta grace risk, and isolated the hospital, with himself and the staff inside, and separated all contact with the outside world. In so doing he minimised what would have been a pandemic similar to the one we faced two years ago. The problem remained, thankfully, regional.

The scientists, and most of his team, working to alleviate the suffering of those in thjeir care, contracted the disease and died from it.

+++

Not all science is as craven as you assume it to be.

Your position I would describe as fundamentalist.