Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Is Atheism in compatible with a belief in the Afterlife?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Pat D. Almighty wrote: »In the majority of religious traditions
Again I have not seen any such workings, least of all from you. So I will have to take your word for it. All I can say is that the majority of traditions I have been exposed to personally have a concept of a non-human intelligent intentional agent. Some of them claim you can commune or experience it in some way. Some don't.
I would recommend some of the works of Joseph Campbell on religious mythology.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Pat D. Almighty wrote: »I am assuming that you hold the belief that consciousness is generated in the brain.
It is not that I hold to the belief as such, so much as I have seen absolutely zero evidence of any other source of it, and plenty of evidence that the brain is the source of it. So the conclusion that it is generated in/by the brain is the only one currently open to me.
So I assumed right, you do believe that consciousness is generated within the brain. Why the pointless attempt at semantics?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Pat D. Almighty wrote: »could you explain to me what your understanding is of incidents where people in deep meditative states are able to obtain information that they would not have been previously aware of?
I can not explain incidents I have not been made aware of. I am aware of no such incident, let alone in any controlled situation that would verify such a thing has actually occurred.
The same is true of much NDE experience, which you mentioned on another thread. Under controlled situations NDE experience pretty much falls away. When appealing to anecdote in completely uncontrolled situations however there is always plenty of claims of people "obtaining information they should otherwise supposedly be unaware of".
So perhaps if you can give some specific examples of what it is you are talking about, I can work with them further.
When you say the NDE falls away, what do you mean?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But I am afraid vague questions can only result in vague answers.
No need to be a smart arse.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Pat D. Almighty wrote: »For example, there is enough proof that 'remote viewing' is, to use a clumsy word, real.
Indeed? Well by all means present this "proof" for consideration because I am A) entirely unaware of it at this time and
not likely to simply take your word for it.
I'll post some this evening.Pat D. Almighty wrote: »This would suggest to me that there is a higher conscious intelligence other than our own consciousness.
That would be quite a leap though. Even if remote viewing were to be verified as "real" that would just be evidence of some new faculty / attribute of our own intelligence that we were previously unaware of.
Going from that to "Therefore there is some other conscious intelligence" is an unjustifiable leap. A complete non-sequitur.
Some new discovery about our own consciousness does not magically mean there are OTHER consciousness out there.[/quote]
I never said it would magically mean anything. I don't think you're engaging very honestly here. Before the mods have another hissy fit, that's not an ad hominem. That's me criticising his method of communication. Like the last time, but hey, let's not talk about that hey
I'll find something that I consider to be proof of remote viewing.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Pat D. Almighty wrote: »Wanna play for fun? Pick any word you want. I'll meditate on it tonight and post it in the thread tomorrow.
Cool, I'm game. I've picked a word, and just so I can't change it, a rather heavily encrypted copy of the word is 0x894D009A I'll also pm the method by which this may be checked to nozz above (but not the word). If you can hack it, I'll be in touch with the Great Randi myself 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Pat D. Almighty wrote: »Wanna play for fun? Pick any word you want. I'll meditate on it tonight and post it in the thread tomorrow.
I am happy to play your game too and have picked a word. I will not say much about that word, like smacl did above, but I assure you that the word I picked I will be able to offer SOME evidence that I did not change after your guess. Lest anyone consider one not intentionally contributing.Pat D. Almighty wrote: »I beg to differ. I have experienced the data myself. Have you ever tried?
Data that, despite being asked, I notice you have not actually offered in any way. Quelle Suprise.While I think this is mostly true, I think there is fair evidence to suggest that it is not entirely the case. For example, there are studies that suggest our mood is affected by the state of our gut.
Oh I have little doubt that things happening elsewhere in the body can affect brain states. Not really an issue with what I have been saying. All the energy, electrolyte mediums and everything else that our brain uses to do it's thing are manufatured and sources from other areas of the body. So it would be a shocking surprise to me if brain states and mood states were NOT affected by such things, rather than that they ARE. Otherwise it very much would be evidence that the brain is somehow operating independent of it's environment and connected systems. Which would be something requiring some extensive explaining.Pat D. Almighty wrote: »I would recommend some of the works of Joseph Campbell on religious mythology.
So rather that cite any statistics backing up your claim, you just vaguely throw out a single name. Hardly helpful. Even then the name you are offering might support the existence of what you speak, which I never questioned. I was questioning what you are claiming is the "majority".Pat D. Almighty wrote: »So I assumed right, you do believe that consciousness is generated within the brain. Why the pointless attempt at semantics?
There is a difference between specifics and clarity, and mere semantics. YOu can offer all the assumptions you like, but it is for me to tell you what my ACTUAL SPECIFIC positions are. Not for you to inform me of them.Pat D. Almighty wrote: »When you say the NDE falls away, what do you mean?
I mean the claims being made off the back of the experience fail to be verified in any way. Under controlled conditions we have not found any patient accessing information they otherwise could not have access to.
Anecdotally without any controls however there are always stories of people seeing or hearing things "remotely" during NDE but nothing verified in even the smallest fashion.Pat D. Almighty wrote: »No need to be a smart arse.
No need to make up things I did not do, in order to dodge replying to my points and sentences. Nothing smart arse about callng a spade a spade when it is, in fact, a spade. And it is simply a fact that if you offer me vague questions without substance, i can only offer you equally vague answers in return.
If however you want to ask more specific questions, rather than return to your approach of merely flinging out invective and insults, I am here for you. Otherwise I can but remind you that insults demean the insulter and NEVER the target. And I would hate to see you fall foul of the Moderators ministrations again for that low level of behavior.Pat D. Almighty wrote: »I'll post some this evening.
I am agog.Pat D. Almighty wrote: »I never said it would magically mean anything. I don't think you're engaging very honestly here.
I do not think you have demonstrated a pedestal from which to comment on the honesty of others, let alone as falsely as you have done here. The simple fact is, which you have dodged, that some new discovery about OUR consciousness would say NOTHING about the existence of any other one, let alone some "higher" one whatever that is meant to mean. But speaking of lack of honesty.........Pat D. Almighty wrote: »Before the mods have another hissy fit, that's not an ad hominem. That's me criticising his method of communication. Like the last time, but hey, let's not talk about that hey
......... there is, to my knowledge, a rule about questioning moderator decisions on threads. So please do not hide petty digs at same inside posts directed at me. IF you have a problem wtih the moderators and their decisions, take it up with THEM, not me OR by proxy through me.Pat D. Almighty wrote: »I'll find something that I consider to be proof of remote viewing.
I repeat. I am agog.0 -
-
So, anyway, I've chosen a word. Adding salt of "12345", the SHA-1 hash of this word is CC43076D3B2047FB436DBEF9206D2F27FE468D5A.
Only problem there is that if the word is a single word in the English language by saying which encryption algorithm you're using you've left yourself open to a simple brute force attack. There are 171,476 words in the OED. Open security reckons it can generated 7,107 SHA-1 keys per second so your word could be found out in about 24 seconds. This assumes access to a fast dictionary and writing some code to transfer from there to the hashing algorithm. Now if you hash your word prior to encrypting it using one undisclosed algorithm and then hash it again with SHA-1, the brute force method jumps to 95 quintillion years. Only sayin' 0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Pat strikes me as the kind of poster who will end up saying it was all a leg-pull as if that is an excuse.
Or perhaps a bad comedian who will come tomorrow and, as promised, merely post "it" 0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Zubeneschamali wrote: »Pat strikes me as the kind of poster who will end up saying it was all a leg-pull as if that is an excuse.
Or perhaps a bad comedian who will come tomorrow and, as promised, merely post "it"
Careful now.0 -
Well, a bunch of things here - 1) the word isn't English but should be known to religious people; 2) it's salted to avoid lookup in any of the available rainbow tables; 3) brute-force is easy if one has a word list or a string-generator and a usable implementation of the necessary hash algorithm and the ability to use both and - going out on a limb here - I'm imagining that Pat doesn't; 5) this is is a low-security "well, let's see if you can make it to the starting line" kind of test which is easy for anybody to verify. A more secure test would not provide the salt and would hash the hash some large number of times, but still use a peer-reviewed, certified, established crypto primitive and would avoid security through obscurity - ask the excellent gentlemen who spec'd the security for the original version of the Mifare Classic; and finally, 4) SHA-1 is a hash algorithm, not an encryption algorithmOnly problem there is that if the word is a single word in the English language by saying which encryption algorithm you're using you've left yourself open to a simple brute force attack.
BTW, that figure of 7,107 hashes per second seems to be 7,107,000 hashes per second (see the 'K' in the dropdown) - that's a little slow - devices like AntMiner S9 claim to calculate 11.5 terahashes/s, or eleven and a half thousand billion hashes per second - for BitCoin mining.
/geek0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Nope, because that allows the person choosing the word (and presumably also choosing the algorithm) to select a different algorithm which produces the same hash from different input, allowing them to claim that Pat didn't choose the right word after all.we don't need to reveal the proof (i.e. provide the algorithm) until such time as we're revealing our word.
Easy way to do that is to find rainbow tables for multiple algorithms, then find a few clashes and work backwards to input data - this is almost a trivial exercise if the pre-supplied hash value is quite small - 894D009A for example 0 -
-
Nope, because that allows the person choosing the word (and presumably also choosing the algorithm) to select a different algorithm which produces the same hash from different input, allowing them to claim that Pat didn't choose the right word after all.
Easy way to do that is to find rainbow tables for multiple algorithms, then find a few clashes and work backwards to input data - this is almost a trivial exercise if the pre-supplied hash value is quite small - 894D009A for example
Which is why I PM'ed the actual algorithm used (but not the word) to one disclosed user and another undisclosed user in case Pat called foul play on this basis. To crack this requires collusion between those involved AND the necessary hacking tools.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement