(September 9, 2011 at 4:42 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It would be incorrect to state that you have knowledge of what is playing, at the very least. But lets go with this. You have a broken radio, and so you cannot translate what is coming acrossed the air. Is there no way in which you could detect waves of energy without a radio? Lets call radio waves the immaterial for a moment. Our radio is broken, so we can't get totality of knowledge (the contents of the transmission) without a radio. I'm not demanding the you translate that radio wave to me, I'm asking for evidence that there are waves of energy (contents notwithstanding) before I'm willing to say "Yep, that exists". I don't think that we're actually disagreeing about the same thing here. I'm simply repeating over and over that to claim knowledge of something (even knowledge of existence) one must provide something of substance. I'm not arguing that such things certainly do not exist because we haven't measured them. I'm arguing that the person who claims that they do exist has a burden to meet. It is not my responsibility to prove that the immaterial does not exist. One cannot be expected to be taken seriously when they claim that it exists simply because no one has proven that it does not.
Ok, I understand your position, my argument is that the nature of thoses "waves" are not detectable with our current understanding, and are of another nature than material. We already have the perfect equipment for detecting thses "waves" our brains. Some individuals have honed their skills to be more "in tune" than the majority of people and try to explain how others can achieve this (mystics). The problem is that until materialism is finally jettisoned most people become closed to the type of "tuning" required as it contradicts their material world view. Until we can create and observe something that is on a par with the human brain we're pretty much in the experiment for yourself zone, which is what buddhists generally say," Don't believe what I say, try and see for youself".
