Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

No. Lead has additional stability because it's doubly "magic". IOW, a lead nucleus has enhanced stability from the proton/neutron count. A more promising way is to knock a proton off of a mercury nucleus.

Interestingly, some of the old alchemy texts talk of making gold from mercury, not lead.

Be that as it may, the idea of aliens coming to Earth to extract anything except possibly unique terrestrial DNA is absurd. Even that assumes they lack the ability to synthesize DNA of any conceivable structure for any conceivable bio-purpose.

"Big Bang: they always destroy themselves before achieving interstellar travel" seems the most likely to me.

We can plan and prepare as much as we can, but it doesn't take much to fuck up. And there is always the chance of destruction by things beyond our control, like a massive meteorite, besides those disasters we create for ourselves.

Life is fragile and fleeting. Enjoy it while you can.

Originally Posted by mockingbirdstl

"Big Bang: they always destroy themselves before achieving interstellar travel" seems the most likely to me.

We can plan and prepare as much as we can, but it doesn't take much to fuck up. And there is always the chance of destruction by things beyond our control, like a massive meteorite, besides those disasters we create for ourselves.

Life is fragile and fleeting. Enjoy it while you can.

It's true; on the other hand, we do have the ability already to deflect a meteor, and we may gain the ability to deflect other disasters someday, in spite of what vandal says. Vandal's world view is exceptionally short-sighted in virtually every respect.

And I think if life is fragile and fleeting, it's worthless. It only counts if it survives and remembers. Otherwise, it doesn't matter; it's just gone. It might as well have never been. But, physical survival and memory in brains may not be the only kind of survival, or the only kind of minds. In fact, life is futile if there isn't more than that.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So aliens are like alchemists who can turn lead into gold, and so they don't need to come here to mine our precious minerals. But we don't know that is true about all alien races. And the stories I heard that they have come here for our minerals may still be true, whether or not it matches your theories about what aliens ought to be able to do.

Biology could be different, so maybe they would come trading phosphorus even-up for arsenic. Considering also that "life" -- if defined by metabolism (even if it is "electrical power), self-repair, individuality, and reproduction -- might be what follows us or even becomes the means of contact, the contact between sophisticated civilizations might between silicon-based creatures that resemble R2D2 and C3PO. Such may be the life that follows us after the Earth becomes uninhabitable by carbon-based life when our past-prime environment for carbon-based life becomes excessively warm. I have plenty of hope for intelligent life on Earth a million years from now -- it just won't be us.

High intelligence is not enough. There is other intelligent life living on the rocky parts of a planet in our universe... that rivals Man in intelligence.




(By the way -- "Dumbo" and his family just called, and they are insulted by the use of the elephant as the symbol of a political party that isn't so bright).

We don't communicate with elephants well. Elephants have many means of killing us because and often good cause to do so because we have hunted them... we remind them all too much of lions and tigers, as do (this may be a surprise) dogs. Elephants kill dogs on sight, perhaps figuring that they are our brutal accomplices. Of course, elephants are unlikely to ever work metal or construct buildings out of the trees that they knock down. Zoos can easily establish protocols for keeping Big Cats... but not elephants. (Dogs are smart and lethal predators too, but we know the rules with our equals in the food chain).

As for the character of advanced civilizations: incandescent light has been on Earth for only about 140 years. Some civilization far away from here may be turning its detectors seeking planets like theirs that show the prospect of life, might find that ours is in the right thermal range, but see no indication of any advanced civilization upon it (the Earth, of course). The Earth is 'hot' in radio frequencies for its temperature, but even that would not be discovered should the Earth be within the magnetic field of Jupiter. (That's the source of much of the radio and television static).

We might have minerals that don't exist in mine-able quantities elsewhere, here on this very special unique planet!

Sand? The definitive source of silicon.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And I think if life is fragile and fleeting, it's worthless. It only counts if it survives and remembers. Otherwise, it doesn't matter; it's just gone. It might as well have never been.

Nonsense. Consider that the universe, by whatever mechanism got itself going, it evolved and changed and eventually our planet came about and somehow after a gazillion years, our species emerged ...

Our species has this unique (so far as we know) capability to view itself and the cosmos.

This means that the universe evolved something that can look back at it! I find that simple observation, alone, to make it worth it. Something as magnificent as our universe creating a conscious species that contemplates it back!

On the other hand, it DOES seem that this very gift also probably dooms us and any similar species that may exist elsewhere. A self-conscious species is just that ... TOO self-conscious and self-serving ... wants too much, takes too much to be sustainable.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's true; on the other hand, we do have the ability already to deflect a meteor, and we may gain the ability to deflect other disasters someday, in spite of what vandal says. Vandal's world view is exceptionally short-sighted in virtually every respect.

And I think if life is fragile and fleeting, it's worthless. It only counts if it survives and remembers. Otherwise, it doesn't matter; it's just gone. It might as well have never been. But, physical survival and memory in brains may not be the only kind of survival, or the only kind of minds. In fact, life is futile if there isn't more than that.

I know that the problem of deflecting objects such as meteors was studied, but I don't recall a capability being developed.

These articles are examples of what I have been seeing.

Killer Asteroids and Comets
How Will We Stop Armegeddon?


http://space.about.com/od/frequently...rAsteroids.htm

… "With the previously mentioned defenses in place we should be able to prevent future planet-killing collisions. The problem is that these defenses are not in place, some of them only exist in theory.
Only a very small part of NASA's budget is designated for monitoring NEOs and developing technology to prevent a massive collision. The justification for the lack of funding is that such collisions are rare, and this is evidenced by the fossil record. True. But, what Congressional regulators fail to realize is that it only takes one. We miss one NEO on a collision course and we don’t have enough time to react; the results would be fatal.”…


http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/asteroid/ast.../#.VMwlSEI_ZRo
… " Tracking near-Earth asteroids has been a significant endeavor for NASA and the broader astronomical community, which has discovered 10,713 known near-Earth objects to date. NASA is now pursuing new partnerships and collaborations in an Asteroid Grand Challenge to accelerate NASA’s existing planetary defense work, which will help find all asteroid threats to human population and know what to do about them. In parallel, NASA is developing an Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) — a first-ever mission to identify, capture and redirect an asteroid to a safe orbit of Earth’s moon for future exploration by astronauts in the 2020s.”…

Originally Posted by TnT

Nonsense. Consider that the universe, by whatever mechanism got itself going, it evolved and changed and eventually our planet came about and somehow after a gazillion years, our species emerged ...

Our species has this unique (so far as we know) capability to view itself and the cosmos.

This means that the universe evolved something that can look back at it! I find that simple observation, alone, to make it worth it. Something as magnificent as our universe creating a conscious species that contemplates it back!

I suppose so, IF "the universe" has the ability to retain this experience, iow "the universe" is a cosmic mind or God.... otherwise, so what? it's just forgotten.

But, I consider it an axiom or self-evident truth that a universe that can evolve a conscious being, is itself conscious on some level or in some way. Contrary to current mainstream science.

On the other hand, it DOES seem that this very gift also probably dooms us and any similar species that may exist elsewhere. A self-conscious species is just that ... TOO self-conscious and self-serving ... wants too much, takes too much to be sustainable.

Nonsense in turn. A self-conscious species has (even by definition) the ability to develop consciousness of its self, and what Buddha called its cravings. A self-conscious species can learn, and remedy itself. "Can" doesn't mean "will" though; evolution toward enlightenment is not guaranteed. It's up to us to learn to look within and observe ourselves as well as what is "outside" of us (but really isn't).

When I posted about the super earths, Yahoo mentioned two newly discovered solar systems. One is thought to be much older than our solar system. Another features a planet with rings-rings on a far larger/grander scale than Saturn.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I suppose so, IF "the universe" has the ability to retain this experience, iow "the universe" is a cosmic mind or God.... otherwise, so what? it's just forgotten.

But, I consider it an axiom or self-evident truth that a universe that can evolve a conscious being, is itself conscious on some level or in some way. Contrary to current mainstream science.

"Forgotten." ??

Considering that we live, ineluctably, in the present ... the past, our memories, may well represent some kind of reality, but still are only poorly formed images in our mind. The future, whatever it may turn out to be is only our imagination, not too much different really than our memories of the past.

One might think then, that living in the present as we must, has to have the only meaning that there is. Let's say that the universe simply burns out someday. Does that mean, as you say, that none of our "presents" have had no "meaning?" Depends, I guess on what one decides is meaningful.

The "axiom" thingy ... what makes your statement "self-evident?"

See, here's a lot of the problem with complexities like this ... ALL of our concepts are models, merely models. And a model is NOT the identity. If it was the identity it would be the thing itself. Models are by definition, what? Well, they are imperfect. And, the more complex the model, the more likely it is to be further from the identity that we are trying to model.

Bottom line for me is that I simply marvel at the idea of being able to look back at the cosmos. That, alone, is enough miracle for me.

Originally Posted by TnT

"Forgotten." ??

Considering that we live, ineluctably, in the present ... the past, our memories, may well represent some kind of reality, but still are only poorly formed images in our mind. The future, whatever it may turn out to be is only our imagination, not too much different really than our memories of the past.

One might think then, that living in the present as we must, has to have the only meaning that there is. Let's say that the universe simply burns out someday. Does that mean, as you say, that none of our "presents" have had no "meaning?" Depends, I guess on what one decides is meaningful.

I guess. I have definitely decided that life is meaningless if it is not remembered, even subconsciously, for the simple reason that it might as well not have existed, then.

We do always live in the present. I marvel at that fact, indeed. There is no other time. Eternity, is NOW. To me that also means, all of the past, and all of the future, is now too, and not just imagination. Memory of the past, is perception of the past. Future and past are just part of the process of now. If you examine this now carefully, you'll find that it is not an instant. It extends over a second or two. It is resonant. So therefore, if that much time exists, all of it does. (not a tautological axiom; just my conclusion). You can't draw a line and say that the moment has ended. Time is just change; it is the flow of life, and the past is how we got to now, and the future is our direction or vector.

The "axiom" thingy ... what makes your statement "self-evident?"

I don't have to prove it. It stands as truth on its own, just as a statement. It is like a tautology. Consciousness can only come from consciousness. Death does not produce life.

See, here's a lot of the problem with complexities like this ... ALL of our concepts are models, merely models. And a model is NOT the identity. If it was the identity it would be the thing itself. Models are by definition, what? Well, they are imperfect. And, the more complex the model, the more likely it is to be further from the identity that we are trying to model.

I don't disagree.

Bottom line for me is that I simply marvel at the idea of being able to look back at the cosmos. That, alone, is enough miracle for me.

I marvel at the miracle too, and what that marvel opens up for me is that life is a lot more miraculous than the mainstream, narrow-minded, materialist science "model" says it is. A LOT more! Because, if it is a marvel or a miracle, it can't be explained. Again, true by definition; tautology.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... I don't have to prove it. It stands as truth on its own, just as a statement. It is like a tautology. Consciousness can only come from consciousness. Death does not produce life. ...

I know what tautology means. I know what self-evident means. But, except for very circumscribed sets of circumstances, such as in mathematics, self-evident truths are pretty darn rare. Most would have to be negotiated among the participants!

I see nothing at all self-evident about "consciousness can only come from consciousness." Even less in the case of "Death does not produce life."

One would be very lucky to come up with a robust definition of consciousness, death or life, except by very carefully drawing boundaries around one's definitions and constraints.

Originally Posted by TnT

I know what tautology means. I know what self-evident means. But, except for very circumscribed sets of circumstances, such as in mathematics, self-evident truths are pretty darn rare. Most would have to be negotiated among the participants!

I see nothing at all self-evident about "consciousness can only come from consciousness." Even less in the case of "Death does not produce life."

The best you can say is that consciousness springs up under certain conditions. But you can't provide any more of a cause or explanation for it than that. It comes up freely; it is its own cause.

Plato defined the soul accurately for all time; it is what causes itself. Aristotle called it the unmoved mover. Modern science cannot improve on Greek philosophy in this regard. You can't study consciousness by studying objects.

One would be very lucky to come up with a robust definition of consciousness, death or life, except by very carefully drawing boundaries around one's definitions and constraints.

I'm not sure a definition of consciousness is needed. It is an obvious fact to all who are conscious.

Materialist, scientific empiricism requires "operational definitions." Consciousness cannot be given such a definition. If you are investigating consciousness, all you can do is ask the subject. Those who are too wedded to mainstream scientific methods, as understood today, and think it is the only reliable source of knowledge, do not have access to knowledge about such subjects as consciousness. But others do.

If you say that all we have is now, so enjoy it, I'm not sure I can really argue with that. It is not enough for an individual, or probably for me, but if you identify with the eternal, then our experience of now is something of eternity. And eternity is the meaning of life.

Eric, if you haven't done so already, please check out this post from my blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.co...consciousness/

Pertinent to your back and forth with TnT:

There are at least three parts to consciousness as (apparently — more on this below) manifested by a person. These are:

• The experience of reality in the first person (consciousness itself).
• The ability to remember experience of reality in the first person (subjective memory).
• The ability to report experience of reality in the first person (self-reference).

Note that this last does not require actual consciousness, unless we specify that the report must be true. In that case, consciousness itself is a prerequisite of subjective memory, and subjective memory is a prerequisite of (truthful) self-reference. But there is no logical reason why consciousness itself can’t happen without subjective memory or self-reference . . .

The fact that we cannot observe consciousness itself or verify its existence means that consciousness itself isn’t there to be observed — it’s not a part of the material universe. . . .


It’s common to believe that consciousness arises from the brain (psychic materialism). Most people who don’t subscribe to some form of dualism think that. But no one has ever been able to articulate exactly how that might happen.
To state the problem in perfect clarity, consciousness itself is inherently first-person, while all observed functions of the brain (and of all other things) are third-person. All causal models take the form of a third-person cause (or causes) producing a third-person effect. There is no articulate way to get from any set of events observed in the third person to subjective experience by any causal mechanism that makes sense and doesn’t amount to verbal magic-wand waving.
Note that this has nothing to do with proof or evidence. It’s a step back from that. In order to have, or even to look for, evidence of a proposition, we first have to have a coherent proposition so that we know what to look for. We don’t in this case. The statement “consciousness arises from the brain” is grammatically sound, but logical nonsense, because “consciousness” isn’t a thing that can be observed. It’s a statement without any meaning. . . .

If it’s not even possible to articulate an idea so that it becomes a coherent proposition, then we may dismiss it as inarticulate fluff. (Unless it’s non-propositional truth, and that’s not the case here.) . . .


Given that we can never observe consciousness, and therefore that it is not part of the material world, we are left with two possible ideas explaining it.

1. Consciousness arises from some discrete and individual source outside the material world. This is dualism: the treatment of consciousness as inhabiting or emerging from some other reality, something non-material. In this conception, it’s the soul that is conscious, while the brain is what the soul is consious of.
2. Consciousness is all of the material world — or a function of all of it — rather than any discrete part of it. This is panpsychism: the treatment of consciousness as an inherent function of reality itself, and brain functions creating subjective memory and self-reference as articulating or reflecting the consciousness of the universe. In this conception, individual consciousness is an illusion, while in dualism it is not.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't have to prove it. It stands as truth on its own, just as a statement. It is like a tautology. Consciousness can only come from consciousness. Death does not produce life.

In this rarified intellectual atmosphere which the Fourth Turning Forum holds itself out to be, the epistemological bar has been set pretty high.
The notion of “self-evident truths” will not be received easily by this crowd, in my estimation, and may well require significant defense.

Fanatics, firebrands and other various true believers and charlatans peddle their Truth with a capital “T.” Myself, I’m drawn to the more humble types who struggle mightily to approach the occasional truth with a small-case ‘t.’

You might say that I respect the journey more than the destination … painful uncertainty more than obsessive enthusiasm.

Eric, you strike me as one who embraces a Truth.

Simply repeating something using different words is the most pejorative of the definitions of tautology. Repetition does not make something true, though propagandists have certainly found the value of it in convincing uncritical souls.

Repeating, using different words, that “consciousness can only come from consciousness,” does not make it self-evidently True. Neither does appealing to Authority, which, as we all know, is simply rhetorical subterfuge.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm not sure a definition of consciousness is needed. It is an obvious fact to all who are conscious.

Materialist, scientific empiricism requires "operational definitions." Consciousness cannot be given such a definition. If you are investigating consciousness, all you can do is ask the subject. Those who are too wedded to mainstream scientific methods, as understood today, and think it is the only reliable source of knowledge, do not have access to knowledge about such subjects as consciousness. But others do.

I suppose you can say that defining terms is “mechanistic,” and “scientific,” anathema in your world. But golly, it sure is hard to have a rational conversation if the meanings of the words aren’t defined ahead of time.

Consciousness, what it is, where it comes from, whether mine is separate from yours or not, what it means in a cosmological sense, what it consists of, what its features are, what its connection is to our physical body, whether it has any connection to other aspects of our physical environment, how it relates to our apparent attraction to something spiritual in us … all extremely abstract and elusive.

To say, "Consciousness can only come from consciousness," becomes an epistemological absurdity.

Originally Posted by TnT

In this rarified intellectual atmosphere which the Fourth Turning Forum holds itself out to be, the epistemological bar has been set pretty high.
The notion of “self-evident truths” will not be received easily by this crowd, in my estimation, and may well require significant defense.

Fanatics, firebrands and other various true believers and charlatans peddle their Truth with a capital “T.” Myself, I’m drawn to the more humble types who struggle mightily to approach the occasional truth with a small-case ‘t.’

You might say that I respect the journey more than the destination … painful uncertainty more than obsessive enthusiasm.

Eric, you strike me as one who embraces a Truth.

So it appears. I do hold that there are such things as Truth, although on the other hand formulation of it can only approximate it. But whether this crowd receives Self-evident Truth easily or not strikes me as irrelevant. This is an intelligent group with good knowledge, especially in historical, political and to some degree, scientific areas, and not too prone to believe nonsense, but not so hip to spiritual, aesthetic and experiential matters.

Simply repeating something using different words is the most pejorative of the definitions of tautology. Repetition does not make something true, though propagandists have certainly found the value of it in convincing uncritical souls.

Repeating, using different words, that “consciousness can only come from consciousness,” does not make it self-evidently True. Neither does appealing to Authority, which, as we all know, is simply rhetorical subterfuge.

Nevertheless, it is true, a priori, if you make the mental effort to look at it. That's all it takes. Experience transcends rational discussion and argument. You can describe it, using words to paint a picture; like a poet. But logic and rhetoric won't get you to enlightenment, or even to a glimmer of this truth. The only way I can see that you can hold that consciousness comes from death is, as Rupert Sheldrake pointed out, do what many of your sort of persuasion do: simply deny that we are conscious at all. Otherwise, you are up a creek to explain it. Even some atheist materialists like Richard Dawkins admit this.

I suppose you can say that defining terms is “mechanistic,” and “scientific,” anathema in your world. But golly, it sure is hard to have a rational conversation if the meanings of the words aren’t defined ahead of time.

You can define consciousness all your want, and that's fine for a conversation, but to treat it as an object that can be tested and measured, is another matter. As a conversational definition, all you can do is offer synonyms, as any dictionary does. Awareness is one.

Consciousness, what it is, where it comes from, whether mine is separate from yours or not, what it means in a cosmological sense, what it consists of, what its features are, what its connection is to our physical body, whether it has any connection to other aspects of our physical environment, how it relates to our apparent attraction to something spiritual in us … all extremely abstract and elusive.

Elusive to mainstream scientific methods; not so elusive to those who follow the mystical path. All these things are quite clear to me, not because I am a fanatic, but simply because I have looked into the matter ever since the last great awakening began in 1966 (through a long "journey," yes; still unfinished, with plenty of "struggle"). Those who are awake, know.

To say, "Consciousness can only come from consciousness," becomes an epistemological absurdity.

I hear that's your opinion; however, to me it seems a self-evident truth. I don't see a coherent explanation of how it can come from non-consciousness. Do you?

We've discussed these issues a lot on the philosophy thread. It is tangentially relevant to this thread, as it affects your view of what kind of alien ET visits might be possible.

I can lay out my own views, as far as I know them, but materialists and physicalists of various stripes can call them word games (vandal) or fanaticism (TnT), and I can't entirely refute them. There is "scientific evidence" for my holistic view, but it is evidence for partial aspects of holism, and in any case would not be acceptable to vandal.

It seems, Mr. Taylor, that you understand to some extent the limits of science, as shown by your statement that our models of reality are inadequate. That is all that science ever provides, and all that philosophy ever provides either.

The scientific method is really geared toward developing mechanistic technology. It is possible to use the habits and regularities of the most dead parts of the universe to construct machines that reliably "work." That workability has over-awed us into thinking that the science behind it is the highest truth. Science claims also to give us "knowledge" about the "universe," but what this knowledge amounts to is some measurements, some theories that are always being revised, and some assumptions and dogmas that are unquestioned.

Philosophy can be dismissed as word games, but the words are used to describe what the philosopher has observed, and what makes the best sense out of these observations. The term "observe" in this case does not refer to scientific testing, in which an operational definition is tested in a controlled experiment. It is description of experience, similar to what is known as phenomenology.

Philosophy and mysticism, as I see it, trump science, because they define the terms it uses, and the first principles and often-unexamined assumptions it operates on.

As I see it, I subscribe now to what can be called a holistic panpsychism. It is also called integral philosophy today.

There is one Being, and this being is consciousness. This is panpsychism. We are all, in our essential identities, That. All things are of one "thatness." We each can experience (and thus "prove") our oneness or connection with this All in All, as Wordsworth called it, or the Oversoul, as Emerson described it. We are just part of that which is, and really nothing but that. When we quiet our verbal mind chatter, and just let Being speak to us, then we know this for sure. What else could we be? We get too focused on our personal identities, and the demands of survival and desire, and forget this essential oneness and thatness. My body and mind, and everything they do, depend on their environment all the time. We are not separate at all. We are expressions of one cosmos.

If that oneness were all, however, the universe would just be a mush, or as Alan Watts said, like tapioca pudding. As Plato told us, sameness and difference make up existence. So, there are differences. There are no separate things, individuals, or souls; all is one. However, everything manifests as individual units. Planck began quantum theory with the observation that light comes in distinct quanta. The "standard model" of the atom mentions distinct kinds of "energy particles." The atom itself is a unit. The unit of life is the cell, and multi-celled living beings are units called "organisms." Finally, as Teilhard de Chardin eloquently put it, we have the self-conscious human person, or soul. And beyond this, there are units in Spirit too, invisible to our 5 senses.

So, there are individuals, but not separate individuals. How do we make sense of this, what we observe, in science and in life?

Holism is how people reconcile this apparent paradox. The one and the many, it says, are interdependent. All things are wholes, or as Ken Wilber calls them, holons. A whole is an individual, which means undivided within itself. At the same time, its wholeness connects it to the greater whole, the One. The hermetic principle, which comes from Egypt and was developed in hellenistic times, is the same. As above, so below; as within, so without. Each individual is a microcosm of the macrocosm: the larger whole. There are lesser and greater wholes, and thus there are: energy particles, within atoms, within cells, within organisms, within souls, within larger souls, within gods, etc.

Also related are modern developments such as the hologram and the fractile. These are demonstrations in science, technology and math today of the hermetic principle, and nothing else. The lesser is within the greater, essentially the same on different levels. Take one piece of a hologram, and you see the whole within it. That's what a soul is; IOW what YOU are. Some scientists today state that the whole universe is a hologram.

There are also levels of consciousness. Consciousness increases with the complexity of each kind of whole being, through evolution. Consciousness stretches all the way down to within the atom, and all the way up to our own conscious souls and beyond. This is also stated in panpsychism, as described by Christian deQuincy. Ancient esoteric teachings speak of the 7 planes, and the levels of the kabbala's tree of life. This is the same principle. Higher levels of consciousness we call spiritual; lower levels of consciousness we call material or physical.

There is nothing in panpsychism or holism that denies the possibility that we may come to know and demonstrate such things as the afterlife, spirit communication and reincarnation of souls. Our first sentence above makes this plain. Everything is consciousness, and since consciousness and everything it manifests comes in units, all of its units are units of consciousness, and are one with the whole. That which is Everything, IS everything in particular; and of course, vice versa. THAT is the hermetic, holographic principle. I agree with it. Souls are nothing but units of consciousness. So they don't depart to another realm after death. There is only one realm; consciousness.

Consciousness is not just an observer. Consciousness creates. It creates all that is, constantly and eternally, now. It is everywhere; it is all, all the time. This is the real "God," or God 2.0 as Deepak Chopra calls it. God is not a separate patriarchal super-natural dictator who lives in heaven, separate from the manifest realm. There is only One, and That One, is God. One power, one mind, one love, one life; the source and substance of all, through all, above all and in us all.

This is not dogma, but it is what I think today.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We each can experience (and thus "prove")

This needs a correction. To experience is not to prove. Proof is always in the form of something that can be shown to someone else, and therefore applies only to propositional knowledge. Subjective experience is all about non-propositional knowledge -- things that can be known, but can't be shown because they can't be reduced to a proposition that communicates knowledge to another person with no meaning lost. Each person must experience non-propositional truths for himself or herself.

It follows, though, that when you try to reduce such knowledge to a proposition, you are automatically stating either a falsehood or a metaphor.

In general, Eric, I feel you should study more science. You have a very poor understanding of where it's coming from or what its purpose is, and you attribute things to it (such as that it studies the "most dead" parts of reality) that are way, way, WAY off. You are suspicious of science for reasons that exist only in your imagination, not in science itself.

The limits of science are that it can deal only with propositional knowledge, and also that it cannot handle non-factual questions such as questions of value. Aside from that, it has no limits. There is knowledge to be gained outside the scope of science, but none that can be expressed as a proposition.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

[/I]This needs a correction. To experience is not to prove. Proof is always in the form of something that can be shown to someone else, and therefore applies only to propositional knowledge. Subjective experience is all about non-propositional knowledge -- things that can be known, but can't be shown because they can't be reduced to a proposition that communicates knowledge to another person with no meaning lost. Each person must experience non-propositional truths for himself or herself.

It follows, though, that when you try to reduce such knowledge to a proposition, you are automatically stating either a falsehood or a metaphor.

The closest means we have to communicate such knowledge, is to describe it. That is not propositional knowledge, but it is communication. Not everyone who hears such communication will get it though, as you say. It's more like Jesus said, let them who have ears to hear, let them hear.

In general, Eric, I feel you should study more science. You have a very poor understanding of where it's coming from or what its purpose is, and you attribute things to it (such as that it studies the "most dead" parts of reality) that are way, way, WAY off. You are suspicious of science for reasons that exist only in your imagination, not in science itself.

I do want to study more science, and I always like to learn more. I have learned quite a bit, and I feel I know its purpose. I do think I am correct in my comment about "more dead parts of reality" being more susceptible to understanding in ways that lead to construction of machines, and in general that understanding of things in mechanistic terms applies to those "more dead" parts of reality. You have a different view of life and death than I do, but I don't think my studies are going to lead us to agreement between us on that. As you say, you are slightly closer to vandal, and your place on the philosophers wheel confirms that. That leaves a large gap between us philosophically, along the S/M axis in particular, although I try to respect all views as best I can. I hope your views are helpful to those people who would find clarification from them, and from your clear way of stating things.

The limits of science are that it can deal only with propositional knowledge, and also that it cannot handle non-factual questions such as questions of value. Aside from that, it has no limits. There is knowledge to be gained outside the scope of science, but none that can be expressed as a proposition.

I might agree, as far as I know right now. Seems reasonable.

I apologize if some of my statements give the impression that I don't value science.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The closest means we have to communicate such knowledge, is to describe it. That is not propositional knowledge, but it is communication. Not everyone who hears such communication will get it though, as you say. It's more like Jesus said, let them who have ears to hear, let them hear.

No one who has not had a similar experience will get it. No one. That's the nature of non-propositional knowledge, and it's not limited to spirituality. There's also what it feels like to be in love, how a piece of music affects you, and so on. The only way to describe such things to someone who hasn't been there is to use metaphor, and your metaphors will make sense only if someone HAS been there, so it becomes pointless except as a way of sharing the experience and letting people know they're not alone.

I do want to study more science, and I always like to learn more. I have learned quite a bit, and I feel I know its purpose. I do think I am correct in my comment about "more dead parts of reality" being more susceptible to understanding in ways that lead to construction of machines

No, you're not. In fact, it's not at all clear what "more dead parts of reality" even means. Obviously, we can do a lot on a technological level with living parts of reality -- agriculture, selective breeding, medicine, genetic engineering, etc. That's in terms of "life" as defined in biology. If by life you mean "conscious," then everything is alive, so there are no "more dead parts of reality."

As you say, you are slightly closer to vandal

I did NOT say that, and it's not even remotely true. I did say that I am more likely to AGREE with Vandal than with you, when it comes down to a disagreement about the facts of science. But that's because in that context he's usually right and you're usually wrong, when you disagree. And that's just a matter of demonstrable fact, about which there cannot be two right opinions -- one is simply wrong. As far as attitude, I am nothing at all like him, or I wouldn't have him on ignore.

and your place on the philosophers wheel confirms that

Then your philosopher's wheel is telling you something false, and clearly it needs work.

I might agree, as far as I know right now. Seems reasonable.

But certain things follow from that. There are no true propositions that conflict with science (except those that science will eventually arrive at, correcting its mistakes). There are non-propositional truths for which science is irrelevant, but they can't be stated as propositions. There are no "self-evident truths" that can be stated as propositions, except in the context of a wholly-imaginary or cognitive artificial reality such as pure mathematics or a role-playing game. All propositional truth about the real world is empirical and the evidence for it is derived from observation.

The limits of science don't empower you to believe whatever you want to believe without any reference to observable facts and data and reasoning from same. A good example of what I'm talking about is the business you stated some time back on this thread about aliens coming here for our minerals. You said a couple of times that you had "sources" for this, but never actually specified what they were. I'm guessing you're talking about abduction stories? But a properly critical approach would recognize that:

1) Not all abduction stories are honest; and
2) Those that are honest, aren't necessarily true.

I'm setting aside entirely the question of whether the alien abduction phenomenon is a real thing; I lack the data to make that judgment. But I do know with great certainty that aliens are not and cannot be here for the Earth's minerals, because that makes absolutely no sense and it could be believed only by someone who has no knowledge of the abundance of minerals available in space and far more easily accessible by any civilization capable of interstellar spaceflight. Any abductee who reports this falls into that category, and assuming the abduction experience itself is real, one of three things must be true:

1) The abductee is lying about any information to the effect that aliens are here for our minerals; or
2) The abductee was lied to about that by the aliens for some reason; or
3) The abductee has completely misunderstood what was said to him/her.

If your sources are not abductee stories, then the same criticism applies. There is no way aliens could be here for our minerals, period. Therefore any source which says they are, is mistaken (or disingenuous), and should be regarded with suspicion.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No one who has not had a similar experience will get it. No one. That's the nature of non-propositional knowledge, and it's not limited to spirituality. There's also what it feels like to be in love, how a piece of music affects you, and so on. The only way to describe such things to someone who hasn't been there is to use metaphor, and your metaphors will make sense only if someone HAS been there, so it becomes pointless except as a way of sharing the experience and letting people know they're not alone.

"Subjective experience is all about non-propositional knowledge -- things that can be known" We agree there. Phenomenologists use philosophical terms. Are they "metaphors"? Arguably.

No, you're not. In fact, it's not at all clear what "more dead parts of reality" even means. Obviously, we can do a lot on a technological level with living parts of reality -- agriculture, selective breeding, medicine, genetic engineering, etc. That's in terms of "life" as defined in biology. If by life you mean "conscious," then everything is alive, so there are no "more dead parts of reality."

I understand; we disagree, and you already know my point of view on that, which was also restated in my post above. It's a matter of degree. Yes, I think we are relatively far apart philosophically on the S/M scale. Not as far apart as me and vandal, but that's about as far apart as any two people can be.

The limits of science don't empower you to believe whatever you want to believe without any reference to observable facts and data and reasoning from same. A good example of what I'm talking about is the business you stated some time back on this thread about aliens coming here for our minerals. You said a couple of times that you had "sources" for this, but never actually specified what they were. I'm guessing you're talking about abduction stories? But a properly critical approach would recognize that:

1) Not all abduction stories are honest; and
2) Those that are honest, aren't necessarily true.

That's true. I only mention it because I heard the reports. I can neither confirm nor deny these reports; believe or disbelieve them.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We've discussed these issues a lot on the philosophy thread. It is tangentially relevant to this thread, as it affects your view of what kind of alien ET visits might be possible.

Most likely the 'visits' would be broadcasts. Our life and their life might be ecologically incompatible; their life could depend upon chemical and thermal conditions that would kill us. For silicon-based electronic life that devours sunlight on a world that used to be earth-like but is now hot and anoxic, our atmosphere might be as deadly as chlorine gas because oxygen is similarly corrosive to many things... and don't forget how hot re-entry is.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

"
I understand; we disagree, and you already know my point of view on that, which was also restated in my post above.

No, I don't know your point of view on that. You have never explained it in a way that made any sense. I understand that you've tried. You've failed.

Do you not agree that consciousness is universal? In that case, isn't everything alive in that sense? And that means even physicists and astronomers are studying a living world, not a dead one.

OTOH, do you not agree that biology is a science dedicated to living organisms? And that's "life" by a more conventional definition.

I can only think of two things that you could possibly mean, and they both could be wrong. But here they are:

1) You want to bring back some version of vitalism, and posit a life force that living things have and inorganic things don't, and biologists don't want to go there.

2) You object to the entire enterprise of science applied to living organisms, because it treats living things as objects rather than as subjects.

Is your problem one of these, or both of them, or something else altogether? Perhaps you could clarify that.

Yes, I think we are relatively far apart philosophically on the S/M scale.

See, this is where I think your model of philosophical positions falls apart. I'm not on your S/M scale at all. I'm taking a position that disregards that antipathy and doesn't recognize any conflict between the spiritual and the material. This leads me to reject certain propositional ideas that you have, and because I do, you lump me in with mechanistic materialists, who also reject those same ideas, but because I entertain certain other ideas that you do agree with, you plop me down somewhere in a muddy middle. But that doesn't describe my views at all

And that's why I say that your philosopher's wheel needs work. It only works with people who fall into your preconceived categories.

I only mention it because I heard the reports. I can neither confirm nor deny these reports; believe or disbelieve them.

Okay, look. Here's where some nuanced critical thinking can come in. You have people who are reporting abduction experiences and say that they found out that aliens are here after our mineral resources. Now, we may not be in a good position to believe or disbelieve that these people were actually abducted by aliens, or that they were told that. But we are in an excellent position to know that, in fact, aliens are NOT here for our mineral resources. So regardless of whether these people were telling the truth, or lying, or suffering from delusions, what they're saying about why aliens are here is NOT true -- that much we DO know.