"For a closed string, the boundary conditions are periodic, and the resulting oscillating solution looks like two open string oscillations moving in the opposite direction around the string. These two types of closed string modes are called right-movers and left-movers,"

from http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic4a.html

oooh... sounds like the chakras to me!! Bach lives!
http://philosopherswheel.com/toccata.htm

I can't follow the math because I don't know the symbols. But there are a few clues here.

"Oscillation" eh?

from my toccata page:

Titus Burckhardt writes in Alchemy, "a serpent or dragon as the image of cosmic power is to be found in all parts of the world...A reptile moves without legs and by means of an uninterrupted rhythm in its body, so that it is the incorporation, so to say, of a subtle oscillation."

I'm adding string theory now to my long "string" of correlations to Bach's toccata.

I think science will enter a new track when it recognizes, as Teilhard de Chardin did, that the soul is a building block of the universe. He said smaller entities come together and make up an atom, the building block of the non-living world; then atoms come together and make up a cell, the building block of life. Then cells come together and make up a soul, the building block of consciousness or the noosphere. Each level is greater than the sum of what came before, and at each level interiority and freedom increase. It is all held together by the attraction upward toward the omega point, the divine. It is a good working hypothesis for how the universe works, one that is holistic.

In other words, why can't the soul, our consciousness of ourselves, be considered an elementary particle; something that can't be reduced into component parts?

I'm glad to say, holistic was an answer on Jeopardy today. The word is getting around.

Regarding ideas about how the mind relates to the brain, I have this idea: The mind needs the brain to function within the dense level of consciousness that we call physical. It always extends as a field beyond the brain, and has its ultimate source in God/omega, the attractor. More ideas along similar lines can be found from the article linked in the next post.

Quantum entanglement is thought by some theorists to be the basis of psi. Seems more reasonable than Brian's theory. It is called bioentanglement. Everything in the universe has been in contact at some point; therefore, anything we attend to in our mind (and in our brain) is linked to information beyond.

from http://www.enlightennext.org/magazin...ess.asp?page=9
Drawing on the well-established idea of “quantum entanglement,” Radin is proposing the existence of what he calls “bioentanglement.” In a nutshell, quantum entanglement is the notion that seemingly separate subatomic particles, once they've been in contact with one another, will, in fact, remain connected even across space and time. This connectedness, or “nonlocality,” was first demonstrated experimentally in 1972, and in the three decades since, Radin explains, physicists have been learning more and more about how widespread the phenomenon is. “It is far more pervasive and robust than anyone had imagined even a few years ago. And for me, the question is: What does that mean about the fabric of the world that we live in? What I think it means is that if in fact things are entangled, and if all that is required for two things to become entangled is some contact at some point in their history, then everything in our universe ought to be entangled, because cosmologists tell us that it all came from one source, the big bang.”

Extending this idea of quantum entanglement out of the subatomic and into the “macro” realm is a controversial move, and one that, so far, most mainstream physicists are not yet ready to make. But for Radin, the notion of bioentanglement may provide a way of understanding phenomena that seem impossible to explain within a classical materialist worldview:


If brains behave as quantum objects, then it opens the possibility that our brains are connected, or entangled, with everything. In which case we can think of psychic phenomena not as a mysterious process of information being sent from one place to another and somehow getting into your head, but more as a change of attention within the brain. If the whole universe is already inside your head because you're bioentangled with it, then if you wish to see what is in somebody else's head or what's in a hidden envelope somewhere else, or what's on the other side of the world right now or last year, you simply need to attend to the portion of your brain that is entangled with that state.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Quantum entanglement is thought by some theorists to be the basis of psi. Seems more reasonable than Brian's theory.

It cannot explain all of the psi phenomena we observe. That makes it less useful, regardless of whether or not it "seems more reasonable."

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It cannot explain all of the psi phenomena we observe. That makes it less useful, regardless of whether or not it "seems more reasonable."

I can't say that the theory above makes sense or not. It seems rather speculative at this point. So it may not explain anything. But you seem rather sure. What phenomena do you think it does not explain, and why?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It cannot explain all of the psi phenomena we observe.

Cordón, Luis A. (2005). Popular psychology: an encyclopedia. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. p. 182. ISBN 0-313-32457-3.

"The essential problem is that a large portion of the scientific community, including most research psychologists, regards parapsychology as a pseudoscience, due largely to its failure to move beyond null results in the way science usually does. Ordinarily, when experimental evidence fails repeatedly to support a hypothesis, that hypothesis is abandoned. Within parapsychology, however, more than a century of experimentation has failed even to conclusively demonstrate the mere existence of paranormal phenomenon, yet parapsychologists continue to pursue that elusive goal."

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I can't say that the theory above makes sense or not. It seems rather speculative at this point. So it may not explain anything. But you seems rather sure. What phenomena do you think it does not explain, and why?

The only thing that quantum entanglement implies is that there may be resonance of some kind at a distance between objects that have been at one point in physical contact. The experiment with the diamond shows that this is not a phenomenon confined to the subatomic level but in some instances is preserved at the macroscopic level.

The problem is that resonance at a distance and bypassing space and time represent only a small part of the characteristic set of psi phenomena. A really characteristic attribute is the ability of the human mind to manipulate the phenomenon, and there is no indication here of a mechanism for doing that. Also, quantum entanglement seems to be restricted to certain unusual circumstances, even though it is not restricted to the subatomic realm. Finally, this cannot possibly account for psi effects between two objects that have never physically been in contact.

What quantum entanglement does do, on top of all the other discoveries over the past century, is contribute to our understanding that reality is strange and behaves strangely, and that the old deterministic, machine-like vision of physical reality that fit well with Newtonian physics just doesn't mesh with the reality we see.

TnT: The story of the internal politics of psi research and the greater scientific community is an old one. I do not believe that the scientific community is capable of evaluating psi with an open mind. Part of that is the fault of psi researchers themselves, who (IMO) should have moved long ago away from trying to convince the world of the reality of psi and instead attempted to create theoretical models for what they were observing that would fit in with a larger scientific world view. If they had done this, the resistance to the evidence would probably be less. As it is, the evidence alone, with no explanation attached, seems to demand acceptance of the supernatural, or so it must seem to many. It's completely unsurprising that there is powerful resistance to being pushed in that unacceptable direction.

Some people are able to sense/perceive the power flows involved with psi and others cannot. It's a combination of talent and training. Those who cannot are hamstrung when trying to study the phenomena. It's like blind people trying to develop a science of optics. For that reason, I don't think the scientific community is ready to deal with psi at this time. On the other hand, I've also found that the number of those who are talented and trained who are also able to make use of scientific methods is small; no larger than the percentage of scientifically able people in the population as a whole, and on top of this the skepticism towards psi within the general scientific community provokes a rejection of science by many in retaliation or in self-defense. It's a problem.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The only thing that quantum entanglement implies is that there may be resonance of some kind at a distance between objects that have been at one point in physical contact. The experiment with the diamond shows that this is not a phenomenon confined to the subatomic level but in some instances is preserved at the macroscopic level.

The problem is that resonance at a distance and bypassing space and time represent only a small part of the characteristic set of psi phenomena. A really characteristic attribute is the ability of the human mind to manipulate the phenomenon, and there is no indication here of a mechanism for doing that. Also, quantum entanglement seems to be restricted to certain unusual circumstances, even though it is not restricted to the subatomic realm. Finally, this cannot possibly account for psi effects between two objects that have never physically been in contact.

What quantum entanglement does do, on top of all the other discoveries over the past century, is contribute to our understanding that reality is strange and behaves strangely, and that the old deterministic, machine-like vision of physical reality that fit well with Newtonian physics just doesn't mesh with the reality we see.

I think what quantum entanglement/non-locality does do is validate the ancient mystical and modern ecological principle that all things are interconnected. It stands to reason that such interconnection makes psi possible. But "it stands to reason" is not yet a scientific theory, though it is a potential avenue for research. Some interesting experiments have already been done, as you implied. But if change in one location can result in change at a distance, as the experiments showed, that would be "manipulation." As the article mentioned, Radin thought quantum entanglement was not unusual, but exists everywhere all the time, since all objects have been in contact at some time or another. This does, however, depend on the big bang theory.

It is not that non-locality means reality is "strange;" such an idea is not strange at all, but confirms what philosophers and mystics have always known, and yes this reality doesn't mesh with Newtonian physics.

Originally Posted by TnT

Cordón, Luis A. (2005). Popular psychology: an encyclopedia. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. p. 182. ISBN 0-313-32457-3.

"The essential problem is that a large portion of the scientific community, including most research psychologists, regards parapsychology as a pseudoscience, due largely to its failure to move beyond null results in the way science usually does. Ordinarily, when experimental evidence fails repeatedly to support a hypothesis, that hypothesis is abandoned. Within parapsychology, however, more than a century of experimentation has failed even to conclusively demonstrate the mere existence of paranormal phenomenon, yet parapsychologists continue to pursue that elusive goal."

I don't know how you can say that, when there are lots of experiments that show that psi is real. The issue, as Brian implies, is not whether it exists, but how to explain it.

Encyclopedias and such are notoriously locked in conventional scientific views.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think science will enter a new track when it recognizes, as Teilhard de Chardin did, that the soul is a building block of the universe. He said smaller entities come together and make up an atom, the building block of the non-living world; then atoms come together and make up a cell, the building block of life. Then cells come together and make up a soul, the building block of consciousness or the noosphere. Each level is greater than the sum of what came before, and at each level interiority and freedom increase. It is all held together by the attraction upward toward the omega point, the divine. It is a good working hypothesis for how the universe works, one that is holistic.

In other words, why can't the soul, our consciousness of ourselves, be considered an elementary particle; something that can't be reduced into component parts?

I'm glad to say, holistic was an answer on Jeopardy today. The word is getting around.

Regarding ideas about how the mind relates to the brain, I have this idea: The mind needs the brain to function within the dense level of consciousness that we call physical. It always extends as a field beyond the brain, and has its ultimate source in God/omega, the attractor. More ideas along similar lines can be found from the article linked in the next post.

I should add, the soul is a building block of the universe, and is an "elementary particle" in that it can't be broken up into separate parts and still be what it is. It can't be "reduced" (as "reductionist science" tries to do); but as non-locality/entanglement shows, such "elementary particles" of whatever kind or on whichever level are completely interconnected with all other particles, so they are not separate or isolated "things." As Alan Watts so eloquently put it, "a thing is a think." hear this quote in this video The words have the same root in all Indo-European languages. It is a misperception of reality engendered by our mind. It is a part of speech, not a part of reality; more precisely as Watts stated, a unit of thought.

Ken Wilbur's idea of the "holon" is a good term for our holistic understanding that all things are wholes, and yet parts of other wholes.

It seems to me, as a trained scientist, that I would be unstoppable, I would be entranced, stimulated and unable to resist pushing ahead with truly scientific experiments that would without doubt demonstrate the presence of a mind that could bend spoons from across town, or guess a drawn card from a shuffled deck ten-out-of-ten times. This notion that something as demonstrable as you say it is, would have been done by any number of thousands of real scientists, if it could be done. If nothing else, it would be a gold-plated ticket to the big time.

Originally Posted by TnT

It seems to me, as a trained scientist, that I would be unstoppable, I would be entranced, stimulated and unable to resist pushing ahead with truly scientific experiments that would without doubt demonstrate the presence of a mind that could bend spoons from across town, or guess a drawn card from a shuffled deck ten-out-of-ten times. This notion that something as demonstrable as you say it is, would have been done by any number of thousands of real scientists, if it could be done. If nothing else, it would be a gold-plated ticket to the big time.

But it has been done, maybe not 10 out of 10 but statistically significant. It is not a ticket to the big time, because scientists are not as interested as you say.

There is a wikipedia article that summarizes the various views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology

Here is an article on the evidence.

This is a telling comment, I think:

"any experiments which suggest an expanded role for consciousness from any scientific field meet the same fate of instant disbelief. In my studies of both parapsychology and the skepticism surrounding it, it has become obvious that a double standard is in effect."

Isn't it about time scientists dealt in good faith with a part of reality that is undeniable; their own awareness?

All these fields are the most interesting field of inquiry that exists today. Real progress in human understanding lies on this frontier, and not so much at the particle accelerators.

Originally Posted by TnT

It seems to me, as a trained scientist, that I would be unstoppable, I would be entranced, stimulated and unable to resist pushing ahead with truly scientific experiments that would without doubt demonstrate the presence of a mind that could bend spoons from across town, or guess a drawn card from a shuffled deck ten-out-of-ten times. This notion that something as demonstrable as you say it is, would have been done by any number of thousands of real scientists, if it could be done. If nothing else, it would be a gold-plated ticket to the big time.

Not really. Although some scientists have done that, of course. The problem is that performing experiments and demonstrating a new phenomenon is only half of how science proceeds. Observe -- then theorize. Parapsychologists have done a pretty good job of observing, but they've sucked at theorizing. So what scientists get presented with is a set of data that don't make sense. They seem to suggest that the supernatural is at work, some kind of spiritual influence, something hookey-spookey and inherently outside of the scientific paradigm. Something completely unexplained and unexplainable except by reference to unscientific ideas. So the reaction has ranged from, "So what?" to "Now WAIT just a friggin' minute." And the resistance has been high, and criticism offered that is not offered less controversial data. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," goes the saying; well, the existence of the supernatural is an extraordinary claim for which NO proof will ever be considered sufficient.

I can't blame the scientific community for this attitude. The blame properly falls on parapsychologists, who proceeded too timidly. They wanted acceptance on the part of mainstream science of the reality of the phenomena before they started work on a theory. But that was failing to address the main reason why acceptance wasn't forthcoming. It was a trap they set for themselves and fell into.

The reality, though, is that there IS a scientific model possible for all this stuff. I've developed one myself. It involves an organizing principle in nature that sets probability, and treating the probability of indeterminate events as variable rather than fixed. All demonstrated psi phenomena and also those experienced by magical practitioners, AND all spiritual experiences and personal transformation in a religious/spiritual context can be accounted for by this model. There's a bit more to it than the above but that's the core. If parapsychologists had spent more time trying to explain what they were observing and less time tilting at windmills by trying to prove the unacceptable, they might have come up with something similar (or maybe something better) themselves.

But as I said, maybe it's for the best this way. Most scientists aren't trained mages; they can't see, feel, or experience the psi principle, only its gross effects, and that seriously hinders them when it comes to understanding what they're seeing. Maybe the mana level needs to rise more, and more people become aware of this aspect of reality -- a function of experience not of belief -- before we will be ready to treat it scientifically and incorporate it into mainstream understanding.

TNT and Copperfield and Takascar wonder why if I critique science, that I support what it says about global warming.

Not that it will necessarily help them see my point of view, but just for fun, let's review where I stand on this right now.

I see four directions of knowledge; science, mystical religion, the arts, and philosophy. They are all valuable. They are related to each other in a way that I compare to a cross of the four directions. In this model, they are polarized opposites, or 90 degrees apart: religion on the top (or some say north, others say south), science on the bottom (same qualification), the arts on the right, and philosophy on the left. This schema is related to what I call the philosophers wheel.

This is how I look at science and the other 3 modes of knowledge. They are different and explore different aspects of reality. They are not cut off from each other, however, as some think they must be, since the 4 directions emerge from a center, and you can draw a circle or wheel around them that is continuous.

Here is a start toward describing these 4 modes of knowledge:

Science uses rational tools like measurement and causation, and verifies what is observed in the world outside the observer using empirical testing.

Mystical religion (or religion in general in its modes of knowing) looks within to experience of the observer itself, which can be verified by other observers using the same methods of inner discovery. Although these experiences can't be measured or attributed to intermediate chains of cause and effect, they can be represented in symbol, myth and description.

Philosophy encompasses all directions, but is mainly focused on knowledge of first principles and axioms on which all knowledge depends, and using reason to clarify these principles and their implications. It requires us to define and describe the basis for the methods of knowledge that we use, and specify how they can be applied.

The arts express our experience in ways that can't be described in more-precise ways. It explores how we can discover and express the ineffable and the aesthetic aspects of experience, and how we bring new experience into being and grow as people. It communicates insights gained through feeling and empathy, and our experience of harmony and discord and other emotions.

Where I disagree is when people say any of these modes of knowledge are not valuable, or not knowledge, and dismiss the findings of one or more of these 4 ways of knowing.

The battle between spiritualists and materialists, or fundie religion and fundie science, seems to be the one that most people here are interested in. The materialists like TNT, Copperfield and takascar wonder how I can use science to promote environmentalism and efforts to reverse climate change, and take a stand for green energy against fossil fuels on the basis of science, and still "reject science" to justify my spiritual "fantasy world" where "natural laws" of cause and effect don't apply.

I see the gap between matter and spirit as a continuum of aliveness, is my answer. You can't make a precise division on the scale, I claim, and that means my views on science appear ambiguous to those who prefer a sharp division, or who espouse a monistic view that affirms one side and denies the other.

And so aspects of reality like the effects of spewing smog and CO2 into the air or the movement of continents that produce earthquakes or how long it takes Neptune to orbit the Sun can be calculated more easily than aspects of reality such as the motivations and experiences of humans who do the spewing or the observing. The difference is the objects of knowledge we are dealing with. Humans and other living things are alive and have freedom and consciousness in greater degree than the atoms or elementary particles of strings or whatever you want to call the stuff that gets spewed into the air. So measurements like parts per million, and causes like fossil fuel burning, and models of how these things affect the climate, can be calculated with greater reliability, than calculating what takascar is going to do tommorrow or how he's going to reply (or whether he does) to this post I am making, and why he does or doesn't do so, or how angry he will be with me, etc. Is that clear?

Since it's a continuum, the differences between the more and less alive are not absolute. Life and death can be defined, but not absolutely, and life can't be defined in terms of death. There is an uncertainty and indeterminacy principle that is applied to what is observed by scientific theories and empirical tests, which means we can state what happens within a range of probability and scale. On the other hand, although human psychology and experience of spiritual realities can't be reliably measured, and behavior can't be reduced to mechanical causes, there are still patterns and archetypes that can be applied, and so we have theories like The Fourth Turning and Generations and schemes like the philosophers wheel, mythical patterns that appear across cultures, common spiritual experiences that are reported, and so on.

I can use my measuring tape to calculate how long a piece of wood needs to be to use on the patio roof I am making (an example from my experience). At the same time, I can see that there are no real lines in the wood, that one part of the wood is not separate from another, that I am even part of the same unity of being as the wood.

So total uncertainty does not apply to the relatively-living world, and total certainty does not apply to the relatively dead world. But treating the living world as though it were dead has its limits, and can lead in morally-questionable directions. Describing the living world in terms of death, misses it to a large extent. On the other hand, expecting that the relatively dead world can exhibit properties that could be called supernatural, or uncaused, or completely spontaneous or alive, is likely to get you lost in that "Fantasy World," and if you claim "revelation" has told you for sure how this fantasy works, then you are lost in dogmatic religious fundamentalism. It is wise to see that the less-alive world has some indeterminacy, and that the more-alive world exhibits some patterns and archetypes. We can't predict human activity, but we can estimate trends and patterns and tell stories. We can predict the weather, but far from exactly. We can make models of climate change, but so far the reality is even worse than the predictions, not better as the deniers say.

I hope that helps at least clarify how I can live in both realms. We all do in fact, and they can't really be separated.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

TNT and Copperfield and Takascar wonder why if I critique science, that I support what it says about global warming.

Not that it will necessarily help them see my point of view, but just for fun, let's review where I stand on this right now.

I see four directions of knowledge; science, mystical religion, the arts, and philosophy. They are all valuable. They are related to each other in a way that I compare to a cross of the four directions. In this model, they are polarized opposites, or 90 degrees apart: religion on the top (or some say north, others say south), science on the bottom (same qualification), the arts on the right, and philosophy on the left. This schema is related to what I call the philosophers wheel.

Epistimological Models

To begin with, your two dimensional Science-Philosophy-Art-Spirituality model is very interesting. I’ve been thinking about it all day. I think I agree that different ways of seeking truth and wisdom bleed into one another on some kind of continuum.

As I considered your model, it came to me that perhaps Science and Philosophy are closely related to each other, as are Spirituality and Art. Interestingly, Science and Art both have a strong component of physicality in the sense that Art usually includes some form of a physical product, one that impinges on the senses, and Science is almost entirely concerned with the physical world. In contrast Spirituality and Philosophy both seem to be products of the “mind” if one allows that Spirituality is largely an emotional experience, while Philosophy is largely an intellectual experience.

Note: I already see that my formulation is beginning to conflict with what I think I’ve perceived from your writings on the forum – that is, I’m guessing that you believe that Spirituality goes way beyond any one “mind.” My global skepticism will allow for that possibility. However, any one of us must experience our own perception of Spirituality through our own “mind,” however the concept of “mind” is formulated. Also, I think I’ve perceived that you even believe that Science is Spirituality at its base. If that is true, then one wonders even about your notion of a Science-Spirituality continuum.

Allow me to proceed with my interpretation. I can’t help but wonder if your formulation might not be more generalized if one took each of your elements and put them into a sphere, with one hemi-sphere having Science-Philosophy, and the other hemi-sphere having Spirituality-Art.
The advantage of this over the two dimensional model is that all the elements at least touch all other elements and depending on how we rotate the hemispheres, we can have the elements be continuous among all others. Then we have a more-or-less continuous incremental set of relationships available when we look at and analyze some particular truth-seeking methodology in order to place it in our model.
The preceding is mostly a prelude to what I really want to say, but it also illustrates one of my main points.

1. Models are the ONLY WAY that we have to think about ideas. All areas of inquiry use them. That’s because that’s all we have to work with. If our mind could not conjure up a model, it could not think about anything.

2. Models are NOT identities. That is, the thought-about idea is not the object or concept thought about. I think that’s pretty obvious, eh? A thing, or an idea, or a work of art, or a religious doctrine may well exist independent of my awareness, but for me to begin to think about it, or even look at it, or “experience” it in some way, I have to assemble a model of it in my consciousness.

3. Models are surely imperfect. That is, my formulation is wrong at some level. I must always stay aware of this, and keep my mind open to the possibility that some or all of any model I have in my head is wrong. Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect.

Hopefully I won’t go so far astray with this next bit that I have to move back to the Global Warming thread, but perhaps we can use it as an example since that’s where we started.

The MODEL of AGW that we use for discussion on the T4T forum tells us that carbon dioxide is the principle atmospheric contaminant that is causing AGW, right? Well, perhaps that is true. One can certainly correlate changes in CO2 with the change in average temperature as presented to us by the climate scientists.

As an aside, I agree with you that we should NOW be working to remove deleterious releases of substances into our environment. Common sense should tell anyone that it’s not a good idea to shit in one’s nest. But I don’t want to mix up the notion of not shitting one’s nest with the notion of how one proceeds to seek truth and wisdom. They are both important things to do, but are quite different.

As a scientist, I’ve been warned repeatedly throughout my science career to be very, very leery of assuming causation when I see strong correlation. As a chemist, I’m aware that CO2 has strong infra-red absorbance at about 1700-1800 wave numbers. That’s trivial. That is why CO2 is called a “greenhouse” gas.

But so is water vapor a “greenhouse gas.” Hydrogen-oxygen and hydrogen-carbon covalent bonds have huge absorption spectra in the infra-red region. Lots of chemical compounds show strong absorption in the infrared. There is a LOT more water vapor in the atmosphere. At about 300 ppm, CO2 represents 0.3 % of the atmosphere. At ordinary ambient temperatures, water vapor is present in many whole percentages, not tenths of percents.

At the risk of repeating myself, I’m not saying that CO2 isn’t the cause of a few tenths of a degree of global warming. I’m just saying that one must be careful, and skeptical. I have studied enough thermodynamics to know that the Arrhenius equation is the foundation of the model leading to the current AGW model. Attempts to estimate and predict the earth’s temperature began with it in the 1800s, and many, many reformulations and modifications have been added since then. The current model is very, very complex, and I don’t pretend to understand it.
But it is a model. It risks being partly wrong. Especially at the margins. That is almost the definition of the process of scientific investigation. For example, if memory serves, the climate scientists are struggling to interpret and explain to themselves, many of their own observations. Common scientific sense suggests that global warming has multi-variate causes – greenhouse gases, urban asphalt/concrete, destruction of forests, decreased reflection of sunlight due to changes in agricultural practices, etc., etc. To attribute virtually ALL global warming to the change of a tenth of a percent or two of one chemical in the atmosphere seems imprudent to me and unscientific.

Establishing causation scientifically is a LOT easier when one can run controlled experiments and can demonstrate repeatedly that a given variable, when changed by itself, results in a quantifiable change in the system. Unfortunately, we only have indirect evidence with the AGW model, and many, many moving parts are present. Makes it a lot harder. Especially when your principle metric, average temperature, is changing by so small an increment.

My favorite example of how science can go wrong is the Phlogiston “Theory” which was used before the discovery of oxygen to explain combustion. When I consider the elements of the Phlogiston formulation, it really makes sense! It really seems to fit most of the observables that come in the investigation of combustion. Then, it turns out that oxygen is almost the inverse of phlogiston conceptually. Check it out, if you haven’t heard of it. And of course, there are any number of other, even recent examples of scientific hypotheses that crashed and burned.

Finally, here is my contention with you. I simply don’t understand how you can be so absolutely SURE of your perspectives (models). While I lean toward some conclusions in my search for “truths,” I try to remain open to being dead wrong. Being absolutely sure of stuff seems to me to be a path to untruth and un-wisdom. I don’t get any sense of general skepticism from you.

On the other hand, maybe it’s a good thing, to have SURE people in the world – they forge ahead without hesitation or doubt and get things done. After all, skepticism can lead to paralysis if one waits too long for “perfect” information before one acts.

One nice thing about this epistle, is that virtually no one on the forum will wade through it! Lol.

Originally Posted by TnT

Epistimological Models

To begin with, your two dimensional Science-Philosophy-Art-Spirituality model is very interesting. I’ve been thinking about it all day. I think I agree that different ways of seeking truth and wisdom bleed into one another on some kind of continuum.

Thanks; I hope you take a notion to delve into it a bit more at my web site, and have some "serious" fun taking my questionnaire, if you haven't already. Many T4Ters have done it, since they tend to like these things. Of course, there is my master degree paper too...

http://philosopherswheel.com/questionnaire.htm

I certainly expected a more thoughtful response from you about this than from takascar or copperfield (and I got one).

Note: I already see that my formulation is beginning to conflict with what I think I’ve perceived from your writings on the forum – that is, I’m guessing that you believe that Spirituality goes way beyond any one “mind.”

Of course; that is the mystical experience.

Also, I think I’ve perceived that you even believe that Science is Spirituality at its base. If that is true, then one wonders even about your notion of a Science-Spirituality continuum.

One can certainly question it. It appears there is certainly a difference of degree in aliveness, considering particular objects; even though all are also one. So it is not a cut and dried, clear-cut distinction.

Allow me to proceed with my interpretation. I can’t help but wonder if your formulation might not be more generalized if one took each of your elements and put them into a sphere, with one hemi-sphere having Science-Philosophy, and the other hemi-sphere having Spirituality-Art.

I think our culture today tends toward that idea, and the former is considered "left hemisphere" of the brain, and the latter "right hemisphere." My conception is just rotated 45 degrees, and considers the way people also thought in other ages.

The advantage of this over the two dimensional model is that all the elements at least touch all other elements and depending on how we rotate the hemispheres, we can have the elements be continuous among all others. Then we have a more-or-less continuous incremental set of relationships available when we look at and analyze some particular truth-seeking methodology in order to place it in our model.

I'm not sure that being on a circle makes them any less connected. I've thought about a sphere, but it's very hard to put that into a questionnaire model. It might also be true about all the politics tests, which are similar, and much-more well-known. One thing I've thought about regarding this, is that in nature at least, all "spheres" rotate on an axis, and that axis or axial mundi can be considered equivalent to the spirit/matter continuum. That continuum is also in our bodies and energy bodies, as the chakras long our backbone, just as the art/philosophy or feeling/thought axis is found in our right and left brains.

2. Models are NOT identities. That is, the thought-about idea is not the object or concept thought about. I think that’s pretty obvious, eh? A thing, or an idea, or a work of art, or a religious doctrine may well exist independent of my awareness, but for me to begin to think about it, or even look at it, or “experience” it in some way, I have to assemble a model of it in my consciousness.

To think about it, I agree. I doubt that I agree that experience (as opposed to thought) has to be assembled into a model, at least not in moments of higher consciousness. But I know Kant formulated this idea for us, and many people in the West tend to think this way.

At the risk of repeating myself, I’m not saying that CO2 isn’t the cause of a few tenths of a degree of global warming.

Actual measurements show that the warming is much more than that, and the only major variable from before the warming is how much co2 has been added in that time.

Establishing causation scientifically is a LOT easier when one can run controlled experiments and can demonstrate repeatedly that a given variable, when changed by itself, results in a quantifiable change in the system. Unfortunately, we only have indirect evidence with the AGW model, and many, many moving parts are present. Makes it a lot harder. Especially when your principle metric, average temperature, is changing by so small an increment.

The only variation from the models so-far observed, seems to be that global warming is happening faster than expected. When there is such a scientific consensus, the only reasonable conclusion about skepticism is that it is politically and economically motivated.

My favorite example of how science can go wrong is the Phlogiston “Theory” which was used before the discovery of oxygen to explain combustion...

I am familiar with it, but don't remember the details of the theory.

Finally, here is my contention with you. I simply don’t understand how you can be so absolutely SURE of your perspectives (models). While I lean toward some conclusions in my search for “truths,” I try to remain open to being dead wrong. Being absolutely sure of stuff seems to me to be a path to untruth and un-wisdom. I don’t get any sense of general skepticism from you.

I don't think that's an accurate perception of me. But I do tend to speak my mind clearly about things I am more sure of, based on my experience and the facts I know. But nowhere do I claim my philosophy models are absolute truths. I'm not sure what the advantage of "general skepticism" is, although I see an advantage to keeping an open mind.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm not sure what the advantage of "general skepticism" is, although I see an advantage to keeping an open mind.

And herein may lie the greatest difference between you and me!!

From my desktop dictionary: skepticism (1) A doubting state of mine; (2) A doctrine that certainty of knowledge cannot be attained; (3) Doubt concerning religion.

I'd have to say without reservation that all three of these describe me. Yet, I see the notion of "an open mind" as you describe, to be a large part of healthy skepticism. I sometimes struggle with myself when my emotional content and my personality pushes me from healthy skepticism into frank cynicism. That's not good.

I maintain that especially in today's milieu, that a lot of skepticism is required to sort the pepper from the fly-shit. It seems that almost every source of info comes with a large amount of "Spin". (See? It's hard work dancing along the margin between skepticism and cynicism!)

When one sees just how wrong really smart people can get things - Robert McNamara comes immediately to mind with his mea culpa book on his participation in the Viet Nam war, and when one realizes one's own intellectual limitations, it's hard not to be a bit humble in the face of any large idea, or any significant human endeavor.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The only variation from the models so-far observed, seems to be that global warming is happening faster than expected. When there is such a scientific consensus, the only reasonable conclusion about skepticism is that it is politically and economically motivated.

But see, you've just validated my MAIN POINT!! If the predictions that come from the model don't match the resultant data, then the MODEL is not working as we would like it to. It doesn't matter which way it doesn't work for a real scientist. And I don't think for a minute that the ONLY variation is the speed of the warming. Nor do I think that the ONLY SIGNIFICANT source of AGW is CO2. I think you're spinning it when you say that. There is tons of stuff that we don't know yet about climate.

And remember, I don't disagree with you on the significance or the seriousness of the issue.

Originally Posted by TnT

But see, you've just validated my MAIN POINT!! If the predictions that come from the model don't match the resultant data, then the MODEL is not working as we would like it to. It doesn't matter which way it doesn't work for a real scientist. And I don't think for a minute that the ONLY variation is the speed of the warming. Nor do I think that the ONLY SIGNIFICANT source of AGW is CO2. I think you're spinning it when you say that. There is tons of stuff that we don't know yet about climate.

Like I said, the weather can't be predicted exactly. But it can be predicted to a large extent. The facts are clear though that co2 is the main greenhouse gas, and the main source of global warming; that is clear from the data. The spinners are those who say the Sun and natural cycles are also significant, or only significant. But those claims are not in accord with the facts. Methane is another important greenhouse gas, but it is not as significant at this point. IIRC it could become more important if the Arctic tundra melts. In this case we are dealing with measurements rather than a model. Measurements are not exact either, but the focus is more narrow and disagreement is less likely.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The facts are clear though that co2 is the main greenhouse gas, and the main source of global warming; that is clear from the data.

Help me out here. Point me to a good source of a Pareto analysis of the variables contributing to AGW.

Originally Posted by TnT

And herein may lie the greatest difference between you and me!!

From my desktop dictionary: skepticism (1) A doubting state of mind; (2) A doctrine that certainty of knowledge cannot be attained; (3) Doubt concerning religion.

Maybe you can at least go with Descartes and Augustine; you can doubt, but you can't doubt that you are doubting. I doubt therefore I am.

I'd have to say without reservation that all three of these describe me. Yet, I see the notion of "an open mind" as you describe, to be a large part of healthy skepticism. I sometimes struggle with myself when my emotional content and my personality pushes me from healthy skepticism into frank cynicism. That's not good.

Yes, I don't suffer too much from cynicism, though I have my faults.

I maintain that especially in today's milieu, that a lot of skepticism is required to sort the pepper from the fly-shit. It seems that almost every source of info comes with a large amount of "Spin". (See? It's hard work dancing along the margin between skepticism and cynicism!)

What I observe as the problem these days are specific ideologies that account for most of the spin. People want to hang onto their beliefs in the face of all evidence or truth. To me a belief is just the best knowledge or best estimate we currently have, not a dogma to hang onto as truth. Also involved are the advantages people may derive from holding or speaking a certain opinion. You may question my claim, but I usually don't have much difficulty cutting through the "spin". I think there is truth, and we can know it (and we may disagree on that); but as you say, the truth is not equal to our models of it, or our best attempts to express it in words and other symbols.

When one sees just how wrong really smart people can get things - Robert McNamara comes immediately to mind with his mea culpa book on his participation in the Viet Nam war, and when one realizes one's own intellectual limitations, it's hard not to be a bit humble in the face of any large idea, or any significant human endeavor.

And yet, most people are (not very humble, that is)
In such endeavors or ideas, there is sometimes a lot of good to go with the deception and doubt. It's usually a mixed bag, but you want to embrace the positive as well as trim the hype, and to distinguish the truth from the model or map of it.

Originally Posted by TnT

Help me out here. Point me to a good source of a Pareto analysis of the variables contributing to AGW.

What is a Pareto analysis?

I imagine that can be googled.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming..._the_attention

Instead of initially attempting to determine what something "is", One might first attempt to determine what something "is not".

Yes, I could most likely be defined as a Cynic(using the classical definition).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I imagine that can be googled.

....!

Prince

Originally Posted by TnT

When one sees just how wrong really smart people can get things - Robert McNamara comes immediately to mind with his mea culpa book on his participation in the Viet Nam war, and when one realizes one's own intellectual limitations, it's hard not to be a bit humble in the face of any large idea, or any significant human endeavor.

If you don't have the correct a priori assumptions, you tend to get the analysis wrong.

McNamara spent a lot of his time missing the point.

In many cases, the error comes from *knowing* things that simply aren't true.

If your brain is filled with the wrong basic ideas, you can come up with extremely sophisicated and throrough wrong answers.

I'll give Brian kudos for at least setting forth his basis a priori assumptions with respect to psi, which makes it possible to have a discussion.