Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Eric is essentially a mystic, so assume allegory when logic seems absent. There is a lot to be said for allegory. There are some things that cannot be addressed head-on, and the STEM fields have few if any tools to apply to those issues. I say that as an INTP, more or less locked into a frame where logic predominates.

I come from an artsy-fartsy family, so I've seen the benefit of alogical thinking, even though I'm not very good at it myself.

Being an INTP also, I know that the difference between logic, science and myth is hard to define. In one sense there is no difference between these methods; they are all ways to describe in words what can't be described in words-- namely anything at all. Words are but symbols, and so are mythic images and allegories. There is a degree of distinction between a sign, which is a more one-to-one representation of an object by a word or number, and a mythic symbol, which is (you might say) a way of evoking the life within the object or a power within life. The methods of science and logic are well established and useful, and are different than methods of art, which is not so systematic and "head-on." Events can be verified scientifically by experiment and observation, but all results are still provisional to one degree or another; and to be objective, such observations must be limited to what is observed outside the observer. In reality there is no such thing; it is only a goal.

Scientism believers, rationalists, and other dogmatists want things clear-cut and well-defined, but life as it really is eludes them. As Bergson said, the intellect is characterized by an inability to comprehend life. It escapes their net. That's why they can't understand that trees are conscious, even though it is plain to see by direct observation. Discussion of myth is somewhat irrelevant then; that trees are conscious and alive is an observation-- just not one that can be easily quantified (although "the secret life of plants" has been). Perhaps that can be called a mystical observation, but it's not in any way esoteric. And indeed, since anyone can see this, and many people do, it is certainly verifiable. So I wasn't really using allegory, except in the sense that all language and all description of experience is allegory. Certainly any word is a generalization, just the way any Platonic form might be thought of.

In our day and age, when we run roughshod over our environment, it is wise to see it as alive and conscious, and thus deserving of the practice of the golden rule. I'm sure we would not want trees or flowers or birds or squirrels to look upon ourselves as unconscious objects. They deserve to be fully respected for what they are, and treated accordingly. Dogmatic materialism does not serve us well today.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You can look at things that way; I don't see any need to do so myself. Cynicism is turning away from optimism because you can't see the possibilities in life and have decided that there's no hope. Classical cynicism and not being not-happy is better than that, perhaps, and seeing through falsehoods (including false ideologies) is a good thing, but being happy is better than not being not happy--- as long as its genuine and honest too.

Let me try again in a different language.

Happy=(set of positive numbers)
Un-happy=(set of negative numbers)
Not Un-happy=?

Originally Posted by Eric

The scientific world view of materialism is false when not balanced and enlightened by the other three directions on the symbolic philosophers wheel. You might enjoy the questionnaire and see where your "priorities" lie.

O.K. Eric. I really don't like questionnaires, but I'll take your damn test. But before I do, would you do me the favor of telling me where you think I will fall of your scale(the one with the names on it).


Prince

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Trees and all living things are conscious beings, and contemplating that gives me my appreciation of the consciousness of trees whereby they know when to drop their leaves. It is not a mechanical thing, and not "natural" in the sense that it is obedience to "natural law" that "makes" them drop their leaves, or "the environment changes" that causes them to "adapt."

Abscission is a physiological response. Nothing more nothing less.

I don't mean it's an act of will like humans might do, but it takes free consciousness in order to "adapt."

Explain to me what coefficient is used by population geneticists in their equations to factor in "consciousness"!

Trees have developed the ability to drop their leaves, and it somehow fits the needs of the environment and even of we humans for shade in the Summer and openness to the Sun in Winter.

Environments don't have needs. They just are. And you definitely should spend some time getting to know the sentient puddle. He has much to teach you.

So humans, in our time, are awakening to a higher consciousness than we have had before.

What measurable properties does this "higher consciousness" possess so that we might be able to detect its presence?

Again, our scientific and sense-based world view (which often is at the root of cynicism today) prevents some of our friends here from seeing that the heart is a chakra (soul center), and the center of our being, and not merely a blood pump.

And if enough new agers repeat the nonsense then chakras will somehow actually exist?

The scientific world view of materialism is false when not balanced and enlightened by the other three directions on the symbolic philosophers wheel. You might enjoy the questionnaire and see where your "priorities" lie.

How exactly did you determine it to be false? What was your objective criteria for evaluation? What was your standard of judgement?New Agers are annoying enough, but when they start babbling on as if they understood the slightest thing about science they become downright insufferable.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Abscission is a physiological response. Nothing more nothing less.Explain to me what coefficient is used by population geneticists in their equations to factor in "consciousness"!Environments don't have needs. They just are. And you definitely should spend some time getting to know the sentient puddle. He has much to teach you.What measurable properties does this "higher consciousness" possess so that we might be able to detect its presence?And if enough new agers repeat the nonsense then chakras will somehow actually exist?How exactly did you determine it to be false? What was your objective criteria for evaluation? What was your standard of judgement?New Agers are annoying enough, but when they start babbling on as if they understood the slightest thing about science they become downright insufferable.

This post deserves no response, and will get none from me. Everything I could say has already been said in the posts above and elsewhere (see Materialism thread for example).

You and Odin and Bob and Copperfield should go have coffee somewhere and share insults against New Agers who think they understand science.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Let me try again in a different language.

Happy=(set of positive numbers)
Un-happy=(set of negative numbers)
Not Un-happy=?

I guess I don't speak that language.

O.K. Eric. I really don't like questionnaires, but I'll take your damn test. But before I do, would you do me the favor of telling me where you think I will fall of your scale(the one with the names on it).


Prince

It would only be a guess, but you seem fairly moderate, so:
0-25M
0-25E
Pragmatism
Utilitarianism
Mill
Bentham
Anaxagoras
(but I could be way off)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It would only be a guess, but you seem fairly moderate, so:
0-25M
0-25E
Pragmatism
Utilitarianism
Mill
Bentham
Anaxagoras
(but I could be way off)

<chuckle> Well, you weren't too far off, Eric.

50-75S/0-25E according to your chart. Kinda between "The Buddha" and "The Christ" is about right, IMO.

Despite some issues I have with some of the wording of your questions, I was suprised by the accuracy of the results. Not bad, Eric. Not bad at all.

Prince

PS: And, I didn't even have a single "M" to subtract from the "S"s!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why are only dogmatic materialists responding to this thread? Is it the title?

No. It's your utter lack of understanding about how the natural world works.

This post deserves no response, and will get none from me. Everything I could say has already been said in the posts above and elsewhere.

Everything that I've read from you (been lurking here for a few months) indicates that you couldn't possibly answer my questions. So I guess taking your ball and going home really is your only option.

You and Odin and Bob and Copperfield should go have coffee somewhere and share insults against New Agers who think they understand science.

That would be no worse than reading the insults New Agers do to science every time they try to explain how things "really" work.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Being an INTP also, I know that the difference between logic, science and myth is hard to define. In one sense there is no difference between these methods; they are all ways to describe in words what can't be described in words-- namely anything at all. Words are but symbols, and so are mythic images and allegories. There is a degree of distinction between a sign, which is a more one-to-one representation of an object by a word or number, and a mythic symbol, which is (you might say) a way of evoking the life within the object or a power within life. The methods of science and logic are well established and useful, and are different than methods of art, which is not so systematic and "head-on." Events can be verified scientifically by experiment and observation, but all results are still provisional to one degree or another; and to be objective, such observations must be limited to what is observed outside the observer. In reality there is no such thing; it is only a goal.

Scientism believers, rationalists, and other dogmatists want things clear-cut and well-defined, but life as it really is eludes them. As Bergson said, the intellect is characterized by an inability to comprehend life. It escapes their net. That's why they can't understand that trees are conscious, even though it is plain to see by direct observation. Discussion of myth is somewhat irrelevant then; that trees are conscious and alive is an observation-- just not one that can be easily quantified (although "the secret life of plants" has been). Perhaps that can be called a mystical observation, but it's not in any way esoteric. And indeed, since anyone can see this, and many people do, it is certainly verifiable. So I wasn't really using allegory, except in the sense that all language and all description of experience is allegory. Certainly any word is a generalization, just the way any Platonic form might be thought of.

In our day and age, when we run roughshod over our environment, it is wise to see it as alive and conscious, and thus deserving of the practice of the golden rule. I'm sure we would not want trees or flowers or birds or squirrels to look upon ourselves as unconscious objects. They deserve to be fully respected for what they are, and treated accordingly. Dogmatic materialism does not serve us well today.

Eric, just because you keep repeating this nonsense does not make it true. There are regularities and patterns in nature, and these can be described by mathematics, to insist otherwise is to simply stubborn willful ignorance. Trees are aware of their environment, but they are not conscious of it, their awareness of the environment is an unconscious one akin to our hormonal system. A sessile organism like a tree or a filter-feeding invertebrate attached to a rock does not need to be conscious, it is a waste because nerve cells need a lot of energy. Our brains make up only 5% of our weight, but use 25% of the calories we need in a day. There is a group of filter-feeding animals closely related to the vertebrates called sea squirts, as larvae they are free-swimming and have a "vertebrate" nervous system, but when they find a place to attach their nervous system, no longer needed, degenerates.

"Verification" is irrelevant, the important question is FALSIFICATION: Can a statement be falsified? Cranks always believe they have "verified" their ideas because of their own cognitive biases (Karl Popper used Astrology and Freudian Psychology as examples), but their ideas are unfalsifiable. They think their crankish notions correct because they cannot be falsified, in fact, that lack of falsifiability is a WEAKNESS, not a strength.

Your last paragraph is one huge argument by consequences fallacy.

Oh, and your utter hatred of anything that looks like a "conceptual box" is in utter contradiction with you claiming to be Jungian Thinking type. Jungian T = concepts, mental models, and definitions.

By the way: the difference between science, logic, and myth is not that hard to describe. Go here: http://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com...os-and-mythos/

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

<chuckle> Well, you weren't too far off, Eric.

50-75S/0-25E according to your chart. Kinda between "The Buddha" and "The Christ" is about right, IMO.

Despite some issues I have with some of the wording of your questions, I was surprised by the accuracy of the results. Not bad, Eric. Not bad at all.

Prince

PS: And, I didn't even have a single "M" to subtract from the "S"s!

I was going to change my estimate to the quadrant above what I said, remembering your less "cynical" ideas.

But that's good; I'm in the same quadrant. Do you have a more exact score, for my records?

Thanks for doing the questionnaire. I'm still waiting for Rags. I think my original guess for you would be about right for him.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

No. It's your utter lack of understanding about how the natural world works. Everything that I've read from you (been lurking here for a few months) indicates that you couldn't possibly answer my questions. So I guess taking your ball and going home really is your only option.That would be no worse than reading the insults New Agers do to science every time they try to explain how things "really" work.

Well I'm really hoping you'll take your ball and go home. But that's OK you can always contribute to this thread if you want. I don't mind. I just have no hope that we could reach any meeting of the minds. Your ideas already seem to me terribly old-fashioned, and I might have moral concerns about them too. And I have already answered all your questions, as best as I ever could. But best wishes to you, and whatever works for you.

It is true that the truth can't be falsified, and when I observe intelligent life in trees, it is the truth. You can be false if you don't observe it.

You can determine some evidence for this, as with the research into the secret life of plants. I will look online when I have time, if I want to. There are degrees of consciousness, and you could falsify the observation by comparing a tree to a rock, or a human being. Trees do not have the degree of intelligent free will that humans do; I don't have to "anthropomorphize" them.

As for morals, you can't determine ethical truths with evidence, unless you are only interested in relativist ethics i.e. "situation ethics." It might work for that, but empirical studies do not result in principles, as they are partial views of reality. But you can develop natural laws, within the limits of uncertainty and symbology, about objects that are relatively dead and unconscious.

This is for any posters who may not have a good grasp of what the term "falsifiability" means in philosophy of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Within the philosophy of science falsifiability or refutability is a quality or characteristic of a scientific hypothesis or theory. Falsifiability is considered a positive (and often essential) quality of a hypothesis because it means that the hypothesis is testable by empirical experiment and thus conforms to the standards of scientific method. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false, rather it means that if it is false, then observation or experiment will at some point demonstrate its falsehood.


For example, the assertion that "all swans are white" is falsifiable, because it is logically possible that a swan can be found that is not white. Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice.^[1] For example, "It will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.

[Bold emphasis added]

Every assertion of fact about the observable world is falsifiable.

A statement that is not falsifiable is not an assertion of fact about the observable world. It may be an assertion of fact about something that is not observable, or it may be about the observable world but not an assertion of fact.

An example of an assertion of fact about something that is not observable is "Jesus still lives in Heaven." This is an assertion of fact, but as we cannot observe Heaven to ascertain whether or not Jesus still lives there, it isn't about the observable world and therefore is not falsifiable.

An example of a statement about the observable world that is not an assertion of fact is "[You should] do to others as you would have others do to you." This is referring to the observable world, but it makes a claim of value rather than a claim of fact; it is not falsifiable because there is no factual assertion to falsify.

As the quote states, that something is falsifiable doesn't mean it is false. For example, "the moon is in orbit around the Earth" is a falsifiable true statement. If it were false, we could disprove it by observing that there is no moon in orbit around the Earth, and that is what falsifiability means; there is no requirement that a test be performed actually showing that the statement is false (in this case that would be impossible, since the statement isn't false), only that the statement be of a nature that it could be proven false if it were (or is) false. The truth -- a true statement -- can be falsifiable.

Conversely, that a statement is not falsifiable doesn't mean it is true. For example, I can state, "The world we observe is actually the Matrix, and we are plugged into a virtual-reality net providing electricity for intelligent machines." This statement is not falsifiable, but we have no reason to believe it is true.

Falsifiability is not falsehood, and non-falsifiability is not truth. (Nor is the other way around the case, i.e., a falsifiable statement is not necessarily true. For example, the falsifiable statement from the quote above that all swans are white is in fact a false statement.)

A non-falsifiable statement is not a statement of fact about the observable world, but it may be an important assertion; certainly values statements are important assertions. However, any such statement occupies a different epistemic category from falsifiable assertions and requires a different criterion for judgment. A non-falsifiable, non-fact assertion cannot be true or false, but it can be valid or invalid.

The important thing is not to confuse these different epistemic categories. It's important to ask whether a statement that is not falsifiable, should be falsifiable. If it's an assertion of value, then the answer is no, and its non-falsifiability isn't a problem because we're not asking whether it's true or false. If it's a claim of fact, however, then the answer is yes, and if it is non-falsifiable then there is a problem with it. Thus, when someone makes a non-falsifiable assertion, it's important to clarify which of these sorts of statement it is.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This is for any posters who may not have a good grasp of what the term "falsifiability" means in philosophy of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability




[Bold emphasis added]

Every assertion of fact about the observable world is falsifiable.

A statement that is not falsifiable is not an assertion of fact about the observable world. It may be an assertion of fact about something that is not observable, or it may be about the observable world but not an assertion of fact.

An example of an assertion of fact about something that is not observable is "Jesus still lives in Heaven." This is an assertion of fact, but as we cannot observe Heaven to ascertain whether or not Jesus still lives there, it isn't about the observable world and therefore is not falsifiable.

An example of a statement about the observable world that is not an assertion of fact is "[You should] do to others as you would have others do to you." This is referring to the observable world, but it makes a claim of value rather than a claim of fact; it is not falsifiable because there is no factual assertion to falsify.

As the quote states, that something is falsifiable doesn't mean it is false. For example, "the moon is in orbit around the Earth" is a falsifiable true statement. If it were false, we could disprove it by observing that there is no moon in orbit around the Earth, and that is what falsifiability means; there is no requirement that a test be performed actually showing that the statement is false (in this case that would be impossible, since the statement isn't false), only that the statement be of a nature that it could be proven false if it were (or is) false. The truth -- a true statement -- can be falsifiable.

Conversely, that a statement is not falsifiable doesn't mean it is true. For example, I can state, "The world we observe is actually the Matrix, and we are plugged into a virtual-reality net providing electricity for intelligent machines." This statement is not falsifiable, but we have no reason to believe it is true.

Falsifiability is not falsehood, and non-falsifiability is not truth. (Nor is the other way around the case, i.e., a falsifiable statement is not necessarily true. For example, the falsifiable statement from the quote above that all swans are white is in fact a false statement.)

A non-falsifiable statement is not a statement of fact about the observable world, but it may be an important assertion; certainly values statements are important assertions. However, any such statement occupies a different epistemic category from falsifiable assertions and requires a different criterion for judgment. A non-falsifiable, non-fact assertion cannot be true or false, but it can be valid or invalid.

The important thing is not to confuse these different epistemic categories. It's important to ask whether a statement that is not falsifiable, should be falsifiable. If it's an assertion of value, then the answer is no, and its non-falsifiability isn't a problem because we're not asking whether it's true or false. If it's a claim of fact, however, then the answer is yes, and if it is non-falsifiable then there is a problem with it. Thus, when someone makes a non-falsifiable assertion, it's important to clarify which of these sorts of statement it is.

Actually, there is so such thing as a true statement about the observable world, there are only statements that APPROXIMATE the truth. Nothing can be verified as absolutely true, but things can be absolutely falsified. That is where Kant slipped up, he came to believe that Newtonian Mechanics was an absolute truth, and that contradicted Hume demonstrating the falsity of Induction, and thus came to the absurd conclusion that the laws of nature are all in our heads and we impose them on the world and we cannot conceive of things otherwise, which is, of course, nonsense.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well I'm really hoping you'll take your ball and go home. But that's OK you can always contribute to this thread if you want. I don't mind. I just have no hope that we could reach any meeting of the minds. Your ideas already seem to me terribly old-fashioned, and I might have moral concerns about them too.

Old fashioned? Since when does fashionable thought dictate what reality is. Science works. New Agism sells (to the gullible). I know which one I want supporting me.Only idiots prescribe to the naturalistic fallacy so don't bother implying it for me.

And I have already answered all your questions, as best as I ever could.

Which is to say "not at all".

But best wishes to you, and whatever works for you.

The best thing about the scientific process is that not only will it work for me but it will work for anyone. I just resent those who benefit from it while simultaneously denigrating or misrepresenting it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is true that the truth can't be falsified, and when I observe intelligent life in trees, it is the truth. You can be false if you don't observe it.

You don't observe any such thing. You want there to be intelligence so you either simply declare it to be there or so radically mangle the original meaning of them term that any observation you make is irrelevant to the case.For example, what exactly are you observing when you see intelligence in a tree? What tools are you using to make the observation? How are those tools calibrated so as to not register a false positive? What units are you measuring in? Real science is capable of answering those types of questions.

You can determine some evidence for this, as with the research into the secret life of plants.

Pseudoscientific nonsense is not evidence of anything beyond your own personal gullibility.

I will look online when I have time, if I want to. There are degrees of consciousness,

Really? Where are these degrees published? What protocols does one use to determine them? What degree of conscious is a giant kelp? How about a lichen? Are gymnosperms more or less conscious than angiosperms? How do you know?

and you could falsify the observation by comparing a tree to a rock, or a human being.

What exactly are we comparing? What units are we using? Is petrified wood in between a rock and a tree?

Trees do not have the degree of intelligent free will that humans do;

Assuming the question is a pathetically stupid fallacy to try and foist one someone who knows more about the topic than you do.

I don't have to "anthropomorphize" them.

You don't have to but without an objectively defined meaning to the term "intelligent", anthropomorphizing is the only thing you've got.

As for morals, you can't determine ethical truths with evidence, unless you are only interested in relativist ethics i.e. "situation ethics." It might work for that, but empirical studies do not result in principles, as they are partial views of reality. But you can develop natural laws, within the limits of uncertainty and symbology, about objects that are relatively dead and unconscious.

You are of course already assuming there is such a thing as an ethical truth. You never seem to bother with demonstrating such a thing actually exists.Science does not develop natural laws. Rather it seeks understanding of how the natural world works, in effect revealing any natural laws that exist.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Thanks for doing the questionnaire. I'm still waiting for Rags. I think my original guess for you would be about right for him.

OK. 4R 9S. I do think the questionnaire could use a bit of simplification: For each section, just add the E, R, S, and M's. Then just tote them up at the end, and just subtract the totals at the end with just 4 columns.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

You don't observe any such thing. You want there to be intelligence so you either simply declare it to be there or so radically mangle the original meaning of them term that any observation you make is irrelevant to the case.For example, what exactly are you observing when you see intelligence in a tree? What tools are you using to make the observation? How are those tools calibrated so as to not register a false positive? What units are you measuring in? Real science is capable of answering those types of questions.Pseudoscientific nonsense is not evidence of anything beyond your own personal gullibility.Really? Where are these degrees published? What protocols does one use to determine them? What degree of conscious is a giant kelp? How about a lichen? Are gymnosperms more or less conscious than angiosperms? How do you know?What exactly are we comparing? What units are we using? Is petrified wood in between a rock and a tree?Assuming the question is a pathetically stupid fallacy to try and foist one someone who knows more about the topic than you do.You don't have to but without an objectively defined meaning to the term "intelligent", anthropomorphizing is the only thing you've got.You are of course already assuming there is such a thing as an ethical truth. You never seem to bother with demonstrating such a thing actually exists.Science does not develop natural laws. Rather it seeks understanding of how the natural world works, in effect revealing any natural laws that exist.

You can't define intelligence objectively; that's a contradiction. Consciousness knows objects; it is not an object.

You are a true believer; just like a creationist, from the other side. Science is not the only way of knowledge, just because you say so.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

OK. 4R 9S. I do think the questionnaire could use a bit of simplification: For each section, just add the E, R, S, and M's. Then just tote them up at the end, and just subtract the totals at the end with just 4 columns.

I think the way I do it is the only way, but someday I'll check out the php link you posted, if I can remember which thread it's in. It may be in the thread named for he who shall not be named. I would have to be able to program it the way I score it; I would not simplify it to make it fit the program.

I'm surprised you came out as an S, but it's pretty close; you are a philosophical moderate.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

I just resent those who benefit from it while simultaneously denigrating or misrepresenting it.

And some Christians resent those who do not believe the Bible. You are just like them. Your resentment has no place in an honest discussion. Go home.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Music of the spheres is one of my favorite metaphors. The picture at the wikipedia site also depicts the stairway to heaven (which I have been referring to in the higher visions for the future thread), which is the same thing. And the stairway is in yourself in your chakra centers, which are your interior planets. Note the snake in the picture; that's what it refers to. It is interesting that they seem to sound a major chord. They are also linked symbolically to the musical scale, which is based on mathematical proportions. C, F and G are the essential notes in all musical scales. Colors and vowel tones are also linked to this planetary ladder. The holographic hermetic principle, as above, so below (as within, so without), is basic to the universe.

The planets are arranged in a stairway to heaven in two different ways: outer to inner (Saturn to Sun), and inner to outer (Earth to Saturn). The latter is used in the picture, with the Sun taking the place of earth in the actual orbits; the former is used in astrology and in my Bach essay, in which the zodiac signs ruled by each planet replace the muses. Both ways are referred to by alchemists and philosophers.

It is interesting that in the picture, the 8th sphere is named Urania, traditionally meaning the fixed stars; and in fact later the 8th planet was named Uranus.

-- Led Zep for the New Age. But then Jimmy's into Crowley so he probably knows about this stuff

Originally Posted by sonrisa

-- Led Zep for the New Age. But then Jimmy's into Crowley so he probably knows about this stuff

All about it; and Robert too.

my essay on Stairway to Heaven

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think the way I do it is the only way, but someday I'll check out the php link you posted, if I can remember which thread it's in.

You have that already. There's just some cruft between that and the end of the questionnaire.

It may be in the thread named for he who shall not be named.

The "he who shall not be named" is OK to write now. I've proxied that out as Ratt now.

I would have to be able to program it the way I score it; I would not simplify it to make it fit the program.

You don't want bloatware do you?

I'm surprised you came out as an S, but it's pretty close; you are a philosophical moderate.

Magnetite crystals in the human brain open up all manner of possibilities. Then you have this. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Blind...s-122855.shtml

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

The "he who shall not be named" is OK to write now. I've proxied that out as Ratt now.

I guess the php link is there, but I don't remember.

You don't want bloatware do you?

The scoring is carefully calculated; that's why it's such a good test

Then you have this. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Blind...s-122855.shtml

Budding pin ball wizards! Tommy can you hear me?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You can't define intelligence objectively; that's a contradiction. Consciousness knows objects; it is not an object.

So it's like porn then? You know it when you see it? If it can't be defined, then how can any two people ever share their results? If it's impossible for there to ever be agreement about it, in what way could your "observations" ever be of any use to someone else? How do measure a tree "knowing" an object? You've simply substituted another undefined term in place of the original undefined term! In other words you are just making it up as you go along.

You are a true believer; just like a creationist, from the other side.

Science does not require belief. It can objectively be demonstrated to work. Equating it to creationism is pathetic and wishful thinking on your part.

Science is not the only way of knowledge, just because you say so.

Science is the only way to generate objective knowledge that can be repeatedly demonstrated to be an accurate description of how the natural world works.Trees are not conscious just because you say so.