There is one power in the universe, and that is the divine power.

We are all expressions of it.

The universe flows from within outward, through billions upon billions of beings.

We may disagree, and likely will continue to; but at least on a higher spirit level, my love goes out to all. I appreciate all your opinions. Love makes the world go round, and motivates everything. It is in all of us, in our own unique ways.

Science is an expression of the divine power, working through scientists. I am grateful for all the good they have given us.

Originally Posted by Odin

This is simply false and shows your own ignorance more than anything.

Science knows very little about life. You have the faith that it will know more. I do not wish to stifle or stop it from knowing what it can, but indeed am interested. I also know that life is always more than what can be reduced into a system or formula; and I have faith that we can all someday realize the Truth that all life expresses the divine.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There is one power in the universe, and that is the divine power.

We are all expressions of it.

The universe flows from within outward, through billions upon billions of beings.

We may disagree, and likely will continue to; but at least on a higher spirit level, my love goes out to all. I appreciate all your opinions. Love makes the world go round, and motivates everything. It is in all of us, in our own unique ways.

Science is an expression of the divine power, working through scientists. I am grateful for all the good they have given us.

I believe I'm generally with you on this, Eric.

Good post, IMO.

Sincerely, Prince

PS:!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I understand that the cause-and-effect approach to understanding and dealing with the world, that there is a "rational explanation" for things, though it may not be true, is a valuable way of looking at things. It enables us to answer questions about the origin of problems, and to plan solutions to obstacles. It is the basis of engineering and planning. At the same time, those who abide in the R/M quadrant of the philosophy wheel, need to appreciate the value of the other 3 quadrants, just as I appreciate the value of the rationalist quadrant that is opposite to mine.

Except for all the times you lie about what rational thought actually means.

If you don't do that, you risk cutting yourself off from the other side of your brain/mind, (the right side specifically in "your" case, rational-materialists); and you lose touch with the deeper aspects of your being besides the physical.

The right/left sides of your brain being different viewpoints is a myth. But, since you don't want that to be true, you'll go ahead and ignore or lie about the science.

I hope I can make that point in my book, that all the quadrants and directions are valuable. To be too dogmatic and pronounce the other quadrants as "superstition," as many of our materialists here do, is to lose valuable parts of yourself, and lose access to parts of the universe too. Such an extremist philosophy is in fact quite dangerous to human and planetary health and sanity.

There is a distinct difference between ethical/moral reasoning and the "touchy-feely" nonsense of New Age superstitions.

Science and its method of investigation is dedicated to what can be verified, beyond what may be our personal prejudices, preconceptions, fantasies and desires. That is valuable.

Then why do you constantly reject what science has discovered about your New Age hokum?

At the same time, with its severe, systematic and logical approach, it restricts us from the side of us that expresses creativity, feelings, wonder and imagination; the realm of arts and spirituality.

You are making it abundantly clear that you don't have the slightest clue how scientists actually work. Your view of the discipline is an age old stereotype of the uncreative, nerd. Real, practicing scientists are some of the most creative thinkers ther are. It takes incredible feats of imagination to generate multiple hypotheses and to devise effective means for testing them. Only a creative mind could figure out that you can use the color of the sun's light in order to determine what it is made of. Galileo was able to prove that all objects fall with the same acceleration through the use of an imagined scenario. Only science illiterates think he figured it out by dropping weights from a tower.

You don't know the first thing about science or the way scientists think.

So, do you want to lose either of these kinds of faculties? I can't very well be a loyal part of the "blue" political team if I disown the value of facts. That is dangerous too! Nor can I be a true boomer prophet if I deny the value and higher truths of spirituality, the arts and imagination, which is where my heart is.

How exactly do you determine how "high" a truth is?

The "awe" Odin claims, is not really awe at all, to the extent that he claims it can all be explained away by science. There is indeed the wonder of discovery in science of things not known before. That wonder is crushed the moment you think you have found the answers and locked them up in a dogmatic materialism philosophy.

No it isn't. The only ones who feel "crushed" by scientific discovery are woo peddlers that have found out that what they thought was real was in fact only in their head.

It is this philosophy that I criticize, not science itself. Nor has anyone here successfully claimed that I don't understand science; they merely abandoned the discussion, or resorted to mere insults and disrespect.

Every statement you make on the subject confirms and strengthens the conclusion that you only think you understand science.

Modern science is considered by many new agers to be perfectly compatible with their views.

Because they only think they understand it. They rely upon a heavy confirmation bias in order to ignore the evidence that flatly refutes their beliefs.

Indeterminacy and uncertainty do not prove them, perhaps, but they make room for them.

No, they don't. Anyone making that claim is only pretending to understand what quantum mechanics is all about. Please go learn something about scaling effects and stochastic processes.

If mechanical causation is inadequate to explain indeterminacy and uncertainty, then the universe contains a maybe, and freedom and spontaneity exist.

Quantum effects are only evident at quantum scales. The stochastic nature of quantum effects makes events at our personal scale completely mechanical in nature.

The ultimate "cause" is simply the presence, which spiritualists call the soul or the divine. There is every opportunity for it to expand within the evolution of life and its complexity.

Pure, gobbledygook. Please provide evidence that an "ultimate cause" actually exists and then we can discuss explanations of what it might be. You don't get to skip a step just because you want to.

This conscious life remains beyond the purview of rationalist science, but is no less real for that, because it is our experience. There is no need to postulate a source of explanation for it beyond nature, because what materialists call "supernatural" is simply a part of the universe as it really is.

If it's part of the universe then by definition it is natural, not supernatural. If it's part of this universe then it will be measurable in some way. Why are all the New Age claims unable to be measured?

Without it indeed there is no wonder or awe, and indeed no-one wondering and in awe.

If I criticize and reject dogmatic materialism, it is because it does not serve me in my quest. Spiritualism is what serves it. So just because materialism claims credit for the tools of civilization, and denies the problems it also causes, does not mean I have to be a materialist.

Few scientists deny that choices we make concerning technology come with risks and side effects. Mostly corporations and their politician schills claim things are "side-effect" free. In fact, it's often the work of real scientists who bring to light the nature and possible severity of those "side-effects". Think Rachel Carson, Carl Sagan, EO Wilson, James Oppenheimer . . .

Materialism by itself is not true. That is the salient point.

Considering how little science you actually know, you'll pardon me if I don't just take your word for it.

What's more, the laws of quantum mechanics, and the life of imagination (as Einstein declared), are even more important to material progress itself than the tenets of rationalist materialism.

You don't know the first thing about quantum mechanics. And, Einstein is the last physicist you should quote on that particular subject. He despised the stochastic nature of the quantum world. He spent his last few years in a vain search for some possibly underlying mechanical explanation for it. Einstein was completely wrong about that.

I really know I am bored and tired when I actually read one of the vandal-troll's posts. Not gonna answer tho. Now that would really be exhausting! Time for beddie bye! (11 PM pacific time). Good morning and good night!

I see anyone who calls Eric out on his absolute arrogant willful ignorance and inability to think logically is called a troll and put on ignore. He responds to any criticism of his nonsense by regurgitating the nonsense being criticized as if if were a valid rebuttal.

No different then a little kid sticking his fingers in his ears and going "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

Originally Posted by Odin

I see anyone who calls Eric out on his absolute arrogant willful ignorance and inability to think logically is called a troll and put on ignore. He responds to any criticism of his nonsense by regurgitating the nonsense being criticized as if if were a valid rebuttal.

No different then a little kid sticking his fingers in his ears and going "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

One possible distinction. The hypothetical little kid might possibly grow up.

Originally Posted by B Butler

One possible distinction. The hypothetical little kid might possibly grow up.

In the vandal troll's case, there is nothing to hear except screaching nonsense.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

In the vandal troll's case, there is nothing to hear except screaching nonsense.

Well, there is nothing you are interested in or capable of hearing, but this would be, of course, mutual.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Well, there is nothing you are interested in or capable of hearing, but this would be, of course, mutual.

There is nothing mutual here. If you guys are interested in a dialogue, I would participate, and have done so respectfully, and knowledgably. If you just want to put out your dogma and insults, you can do that, but you certainly don't need my response, nor would you be interested in it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There is nothing mutual here. If you guys are interested in a dialogue, I would participate, and have done so respectfully, and knowledgeably. If you just want to put out your dogma and insults, you can do that, but you certainly don't need my response, nor would you be interested in it.

Those who attempted to be respectful seem to have given up. The more recent participants, less so. Still, when the methods of acquiring knowledge and the understanding of the nature of knowledge are pretty well incompatible, dialogue isn't dialogue. It becomes two factions lecturing the air, neither listening. Respect is very hard to keep.

Not that this thread is unique in this respect.

Originally Posted by Vandal72

Quantum effects are only evident at quantum scales. The stochastic nature of quantum effects makes events at our personal scale completely mechanical in nature.

Cross-reference quantum mechanics with chaos theory and that ceases to be true. Processes that are infinitely sensitive to initial conditions, and hence indeterminate in practice, are also indeterminate in theory when the initial conditions are themselves indeterminate as the uncertainty principle requires.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Those who attempted to be respectful seem to have given up. The more recent participants, less so.

The most recent participants are the least respectful (e.g. vandal, kinser).

Still, when the methods of acquiring knowledge and the understanding of the nature of knowledge are pretty well incompatible, dialogue isn't dialogue. It becomes two factions lecturing the air, neither listening. Respect is very hard to keep.

Not that this thread is unique in this respect.

Unless it is understood that there ARE in fact many ways to acquire knowledge, and different kinds of knowledge, as I have said (and I even think you have agreed).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The most recent participants are the least respectful (e.g. vandal, kinser).

I've not even been in this thread yet. I simply can't bring myself to care over much. That said, Eric will be respected when he is worthy of it. IE. He shuts up about his woo "theories", and stops denigrating the science that makes it possible for him to peddle his trash on the internet to start with.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Cross-reference quantum mechanics with chaos theory and that ceases to be true. Processes that are infinitely sensitive to initial conditions, and hence indeterminate in practice, are also indeterminate in theory when the initial conditions are themselves indeterminate as the uncertainty principle requires.

Actual, real world example?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There is nothing mutual here. If you guys are interested in a dialogue, I would participate, and have done so respectfully, and knowledgably. If you just want to put out your dogma and insults, you can do that, but you certainly don't need my response, nor would you be interested in it.

What I take issue with is the fact that you keep claiming you "understand" the science while at the same time making statements that are patently untrue. If you would stop pretending you know the science involved, a dialogue could develop. But, no discussion is possible if one side just keeps making things up as they go along. That might be entertaining for some people, but for me it is a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The most recent participants are the least respectful (e.g. vandal, kinser).

Says the guy who lies about what scientists have discovered and about how they work.

Unless it is understood that there ARE in fact many ways to acquire knowledge, and different kinds of knowledge, as I have said (and I even think you have agreed).

There is only one way to acquire knowledge about how the universe works. If you wish to discuss other things then by all means go ahead. Just don't expect me to sit silently by when you start making stuff up about how the natural world works.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I've not even been in this thread yet. I simply can't bring myself to care over much. That said, Eric will be respected when he is worthy of it. IE. He shuts up about his woo "theories", and stops denigrating the science that makes it possible for him to peddle his trash on the internet to start with.

No can do. I guess I will never be worthy. Of course, I have not been denigrating science at all, but the stupid scientism philosophy. But having made that clear already, and not been understood, means it is unlikely that this point will be understood now. Who the bleep are you to say someone should shut about some theory you call woo woo? What an arrogant bit of nonsense, and really stupid too. You're off my ignore list for now; we'll see... respect is due me, however, in enough measure to merit more of a thoughtful dialogue with me; otherwise, there is no use, and I won't engage in one with you; there's no point.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Says the guy who lies about what scientists have discovered and about how they work...

There is only one way to acquire knowledge about how the universe works. If you wish to discuss other things then by all means go ahead. Just don't expect me to sit silently by when you start making stuff up about how the natural world works.

In Eric's reality there are spiritual truths that can be learned through spiritual methods. Different people using similar spiritual methods should find the same sort of basic Truths. One can make a case that various groups of pacifist spiritualists have come to similar conclusions, though Eric occasionally steps out of the envelope, taking the odd position that is inconsistent with my own dabbling in occult spiritualism. At a guess, he is not yet an Ascended Master.

Of course, methods of spiritually proving that a spiritual truth is indeed Truth will often not be convincing to those who don't embrace spiritualism. [/undertatement] It's hard to explain, but you should assume that if you spent enough time meditating properly you would realize that Eric is always right in spiritual matters. [/irony]

He will sometimes distinguish between spiritualist truths in the spiritualist realm and more objective truths that fall in the realm of science. He will sometimes acknowledge that one can learn much through science. That's fine when he stays consistent, but he'll at times try to explain science to someone who knows and respects science more than he does. When one of his spiritually proven spiritualist ideas is conflicted by science, it follows that the science must be wrong. For some reason, the scientists sometimes question this.

He doesn't seem to get that such conversation results in bad karma, is apt to lead to conflict, strife and petty name calling. One has difficulty achieving harmony, inner tranquility and beauty while telling scientists how science works, and doing the telling badly. Still, it is sometimes necessary for him to disparage this bit of science or that. Otherwise, he would have to reevaluate spiritual truths he has grown fond of.

Of course, explaining to an evangelical that his interpretation of the Bible isn't the only possible interpretation leads to similar bad karma. Explaining to conservatives that the Laffer Curve that proposes decreasing tax rates increases tax income seldom if ever works is also bad karma. Contradicting anyone's core beliefs is apt to produce bad karma.

Which is the core of why many to most of the discussions one encounters in these forums feature bad karma.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No can do. I guess I will never be worthy.

That is your choice, not mine. Considering we are talking about things that are based on your actions.

Of course, I have not been denigrating science at all, but the stupid scientism philosophy.

But you have. You claim things about science that are patently false. In which case there are two options. Option 1 you don't know anything about science and therefore should be ignored. Option 2 you are lying about science and therefore should be ignored.

Also there is no such philosophy as "scientism". Thats just a word you made up and as no other person seems to recognize it as having a meaning--it is therefore meaningless.

But having made that clear already, and not been understood, means it is unlikely that this point will be understood now.

When you make a point that isn't an inane rambling of a person who is incredibly ignorant of science and philosophy perhaps then you will be understood. Until that time happens--well I have very little faith that anything you say will even be a point worth considering for longer than a millisecond.

Who the bleep are you to say someone should shut about some theory you call woo woo?

It should be obvious who I am. I am Kinser and when you start making up nonsense about souls, bacteria having consciousness and etc I will tell you to shut up because you ARE talking from your ass.

What an arrogant bit of nonsense, and really stupid too. You're off my ignore list for now; we'll see... respect is due me, however, in enough measure to merit more of a thoughtful dialogue with me; otherwise, there is no use, and I won't engage in one with you; there's no point.

Respect is due to those who deserve it. You'll get it when you deserve it Eric, I do not discriminate with respect. As it stands I will require evidence that you can have a thoughtful dialog with a materialist and/or scientist without resorting to making shit up, insulting science, insulting materialism and talking from your ass. Until this happens I'll have no reason to respect your views about anything. You certainly don't respect my views.

And for the record I was not in this thread because I've already had a long thread about philosophy and quite frankly I have better things to do--like pay bills, or eat a sandwich. As such I sincerely hope that this will be my last post in this thread.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I've not even been in this thread yet. I simply can't bring myself to care over much. That said, Eric will be respected when he is worthy of it. IE. He shuts up about his woo "theories", and stops denigrating the science that makes it possible for him to peddle his trash on the internet to start with.

Now you know why I call him Eric the Obtuse because he has no actual chance of ever growing a clue. Fortunately he put me on his ignore list so I don't have to put up with his insanity anymore.

Originally Posted by Galen

Now you know why I call him Eric the Obtuse because he has no actual chance of ever growing a clue. Fortunately he put me on his ignore list so I don't have to put up with his insanity anymore.

I'm jealous.

No seriously, Eric's main problem is tone. He doesn't mind his tone when dealing with people who actually know science and accept that as the only way to know anything about the natural world.

If he did, perhaps I'd find him less irritating than I do now.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Actual, real world example?

Good heavens, there are tons of them. Turbulence in water flow. Smoke rising from a cigarette. The weather. Most relevant to the current discussion, synaptic activity in the brain. All of these being described by the form of equation that is infinitely sensitive to initial conditions, making prediction impossible as a practical matter because large changes in outcomes result from very small errors or imprecision in measurement of starting conditions even when strict determinism of those conditions is assumed.

Since quantum mechanics tells us that the initial conditions are in fact NOT determined, the indeterminacy-in-practice that chaos presents becomes indeterminacy-in-theory as well. The universe is indeterminate at the subatomic level, and most macroscopic natural processes preserve this indeterminacy, but a few (e.g., the orbits of the planets, some chemical reactions, and other processes that are predictable mechanistically) suppress it so that indeterminacy is not measurable at the macro scale. We have every reason to believe, though, that human behavior falls into the larger category of processes that transmit the indeterminacy rather than suppressing it.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

That is your choice, not mine. Considering we are talking about things that are based on your actions.



But you have. You claim things about science that are patently false. In which case there are two options. Option 1 you don't know anything about science and therefore should be ignored. Option 2 you are lying about science and therefore should be ignored.

Also there is no such philosophy as "scientism". Thats just a word you made up and as no other person seems to recognize it as having a meaning--it is therefore meaningless.



When you make a point that isn't an inane rambling of a person who is incredibly ignorant of science and philosophy perhaps then you will be understood. Until that time happens--well I have very little faith that anything you say will even be a point worth considering for longer than a millisecond.



It should be obvious who I am. I am Kinser and when you start making up nonsense about souls, bacteria having consciousness and etc I will tell you to shut up because you ARE talking from your ass.



Respect is due to those who deserve it. You'll get it when you deserve it Eric, I do not discriminate with respect. As it stands I will require evidence that you can have a thoughtful dialog with a materialist and/or scientist without resorting to making shit up, insulting science, insulting materialism and talking from your ass. Until this happens I'll have no reason to respect your views about anything. You certainly don't respect my views.

And for the record I was not in this thread because I've already had a long thread about philosophy and quite frankly I have better things to do--like pay bills, or eat a sandwich. As such I sincerely hope that this will be my last post in this thread.

I like to debunk materialism whenever I can, as a false ideology that is built on a foundation of sand. There is no matter except energy, and considering that "energy" is defined as "what can do work," this is equivalent to defining it as that which "causes" things. But we know that assignment of causes is an infinite regress, which leads back to the divine presence as the only cause or only power. Defining matter as the object of a particular method of knowledge, as Brian and Kinser have done, makes more sense. Then you need to be mindful of the limits of that particular logical and empirical technique. It does not follow that pointing out the limits of the concept of "matter" or the technique of knowing it, is an attack on or a trashing of science. There is no point in dialogue with people like Galen or Vandal, who have decided that I "don't have a clue" no matter what I ever say. And Kinser seems close to that attitude, at least on this subject if not others. But that is their decision and there's nothing I can do about it. So, I do hope you enjoy your sandwich

Those who have an attachment or commitment of some kind to materialism (or libertarian politics, in the case of Galen), will not easily look at the possibility that their philosophy is full of errors and delusion. It is up to them to arrive at a mental and spiritual place of greater curiosity and wonder, and then ask these questions for themselves. It is up to them also to respect people with views that differ from their own, or not. Meanwhile, I am grateful for science, scientists, and all their achievements, mindful I am as well of the dangers involved. Just as I need to be aware of potential problems and dangers of deception in the new age field. I understand there is some value in looking at things materialistically, and so I see a place for materialism on the philosophy wheel-- a scheme of mine (which corresponds in some measure to other similar schemes) which allows people to see the relationship among the various views.

Scientism as defined by wikipedia

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Also there is no such philosophy as "scientism".

Actually, that's untrue, although its adherents don't call it that.

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

Scientism is usually applied to a willingness to apply scientific method (or pretend to) where it cannot apply and isn't appropriate, such as in answering values questions or aesthetic questions, or to dismiss all other methods of learning and all questions that can't be addressed by scientific method as inferior or without significance or meaning.

I would not necessarily agree with Eric's application of the term, of course.