Originally Posted by Kinser79

Now if we're done here can I go back to pretending you don't exist?

If I don't exist in your mind, I don't exist. Berkeley reincarnate!

The laws of nature don't care whether you accept them as true or not. If you jump off a building and try to fly it is an objective truth that you are going to end up squashed dead on the pavement no matter how strongly you believe you are flying.

This is why I find Idealism laughable.

Originally Posted by Odin

The laws of nature don't care whether you accept them as true or not. If you jump off a building and try to fly it is an objective truth that you are going to end up squashed dead on the pavement no matter how strongly you believe you are flying.

This is why I find Idealism laughable.

But because some people had ideas, they were able to make airplanes and use the laws of nature to their advantage.

There are no laws of nature except in a mind perceiving them. A rock doesn't die if it falls off a building. Neither does a ghost. Ask a rock what the "laws of nature" are and see what it answers.

Also, there are subjective differences in how people are affected when they fall. Some people survive jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge; most do not. One strong, confident guy deliberately did it and survived. A fit spiritual adept can eventually learn to handle anything.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/bay-...jail-time-fine

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No good. You have to assume the conclusion before that can suffice as evidence. You're still not observing the universe when no one is observing it, and that's what you need to do.

Pure doublespeak. Philosophy enthusiasts are useless.

That's not what I'm claiming. Anyone claiming that reality is only a figment is making the same mistake you are: asserting an answer to a question that can't be answered.

Useless.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But because some people had ideas, they were able to make airplanes and use the laws of nature to their advantage.

There are no laws of nature except in a mind perceiving them.

Utter crap. The laws of gravitational attraction were at work billions of years before any known "minds" existed. You are attempting to equate how we mathematically express or describe a law with the actual observed relationship within the universe. That's just pure sophistry.

A rock doesn't die if it falls off a building.

Notice how Eric completely changed the subject be misrepresenting Odin's statement?

Eric, is dishonesty a part of your New Age spirituality as well as utter nonsense?

Neither does a ghost.

"Neither do slythy toves." What's your point? Why would anyone claim that imaginary creations would "die"?

Ask a rock what the "laws of nature" are and see what it answers.

Proving Odin's point for him now? It doesn't matter whether the rock "knows" about the laws. It will still obey them.

Also, there are subjective differences in how people are affected when they fall.

No there aren't. All bodies fall with the same acceleration. Their motion is then subject to buoyancy forces and frictional resistance due to the presence of the atmosphere. Those counter forces will vary from body to body depending on shapes, materials, weights, etc. There is no subjectivity about any of that.

Some people survive jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge; most do not. One strong, confident guy deliberately did it and survived.

Many, strong confident people have fallen and not survived. Eleven fell to their deaths during construction.

Many "emotionally weak", non confident people have intentionally jumped and survived as well.

Survival is dependent upon the vectors of the various forces, momentum and time of impulse during impact. Personal confidence has nothing to do with any of that.

A fit spiritual adept can eventually learn to handle anything.

Horsefeathers! Pick 100 of your most fit spiritual adepts and get them to jump. Want to take bets on the number of survivors?

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/bay-...jail-time-fine

The article does not support your claim. It just says a teenager did survive. It says nothing about him being trained in your New Age woo.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Utter crap. The laws of gravitational attraction were at work billions of years before any known "minds" existed. You are attempting to equate how we mathematically express or describe a law with the actual observed relationship within the universe. That's just pure sophistry.

Your whole world is sophistry. Without minds there are no "laws." Laws are a human invention. Who invented you? Whoever it was, needs to try again.

Notice how Eric completely changed the subject be misrepresenting Odin's statement?

Eric, is dishonesty a part of your New Age spirituality as well as utter nonsense?

No, you have the corner on nonsense, my dear. Nothing you have written here on this site is honest in the least.

"Neither do slythy toves." What's your point? Why would anyone claim that imaginary creations would "die"?

Your narrow-minded arrogance bores the poop outta me.

Proving Odin's point for him now? It doesn't matter whether the rock "knows" about the laws. It will still obey them.

How do you know? You have rocks in your head. Without a human mind, noone can ever discuss or discover any laws of nature at all.

No there aren't. All bodies fall with the same acceleration. Their motion is then subject to buoyancy forces and frictional resistance due to the presence of the atmosphere. Those counter forces will vary from body to body depending on shapes, materials, weights, etc. There is no subjectivity about any of that.

Different people will get hurt, or not, differently depending on their attitude, fitness level, and spiritual adeptness. People can learn to live through pain and not get injured. It's all in the reaction.

Many, strong confident people have fallen and not survived. Eleven fell to their deaths during construction.

Many "emotionally weak", non confident people have intentionally jumped and survived as well.

Only 28 have survived. That's not many. See, you don't know your facts. You never do, wise guy. You are just a troll, and I am ignoring you. I'm writing because I have nothing better to do than answer your absolute, unalloyed nonsense.

Horsefeathers! Pick 100 of your most fit spiritual adepts and get them to jump. Want to take bets on the number of survivors?

Learn about martial arts and what adepts can do, then come back and say that. Debate over.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Your whole world is sophistry. Without minds there are no "laws." Laws are a human invention. Who invented you? Whoever it was, needs to try again.

Do you even comprehend the difference between discovering and inventing?

Saying that human minds "invented the law of inertia" is ridiculous. Bodies in motion tended to stay in motion regardless if there was a human mind around to describe it.

No, you have the corner on nonsense, my dear. Nothing you have written here on this site is honest in the least.

Are you just going to pretend that you didn't misrepresent Odin's statement? You are aware that anyone can see exactly what you did, right?

Your narrow-minded arrogance bores the poop outta me.

Bored or not, ghosts are still imaginary.

How do you know? You have rocks in your head. Without a human mind, noone can ever discuss or discover any laws of nature at all.

And yet, even without human minds, stars formed through gravitational laws for billions of years. We know because looking at stars that are light years away, is directly observing those stars as they were years ago in the past.

Different people will get hurt, or not, differently depending on their attitude, fitness level, and spiritual adeptness. People can learn to live through pain and not get injured. It's all in the reaction.

All of that is irrelevant when falling from a great height.

Only 28 have survived. That's not many.

It's more than you cited supporting your claim which so far has been zero.

If some one ate 28 donuts, you wouldn't describe that as "many"? Are you sure you are a native speaker of English?

See, you don't know your facts. You never do, wise guy. You are just a troll, and I am ignoring you. I'm writing because I have nothing better to do than answer your absolute, unalloyed nonsense.

Self contradiction is par for the course from you. Still, it doesn't have to occur within subsequent sentences. At least try to hide your dishonesty.

Learn about martial arts and what adepts can do, then come back and say that. Debate over.

No need. Pick your 100 adepts. Convince them that they will all be just fine and then have them jump. I'll be waiting to see the results.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Learn about martial arts and what adepts can do, then come back and say that. Debate over.

You mean martial artists like Bruce Lee? Perhaps the most physically gifted and developed man in centuries. He died.... From taking aspirin.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You mean martial artists like Bruce Lee? Perhaps the most physically gifted and developed man in centuries. He died.... From taking aspirin.

He should have known better than to rely on conventional medicine, instead of his own abilities.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

He should have known better than to rely on conventional medicine, instead of his own abilities.

You know whats funny....Aspirin which is perhaps the safest of all NSAIDS was originally developed from an "Alternative" herbal treatment. White Willow Bark tea to be precise.

So I would say that if your standard for "alternative" medicine is herbs, then you really aren't using alternative medicine. In fact herbal treatments and supplements have become quite common in conventional medicine in Europe--particularly amongst the heavily philosophically materialist Germans. Of course then again they also don't run their health care systems on a for profit basis.

So I would say the problem is not "conventional" or "alternative" medicine--all treatments can become just medicine if they can be scientifically shown to work--but rather the capitalistic nature of American Sick-care.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

You know whats funny....Aspirin which is perhaps the safest of all NSAIDS was originally developed from an "Alternative" herbal treatment. White Willow Bark tea to be precise.

So I would say that if your standard for "alternative" medicine is herbs, then you really aren't using alternative medicine. In fact herbal treatments and supplements have become quite common in conventional medicine in Europe--particularly amongst the heavily philosophically materialist Germans. Of course then again they also don't run their health care systems on a for profit basis.

So I would say the problem is not "conventional" or "alternative" medicine--all treatments can become just medicine if they can be scientifically shown to work--but rather the capitalistic nature of American Sick-care.

I've found that the best way to blow the minds of the Woo-Woos is to remind them that the active compound in St. John's Wort is an SSRI, just like Prozac.

A molecule is a molecule, whether it is harvested from a plant or synthesized in a lab is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

You know whats funny....Aspirin which is perhaps the safest of all NSAIDS was originally developed from an "Alternative" herbal treatment. White Willow Bark tea to be precise.

So I would say that if your standard for "alternative" medicine is herbs, then you really aren't using alternative medicine. In fact herbal treatments and supplements have become quite common in conventional medicine in Europe--particularly amongst the heavily philosophically materialist Germans. Of course then again they also don't run their health care systems on a for profit basis.

So I would say the problem is not "conventional" or "alternative" medicine--all treatments can become just medicine if they can be scientifically shown to work--but rather the capitalistic nature of American Sick-care.

How do you know that the Germans are materialists? Have you administered my questionnaire to them? What other questionnaire exists besides mine that would be at all accurate?

Alternative in America is still alternative in our experience. We don't live in Germany; at least I don't. Everybody knows the Germans are smarter than Americans.

If woo-woo can be scientifically shown to "work," then it is no longer woo-woo, is what you are saying. "All treatments" would include things like chakra energy healing and such other things you don't believe in. It might depend on the standard of evidence you apply; how statistically significant do results need to be. Then, I suppose, you might speculate that there are physical explanations for why they work, even though there are none. Testing for physical results can certainly be done though, as is done for meditation.

Originally Posted by Odin

I've found that the best way to blow the minds of the Woo-Woos is to remind them that the active compound in St. John's Wort is an SSRI, just like Prozac.

A molecule is a molecule, whether it is harvested from a plant or synthesized in a lab is irrelevant.

I don't think so. Usually there are other things added to pills, are there not? Plus, our "woo-woo" idea says that how alive the food is makes a difference. It's not just the chemical composition of nutrients that make for good nutrition, for example. If you process the life out of it, it is less valuable to the body; less easy for the body to digest and process. That said, I still think pills are valuable, and I take them. Most nutritionists agree though, that it is better to get vitamins from food than from a pill. They seem to have evidence for this statement.

It is interesting though that conventional medicine assumes that medicine is man-made and merely chemical, when most of it is really the gift of other living beings to us (I don't mean literally, deliberately a gift to us now, Odin; it is the joyful generosity and abundance of life and its desire to propagate itself; an aliveness which we can see, but maybe not yet prove to you guys). And we take so little mind of this that we are killing a lot of these species off with our pollution and global warming.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

How do you know that the Germans are materialists? Have you administered my questionnaire to them? What other questionnaire exists besides mine that would be at all accurate?

I know because I've been to Germany several times. They have a cultural lean toward materialism--that is they base their knowledge on science, and even their version of Boomers shy away from woo woo nonsense. As to your questionnaire, I already told you it was heavily biased so it is not accurate in the least.

Alternative in America is still alternative in our experience. We don't live in Germany; at least I don't. Everybody knows the Germans are smarter than Americans.

Well the dumbest German is probably smarter than you, Eric, but that isn't saying much. I would say that they are less culturally backwards than Americans and that is about it. Otherwise they score about the same on standardized tests as Americans.

If woo-woo can be scientifically shown to "work," then it is no longer woo-woo, is what you are saying. "All treatments" would include things like chakra energy healing and such other things you don't believe in.

Conduct a double blind study using Chakra Energy Healing whatchamacallits and we'll see. The point is if a treatment works and its origin is woo woo apply science to it and if science confirms that it works and works nearly all the time it stops being woo woo and starts being a weapon in the arsenal of medicine.

I see no contradiction to such a statement to anything that I believe in.

It might depend on the standard of evidence you apply; how statistically significant do results need to be. Then, I suppose, you might speculate that there are physical explanations for why they work, even though there are none. Testing for physical results can certainly be done though, as is done for meditation.

Usually when it comes to medical conditions there is a physical cause. So I'll look to science to explain how something works rather than woo woo. As such my standards are the consistent scientific ones.

Originally Posted by Odin

I've found that the best way to blow the minds of the Woo-Woos is to remind them that the active compound in St. John's Wort is an SSRI, just like Prozac.

A molecule is a molecule, whether it is harvested from a plant or synthesized in a lab is irrelevant.

Yes and no. Sometimes the synthetic is vastly inferior in treatment to the non-synthesized. I think that this may have to do with other compounds in the plant derived medicines. Marinol for example is a tincture of cannabis but it is reported to be inferior for medical use to the natural product itself. I think that it may have something to do with the other compounds that are present in marijuana that are not present in Marinol.

This of course has nothing to do with whatever Woo Eric was babbling about and has a lot more to do with chemistry.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Yes and no. Sometimes the synthetic is vastly inferior in treatment to the non-synthesized. I think that this may have to do with other compounds in the plant derived medicines. Marinol for example is a tincture of cannabis but it is reported to be inferior for medical use to the natural product itself. I think that it may have something to do with the other compounds that are present in marijuana that are not present in Marinol.

This of course has nothing to do with whatever Woo Eric was babbling about and has a lot more to do with chemistry.

Point taken.

I find it both hilarious and pathetic when woo-woos call some natural plant compound "Mother Earth's gift to Humanity" or some such Neo-Pagan BS when in reality most of these substances are natural pesticides that evolved to discourage herbivorous insects.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I know because I've been to Germany several times. They have a cultural lean toward materialism--that is they base their knowledge on science, and even their version of Boomers shy away from woo woo nonsense. As to your questionnaire, I already told you it was heavily biased so it is not accurate in the least.

So scientific, you are! You have told me, it must be so! You've been there; you know!

Well the dumbest German is probably smarter than you, Eric, but that isn't saying much. I would say that they are less culturally backwards than Americans and that is about it. Otherwise they score about the same on standardized tests as Americans.

You are so mean; I was never that mean to you but whatever dude.

Conduct a double blind study using Chakra Energy Healing whatchamacallits and we'll see. The point is if a treatment works and its origin is woo woo apply science to it and if science confirms that it works and works nearly all the time it stops being woo woo and starts being a weapon in the arsenal of medicine.

I see no contradiction to such a statement to anything that I believe in.

Well gooddie. I'll let you know if I find one!

Usually when it comes to medical conditions there is a physical cause. So I'll look to science to explain how something works rather than woo woo. As such my standards are the consistent scientific ones.

As I thought. I don't believe you, therefore, if you say you'll accept it if science confirms it. It also must conform to your scientific dogma, for which there is absolutely no basis whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Yes and no. Sometimes the synthetic is vastly inferior in treatment to the non-synthesized. I think that this may have to do with other compounds in the plant derived medicines. Marinol for example is a tincture of cannabis but it is reported to be inferior for medical use to the natural product itself. I think that it may have something to do with the other compounds that are present in marijuana that are not present in Marinol.

This of course has nothing to do with whatever Woo Eric was babbling about and has a lot more to do with chemistry.

But part of my babble was simply the observation that what is present chemically in a pill may not be the same as what is in the plant.

Your babble: require measurement in order to prove the fact that measurements are of limited validity. Demand objective proof for something that can only be known subjectively.

What can be known by science? Quite simply, what can be known by science is what can be answered by scientific methods. The answers you get are those possible by means of the method used for asking the question.

To know something more deeply, intimately, as it is really experienced, you need to use methods such as art, myth, poetry. If you want to know with more precision what exists and how it behaves (what we call "facts"), then the best means to use is science and measurement. In other words, is it, or isn't it? Statistically, it more likely is than isn't, or vice-versa, according to the numbers. These are facts, but not truths, because empirical evidence is always a limited number of cases, even in the cases of facts that occur quite regularly. To know truth, you use philosophy and mysticism.

Just some thoughts for you materialists to ignore today!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But part of my babble was simply the observation that what is present chemically in a pill may not be the same as what is in the plant.

No Eric, you were going on about nature's gift of whatever. I was looking at the same thing from a purely chemical explanation. The side effect problem present in many synthesized medications derived from chemicals found in plants is that they usually only have one or two of those chemicals present rather than the dozens the plant makes.

Which has nothing to do with "mother earth nurture chakra whatevers" and everything to do with the metabolism of various chemicals in the presence of other chemicals.

So yes I'll stick with my science based medicine. Its been working well to combat infectious disease for the last couple centuries.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Usually there are other things added to pills, are there not?

You can't read, kinser.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So scientific, you are! You have told me, it must be so! You've been there; you know!

Yes, a hypothesis based on observation is scientific.

You are so mean; I was never that mean to you but whatever dude.

Aww did I hurt him's feelwings?

Well gooddie. I'll let you know if I find one!

Yes I'd be most interested in a double blind study on "healing chakra whatevers". Particularly one that supports such a theory and hasn't been ridiculed in peer review. I won't hold my breath on you finding one of those though.

As I thought. I don't believe you, therefore, if you say you'll accept it if science confirms it. It also must conform to your scientific dogma, for which there is absolutely no basis whatsoever.

Well firstly science doesn't have a dogma. It has a process. If one of your hypotheses is confirmed through that process I'd be most interested in hearing about it. Again I'm not holding my breath on that happening though.

Your preference for physical explanations is a choice, kinser, for which there is no basis. It is conditioned by YOUR feelings, your passion for Marxism.

It's this way. You see the miracle of life and consciousness as it exists in yourself, but reduce it to the lowest common denominator of physical mechanics. I on the other hand say, if such life and consciousness exists in me, if must have come from something also alive and conscious. Everything I am comes from the world around me as well as within me. Therefore, it must be conscious and alive too. You choose to reduce life to death, I choose to uplift the dead into life. Your whole life is affected by which alternative you choose.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Yes, a hypothesis based on observation is scientific.

Baloney; it is just your anecdotal, casual, personal experience, and nothing more. If it's science, show me the research and the stats.

Aww did I hurt him's feelwings?

According to you, feelings don't matter; nay, don't even exist. Treating people fairly doesn't either, as far as posting on a board is concerned.

Yes I'd be most interested in a double blind study on "healing chakra whatevers"

How could you be, since you also demand a physical explanation?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

How could you be, since you also demand a physical explanation?

Which would be required to have a double blind study to start with. Kinda how those work.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Your preference for physical explanations is a choice, kinser, for which there is no basis. It is conditioned by YOUR feelings, your passion for Marxism.

Yes. I choose to have reality based views Eric. You should try it some time.

It's this way. You see the miracle of life and consciousness as it exists in yourself, but reduce it to the lowest common denominator of physical mechanics. I on the other hand say, if such life and consciousness exists in me, if must have come from something also alive and conscious. Everything I am comes from the world around me as well as within me. Therefore, it must be conscious and alive too. You choose to reduce life to death, I choose to uplift the dead into life. Your whole life is affected by which alternative you choose.

Sure thing sunflower. Whatever you say.