Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

OK, let's all agree to this.
1. There are 114 officially named elements courtesy of IUPAC.
2. There are 4 other elements that haven't been named yet due to a need to confirm their discovery to the satisfaction of IUPAC before they get the go ahead to receive a name. It's standard scientific protocol to test an outcome some number of times before acceptance.

Actually number 115 is in the process of getting a name right now. So there are only 3 elements awaiting confirmation.

The above are normal scientific processes.

I'll leave it to him to reply.

1. A flame isn't really a "state" of a gas. I just said that flames may contain gases along with the other items. An example. Ordinary air contains argon atoms. Argon is a gas. A forest fire will contain argon gas by virtue of being in the earth's atmosphere. Argon is a very non reactive noble gas. In most cases it won't be ionized or combined with other substances.
2. Plasmaa: 4th fundamental state of matter.

1. I just go by the book. 4 fundamental states of matter [solid, liquid, gas, plasma]
2. There indeed exists exotic matter, which include Bose-Einstein condensates, neutron degenerate matter, electron degenerate matter which our sun will become someday, and a shitpot of others.


1. Yes, most elements are metals. The halogens and chalcogen groups are mostly non-metals (group wise). Then you have metalloids which display an intermediate set of characteristics. They usually have metallic luster, but are brittle, etc.
2. For decruft. If we're discussing modern chemistry, the term "elements" is non symmetric. In modern chemistry, an element is defined by the number of protons an atom has. Hydrogen always has 1 proton, oxygen 8, fluorine 9, etc. The number of neutrons can vary, giving rise to isotopes. Oxygen has 3: O¹⁶, O¹⁷, O¹⁸ .

Like this?
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journ...014.00146/full
The report said some sort of measuring tool was needed. It's had to fully get something accurate without measuring it.

In Contrast.
http://www.medindia.net/news/chemica...e-137198-1.htm

In this case, still no tool, but the bromine deprived worms all died, while those that got bromine lived. The above report also states the precise mechanism of bromine's role.

That's probably the issue with "woo-woo". Woo-woo may indeed be valid, but it seems that research lacks precision. That's what drives your ordinary scientist "fruit bad shit crazy'.

Yeah, I see he dishes out fruit bat awards to you.

Yeah, I know. That's what drives Eric fruit bat shit crazy.

I didn't say I did that. I said that's where I first started learning about the scientific method.

One award for the thread. Lot's of fruit bats.


There's probably something to that, although I don't think Vandal would cop to it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

According to the decision of those who "establish?"

You get heat, light, and other kinds of energy too?

In the case of aluminum/sulfur reaction, that's it. All you get is heat and light.

Socrates gave a different perspective on that; contrary to vandal's claim, it is still valid. We (normally) need physical energy to physically move and breathe, but it is our decision that makes us move. And as Sheldrake points out, we create energy too. There was never any proof that the amount of energy we have is equal to the food we eat. It can be more, or less. The elan vital, the 5th element, the quintessence of the universe, is omitted from excessively-empircal science. But empirical science is inherently limited in its description of anything whatsover. It is always after the fact of any spontaneous creation, and it depends on the senses which are themselves objects of the senses.

A more mundane statement would be to state that glucose is converted into ATP in the brain. The ATP is then used by brain cells to create ATP to survive and make neurotransmitters. The neurotransmitters are what drive the brain. If you have more dopamine in a part of brain induced by ethanol consumption, for example, you feel "good". All substances of abuse boost dopamine levels, which in turn create a high. Now that's one case. There are dozens of other neurotransmitters which perform other functions. So from a "materialist" perspective, the brain is just a chemical factory.

Empirical Science does not and cannot know what's really going on within our bodies.

It knows some things. It knows the conversion of food to fat, fat to energy, all manner of enzymes, genetic code, etc.

I just listed the forces. I don't know why you have to describe them as particles. Particles are merely how we see it after a measurement. The double-slit experiment, remember. Don't believe vandal's pratter about that. Particles don't really exist except as our own measurement, and measurement is inherently limited and approximate, always. That which changes in time, for example, can't be accurately measured, and a wave is always in time. "Particles" are just the scientists' way of talking about energy. They have to reduce everything to particles in order to make sense of energy in terms of their world view. But for those who like particles, they can probably make the connections that they want.

Particles are assigned properties. That's why scientists use them. It's those self same properties that are used to explain how the associated forces behave and interact. Next particles are not the force assigned to them in any event.

I wish it could be harnessed, to help with our energy conversion...

Oh, so true.

Interesting theory; I'm sure Mr. Howe would approve Now Vandal? I'm not so sure. Too metaphorical. What is the evidence that Vandal IS flourine and Eric IS cesium? Such new age Gobbledygook!

It my 1 to 1 mapping of elements to folks on the forum I'm working on. You and Vandal are "low hanging fruit". The assignments are easy.

Actually, although I have trouble with most core Xers here, their behavior is not all the same as Vandal's. Similar tho, I must admit. I'm thinkin' Galen, Semo, Copperfield..... but I think Vandal is uniquely bad. Maybe highly-ionized flourine?

1. Yes, Vandal is certainly fluorine.
2. Galen = chlorine. That's right below Vandal. Chlorine, not quite as reactive as fluorine, but it's a fellow halogen. Reacts with an extremely exothermic rate with cesium. Semo = Oxygen. A very reactive chalcogen. In fact more reactive than chlorine. Copperfield = sulfur. Can be reactive under the right circumstances. Will react with cesium with no problem. Now we have Bob Butler. An interesting case. That would be lithium. Playwrite is very reactive, so he's got to be rubidium, next most reactive metal. Jordan's a Millie, but acts like an Xer. So... I'll make him tellurium. Now I'm not sure what sort of bang that causes because there's no information on teh internets there. Wonkette = helium. Noble gas and does not react. OK, Chas'88. Useful. So I'll make him carbon. Everyone likes carbon. Spammers. Easy. They're plutonium. They're high level nuclear waste.

It's not New Age Gobbleygook. Think of it as a newbie guide to posters.

I can get along with core Xers fine; in just usual contact, they are no problem for me. But we generally don't travel in the same circles, so my contact with them is somewhat rare. Some of the people born in the early to mid 70s here are a problem for me to get along with, but others I've met in person from those cohorts, are fine for me; in fact, sometimes they are "awesome," as someone claimed here. Or, at least they were, a few years ago...

Trust me. I think if you stuck around and a spark hit, the locale would be a smoldering heap of ashes.

I hope you have enjoyed some of the videos I posted; they've been up for a while, after all. Check out the psi evidence.....

I read the literature, but if videos take an hour, I think I might fall asleep.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That is not me quote mining. To claim that I said something, when it was the author of the video that said it, is quote mining on YOUR part.

Stop using the term. It is clear you don't really understand what it means.

You disagree with everyone here, so no.

You said I insult everyone here. So yes. You are lying, yet again.

You are dishonest. And it's a trivial matter. So is just about everything you argue about. As far as I'm concerned, those 4 are/were philosophers.

Wait a minute. I'm supposed to accept Sheldrake as a scientist despite him not publishing any scientific research since the seventies but Dawkins is a philosopher not a scientist?

You have got to be one of the most dishonest humans on this Earth.

I pointed to them as people I might have trashed, or at least said were wrong. The point was, I have not trashed scientists per se. But go ahead, keep arguing.

Do you really believe the lies you spin out?

OK, a statement with content from you; very rare.

No admission that my statement also completely debunks your claim?

Dishonesty run amok.

They write books about many subjects, with much research; mostly not about what Aristotle said, and mostly they are not physics books. New Agers (a broad term with a definition that is whatever you choose it to be) make their living doing many things; they may be counselors or therapists, for example, or they may create and/or sell art or sell crystals or conduct workshops, or be musicians, or may have other less-new-age jobs.

So it's a religion, not an occupation?

You have not clarified the observer effect at all. My comments on your statements still stand, unanswered.

I pointed out that your use of the term does not match what scientists mean by the term. So you claiming that the observer effect supports your position, implying that science supports your position, is dishonest.

I used the word fluid as a synonym for liquid, which was listed as a synonym in the dictionary.

flu·id [floo-id] Show IPA
noun
1. a substance, as a liquid or gas, that is capable of flowing and that changes its shape at a steady rate when acted upon by a force tending to change its shape.

adjective
2. pertaining to a substance that easily changes its shape; capable of flowing.
3. consisting of or pertaining to fluids.
4. changing readily; shifting; not fixed, stable, or rigid: fluid movements.
5. convertible into cash: fluid assets.

Link

OK, I might look for more evidence, but what if consciousness can't be quantified in an "amount"?

Then you can't claim to have scientific evidence for it.

According to Sheldrake,

According to your rules that you have just changed, Sheldrake is not a scientist.

the idea that "matter is unconscious" was simply assumed by Descartes when he divided up the world. This I also knew from my own philosophy and science background. There was never any proof of this. So you have no evidence that inanimate objects are unconscious.

How can I possibly claim to have "proof" for the absence of something which you have failed to define?

That is not how evidence works.

(you have no evidence that animate objects are unconscious either, which your worldview also assumes). There has been evidence that plants are conscious, but you dismissed it.

So now you claim that you can detect and/or measure consciousness? I thought you said you couldn't!

How ow exactly do you detect consciousness in plants again?

I imagine you would do the same with something like crystals, about which Sheldrake claims there is evidence that they learn things.

Yep. He is clearly not a scientist.

The world was assumed to be alive before Descartes, because that's how people experienced it.

Then, the Enlightenment.

Scientific observation of this may be problematic if such observation requires that consciousness be defined as a material object, which is the opposite of what it is. That might be called begging the question.

Nope. Science routinely measures quantities that are not material objects: velocity, energy, force, distance, frequencies, time . . .

And I pointed out that it is also newer than that, as was stated clearly in the videos, and you repeatedly ignore this.

The Wigner quote is from a series of essays published in 1967. The "recent" research referred to quote mines about experiments done in the seventies, eighties, nineties and more recently. Quote mines are still fallacies, no matter how recent the subject.

And in any case, even quantum theory was virtually unknown among the public, and never taught in high school (and probably not in college either, I'm not sure) until the early 1970s.

I don't know when the subject trickled into high school texts, but your claim about college is flat out wrong.

It was new age type folks who made it public, in fact; people like Capra whom your video refers to. So it has seemed "cutting edge," because most people had never heard of it until then.

Seems cutting edge and is cutting edge are not the same thing. You are making my point for me.

The old Newtonian and Lavoisier-type science was what was taught in my high school classes. Planck, Heisenberg, Einstein etc were never mentioned. Most people simply had no awareness of what was going on in modern physics. It is new to most people. It has been covered up because it explodes the worldview that you believe in.

It does no such thing.

The only people who claim that it does are know-nothings like yourself.

And now you just find some interpretation to deny it.

Why would I seek to deny something that I understand?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

....

You said I insult everyone here. So yes. You are lying, yet again.

....

Well, I've never felt insulted by you ... and, I am here
(at least I think I am! !), so .... I guess, that's that.


Prince

PS: But, I don't know if I'd classify what Eric is doing as "lying", per se.
(I think it's more like "making shit up"! ) <chuckle! >

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Actually number 115 is in the process of getting a name right now. So there are only 3 elements awaiting confirmation.

I had that covered. That would be the "political step". Review.
1. Just found the actual review process
a. lab 1 discovers new atom
b. 2 separate labs have to confirm the discovery.
c. IUPAC assigns who gets to name the atom.

Wrt element 115, one of labs was in Sweden. If Sweden gets the nod, I think "Ragnarökium" would be the perfect name.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

A more mundane statement would be to state that glucose is converted into ATP in the brain. The ATP is then used by brain cells to create ATP to survive and make neurotransmitters. The neurotransmitters are what drive the brain. If you have more dopamine in a part of brain induced by ethanol consumption, for example, you feel "good". All substances of abuse boost dopamine levels, which in turn create a high. Now that's one case. There are dozens of other neurotransmitters which perform other functions. So from a "materialist" perspective, the brain is just a chemical factory.

This does not answer my point. The materialist perspective does not explain what happens in human life and intelligence. Socrates demonstrated this. The mechanics of movement does not explain why the movement occurs. The choice or spontaneous freedom of the organism determines this, and empirical science cannot explain it. It is free will, and spontaneous.

It knows some things. It knows the conversion of food to fat, fat to energy, all manner of enzymes, genetic code, etc.

It knows these kinds of things, but these are only views from the point of view of looking at a dead object. In actual fact, our bodies are moving whole self-organizing systems.

Particles are assigned properties. That's why scientists use them. It's those self same properties that are used to explain how the associated forces behave and interact. Next particles are not the force assigned to them in any event.

I don't quite understand this. Thanks for trying I always thought electrons moved in chemical reactions between atoms. Why is a "photon" also needed to explain this transfer of electrons? Why is a photon needed to explain the operation of the electromagnetic force? I would think it would be used to describe emission of light when energy is released in a chemical reaction, but I don't understand its role in the reaction itself.

It my 1 to 1 mapping of elements to folks on the forum I'm working on. You and Vandal are "low hanging fruit". The assignments are easy.

OK, that's interesting.

1. Yes, Vandal is certainly fluorine.
2. Galen = chlorine. That's right below Vandal. Chlorine, not quite as reactive as fluorine, but it's a fellow halogen. Reacts with an extremely exothermic rate with cesium. Semo = Oxygen. A very reactive chalcogen. In fact more reactive than chlorine. Copperfield = sulfur. Can be reactive under the right circumstances. Will react with cesium with no problem. Now we have Bob Butler. An interesting case. That would be lithium. Playwrite is very reactive, so he's got to be rubidium, next most reactive metal. Jordan's a Millie, but acts like an Xer. So... I'll make him tellurium. Now I'm not sure what sort of bang that causes because there's no information on the internets there. Wonkette = helium. Noble gas and does not react. OK, Chas'88. Useful. So I'll make him carbon. Everyone likes carbon. Spammers. Easy. They're plutonium. They're high level nuclear waste.

Seems reasonable.

It's not New Age Gobbleygook. Think of it as a newbie guide to posters.

I'll leave that for Vandal to judge.

Trust me. I think if you stuck around and a spark hit, the locale would be a smoldering heap of ashes.

Close proximity over a period of time did not lead to a reaction

Somehow I doubt your correlations have the force of "physical law."

I read the literature, but if videos take an hour, I think I might fall asleep.

Just click on them and enjoy. Most are less than an hour. The Radin video above is a good summary of some good psi evidence (24 min.). The Sheldrake TED talk is a good intro to science dogma and some of the lack of evidence for it (18 min.).

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Wrt element 115, one of labs was in Sweden. If Sweden gets the nod, I think "Ragnarökium" would be the perfect name.

Meecium would be easier to say and remember.

I know, Vandal would have a fit and campaign against it. Oh well.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

This does not answer my point. The materialist perspective does not explain what happens in human life and intelligence. Socrates demonstrated this. The mechanics of movement does not explain why the movement occurs. The choice or spontaneous freedom of the organism determines this, and empirical science cannot explain it. It is free will, and spontaneous.

1. I don't know shit about Socrates. That is philosophy stuff. I never took classes in that subject.
2. Now if you want to talk about freedom of organisms, I do know organisms will prefer "good" stuff over "bad" stuff with the caveat of what "good" and "bad" are. If we put a limit on "good = makes me feel good", then that would be substances like nicotine and caffeine. Those 2 organic molecules boost the amount of dopamine in my brain and I "feel better". If we get more complex, then the choice of gardening vs. the choice of Wally World would be gardening. Gardening makes me "feel better". Shopping [in general] and in particular at Wally World, make me "feel worse". My guess is that dopamine levels are involved there as well. I don't have a dopamine in brain measuring tool handy, so I can't say for sure.
3. Now if you get real complex, then consciousness is an entity I don't know anything about. It seems beyond synthetic knowledge at present.

It knows these kinds of things, but these are only views from the point of view of looking at a dead object. In actual fact, our bodies are moving whole self-organizing systems.

Not really. An organism's DNA only operates over time if said organism is alive. If I were dead for example, once my blood oxygen fell, the Krebs cycle would halt.

I don't quite understand this. Thanks for trying I always thought electrons moved in chemical reactions between atoms. Why is a "photon" also needed to explain this transfer of electrons?

If you're a mammal for example, it's quite plain. Some of the chemical energy derived from food gets diverted to keep your body temperature stable. That means chemical energy gets converted to heat energy which is just photons in the infrared spectrum. Think night goggles.

Photosynthesis is pretty much the opposite process. Photons are absorbed and their energy is used to remove electrons from oxygen.

Why is a photon needed to explain the operation of the electromagnetic force? I would think it would be used to describe emission of light when energy is released in a chemical reaction, but I don't understand its role in the reaction itself.

Hopefully the mammal thing will be clear.

I'll leave that for Vandal to judge.

Video required

Close proximity over a period of time did not lead to a reaction

Somehow I doubt your correlations have the force of "physical law."

No. Though perhaps y'all were passing a joint around.

Just click on them and enjoy. Most are less than an hour. The Radin video above is a good summary of some good psi evidence (24 min.). The Sheldrake TED talk is a good intro to science dogma and some of the lack of evidence for it (18 min.).

"Most are less than an hour? Uh, if I have to spend that kind of time and watch all of your videos, then I deserve college credit.
A proper experiment would be that pick an online poker site, have folks just use play money and see how well they can guess the 5 cards that hit the board.

The proper chance odds are easy
1st card 1 out 52
if that works, then next card is 1 out 51
next 1 50
next 1 49
next 1 48

The chance odds are 1 hit to 311875199 misses. It's a good experiment because the folks running the experiment have no inside information. Other folks can do an independent review as well. Poker sites keep hand histories.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Meecium would be easier to say and remember.

Originally Posted by wiki

In 1831, the Swedish chemist Nils Gabriel Sefström rediscovered the element in a new oxide he found while working with iron ores. Later that same year, Friedrich Wöhler confirmed del Río's earlier work.^[2] Sefström chose a name beginning with V, which had not been assigned to any element yet. He called the element vanadium after Old Norse Vanadís (another name for the Norse Vanr goddess Freyja, whose facets include connections to beauty and fertility), because of the many beautifully colored chemical compounds it produces.^[2] In 1831, the geologist George William

"Ragnarökium" has a precedent. Sorry, but Ragnarökium is as well defined from a concept from Norse mythology.

I know, Vandal would have a fit and campaign against it. Oh well.

Yup. But I have the aforementioned precedent to back up my name.

I don't know how I feel about tellurium. Also, shouldn't Xers be metal(s)? Boomers seem more apt to be an electron short of whatever to me, while Xers always have a little negativity to spare.

Just some thoughts, man.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

1. I don't know shit about Socrates. That is philosophy stuff. I never took classes in that subject.

What you needed to know in this context, is what you read from me in my post.

2. Now if you want to talk about freedom of organisms, I do know organisms will prefer "good" stuff over "bad" stuff with the caveat of what "good" and "bad" are. If we put a limit on "good = makes me feel good", then that would be substances like nicotine and caffeine. Those 2 organic molecules boost the amount of dopamine in my brain and I "feel better". If we get more complex, then the choice of gardening vs. the choice of Wally World would be gardening. Gardening makes me "feel better". Shopping [in general] and in particular at Wally World, make me "feel worse". My guess is that dopamine levels are involved there as well. I don't have a dopamine in brain measuring tool handy, so I can't say for sure.

No, that's not choice. Socrates did not choose to walk to jail because it made him feel good. He walked there because he chose it as the best course.

3. Now if you get real complex, then consciousness is an entity I don't know anything about. It seems beyond synthetic knowledge at present.

You know more about it than anything, because that's you. Just look within.

And that does not mean cut yourself open and look inside.

If you don't know consciousness, you don't know life. It's easier to know more about it through methods other than empirical science. That doesn't mean it can't tell us some things about it, but it would help to ditch the paradigm that says there is no consciousness. It helps in studying something, if you start from the idea that there is something to study, no?

Not really. An organism's DNA only operates over time if said organism is alive. If I were dead for example, once my blood oxygen fell, the Krebs cycle would halt.

Most scientists only look at dead organisms. But if you want to look at them while they are alive, you have to be careful not to injure or kill it, unless you are being cruel. And anything you look at is moving and changing as you watch it. You have to be more like a doctor.

If you're a mammal for example, it's quite plain. Some of the chemical energy derived from food gets diverted to keep your body temperature stable. That means chemical energy gets converted to heat energy which is just photons in the infrared spectrum. Think night goggles.

Photosynthesis is pretty much the opposite process. Photons are absorbed and their energy is used to remove electrons from oxygen.

Hopefully the mammal thing will be clear.

I was asking about physics. Maybe. I'm sure biology doesn't know all about energy, as Sheldrake pointed out, and as I have known for 47 years. But what you say here only echoes what I said; chemical reactions release energy. Yes, energy comes in photons when it's light and heat. Does that explain why specific kinds of energy need to be linked to specific "particles?" Electrical energy is electrons travelling. That is elector-magnetic energy. Where are the photons there?

No. Though perhaps y'all were passing a joint around.

I only passed joints around with fellow boomers back in the deep 2T.

The proper chance odds are easy
1st card 1 out 52
if that works, then next card is 1 out 51
next 1 50
next 1 49
next 1 48

The chance odds are 1 hit to 311875199 misses. It's a good experiment because the folks running the experiment have no inside information. Other folks can do an independent review as well. Poker sites keep hand histories.

Psi experiments have been done, and I gave you the links. If you are interested, click on them.

I just think this site gives evidence that a lot of folks learned nothing from the Awakening. And of course it should not matter if you weren't alive and of age then. There's such a thing as learning from history. Oh well...

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I don't know how I feel about tellurium. Also, shouldn't Xers be metal(s)? Boomers seem more apt to be an electron short of whatever to me, while Xers always have a little negativity to spare.

Just some thoughts, man.

Strictly speaking, relating to the theory, Boomers and Millennials are supposed to be dominant archetypes, which would equate to positively-charged metals, while Xers are "Reactives," a recessive archetype that equals a negative charge. So the Norse God has it right. He deserves to have the element named after him, I guess.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Strictly speaking, relating to the theory, Boomers and Millennials are supposed to be dominant archetypes, which would equate to positively-charged metals, while Xers are "Reactives," a recessive archetype that equals a negative charge. So the Norse God has it right. He deserves to have the element named after him, I guess.

Eh, I'm not really seeing a necessary connection between positive and dominant, and one could just as easily view the rare earth and alkaline earth elements as needing to share their own negativity to find balance as anything else. To each their own interpretation, I guess.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I don't know how I feel about tellurium.

You should like it. It's an up and coming element.

Also, shouldn't Xers be metal(s)?

No. They actually prefer to gain negativity.

Boomers seem more apt to be an electron short of whatever to me,

No they have too many, as in opinions, man. They're also freely given out.

while Xers always have a little negativity to spare.

As per above, they like to pick it up.

Just some thoughts, man.

Hopefully, I've shown the method behind the madness.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What you needed to know in this context, is what you read from me in my post.

No, that's not choice. Socrates did not choose to walk to jail because it made him feel good. He walked there because he chose it as the best course.

Independent thought does not come from reading Eric Meece's posts. [Or anyone elses for that matter]. Proper grounding is philosophy and all other subjects requires study of said subject, not short snippets from posts.

You know more about it than anything, because that's you. Just look within.

?

And that does not mean cut yourself open and look inside.

That's a relief. I'm pretty sure I'd see lots of type O+ blood, ACTN3R muscle tissue, and sorta big veins.

If you don't know consciousness, you don't know life. It's easier to know more about it through methods other than empirical science.

I don't know "life"'s properties that lie beyond synthetic knowledge, that is true. I can tell Eric about lots of unique genetic properties of Rags if he's like to know.

That doesn't mean it can't tell us some things about it, but it would help to ditch the paradigm that says there is no consciousness.

It's there, of course, but let's say that precognition for example exists. I'd agree. Now, a decruft is needed. Folks of your orientation need to state that there is of course trash, like psychic hotline companies that are nothing but hucksters and charlatans who don't do real psi.

It helps in studying something, if you start from the idea that there is something to study, no?

I didn't say there wasn't

Most scientists only look at dead organisms. But if you want to look at them while they are alive, you have to be careful not to injure or kill it, unless you are being cruel. And anything you look at is moving and changing as you watch it. You have to be more like a doctor.

Are you sure? Drug research usually means just giving lab rats a shot of the drug to be tested in the ass. This is routine procedure for us humans as well. You get strep, you go to the doc, and he gives you a shot in the ass.

I was asking about physics. Maybe. I'm sure biology doesn't know all about energy, as Sheldrake pointed out, and as I have known for 47 years.

Uh, Sheldrake needs to ask himself a question? "Were folks measuring constants using the same instruments" ? I mean really Eric, just looking at numbers on old pieces of paper ain't gonna cut it. Also, can you cite some peer reviewed research papers of his?

. But what you say here only echoes what I said; chemical reactions release energy. Yes, energy comes in photons when it's light and heat. Does that explain why specific kinds of energy need to be linked to specific "particles?" Electrical energy is electrons travelling. That is elector-magnetic energy. Where are the photons there?

Gads.

1. Electric current can be generated by chemical reactions in batteries. <- chemical energy
2. Electric current can be generated in power plants by moving a magnet through a copper [usually] coil. <- mechanical energy . If the fuel source is coal, then photons are there because coal is getting oxidized. If it's nuclear energy then it's the weak force in play there. The nuclear core also emits infrared photons which interact with water to produce steam.

I only passed joints around with fellow boomers back in the deep 2T.

You should share them with you Xer friends.

Psi experiments have been done, and I gave you the links. If you are interested, click on them.

I did. Sheldrake , uh he does stand up speeches, but research papers please. And peer reviewed ones at that. For all I know he's also discovered magic unicorns which shit golden bricks.

Raiden seems a bit better grounded, but uh, research papers?

I just think this site gives evidence that a lot of folks learned nothing from the Awakening. And of course it should not matter if you weren't alive and of age then. There's such a thing as learning from history. Oh well...

Sorry Eric. You can't have it all. I remember the 1st earth day 'cause the grade schoolers had class outside. So it's I remember stuff like Kent State, Earth Day, Tet Offensive, Nixon resigning, riots, burning rivers. Now if you expect me to believe crystals to have magic powers, no.
Well, except that urananite crystal I have. It turns film black. Oh and that giraffe thing? Come on, get real. Giraffes and other animals don't need other giraffes besides their mother to develop. Magic mushroom city there, big time.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Meecium would be easier to say and remember.

I know, Vandal would have a fit and campaign against it. Oh well.

Since the rules state you must be dead in order to have an element named after you . . . [/sarcasm]

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

This does not answer my point. The materialist perspective does not explain what happens in human life and intelligence. Socrates demonstrated this. The mechanics of movement does not explain why the movement occurs. The choice or spontaneous freedom of the organism determines this, and empirical science cannot explain it. It is free will, and spontaneous.

Biologists study the "whys" of animal behavior all the time. It's called ethology.

It knows these kinds of things, but these are only views from the point of view of looking at a dead object. In actual fact, our bodies are moving whole self-organizing systems.

Self-organizing is not as mysterious as you think. It's called evolutionary-developmental biology.

I don't quite understand this. Thanks for trying I always thought electrons moved in chemical reactions between atoms. Why is a "photon" also needed to explain this transfer of electrons? Why is a photon needed to explain the operation of the electromagnetic force?

Why do two negatively charged particles repel each other? How?

I would think it would be used to describe emission of light when energy is released in a chemical reaction, but I don't understand its role in the reaction itself.

Of course you don't. You are only a pretender to knowledge.

OK, that's interesting.

Seems reasonable.

I'll leave that for Vandal to judge.

Close proximity over a period of time did not lead to a reaction

Somehow I doubt your correlations have the force of "physical law."

Just click on them and enjoy. Most are less than an hour. The Radin video above is a good summary of some good psi evidence (24 min.). The Sheldrake TED talk is a good intro to science dogma and some of the lack of evidence for it (18 min.).

Already shown how Sheldrakes talk was debunked as nonsense. That's why the TED organization "pulled" it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What you needed to know in this context, is what you read from me in my post.

No, that's not choice. Socrates did not choose to walk to jail because it made him feel good. He walked there because he chose it as the best course.

How do you know that neurotransmitters were not involved?

You know more about it than anything, because that's you. Just look within.

And that does not mean cut yourself open and look inside.

If you don't know consciousness, you don't know life.

Since you and your ilk can't even define consciousness, that means you can't possibly "know life".

It's easier to know more about it through methods other than empirical science. That doesn't mean it can't tell us some things about it, but it would help to ditch the paradigm that says there is no consciousness. It helps in studying something, if you start from the idea that there is something to study, no?

Please define this something and give us an objective means for measuring/detecting it. Then we can talk about studying it.

Most scientists only look at dead organisms.

Pure bullshit.

But if you want to look at them while they are alive, you have to be careful not to injure or kill it, unless you are being cruel.

Biologists do that all the time!

And anything you look at is moving and changing as you watch it. You have to be more like a doctor.

Do you have any idea how much time doctors spend studying dead humans?

I was asking about physics. Maybe. I'm sure biology doesn't know all about energy, as Sheldrake pointed out, and as I have known for 47 years.

Pure bullshit. There is a reason that biology majors must complete a year of physics and several years of chemistry before they can take upper division biology courses.

But what you say here only echoes what I said; chemical reactions release energy.

Not always. Some reactions absorb energy.

Yes, energy comes in photons when it's light and heat.

No. Thermal energy is not made up of photons. Heat is not a state function. It is a process function.

Does that explain why specific kinds of energy need to be linked to specific "particles?"

I thought you claimed that you understood quantum mechanics? No? Then start here with force carriers.

Electrical energy is electrons travelling. That is elector-magnetic energy.

Electricity and electro-magnetism are not equivalent.

Where are the photons there?

Photons are self-propagating disturbances in the electromagnetic field. They are the force carries for the electromagnetic force. They are why like charges and like poles repel each other.

I only passed joints around with fellow boomers back in the deep 2T.

Psi experiments have been done, and I gave you the links. If you are interested, click on them.

I just think this site gives evidence that a lot of folks learned nothing from the Awakening.

As Rags pointed out, some aspects of the Awakening have taken root in our culture. Still, the utter nonsense remains fringe because deep down it is utter nonsense.

And of course it should not matter if you weren't alive and of age then. There's such a thing as learning from history. Oh well...

There's a way to differentiate between ideas about the universe that work and ideas that don't. You just hate that science has determined that your New Age ideas fit in the "don't" category.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Independent thought does not come from reading Eric Meece's posts. [Or anyone elses for that matter]. Proper grounding is philosophy and all other subjects requires study of said subject, not short snippets from posts.

Not true. I gave you an accurate portrayal of what Socrates said, and a direct quote from the original (with a link I think). What more do you want?

?

I'm not sure why "look within" is such a problem for science-oriented folks. Are you conscious? Do you know that you are conscious, and experience yourself being conscious? Can you feel your body from the inside, not just looking at it through your eyes?

I don't know "life"'s properties that lie beyond synthetic knowledge, that is true. I can tell Eric about lots of unique genetic properties of Rags if he's like to know.

You DO know life beyond synthetic knowledge, or you would not be conscious.

It's there, of course, but let's say that precognition for example exists. I'd agree. Now, a decruft is needed. Folks of your orientation need to state that there is of course trash, like psychic hotline companies that are nothing but hucksters and charlatans who don't do real psi.

I gave you lots of links to follow, and you can find your own. You don't need to design an experiment from scratch. This is a vast field already. Folks like me of course know there are hucksters and charlatans.

Are you sure? Drug research usually means just giving lab rats a shot of the drug to be tested in the ass. This is routine procedure for us humans as well. You get strep, you go to the doc, and he gives you a shot in the ass.

Sure, that works.

Uh, Sheldrake needs to ask himself a question? "Were folks measuring constants using the same instruments" ? I mean really Eric, just looking at numbers on old pieces of paper ain't gonna cut it. Also, can you cite some peer reviewed research papers of his?

I imagine you could read his book, and the evidence he used would be cited. I don't think a TED speech is the right forum for lots of research references. I don't see how you can demand that these measurements were using the same instruments, if instruments change over time. The numbers on old pieces of paper are the only evidence for these constants. So how can they claim that they exist, when the numbers are not constant? Even today?

I have run across papers by Sheldrake. I posted one or two on wikipedia but the biased editors deleted them. From his own web site, he lists papers he has published and which journals they were in. He is a PhD who follows science protocol in his experiments.
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles%26...thy/index.html
bio: http://www.sheldrake.org/about-ruper...rake/biography

Gads.

1. Electric current can be generated by chemical reactions in batteries. <- chemical energy
2. Electric current can be generated in power plants by moving a magnet through a copper [usually] coil. <- mechanical energy . If the fuel source is coal, then photons are there because coal is getting oxidized. If it's nuclear energy then it's the weak force in play there. The nuclear core also emits infrared photons which interact with water to produce steam.

"Getting oxidized" means electrons are shifting, and energy is being released, including light (photons). I don't see how that makes "shifting electrons" = "photons."

What is a photon? A quanta of light? What is light? How can you see what it's made of if it travels (more or less) 186,000 miles per second?

You should share them with you Xer friends.

I didn't have Xer friends during the deep 2T, sorry. It may have happened in 1980; I'm not sure. But that's the last time I partook of any of the stuff, and I won't again.

Raden seems a bit better grounded, but uh, research papers?

I gave you the links to a whole raft of them.

Sorry Eric. You can't have it all. I remember the 1st earth day 'cause the grade schoolers had class outside. So it's I remember stuff like Kent State, Earth Day, Tet Offensive, Nixon resigning, riots, burning rivers. Now if you expect me to believe crystals to have magic powers, no.
Well, except that urananite crystal I have. It turns film black. Oh and that giraffe thing? Come on, get real. Giraffes and other animals don't need other giraffes besides their mother to develop. Magic mushroom city there, big time.

What everyone needs to learn from the Awakening is the limitations of science and all other dogma. That's elementary stuff. Be free from dogma, whether religious, scientific, or new age. Question authority. There's a whole realm that the Awakening opened up, beyond the political stuff on the news. FORGET the news. You get this inner stuff, or you have missed the Awakening entirely. It's not a matter of believing; it's experience and investigation.

Let me put myself in your camp (or at least someone else's camp) for a minute. The problem we have is that we materialists want to say that everything is made of something; specifically perhaps, atomic particles. We think these are the constituents of all things. Also, that if your physical organism isn't functioning, you don't exist, and that everything that goes on in your mind can be measured using today's scientific instruments, or else it doesn't exist.

But is that really true? First of all, the idea of particles is as spooky as the idea of souls. All the particles we find seem to be constituted in turn of smaller particles. You go small enough, and you can't detect them. There's no way you can say that you can detect the smallest things that exist. The smallest thing that exists, is just the furthest reach of your instruments. String theorists seem to at-least develop some kind of mathematically-consistent model, and in their model, "mass" is dispensed with. The universe has become what the mystics always said, some kind of "music" or vibration. But strings are so small they may never be verified. Is that grounds for saying they don't exist, or grounds for saying our instruments are limited?

Your consciousness does not lend itself to such a way of speaking. It is not made of anything; rather, IT is the foundation of everything. Your consciousness functions as all of a piece, a whole. It is self-organizing; it was not made or accidental. You can't break it down. It is just your process of being. It changes all the time, and yet remains the same all the time. You don't need to take a course to study consciousness. Just examine it for yourself. Be your own philosopher.

There's much more to look at and say, of course. (we boomer prophets have lots of free electrons to give out.) But if consciousness-altering substances are cool in your world, you might consider trying something that takes the blinders off.

Uh, in the proper set and setting.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Biologists study the "whys" of animal behavior all the time. It's called ethology.

More mechanistic assumptions.

Self-organizing is not as mysterious as you think. It's called evolutionary-developmental biology.

Life is MORE mysterious than you think. Wikipedia again? No thanks, I don't trust them on these subjects anymore. Totally biased.

Why do two negatively charged particles repel each other? How?

How indeed.

Of course you don't. You are only a pretender to knowledge.

But if so, why do you only answer my questions with name calling? If you are such an expert, you could at least do as well as Ragnarok and try to answer my question. He appears as a better expert and teacher than you. Again, I don't see what your name-calling accomplishes. Are you really an intelligent person? Why are you incapable of conducting an intelligent conversation, then?

Already shown how Sheldrakes talk was debunked as nonsense. That's why the TED organization "pulled" it.

Sheldrake explained how it was pulled. I take his word, and not yours. It was pulled because of militant skeptic activists like yourself, who are offended if their paradigms are questioned. And yet that was the entire theme of the TED talks he was invited to participate in in the first place.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not true. I gave you an accurate portrayal of what Socrates said, and a direct quote from the original (with a link I think). What more do you want?

Something that doesn't involve deep philosophy. I never took a course in it. I didn't mess with because I find that topic boring.

I'm not sure why "look within" is such a problem for science-oriented folks. Are you conscious? Do you know that you are conscious, and experience yourself being conscious? Can you feel your body from the inside, not just looking at it through your eyes?

We got lots of rain recently. That made the grass grow fast. I needed to mow the yard yesterday because the forecast called for more rain. When I was mowing the yard, I got hot, which meant I felt my body from the inside. I got hot because not because the outside temperature was too high, but rather the thick grass [fescue] meant I'd need to exert myself more and set off more Krebs cycle reactions than usual. So yeah, I didn't need eyes to feel that.

You DO know life beyond synthetic knowledge, or you would not be conscious.

No. Just because I'm conscious does not mean I know how it works. I don't know how it works.

I gave you lots of links to follow, and you can find your own. You don't need to design an experiment from scratch. This is a vast field already. Folks like me of course know there are hucksters and charlatans.

I know. I already said Raiden might be worth a look, but Sheldrake prattled about 2 things that are just quackery.
1. Giraffes in the womb need other giraffes besides their mother in order to develop into a giraffe.
2. Crystals: When a new chemical is produced, the first batch will take longer to crystallize than subsequent batches because the first batch somehow teaches the other batches how to organize into crystals. Now that is utter quackery. I minored in geology. There's a class called "mineralogy". Geologists do use crystal properties like crystal angles, shape, color etc. As far as size, that has nothing to do with how soon that mineral first appeared on earth. Now size will give you a general idea of how long it took the crystal in question took to form. Larger crystals of a mineral usually indicate that crystal grew at a slower rate. To narrow this down a bit further. If the crystal is from a magma chamber, the slower the magma chamber cooled, the larger crystals you get. Crystal size is also a good indicator of if the rock formation you're looking at is from a lava flow or a magma chamber as well. Fortunately for Sheldrake, he can set up an easy experiment for this. OK, Jordan's tellurium and we know that not much research has been done with that element. Sheldrake can make a new compound, let's say from menthol. He can have a tellurium atom substitute for one of the oxygen atoms, which should be a brand new compound that nobody's made yet. Now what we want to do is dissolve it in an appropriate solvent and make crystals by having the solvent evaporate away at a set rate by controlling temperature and other biases. All he has to do is make another batch and repeat the process.

I imagine you could read his book, and the evidence he used would be cited. I don't think a TED speech is the right forum for lots of research references.

Eric. I'm not buying books. Well, scratch that. Now here's an awesome book.

http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Handbook-Cha...New-/159857985

One could accessorize as well:

http://www.galleries.com/scripts/ite...ents+Tellurium

I don't see how you can demand that these measurements were using the same instruments, if instruments change over time.

Easy, different instruments vary in accuracy. Normally the accuracy improves with time.

The numbers on old pieces of paper are the only evidence for these constants. So how can they claim that they exist, when the numbers are not constant? Even today?

A saying from us computer geeks. "Garbage in, garbage out." Redo the experiment and do it right. Otherwise the results are horseshit.

I have run across papers by Sheldrake. I posted one or two on wikipedia but the biased editors deleted them. From his own web site, he lists papers he has published and which journals they were in. He is a PhD who follows science protocol in his experiments.
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles%26...thy/index.html
bio: http://www.sheldrake.org/about-ruper...rake/biography

Maybe the Wiki folks think his stuff is horseshit like the claim he made about constants.

"Getting oxidized" means electrons are shifting, and energy is being released, including light (photons). I don't see how that makes "shifting electrons" = "photons."

Electrons carry a negative charge while the protons in atomic nuclei have a positive charge. When you burn coal, for the most part [since coal is not pure carbon], C-C bonds break and C=O /C[triple bond]O (carbon monoxide) are formed. Electrons are not equal to photons.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...5175231AA4vYuH

What is a photon? A quanta of light? What is light? How can you see what it's made of if it travels (more or less) 186,000 miles per second?

You can't see what visible light is made of. Your eyes have molecules which absorb photons in the visible spectrum. That absorption causes some sort of neural firing from the eye to the brain. I know that is the simplistic answer. It would take a biochemist to describe the process in a more proper form than that. So yeah, Vandal can fill you on with the details here if he wants to.

I didn't have Xer friends during the deep 2T, sorry. It may have happened in 1980; I'm not sure. But that's the last time I partook of any of the stuff, and I won't again.

Oh, you "didn't teach the children well". You're a bad boy.

I gave you the links to a whole raft of them.

Yes, I know. I do think it wise to winnow out something when I notice it has garbage though.

What everyone needs to learn from the Awakening is the limitations of science and all other dogma. That's elementary stuff. Be free from dogma, whether religious, scientific, or new age. Question authority. There's a whole realm that the Awakening opened up, beyond the political stuff on the news. FORGET the news. You get this inner stuff, or you have missed the Awakening entirely. It's not a matter of believing; it's experience and investigation.

Uh, did you check my new .sig. I question the whole PC movement. Oops, that came from the awakening. Sorry but I think PC and yes question any authority that tries to impose PC on me. There's also advertising which is paid bamboozling and crazy Creationists as well. If we want to think of and by fruit bats, commercials, reality TeeVee, TabloidTeeVee [yes, you Maury and Oprah], Creationists, and crystal woo-woo

Let me put myself in your camp (or at least someone else's camp) for a minute. The problem we have is that we materialists want to say that everything is made of something; specifically perhaps, atomic particles. We think these are the constituents of all things. Also, that if your physical organism isn't functioning, you don't exist, and that everything that goes on in your mind can be measured using today's scientific instruments, or else it doesn't exist.

But is that really true? First of all, the idea of particles is as spooky as the idea of souls. All the particles we find seem to be constituted in turn of smaller particles. You go small enough, and you can't detect them. There's no way you can say that you can detect the smallest things that exist. The smallest thing that exists, is just the furthest reach of your instruments. String theorists seem to at-least develop some kind of mathematically-consistent model, and in their model, "mass" is dispensed with. The universe has become what the mystics always said, some kind of "music" or vibration. But strings are so small they may never be verified. Is that grounds for saying they don't exist, or grounds for saying our instruments are limited?

Your consciousness does not lend itself to such a way of speaking. It is not made of anything; rather, IT is the foundation of everything. Your consciousness functions as all of a piece, a whole. It is self-organizing; it was not made or accidental. You can't break it down. It is just your process of being. It changes all the time, and yet remains the same all the time. You don't need to take a course to study consciousness. Just examine it for yourself. Be your own philosopher.

There's much more to look at and say, of course. (we boomer prophets have lots of free electrons to give out.) But if consciousness-altering substances are cool in your world, you might consider trying something that takes the blinders off.

Uh, in the proper set and setting.

Yeah, and when we get the ultimate fruit bats gone, yeah sure. Shrooms or acid. Works for me.


* fuit bat award for Drug War Crusaders [with all due apologies to actual fruit bats ]

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Something that doesn't involve deep philosophy. I never took a course in it. I didn't mess with because I find that topic boring.

You can't really expect to understand reality, then.

I suggest that, if you wonder at all, then philosophy is not boring. It is not something to take a course in, as I mentioned. It is you.

We got lots of rain recently. That made the grass grow fast. I needed to mow the yard yesterday because the forecast called for more rain. When I was mowing the yard, I got hot, which meant I felt my body from the inside. I got hot because not because the outside temperature was too high, but rather the thick grass [fescue] meant I'd need to exert myself more and set off more Krebs cycle reactions than usual. So yeah, I didn't need eyes to feel that.

Did you feel energy inside you?

No. Just because I'm conscious does not mean I know how it works. I don't know how it works.

That's the wrong question. You just learn to notice it more and more, and it tells you stuff.

I know. I already said Raiden might be worth a look, but Sheldrake prattled about 2 things that are just quackery.
1. Giraffes in the womb need other giraffes besides their mother in order to develop into a giraffe.
2. Crystals: When a new chemical is produced, the first batch will take longer to crystallize than subsequent batches because the first batch somehow teaches the other batches how to organize into crystals. Now that is utter quackery. I minored in geology. There's a class called "mineralogy". Geologists do use crystal properties like crystal angles, shape, color etc. As far as size, that has nothing to do with how soon that mineral first appeared on earth. Now size will give you a general idea of how long it took the crystal in question took to form. Larger crystals of a mineral usually indicate that crystal grew at a slower rate. To narrow this down a bit further. If the crystal is from a magma chamber, the slower the magma chamber cooled, the larger crystals you get. Crystal size is also a good indicator of if the rock formation you're looking at is from a lava flow or a magma chamber as well. Fortunately for Sheldrake, he can set up an easy experiment for this. OK, Jordan's tellurium and we know that not much research has been done with that element. Sheldrake can make a new compound, let's say from menthol. He can have a tellurium atom substitute for one of the oxygen atoms, which should be a brand new compound that nobody's made yet. Now what we want to do is dissolve it in an appropriate solvent and make crystals by having the solvent evaporate away at a set rate by controlling temperature and other biases. All he has to do is make another batch and repeat the process.

You can't be free of the science delusion if you just dismiss results of a science experiment conducted by a reknowned, legitimate scientist as quackery, just because you disagree with the result. I don't see the point in telling him how to run his epxeriments, when he's already done them. You did this with psi too. No, the experiments are already done, and I'm sure more will occur too.

I don't recall what you are referring to irt giraffes. The point is that animals learn things faster at a distance after others have learned them. I think the well-known phrases "hundredth monkey" and "critical mass" are based on Sheldrake's work.

Eric. I'm not buying books.

That's fine; just don't require references in a TED talk then. Read his papers then. I gave you the links. If you don't want to read them, fine. Then just accept that he carried out experiments, and got the results that he said he got, and don't raise red herrings that you can't dispute him with.

Easy, different instruments vary in accuracy. Normally the accuracy improves with time.

A saying from us computer geeks. "Garbage in, garbage out." Redo the experiment and do it right. Otherwise the results are horseshit.

No, the point he raised is that they have been ongoing, and they get different results today and yesterday. There are no constants; that's just a dogma; although within a range, they are useful reference points and accounting methods for understanding things like chemical reactions. So he says, you can use them, but the ideas of constants and laws are more like habits; they are not absolute laws as if Napoleon or God laid them down in a single instant out of nothing.

Maybe the Wiki folks think his stuff is horseshit like the claim he made about constants.

The claim he made about constants is evidently true, and you could not refute it. Maybe the same is true with the other stuff they reject? The Wiki folks are militant skeptics who reject what they disagree with. They are like Vandal. That is abundantly clear. They enforce in the telepathy article the statement that "science has completely rejected telepathy" and other paranormal phenomena. If other research is posted from peer reviewed journals that prove telepathy works, they remove it. Instead, they post statements from books about superstition. I know this from personal encounters. Sheldrake just totally confirms my own experience.

Electrons carry a negative charge while the protons in atomic nuclei have a positive charge. When you burn coal, for the most part [since coal is not pure carbon], C-C bonds break and C=O /C[triple bond]O (carbon monoxide) are formed. Electrons are not equal to photons.

So why did you say the breaking of bonds equals protons? Or that "the particle for electro-magnetic energy is the photon?" That still makes no sense to me.

You can't see what visible light is made of. Your eyes have molecules which absorb photons in the visible spectrum. That absorption causes some sort of neural firing from the eye to the brain. I know that is the simplistic answer. It would take a biochemist to describe the process in a more proper form than that. So yeah, Vandal can fill you on with the details here if he wants to.

Maybe, but this has little to do with seeing anything. I don't know why you mention this anyway. The materialists claim "photons" are "particles." If we can't see or in any way detect what they are, how can they say this?

Oh, you "didn't teach the children well". You're a bad boy.

That's true. But then, if you smoke the stuff, and you don't get philosophical (and find it boring), it did not do its job anyway. So teaching the Xers would not have done any good. They don't look within. They just do things.

Yes, I know. I do think it wise to winnow out something when I notice it has garbage though.

You can look through the articles if you want, and find the best ones. The ones Radin posted links to, are all peer-reviewed scientific articles.

Uh, did you check my new .sig. I question the whole PC movement. Oops, that came from the awakening. Sorry but I think PC and yes question any authority that tries to impose PC on me. There's also advertising which is paid bamboozling and crazy Creationists as well. If we want to think of and by fruit bats, commercials, reality TeeVee, TabloidTeeVee [yes, you Maury and Oprah], Creationists, and crystal woo-woo

Crystal woo-woo is fine, but that other stuff is quite easy to reject, and I don't think it takes much awakening to reject it. Of course, PC is generally considered liberal, but it's the conservative PC that is the major problem.

You didn't quite get the Awakening, and what it was about. But that's not a surprise, given your taste in "music." Xers by and large just do it (and as blatantly as possible); they don't get it.

It is disappointing, but Generations and The Fourth Turning has made it a little easier to accept that the wheel turns. At some point, though, we've got to get off the wheel. Spirituality is really something for all turnings, in any healthy society; which ours is not. That is always my point about this; contrary to S&H. The first thing anybody who understands the Awakening knows, is that our society is not healthy; and it's not the rebels like the blue/green boomers who made it unhealthy; that is to blame the doctors for the disease, or to blame the cure for it. So, Xers really got that wrong, and many millies too.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

More mechanistic assumptions.

Not assumptions. Ethology is based upon experimental observation.

Philosophy is built entirely on assumptions, not science.

Life is MORE mysterious than you think.

Actually it's far less mysterious than you claim.

Wikipedia again? No thanks, I don't trust them on these subjects anymore. Totally biased.

How can you possibly claim that without reading the entry?

You get all pissy when I dismiss your New Agers as fruitbats, so I plod through the entire length of some of your videos to show exactly how ridiculous they are. How come you are unable to do the same with this Wiki article?

Scared?

How indeed.

Actually, I do know how like charged particles repel each other. I was giving you a chance to prove that you actually understand quantum mechanics like you always claim that you do. Seems pretty obvious that you've only been faking it.

But if so, why do you only answer my questions with name calling?

Actually, as everyone can see, I answered your questions AND I called you names.

If you are such an expert, you could at least do as well as Ragnarok and try to answer my question.

Which question do you want an answer for?

He appears as a better expert and teacher than you.

Really?

Rags, you agree with that?

Again, I don't see what your name-calling accomplishes.

1- It keeps you focused on what I actually write instead of allowing you to try and change the subject or gloss over important points in the conversation.

2- It let's everybody else know when I see you are being evasive or trying to weasel out of the actual issues at hand.

Are you really an intelligent person? Why are you incapable of conducting an intelligent conversation, then?

Answering your questions and using name calling to keep you focused could be argued to be a sign of increased intelligence in regards to these types of forum discussions.

You'll notice that I don't call you names when you stay on topic and respond to what I actually say or ask.

Sheldrake explained how it was pulled. I take his word, and not yours.

How about the words of the actual organization that made the decisions? TEDBlog

It was pulled because of militant skeptic activists like yourself, who are offended if their paradigms are questioned. And yet that was the entire theme of the TED talks he was invited to participate in in the first place.

Yeah, go ahead and repeat the big lie. It's what New Agers are best at.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You can't really expect to understand reality, then.

I suggest that, if you wonder at all, then philosophy is not boring. It is not something to take a course in, as I mentioned. It is you.

Did you feel energy inside you?

That's the wrong question. You just learn to notice it more and more, and it tells you stuff.

And how do you prevent yourself from just making shit up?

You can't be free of the science delusion if you just dismiss results of a science experiment conducted by a reknowned, legitimate scientist as quackery, just because you disagree with the result.

Sheldrake is not a renowned scientist. He is a ridiculed ex-scientist.

The only people who claim that his ravings are scientific are New Age fruit bats who don't really understand how science actually works.

I don't see the point in telling him how to run his epxeriments, when he's already done them.

His results were vague and full of statistical noise. Sheldrake went ahead and claimed that his results were tremendous, anyway. He's a quack.

You did this with psi too. No, the experiments are already done, and I'm sure more will occur too.

I don't recall what you are referring to irt giraffes. The point is that animals learn things faster at a distance after others have learned them. I think the well-known phrases "hundredth monkey" and "critical mass" are based on Sheldrake's work.

Bullshit.

1- The terms were around before Sheldrake began publishing his drek.

2- The hundredth monkey effect has been thoroughly debunked.

3- Sheldrake thinks traits are not inherited through genes.

That's fine; just don't require references in a TED talk then. Read his papers then. I gave you the links. If you don't want to read them, fine. Then just accept that he carried out experiments, and got the results that he said he got, and don't raise red herrings that you can't dispute him with.

He carried out experiments. He claimed he got certain results. No one has been able to replicate his results using his techniques. He's just making shit up.

No, the point he raised is that they have been ongoing, and they get different results today and yesterday.

Look dumbass, the original measurements were made with the best tools and techniques of their time. As tools and techniques improved, the measurements got more precise. No one, absolutely no real physicist claims that the speed of light was changing just because we got a different measured value using new tools and techniques.

There are no constants; that's just a dogma; although within a range, they are useful reference points and accounting methods for understanding things like chemical reactions.

Tell that to all those cosmologists who can observe and measure the speed of light at various points in our universe's history.

So he says, you can use them, but the ideas of constants and laws are more like habits; they are not absolute laws as if Napoleon or God laid them down in a single instant out of nothing.

This is exactly why I call you names. I already showed how you were quote-mining Newton's Laws of Motion and yet here you are repeating the lie.

Lying fruit bat.

The claim he made about constants is evidently true, and you could not refute it.

No it isn't. You are taking the word of an ex-botanist claiming that all of modern physics is wrong and every physicist dismissing him as a crackpot. You only side with the ex-botanist because you wish he was right, not because you know he is right.

Maybe the same is true with the other stuff they reject? The Wiki folks are militant skeptics who reject what they disagree with. They are like Vandal. That is abundantly clear.

They reject what has not been objectively shown to be accurate. Your or Sheldrake's say so is not objective evidence.

They enforce in the telepathy article the statement that "science has completely rejected telepathy" and other paranormal phenomena.

Because, so far, there hasn't been any objective evidence.

If other research is posted from peer reviewed journals that prove telepathy works, they remove it.

Peer review in a pseudo-journal is not objective evidence.

Instead, they post statements from books about superstition. I know this from personal encounters. Sheldrake just totally confirms my own experience.

Why don't all you New Agers go off with your revolutionary physics and biology and build your own technology? How come you don't just build machines to take advantage of your discoveries? Why do you waste all your time trying to get others to believe you just because you say so?

So why did you say the breaking of bonds equals protons? Or that "the particle for electro-magnetic energy is the photon?" That still makes no sense to me.

force particle exchanges

Maybe, but this has little to do with seeing anything. I don't know why you mention this anyway. The materialists claim "photons" are "particles." If we can't see or in any way detect what they are, how can they say this?

Electromagnetic field disturbances travel at c.

Photo-electric effect shows that these c traveling disturbances come in discrete quanta, particles. This is what earned Einstein his Nobel Prize.

That's true. But then, if you smoke the stuff, and you don't get philosophical (and find it boring), it did not do its job anyway. So teaching the Xers would not have done any good. They don't look within. They just do things.

No. We just aren't impressed with ego-stroking, navel gazing.

You can look through the articles if you want, and find the best ones. The ones Radin posted links to, are all peer-reviewed scientific articles.

Peer-review in pseudo-journals is not evidence of anything.

Crystal woo-woo is fine, but that other stuff is quite easy to reject, and I don't think it takes much awakening to reject it. Of course, PC is generally considered liberal, but it's the conservative PC that is the major problem.

You didn't quite get the Awakening, and what it was about. But that's not a surprise, given your taste in "music." Xers by and large just do it (and as blatantly as possible); they don't get it.

Versus Boomers who don't do anything? Well, they do manage to pass judgement on everyone else who deigns to do anything at all. Not sure that counts as doing something though.

It is disappointing, but Generations and The Fourth Turning has made it a little easier to accept that the wheel turns. At some point, though, we've got to get off the wheel. Spirituality is really something for all turnings, in any healthy society; which ours is not. That is always my point about this; contrary to S&H. The first thing anybody who understands the Awakening knows, is that our society is not healthy; and it's not the rebels like the blue/green boomers who made it unhealthy; that is to blame the doctors for the disease, or to blame the cure for it. So, Xers really got that wrong, and many millies too.

Boomer ego-stroking is the ultimate in boring shit.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

1- It keeps you focused on what I actually write instead of allowing you to try and change the subject or gloss over important points in the conversation.

2- It let's everybody else know when I see you are being evasive or trying to weasel out of the actual issues at hand.

It does none of those things, fruitbat.

Answering your questions and using name calling to keep you focused could be argued to be a sign of increased intelligence in regards to these types of forum discussions.

You'll notice that I don't call you names when you stay on topic and respond to what I actually say or ask.

I notice you do name calling at every possible occasion.

Yeah, go ahead and repeat the big lie. It's what New Agers are best at.

I'm proud to be a New Ager. The Buddhist show tonight reminded me I was a Buddhist first.