Originally Posted by Vandal-72

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

I don't have to rely on others to do that, unlike you scientists. YOu depend on the external for everything.

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

You're right; Sheldrake's research came just afterward, according to wikipedia.

2- The hundredth monkey effect has been thoroughly debunked.

wikipedia strikes again. They said it was "discredited" by a "skeptic;" IOW an idiot like you.

3- Sheldrake thinks traits are not inherited through genes.

Right, and he's right that genes are grossly over-rated. They only account for how proteins are made, he says. He is light-years ahead of you.

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.

You don't know, and you won't post anything except from wikipedia (and therefore it will be nonsense).

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.

Yeah, that's the excuse that Sheldrake mentioned that you poor deceived souls make. You mean, nasty killer of souls, you. That is, you are a killer of souls IF anyone, like your poor students, actually believe the deadly lying nonsense you pollute their poor little minds with. It's a real shame, what you do.

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.

All you did, silly boy, is lie again by claiming I quote mined. I did no such thing. Case closed.

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.

I know he's right, and that all the ones who dismiss him are lying dogmatic skeptics, not scientists. Sheldrake has won many awards, and has made discoveries and invented advancements, which you would know if you bothered to read the bio I posted.

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

YOu just reject it because you don't believe in telepathy. Case closed.

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?

There are more important things than building machines. But you are so hypnotized by materialism that you don't get that.

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.

So fucking what?

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

You are just missing out. Too bad, but there's nothing I can do for you. You are responsible for your own enlightenment, or lack of same, and that's what the Buddha said too. Buddhist science has been around a lot longer than your materialist drek, and it's been proven for 5000 years. Your phony dogmatic science has been around for 200 years at the most. Spirituality has a much better track record, and a much greater store of verified knowledge than your pathetic little putterings and tinkerings.

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

Says someone who's never published anything, anywhere.

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.

You don't do anything but spread false and dangerous propaganda that kills souls.

Boomer ego-stroking is the ultimate in boring shit.

I can think of something even more boring than that. Xer ego stroking.

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.

Why? I wandered over to www.sciencedaily.com and saw brand new research which stated that bromine was an essential trace element for animal life. That's a wondrous discovery because we now have all 4 stable halogens as essential elements. Now we can move on to some other elements and see if they, too are essential. Let's take the old expression of "it's the dose that makes the poison." How about if we move on to seeing if we can peg the last chalcogen, tellurium is essential. We do know that assorted fungi and bacteria make use of this element.

So:

1. A hypothesis would be that tellurium is a trace element which is essential to animal life or a subset thereof.
2. Do some preliminary investigations to get some idea of where said hypothesis will lead.
2a. http://www.google.com.bz/patents/US7045150 <- A patent on a tellurium compound which aids poultry industry.
2b. http://www.toxicwatersolution.com/Hu...-Toxicity.html <- Here, we need to know something about the toxic effects of tellurium. Now that means that either tellurium is a "pure toxic" or certain folks are overdosed.
2c. http://www.impactaging.com/papers/v4...ll/100468.html <- New organotellurium compound may be an anti diabetic agent.
2d. http://www.myseaaloe.com/t-learn-nutrients.aspx <- Exhibit A of quackery. Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it's good. I don't know of any research on cadmium,thallium,osmium, bismuth, etc. Strychnine is "natural", but I ain't gonna use it.
3. Set up experiments just like the bromine ones. Have a test set of C. elegens which get a trace of tellurium and another set which is completely deprived and see what happens. If the ones that are deprived of tellurium get some sort of negative effect, then do tests on other animals and see that happens then. This would be different from the aforementioned tellurium compounds which are already in test mode or already in use.

Did you feel energy inside you?

Yes. I got hot. Mowing thick grass requires more ATP than what I usually need. That means more Krebs cycle reactions. That means that my core body temperature rose. The Krebs cycle isn't 100% efficient in generating ATP so some of the food calories get wasted producing heat.

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

"Noticing Consciousness for Dummies" might be a good start there.

You can't be free of the science delusion if you just dismiss results of a science experiment conducted by a renowned, legitimate scientist as quackery, just because you disagree with the result. I don't see the point in telling him how to run his experiments, 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 await with baited breath on proof that giraffes in wombs develop by use of info from giraffes besides its mother.

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.

He cited that example in his talk video, along with the crystal pooh-pooh caca-caca. He wasn't referring to already born giraffes.

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.

1. OK. No more TED talks
2. "Accept stuff he carried out at face value?" I don't do stuff like that. I check footnotes, other folks' work on the same experiments, etc. Check the "hard science" chemistry of tellurium stuff. I don't even accept that at face value. Just because some tellurium compound does good shit for poultry doesn't mean it will do that for me.

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.

Well if G for example varies, can I count on earth losing its atmosphere at some point? G is sorta important for earth having an atmosphere. If G got smaller then that could happen. If G were larger, then I'd get bone problems because I'd be heavier without even getting fat. Now if the electromagnetic force changed, then the hydrogen bonds that keep my DNA intact might get mucked up and I'd get a bunch of double strand breaks.

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.

1. No, it should be peer reviewed.
2. Appeals to authority don't mean jack shit.
3. Wiki: No, not perfect. Their bromine entry is now out of date.

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.

The latter. The electromagnetic force is why atoms have electrons bound to them. Protons have a positive charge, electrons have a negative charge. The opposite charges are why electrons are attraced to atomic nuclei.

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?

Uh, lots of folks refer to that double slit experiment, right? Photons are also waves. If you have an old timey radio, you can detect radio frequency photons with that. You should hear sound.

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.

Weed smoking was a social function, as in
roll, roll a joint
pass it down the line
merrily, merrily, life is mighty fine.

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.

I would guess that would be true. The first installment didn't have utter tripe.

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.

So ya want some uraninite crystals then. I do know those "do stuff". ALL PC, regardless of ideological origin is evil.

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.

I chose the stuff I thought relevent. All turnings produce junk.

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.

Xer's and Millies ain't Boomers. Of course they're not going to "do spirituality". For each generation, there is a mission for said generation to freely choose.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Why? I wandered over to www.sciencedaily.com and saw brand new research which stated that bromine was an essential trace element for animal life.

Now, talk about boring! Navel gazing is a lot more fun!

Yes. I got hot. Mowing thick grass requires more ATP than what I usually need. That means more Krebs cycle reactions. That means that my core body temperature rose. The Krebs cycle isn't 100% efficient in generating ATP so some of the food calories get wasted producing heat.

But the Krebs cycle and ATP has nothing to do with that hot feeling. The part of feeling the energy inside, is distracted by wandering thoughts about ATP and Krebs.

"Noticing Consciousness for Dummies" might be a good start there.

The dummies would obviously have to be smarter than Vandal, but yeah, sure. But a book doesn't do it, you need to do it.

I await with baited breath on proof that giraffes in wombs develop by use of info from giraffes besides its mother.

OK, await. OR you could read his book on the new science of life and check out the quality of his evidence. It's probably in your local library.

1. OK. No more TED talks
2. "Accept stuff he carried out at face value?" I don't do stuff like that. I check footnotes, other folks' work on the same experiments, etc. Check the "hard science" chemistry of tellurium stuff. I don't even accept that at face value. Just because some tellurium compound does good shit for poultry doesn't mean it will do that for me.

But if you say you want to check it out, and then don't, what good is saying so?

Well if G for example varies, can I count on earth losing its atmosphere at some point? G is sorta important for earth having an atmosphere. If G got smaller then that could happen. If G were larger, then I'd get bone problems because I'd be heavier without even getting fat. Now if the electromagnetic force changed, then the hydrogen bonds that keep my DNA intact might get mucked up and I'd get a bunch of double strand breaks.

It can all vary, but the point is that the universe is an intelligent being that keeps things it has learned going in the right way so you don't get bone and DNA problems.

1. No, it should be peer reviewed.
2. Appeals to authority don't mean jack shit.
3. Wiki: No, not perfect. Their bromine entry is now out of date.

Psi research is peer reviewed; the link to the list by Radin was of peer-reviewed research.

The latter. The electromagnetic force is why atoms have electrons bound to them. Protons have a positive charge, electrons have a negative charge. The opposite charges are why electrons are attraced to atomic nuclei.

That's what I was taught. I don't see photons in that mix.

Uh, lots of folks refer to that double slit experiment, right? Photons are also waves. If you have an old timey radio, you can detect radio frequency photons with that. You should hear sound.

Right, but you can't hear anything else that photons are made of.

Weed smoking was a social function, as in
roll, roll a joint
pass it down the line
merrily, merrily, life is mighty fine.

It was a cool Boomer pastime. I enjoyed it.

So ya want some uraninite crystals then. I do know those "do stuff". ALL PC, regardless of ideological origin is evil.

I don't like PC. Crystal healers use crystals to help conduct their bio-energy in certain ways. I don't work with them, but I don't put others down. It is nice to get scientific verification for such claims, but science has been so abused that I feel now that a challenge to materialist dogma with at least anecdotal evidence for now is at least a start toward a new paradigm and interesting possibilities, so I dissent from Vandal's strict requirements, because his approach I know is the road to death.

I chose the stuff I thought relevent. All turnings produce junk.

Xer's and Millies ain't Boomers. Of course they're not going to "do spirituality". For each generation, there is a mission for said generation to freely choose.

The spiritual awakening was for everyone, because at this point everyone needs it. The Boomers mission was to revive it; the real mission for Xers and Millennials is to continue it, along with other stuff which they need to revive, and prophets old and new need to support too. It's all needed.

So I guess what I'm saying is, yes, Boomers have an edge with spirituality, Xers with management and pragmatic, self-motivated action, and Millennials with social and (hopefully) civic order. All generations, in order to create a healthy society, need to continue and "freely" learn from the things which are the specialty of the other generations. Just to ignore the stuff other generations do, because they supposedly "failed," is why our society is unhealthy. Boomers need to be civic minded and intellectual too, even if their specialty is spiritual things and charismatic leadership of causes or new enterprises. Millennials need to be spiritual and inspirational too, even if their specialty is civic order and science. Does that make any sense?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't have to rely on others to do that, unlike you scientists. YOu depend on the external for everything.

In other words there is no way to tell true discoveries from made up bullshit.

You're right; Sheldrake's research came just afterward, according to wikipedia.

wikipedia strikes again. They said it was "discredited" by a "skeptic;" IOW an idiot like you.

The data collected by the original researchers does not support a hundredth monkey effect. Case closed.

Right, and he's right that genes are grossly over-rated. They only account for how proteins are made, he says. He is light-years ahead of you.

He's a crackpot. Proteins are how embryos develop. You would know this if you weren't too scared to read the article on evolutionary developmental biology.

Here's a link written at the junior high level. Let me know which words stump you an I'll help out.

You don't know, and you won't post anything except from wikipedia (and therefore it will be nonsense).

Actually, I posted some links directly to physics research journals debunking your bullshit claims. You promptly ignored them and tried to change the subject. You are a dishonest fruit bat.

Yeah, that's the excuse that Sheldrake mentioned that you poor deceived souls make. You mean, nasty killer of souls, you. That is, you are a killer of souls IF anyone, like your poor students, actually believe the deadly lying nonsense you pollute their poor little minds with. It's a real shame, what you do.

It's not an excuse. It's what happened. It's how all science is done. New discoveries lead to better tools/techniques which allow us to further refine our initial measurements.

Look at the age of the Earth measurements through history for another example. According to Sheldrake's "logic" since our initial measurements of the Earth's age were in the tens of millions of years and modern measurements are around 4.6 billion years that means the Earth aged hundreds of millions of years between 1810 and 1940.

That's how stupid your crackpot is.

All you did, silly boy, is lie again by claiming I quote mined. I did no such thing. Case closed.

When you initially brought up Newton's Laws you highlighted the word "tends" and completely left out the part that said "unless acted upon by an outside force". Straight up quote mine.

I know he's right, and that all the ones who dismiss him are lying dogmatic skeptics, not scientists.

Yeah, we already know what you wish was true.

Sheldrake has won many awards,

So? Are they relevant to this topic?

and has made discoveries and invented advancements,

No he hasn't. No lab anywhere on this planet uses his ideas to further our knowledge of biology or physics.

which you would know if you bothered to read the bio I posted.

I read it. Unfortunately for you, I can see through the smokescreen of pseudo-scientific flim flammery.

You just reject it because you don't believe in telepathy. Case closed.

No evidence is no evidence. My belief has nothing to do with your failure to provide evidence.

There are more important things than building machines. But you are so hypnotized by materialism that you don't get that.

Your so called discoveries can't allow you to do anything, got it. How come all those dogmatic materialist scientists' discoveries lead to new technologies that work?

So fucking what?

So, photons aren't made up of smaller particles. You are just too ignorant to see the implications.

You are just missing out. Too bad, but there's nothing I can do for you. You are responsible for your own enlightenment, or lack of same, and that's what the Buddha said too. Buddhist science has been around a lot longer than your materialist drek, and it's been proven for 5000 years.

It isn't science.

Your phony dogmatic science has been around for 200 years at the most. Spirituality has a much better track record, and a much greater store of verified knowledge than your pathetic little putterings and tinkerings.

Yeah, I thought the Crusades and Inquisition were especially nice entries into that track record. Ask Bhutan's former Hindu population about Buddhism's track record.

Says someone who's never published anything, anywhere.

How do you know that? You do remember I worked as a scientist for years before becoming a teacher.

You don't do anything but spread false and dangerous propaganda that kills souls.

Go cry me a river, fruit bat.

I can think of something even more boring than that. Xer ego stroking.

No. Boomer ego stroking is the ultimate in boring, mostly because we've had fifty years of it already.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

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?

My hat is off to you there. Said videos tend to drift off to la la land and I drift off to sleep.

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

Perhaps you can hand out zonk awards like I do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kLoKWErmRQ

Rags, you agree with that?

1. Apparently so with Eric.
2. In a general sense I would say no.
a. One gets rusty in subjects like chemistry/biology when not in use for 30 years. That is not to say it's not possible to get polished in said subjects by retaking the courses. Now that isn't really viable given what college courses cost nowadays.
b. I have a younger sister who is a teacher. There is coursework involved there as well. I never had said coursework.
c. So... To be a competent teacher which of course means *not* referring to teh internets for missing info during a class lecture and knowing how the hell to draw up lesson plans means taking a gamble with thousands of dollars for starters and the fact the "shelf life" is a bit compromised as well.

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

Good point.

Originally Posted by TEDBlog

Both Sheldrake and Hancock are compelling speakers, and some of the questions they raise are absolutely worth raising. For example, most thoughtful scientists and philosophers of science will agree it’s true that science has not moved very far yet in solving the riddle of consciousness. But the specific answers to that riddle proposed by Sheldrake and Hancock are so radical and far-removed from mainstream scientific thinking that we think it’s right for us to give these talks a clear health warning and to ask further questions of the speakers. TED and TEDx are brands that are trusted in schools and in homes. We don’t want to hear from a parent whose kid went off to South America to drink ayahuasca because TED said it was OK. But we do think a calmer, reasoned conversation around these talks would be interesting, if only to help us define how far you can push an idea before it is no longer “worth spreading.”

So, here you go Vandal. Never say I didn't do something nice for you.

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

New Age stuff that's woo-woo

Rags, one thing that struck me further about your post: you said, "I don't know how consciousness works."

The whole point, and it was raised by Sheldrake too in the video, is that consciousness is not a machine. Really, nothing is a machine, except the ones we make. Only machines, "work."

What is the most boring thing in the world? Technology. Machines. Why? We have too much of it already. That has been true since the sixties.

What is not boring? Sex. Love. Beauty. Discovery and seeing new connections between ideas. Compassionate caring. Politics. Creativity. Spirituality. The miracle of yourself and others. And the videos I post

Rule of thumb. Use science to study anything, and everything. Do not think that science gives you the complete answer for anything.

The likes of Vandal, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, the mob of skeptics who have infiltrated and sabotaged wikipedia, and so on, think that science and the "evidence" it provides is the answer to all questions, and religion is the answer to none. They are scientific-materialist fundamentalists. Fundamentalists of the religious stripe think that religion, namely their own religion, is the answer to all questions, and science is the answer to none.

These are the greatest two delusions in the world; far greater than any political correctness. They are both highly authoritarian; for them, the truth is decided by the experts. Unfortunately, they are also two of the most popular worldviews in the world. And together with the free market fundamentalism, they are the most dangerous and deadly ideologies in the world.

People here, like most educated folks (as Sheldrake pointed out), subscribe to scientific ideology to one degree or another. It's the default world view of educated people. Be warned: it's bad thinking. It cuts you off from reality.
http://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

Another great video by Sheldrake; it's pretty long but you can get a lot in the first few minutes.

Here is specifically mentions some locations in which research has been recently done regarding the extended mind.



In every act of perception, Sheldrake explains, our minds extend beyond our brain. It is our common experience, but it conflicts with the scientific materialist dogma, because if perception extends beyond the brain, then it is not happening only in the brain and materialism can't explain it. Only spiritual philosophy can explain it, as it has always done. It is a mystery of everyday life, which scientists tend not to look at it because it conflicts with the Vandal paradigm.

We can sense when people stare at us, even when not in the same room. This also happens between people and animals, and between animals and animals. It is well known that birds and fish move together. Material-type nerve connections are not fast enough to explain their instant movements together. It is a field phenomena. Fields extending beyond objects are nothing unusual; magnets have fields, the Earth has a field, and so on. All social animals have such fields, and humans have fields too. Perception is a field; the mind is a field, and that is the basis of telepathy. It is natural, a form of animal and human communication.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Rags, one thing that struck me further about your post: you said, "I don't know how consciousness works."

I said that because I have the humility to say "I don't know" or I don't have an answer". I know humility gets a rough times these days, but personally, I think it's a virtue.

The whole point, and it was raised by Sheldrake too in the video, is that consciousness is not a machine. Really, nothing is a machine, except the ones we make. Only machines, "work."

Well, we have to go back to an original problem I have with Sheldrake. OK, wrt constants, he has a hypothesis of sorts that said constants change. I'm objecting because his data is flawed. Again, in science you have to follow the process properly. So wrt the speed of light, he can if he wanted to use the same equipment to measure the speed of light now, himself , following the proper scientific protocols. I think the other thing that's tripping you up is that science is not a dogma, but just a methodology. It's like a cake recipe. You follow certain instructions and use certain ingredients, measure the ingredients , and get a cake. I probably have a worldview, make sure you measure stuff right because.

1. I did take science classes in high school/college.
2. Let's take an example of "I need to measure stuff accurately". During my 2nd internship at Conoco, I started out on their microficheing library documents. The job itself was not that difficult or anything. It was just stamping documents with a number and scanning them. Now, yeah I had to be accurate on the stamping. A little time after, about a couple of weeks, I got moved to R&D and had to fill orders for
Conostan. Here's what it is. The original person was allergic to the base oil.
http://www.conostan.com/single-element.aspx
Conoco sold it. http://www.conostan.com/about-conostan.aspx

OK. So I had to make batches of Conostan and ship them out. That meant I had to mix the assorted element concentrates with base oil , fill orders world wide, and ship them out. Obviously if I just shirked on measuring right, I could have ruined a very profitable product's reputation.

What is the most boring thing in the world? Technology. Machines. Why? We have too much of it already. That has been true since the sixties.

That stuff might be boring, but would you prefer going back to pre technology? I know I wouldn't.

What is not boring? Sex. Love. Beauty. Discovery and seeing new connections between ideas. Compassionate caring. Politics. Creativity. Spirituality. The miracle of yourself and others. And the videos I post

Well, sex got ruined for successful guys in a GenX view of things. A lot of Xer boys saw their fathers taken to the cleaners during the divorce epidemic. That's why there's been opt out. Now if you're a Ninja Xer guy, that's not an issue. No income, no job Xer guys have nothing to take. That's why the ladies lament "there's no good men around to marry". So the Awakening goes into the "blight" column like lot's of inner cities that got "blight" from riots in the 1960's.

Politics? Really? Uh Culture Wars, yuck.

The other 3 things are fine.

Rule of thumb. Use science to study anything, and everything. Do not think that science gives you the complete answer for anything.

Close. Substitute "everything" for "anything" and you're there.

The likes of Vandal, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, the mob of skeptics who have infiltrated and sabotaged wikipedia, and so on, think that science and the "evidence" it provides is the answer to all questions, and religion is the answer to none. They are scientific-materialist fundamentalists. Fundamentalists of the religious stripe think that religion, namely their own religion, is the answer to all questions, and science is the answer to none.

1. I'm not sure what the kerfuffle wrt Wikipedia is all about.
2. There is stuff there that isn't up to date as well. I'm sure like all other human endeavors there's error.

These are the greatest two delusions in the world; far greater than any political correctness. They are both highly authoritarian; for them, the truth is decided by the experts. Unfortunately, they are also two of the most popular worldviews in the world. And together with the free market fundamentalism, they are the most dangerous and deadly ideologies in the world.

Not quite. Religion is doing quite a number on the Mideast at present. Any ideology when taken to excess can be dangerous.

People here, like most educated folks (as Sheldrake pointed out), subscribe to scientific ideology to one degree or another. It's the default world view of educated people. Be warned: it's bad thinking. It cuts you off from reality.
http://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

The constants are not really constants is testable. Just do it right and see. I don't think my request that the same equipment be used over a time period is that intrusive.

Now when you get to psi, does one need to even claim "scientifically proven" anyway. People can't bitch if psi research makes no claim of "scientifically proven". That gets right back to my hammer/screw driver thing. Now if TED does use science and follows the proper protocols, then it can claim science and nobody can bitch about that either because the protocols were followed as per the methodology rules. That's why I mentioned the bromine discovery. The Wiki article is out of date. Science had to correct itself. Now, I'd go off and check out arsenic first and see if that element is essential. There is of course water and food that's contaminated. It could be, though not proven, it's the dose that makes the poison, right?

Eric, can't y'all Boomers do anything without turning it into some ideological hissy fit? Just let it be, as the Beatles used to say.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I said that because I have the humility to say "I don't know" or I don't have an answer". I know humility gets a rough times these days, but personally, I think it's a virtue.

Yes it is, but I am so much better at it than Vandal

I don't think you got my point that asking how consciousness "works" is the wrong question. It is wise to be humble, I guess, since there can never be an answer.

Well, we have to go back to an original problem I have with Sheldrake. OK, wrt constants, he has a hypothesis of sorts that said constants change. I'm objecting because his data is flawed. Again, in science you have to follow the process properly. So wrt the speed of light, he can if he wanted to use the same equipment to measure the speed of light now, himself , following the proper scientific protocols. I think the other thing that's tripping you up is that science is not a dogma, but just a methodology. It's like a cake recipe. You follow certain instructions and use certain ingredients, measure the ingredients , and get a cake. I probably have a worldview, make sure you measure stuff right because.

He is just looking at the data which the scientists use to measure the speed of light and gravity. There is no need for him to do it. He is just pointing out that their claim that it's a constant, is just a dogma. I think he did this rather well. It is for people who like science to realize that it is loaded with dogma. The notion that it's just a methodology is a nice ideal, which Sheldrake said he agrees with; but it is not upheld in practice. Most scientists are materialists, and this limits free scientific inquiry. Certain topics are taboo.

That stuff might be boring, but would you prefer going back to pre technology? I know I wouldn't.

Neither would I. But it would be nice if more people took an interest in other things too, and not worship technology, or use it to boost the claim that science is the only knowledge.

Well, sex got ruined for successful guys in a GenX view of things. A lot of Xer boys saw their fathers taken to the cleaners during the divorce epidemic. That's why there's been opt out. Now if you're a Ninja Xer guy, that's not an issue. No income, no job Xer guys have nothing to take. That's why the ladies lament "there's no good men around to marry". So the Awakening goes into the "blight" column like lot's of inner cities that got "blight" from riots in the 1960's.

Politics? Really? Uh Culture Wars, yuck.

The other 3 things are fine.

Yes. Politics is a mess right now in the USA, because of the free market ideology and right-wing culture wars that block everything. But it's still fun to follow, I think. And it's important; or could be IF this ideological logjam could be broken. And I don't think feminism or divorce can ruin sex itself.

Close. Substitute "everything" for "anything" and you're there.

No, anything is better. There is absolutely nothing that science can know all about. The method itself is limited; always.

But what is true also, is that science is better at some things than others, whereas other modes of knowing are better at some things than others. I could spell out some of that if you want.

1. I'm not sure what the kerfuffle wrt Wikipedia is all about.

Why not? I just told you.

The constants are not really constants is testable. Just do it right and see. I don't think my request that the same equipment be used over a time period is that intrusive.

That's just what Sheldrake is asking for. Or rather, to make their results and methods public, instead of hiding them to cover up the fact that the constants are not really constant. If you see his point, he says that this is a simple example of how relaxing the materialist dogma (the Vandal dogma) would advance science by freeing up inquiry.

Now when you get to psi, does one need to even claim "scientifically proven" anyway. People can't bitch if psi research makes no claim of "scientifically proven". That gets right back to my hammer/screw driver thing. Now if TED does use science and follows the proper protocols, then it can claim science and nobody can bitch about that either because the protocols were followed as per the methodology rules. That's why I mentioned the bromine discovery. The Wiki article is out of date. Science had to correct itself. Now, I'd go off and check out arsenic first and see if that element is essential. There is of course water and food that's contaminated. It could be, though not proven, it's the dose that makes the poison, right?

Eric, can't y'all Boomers do anything without turning it into some ideological hissy fit? Just let it be, as the Beatles used to say.

Just tell that to the censors. They are mostly Millennials, I think. Here, it is mostly Xers like Vandal and Kinser who are the militant enforcers of orthodoxy. And Sheldrake is a Silent/Boomer cusp (or maybe not even a cusp if you say the cusp is later for the British). Again, throwing the label "boomer" at me and others, is usually irrelevant.

No, it is important that skeptics not enforce lies about psi research. Psi is a part of our experience, and if we don't know it, then we know a lot less about life and what abilities we have. If science claims to know things, then it needs to get it right, and its followers need to let go of an ideology that blocks knowledge.

It is a fair question; does psi research even need to happen? It doesn't seem to convince the skeptics, because they simply ignore and censor the evidence, no matter how convincing; as Vandal always does. But it does matter a great deal what we think about ourselves. We need to realize who and what we are; that we are conscious, divine beings with spontaneous free will. The supernatural is the natural. It is way better to realize that existence is spontaneous free frolic patterns, rather than imposing prior cause explanations on top of it that supposedly force it to do everything it does; causes that go all the way back to the one free miracle. It's the new Deism of modern science. Why do we have to suppose that spontaneous frolic is unnatural; that the natural thing is to be forced to do everything by others, who are forced in turn, leading back to one huge 14-billion-year-old free miracle anyway? I think that's worth the greatest possible hissy fit.

Psi is a diverse ability to develop that can benefit us a lot. Materialist Skepticism causes us to ignore it. Scientists like Sheldrake can help convince some people that the militant skeptics, like the wikipedia editors, Vandal and Dawson, are wrong; that such an ability exists; and if it exists, it can be developed. I suppose it's important for some people to test whether the ability has been developed or not, to distinguish charlatans from genuine psychics; just like we test for new drugs. The whole spiritual topic, including the "other side," is the greatest frontier of knowledge now.

Here Sheldrake explains how the taboo blocks knowledge of psi, and how knowledge and development of psi and intuition would benefit us.
http://youtu.be/JnA8GUtXpXY?t=1h13m30s

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes it is, but I am so much better at it than Vandal

That is a matter between you and Vandal. I'm not an arbiter of that issue.

I don't think you got my point that asking how consciousness "works" is the wrong question. It is wise to be humble, I guess, since there can never be an answer.

Well, since there's no research or data, then we, at present don't have any indicators as to whether that question is valid or not.

He is just looking at the data which the scientists use to measure the speed of light and gravity. There is no need for him to do it. He is just pointing out that their claim that it's a constant, is just a dogma. I think he did this rather well. It is for people who like science to realize that it is loaded with dogma.

Yes, since he's the one who's objecting, then the onus is on him to do the procedure right. Again, that isn't a big burden. Here's the reality. You state that he's a "scientist". OK, if he's scientist and is raising questions about current knowledge, then he must follow the process correctly. This isn't just some bullshit. Now, think of the cake thing. If I decide to use 1 cup of salt instead of 1 teaspoon of salt, what would I get?
1. The cake would taste horrible.
2. If I ate enough of it, I'd die of sodium poisoning.
For true scientists , doing the procedures correctly is a moral imperative. It is wrong and evil to use shoddy data to support a conclusion. That is why I'm going to ignore Sheldrake until he gets his shit together on measuring stuff right. It's simple really. Conoco trusted me when I was 20 to get my measurements right on Conostan, a multimillion dollar product. This is not small stuff Eric. I expect my prescriptions to have the proper amount of the drug, I expect stuff I buy that's measured to have the proper amount. I expect the ingredients be what is stated on the label, with nothing added or subtracted.

The notion that it's just a methodology is a nice ideal, which Sheldrake said he agrees with; but it is not upheld in practice. Most scientists are materialists, and this limits free scientific inquiry.

1. Well, back to the measuring of constants, what he did isn't science, it's wishful thinking or outright fraud by use of shoddy data.
2. I'd prefer to think of "most scientists" as having moral scruples to allow whatever data measurements are done to shoot down their hypothesis without regrets myself.
3. Obviously, people don't hold much respect for shysters. So yeah, a lot folks think he's a crank and phoney. I'd guess that's why Vandal's having a fit about this stuff.
4. I don't think anyone's muzzling TED per se. So what's being censored?

Certain topics are taboo.

Yes, if that's the case, then I'd agree. If say telepathy is taboo, it should of course not be that way. Now if one wishes to claim science as the methodology , then the proper data and controls must be followed. Besides there's other options besides science to work on that topic.

Neither would I. But it would be nice if more people took an interest in other things too, and not worship technology, or use it to boost the claim that science is the only knowledge.

Actually, I think more folks claim religion as a source of knowledge. It doesn't have to be about "stuff". Most religions have moral codes, historic information and the like. Religion of course unto itself is neither "good" or "bad", it's just how folks use it.

Yes. Politics is a mess right now in the USA, because of the free market ideology and right-wing culture wars that block everything. But it's still fun to follow, I think. And it's important; or could be IF this ideological logjam could be broken.

Well let's toss NIMYISM in. Take a gander at this: Disgusting laws in assorted cities. Not really a "right wing issue".
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/p...d-the-homeless
http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/1...homeless-persi

2. There's plenty of PC/ on the left which qualifies as disgusting stuff as well.
3. Yes, Neoliberal economics is a sham.

And I don't think feminism or divorce can ruin sex itself.

It did ruin sex for a lot of Xer's, just ask them.

No, anything is better. There is absolutely nothing that science can know all about. The method itself is limited; always.

You are entitled to your opinion. I just don't agree with it.

But what is true also, is that science is better at some things than others, whereas other modes of knowing are better at some things than others. I could spell out some of that if you want.

No need to. That was what I was trying point out. Yes, science isn't an end all nor the only methodology.

Why not? I just told you.

OK, Wiki censored you. Uh, life ain't fair, Eric. I have to deal with losers at work. It's hard to soar like an eagle when you work with turkeys you know.

That's just what Sheldrake is asking for. Or rather, to make their results and methods public, instead of hiding them to cover up the fact that the constants are not really constant. If you see his point, he says that this is a simple example of how relaxing the materialist dogma (the Vandal dogma) would advance science by freeing up inquiry.

Again, he raised the question, he needs to get his act together and stop using shoddy data which means the conclusion is utter horseshit.

[I'm beginning to see how Vandal can get frustrated with you]. I think the above is the 4th time I've pointed that out.] If I see this again, I'm gonna give you one of my zonk awards.

Just tell that to the censors. They are mostly Millennials, I think. Here, it is mostly Xers like Vandal and Kinser who are the militant enforcers of orthodoxy. And Sheldrake is a Silent/Boomer cusp (or maybe not even a cusp if you say the cusp is later for the British). Again, throwing the label "boomer" at me and others, is usually irrelevant.

Sorries, I'm old enough to remember who had all of those bullhorns in the Awakening. Us Jonesers are funny that way. It's just one of those inconvient truths. Jonesers = Boomers pesky younger siblings, either IRL or virtually.

No, it is important that skeptics not enforce lies about psi research. Psi is a part of our experience, and if we don't know it, then we know a lot less about life and what abilities we have. If science claims to know things, then it needs to get it right, and its followers need to let go of an ideology that blocks knowledge.

1. Now, run this through. If a scientist runs an experiment on say telepathy , using standard protocol, and gets data that disproves it.
Now, what does that really mean? It should simply mean that sciencee says it does not exist with that particular data set up.
2. That is why I told you about bromine. Until now, science thought bromine was useless to animals. It knows better.
3. Why? A different data set or better instruments are now available.
4. Even if science can't prove something, it still doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is correct. Science my be the wrong tool, or the available knowledge for an experiment isn't adequate. Just look how many times coffee was good or bad for you.

It is a fair question; does psi research even need to happen? It doesn't seem to convince the skeptics, because they simply ignore and censor the evidence, no matter how convincing; as Vandal always does. But it does matter a great deal what we think about ourselves. We need to realize who and what we are; that we are conscious, divine beings with spontaneous free will. The supernatural is the natural. It is way better to realize that existence is spontaneous free frolic patterns, rather than imposing prior cause explanations on top of it that supposedly force it to do everything it does; causes that go all the way back to the one free miracle. It's the new Deism of modern science. Why do we have to suppose that spontaneous frolic is unnatural; that the natural thing is to be forced to do everything by others, who are forced in turn, leading back to one huge 14-billion-year-old free miracle anyway? I think that's worth the greatest possible hissy fit.

OK. Go research away. I hold no opposition you know, right? As one who experienced such phenomena [but admits not to know why], I have no dog in that fight.

Sorry again. I play yet another Joneser card. Ya gotta love us Eric, we reside in the twilight zone between Boom and X.

Psi is a diverse ability to develop that can benefit us a lot. Materialist Skepticism causes us to ignore it. Scientists like Sheldrake can help convince some people that the militant skeptics, like the wikipedia editors, Vandal and Dawson, are wrong; that such an ability exists; and if it exists, it can be developed. I suppose it's important for some people to test whether the ability has been developed or not, to distinguish charlatans from genuine psychics; just like we test for new drugs. The whole spiritual topic, including the "other side," is the greatest frontier of knowledge now.

Here Sheldrake explains how the taboo blocks knowledge of psi, and how knowledge and development of psi and intuition would benefit us.
http://youtu.be/JnA8GUtXpXY?t=1h13m30s[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Well, since there's no research or data, then we, at present don't have any indicators as to whether that question is valid or not.

This is not a data question. This is rather a question of how you pose the question. In science this is conceiving the hypothesis. In general this is a philosophical question, and I have given you an answer. The machine model is a human anthropomorphism. Only machines "work." That model can provide data to some extent in dealing with questions that appear to be purely physical, but for consciousness it can't.

Yes, since he's the one who's objecting, then the onus is on him to do the procedure right. Again, that isn't a big burden. Here's the reality. You state that he's a "scientist". OK, if he's scientist and is raising questions about current knowledge, then he must follow the process correctly. This isn't just some bullshit. Now, think of the cake thing. If I decide to use 1 cup of salt instead of 1 teaspoon of salt, what would I get?
1. The cake would taste horrible.
2. If I ate enough of it, I'd die of sodium poisoning.
For true scientists , doing the procedures correctly is a moral imperative. It is wrong and evil to use shoddy data to support a conclusion. That is why I'm going to ignore Sheldrake until he gets his shit together on measuring stuff right. It's simple really. Conoco trusted me when I was 20 to get my measurements right on Conostan, a multimillion dollar product. This is not small stuff Eric. I expect my prescriptions to have the proper amount of the drug, I expect stuff I buy that's measured to have the proper amount. I expect the ingredients be what is stated on the label, with nothing added or subtracted.

But you can't tell scientists to do what they don't have the tools to do. It is astronomers who are already doing the measurements. There is no question about the correctness of the measurements. That is not the issue. The issue is that the results are being covered up. He is just asking for the data to be posted online for us all to see. They won't do it. You don't get the issue yet that he raised.

1. Well, back to the measuring of constants, what he did isn't science, it's wishful thinking or outright fraud by use of shoddy data.

He didn't measure the constants. Again, you don't get it. It was the other guys who did the measurements who aren't doing science, simply by covering up the results by juggling the data to fit their dogma. That is very clear; I don't see why you don't get it.

2. I'd prefer to think of "most scientists" as having moral scruples to allow whatever data measurements are done to shoot down their hypothesis without regrets myself.

You are obviously wrong.

3. Obviously, people don't hold much respect for shysters. So yeah, a lot folks think he's a crank and phoney. I'd guess that's why Vandal's having a fit about this stuff.
4. I don't think anyone's muzzling TED per se. So what's being censored?

You ask me to repeat myself again. OK, for the umteenth time, TED took his talk down from their website. Bootleggers were able to post it, and it caused a small sensation. Wikipedia is engaged in outrageous censorship on many pages on topics regarding the so-called paranormal. None of the data is allowed to be posted. If you heard Sheldrake's video I linked to in my last post, he told of his own experience of his articles being rejected simply because of what the topic was. And yet, scientists tell him in private that they know psi happens all the time. He is only called a crank because of the taboo and fear of the skeptics like Vandal. Don't attribute any rational explanation for Vandal's fits. He is simply a crank and a fraud himself; a fundamentalist of the most obvious and extreme kind. Worse than a Bible thumper.

Yes, if that's the case, then I'd agree. If say telepathy is taboo, it should of course not be that way. Now if one wishes to claim science as the methodology , then the proper data and controls must be followed. Besides there's other options besides science to work on that topic.

That's right; and that's why Sheldrake, Radin and other excellent scientists use the proper data and controls in this research. And people in other fields study the topic too. But science has an appeal because its conclusions are more rigorously developed and some level of validity can be offered from its testing, although like I say, it is dogmatic to expect absolute truth from these kinds of empirical tests. Empiricism does not offer absolute truth.

Actually, I think more folks claim religion as a source of knowledge. It doesn't have to be about "stuff". Most religions have moral codes, historic information and the like. Religion of course unto itself is neither "good" or "bad", it's just how folks use it.

That's true.

It did ruin sex for a lot of Xer's, just ask them.

It's a process of adjustment to women's lib, I suppose. A necessary stage that boomers also had to deal with. Once the issues are worked out, if they are, well, sex is still sex, and it's still not boring.

You are entitled to your opinion. I just don't agree with it.

You think science can give you all the answers on some subjects, then. No, I don't agree, because the methods of science are inherently limited. Scientific observation is limited to a specific question asked, and controlled tests must be conducted which omit even more observation. It also uses measurements, and they are inherently uncertain, as science itself has proved. Such observation is limited to what the senses and its tools can tell us. It is limited to what has already been created. The fact is though, that the senses and the brain are themselves empirical objects. So if science tries to observe the observer, it can only observe its effects after the fact.

So if you "don't agree," maybe you need to answer all these points and more.

No need to. That was what I was trying point out. Yes, science isn't an end all nor the only methodology.

That's right. All I am pointing out is that this applies to any subject whatsoever. But by the same token, science can also study any subject whatsoever, and get some info about it. Limited though it may be, it is useful to have evidence that other observers can verify.

OK, Wiki censored you. Uh, life ain't fair, Eric. I have to deal with losers at work. It's hard to soar like an eagle when you work with turkeys you know.

It's not about me, of course. It's about being fair to the readers. I had thought this was a settled issue. Scientists have data that psi exists. The millennial editors on wikipedia didn't get the word. They are brainwashed militants; no better than Christian fundies or Islamic jihadists.

Again, he raised the question, he needs to get his act together and stop using shoddy data which means the conclusion is utter horseshit.

[I'm beginning to see how Vandal can get frustrated with you]. I think the above is the 4th time I've pointed that out.] If I see this again, I'm gonna give you one of my zonk awards.

OK, zonk away. It is you that aren't getting it. I'm one ahead of you, I think now. This is the 5th time I have pointed this out. It is not up to him to measure constants. It is not up to him to do measurements on every scientific question. Scientists specialize; they don't all ask all questions. He is just asking the scientists who DO measure this stuff, to be forthcoming with their results and post them online. They refuse. So who is shoddy? They are.

Sorries, I'm old enough to remember who had all of those bullhorns in the Awakening. Us Jonesers are funny that way. It's just one of those inconvient truths. Jonesers = Boomers pesky younger siblings, either IRL or virtually.

Yep, we did. Now the new younger folks do; bullhorns shouting us down. We never learn; not yet anyway.

1. Now, run this through. If a scientist runs an experiment on say telepathy , using standard protocol, and gets data that disproves it.
Now, what does that really mean? It should simply mean that science says it does not exist with that particular data set up.
2. That is why I told you about bromine. Until now, science thought bromine was useless to animals. It knows better.
3. Why? A different data set or better instruments are now available.
4. Even if science can't prove something, it still doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is correct. Science my be the wrong tool, or the available knowledge for an experiment isn't adequate. Just look how many times coffee was good or bad for you.

Makes sense to me; that's what those who study psi are doing.

I don't have to rely on others to do that, unlike you scientists. YOu depend on the external for everything.

Eric your response is interesting, didn't Aristotle once say that the external world was all we really had to go by? That it doesn't matter what's going on in some other "realm," we're stuck dealing with the external world for our entire lives. I'm not sure why people put so much focus on something they believe is outside of that. I understand the emotional need for spirituality and to believe in an afterlife. I just don't understand what relevance a potential "other realm" (that doesn't interact with mine in anyway whatsoever) has on my life.

If you can explain this to me in a rational pragmatic manner, then maybe I'll start to see the world outside of the external world.

It kind of reminds me of conspiracy theorists, I mean nothing they talk about has any effect on their day. Yet they insist that it's of the utmost urgency and importance on their future.

Now I know you believe in something other than the external world...but that doesn't mean it's provable.

Originally Posted by Felix5

Eric your response is interesting, didn't Aristotle once say that the external world was all we really had to go by? That it doesn't matter what's going on in some other "realm," we're stuck dealing with the external world for our entire lives. I'm not sure why people put so much focus on something they believe is outside of that. I understand the emotional need for spirituality and to believe in an afterlife. I just don't understand what relevance a potential "other realm" (that doesn't interact with mine in anyway whatsoever) has on my life.

If you can explain this to me in a rational pragmatic manner, then maybe I'll start to see the world outside of the external world.

OK, I'll try. I said Vandal relies on the external for everything. They depend on others to verify what they know. Ultimately, it's like what the Buddha said. You have to depend on yourself to know, as though it were the only lamp. This world is not an "other realm" that has no effect on your life; it IS your life. An external world implies an internal world. Otherwise, why use the word external? External to what? To the internal world, your own consciousness, supposedly. To know that, you turn your eyes around and look at yourself. That is the "spiritual" realm.

It's a great discovery for one like me, who wasn't educated to see this realm; I owe my life as I know it now to this discovery in the sixties.

OK, I'll post this
http://youtu.be/RghL1rViX34

And through awareness of ourselves, we discover our connection to others too. We know that everything and everyone whom we might see as "external" to us, is really connected to and part of ourselves too. We know they are conscious too. This is also what quantum non-locality implies. Emotional needs for an afterlife don't necessarily figure into any of this.

Personally, I think life without the afterlife is meaningless and futile. It's certainly an interesting issue. That is another question, though. You don't need to believe in an afterlife to investigate the internal world. You don't need to believe in anything. You just look within and be more conscious.

It's good to have others verify your observations in repeatable experiments. But each scientist is observing for him/herself. Ultimately, all we have to go by is our own observation and experience. You decide what to give creedence to, whether it's a scientific study, or the Bible or Koran. Knowledge of the internal world may not consist of tests and measurements (though there are some), but many observers have delved into this realm over the millennia, and there's a very vast and consistent body of knowledge about it. As Joseph Campbell said, "it is thoroughly known."

It kind of reminds me of conspiracy theorists, I mean nothing they talk about has any effect on their day. Yet they insist that it's of the utmost urgency and importance on their future.

The internal world is indeed important, because only through self-awareness can we learn and grow and improve our conduct. It helps with any ability we develop too, to learn to focus and concentrate. It helps us receive insight and intuition on what to do, and when. It opens up interesting subjects to study, which may be taboo among materialists. It opens creativity. Knowing ourselves, listening and focusing is something we do in our awareness; it's not a scientific test.

Now I know you believe in something other than the external world...but that doesn't mean it's provable.

If you followed any of the links I posted, then you know there is great evidence for the internal world. But if you assume that science has trouble "proving" things of the internal world, then as I see it, that helps to show the inherent limits, not of the internal world, but of the methods of science itself. In reality, there is no internal world, except by comparison to the so-called external world. If you don't exclude the conscious and the spiritual from your "focus" and your study, then there's no reason to talk about different worlds at all.

[QUOTE=Eric the Green;505065]This is not a data question. This is rather a question of how you pose the question. In science this is conceiving the hypothesis. In general this is a philosophical question, and I have given you an answer. The machine model is a human anthropomorphism. Only machines "work." That model can provide data to some extent in dealing with questions that appear to be purely physical, but for consciousness it can't.

But you can't tell scientists to do what they don't have the tools to do. It is astronomers who are already doing the measurements. There is no question about the correctness of the measurements. That is not the issue. The issue is that the results are being covered up. He is just asking for the data to be posted online for us all to see. They won't do it. You don't get the issue yet that he raised.

He didn't measure the constants. Again, you don't get it. It was the other guys who did the measurements who aren't doing science, simply by covering up the results by juggling the data to fit their dogma. That is very clear; I don't see why you don't get it.

You are obviously wrong.

You ask me to repeat myself again. OK, for the umteenth time, TED took his talk down from their website. Bootleggers were able to post it, and it caused a small sensation. Wikipedia is engaged in outrageous censorship on many pages on topics regarding the so-called paranormal. None of the data is allowed to be posted. If you heard Sheldrake's video I linked to in my last post, he told of his own experience of his articles being rejected simply because of what the topic was. And yet, scientists tell him in private that they know psi happens all the time. He is only called a crank because of the taboo and fear of the skeptics like Vandal. Don't attribute any rational explanation for Vandal's fits. He is simply a crank and a fraud himself; a fundamentalist of the most obvious and extreme kind. Worse than a Bible thumper.

Sorry, he used bogus data. Vandal's right. I'm gonna call Sheldrake a fruit bat, so there! I don't have a katsung47 pic, but I'll award you the Klaxon award.

That's right; and that's why Sheldrake, Radin and other excellent scientists use the proper data and controls in this research. And people in other fields study the topic too. But science has an appeal because its conclusions are more rigorously developed and some level of validity can be offered from its testing, although like I say, it is dogmatic to expect absolute truth from these kinds of empirical tests. Empiricism does not offer absolute truth.

Excellent my ass. I mean really, use the same fucking instruments and meaure the shit yourself.


Here' my award for you this time. I think you need to read this this article.
Maxwell's equations have c in them. Now I never had to use these, but lot's of my dorm mates did. If you major in electrical engineering, you get to do this stuff on tests. I think you should read this article, word for word, top to bottom. It'll blow your mind away.

It's a process of adjustment to women's lib, I suppose. A necessary stage that boomers also had to deal with. Once the issues are worked out, if they are, well, sex is still sex, and it's still not boring.

Possibley, but the fallout sucked.

You think science can give you all the answers on some subjects, then. No, I don't agree, because the methods of science are inherently limited. Scientific observation is limited to a specific question asked, and controlled tests must be conducted which omit even more observation. It also uses measurements, and they are inherently uncertain, as science itself has proved. Such observation is limited to what the senses and its tools can tell us. It is limited to what has already been created. The fact is though, that the senses and the brain are themselves empirical objects. So if science tries to observe the observer, it can only observe its effects after the fact.

Yes, science has all of the answer to some things. Right back again to "Bromine is essential to animal life". There's nothing more to add.

So if you "don't agree," maybe you need to answer all these points and more.

That's why I used the phrase "there are some things that are not known to synthetic knowledge". Science is one of the "synthetic knowledge" sources.

That's right. All I am pointing out is that this applies to any subject whatsoever. But by the same token, science can also study any subject whatsoever, and get some info about it. Limited though it may be, it is useful to have evidence that other observers can verify.

That would be correct as well. We currently don't know what is beyond the event horizon of black holes for example.

It's not about me, of course. It's about being fair to the readers. I had thought this was a settled issue. Scientists have data that psi exists. The millennial editors on wikipedia didn't get the word. They are brainwashed militants; no better than Christian fundies or Islamic jihadists.

Yeah, just use some that pass muster within TED itself.

OK, zonk away. It is you that aren't getting it. I'm one ahead of you, I think now. This is the 5th time I have pointed this out. It is not up to him to measure constants. It is not up to him to do measurements on every scientific question. Scientists specialize; they don't all ask all questions. He is just asking the scientists who DO measure this stuff, to be forthcoming with their results and post them online. They refuse.
So who is shoddy? They are.

1. I gave you 2 zonks because Vandal's been slacking! Damn Xer's you can't count on them I tell you. He's supposed to snark all of these new posts you've made.

Yep, we did. Now the new younger folks do; bullhorns shouting us down. We never learn; not yet anyway.

Not quite. It's more of a you DID teach your children well on that one.

Makes sense to me; that's what those who study psi are doing.

I'd say those who are passing muster wrt TED do follow proper protocols.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Sorry, he used bogus data. Vandal's right. I'm gonna call Sheldrake a fruit bat, so there! I don't have a katsung47 pic, but I'll award you the Klaxon award.

Vandal is never right.

Excellent my ass. I mean really, use the same fucking instruments and measure the shit yourself.

You missed the whole point, Sir Norse God. The point is what the measurements are over time. It's not his job to do that. Again, again: the point is that the measurers are covering up. Sheldrake got the data, but they don't admit that the "constant" is a sham. There are no constants; only habits. Sheldrake is right. This is a universe of spontaneous uncertainty and probability. Habits and regularities give it order, but it is not absolute law..

I think you should read this article, word for word, top to bottom. It'll blow your mind away.

You think so, eh; well maybe later.

Yes, science has all of the answer to some things. Right back again to "Bromine is essential to animal life". There's nothing more to add.

Science knows very little about life. It does not know everything about anything. That's just arrogance to think it does.

That's why I used the phrase "there are some things that are not known to synthetic knowledge". Science is one of the "synthetic knowledge" sources.

I understand that.

1. I gave you 2 zonks because Vandal's been slacking! Damn Xer's you can't count on them I tell you. He's supposed to snark all of these new posts you've made.

He needs to fill up on his supply, I reckon. When he does, I'll just snark him back for a post or two. There's no other communication possible with him. But it might be fun, for a little while. Its gets old quick tho.

Not quite. It's more of a you DID teach your children well on that one.

And now they are turning the tables on us. We taught them to use bullhorns; they ignored what we shouted through them.

I'd say those who are passing muster wrt TED do follow proper protocols.

It's a sad fact that those who are censoring TED are not scientists, but militant skeptics. So you would be "saying" incorrectly. Rejection of psi research is done merely because the researcher claims evidence for psi. According to the dogma, that is impossible. So they reject and censor it. Don't believe scientists or their fans in the media are ethical or fair-minded; ain't necessarily so. No more so than FED bankers or PC politicians and academics.

By the way, the News reported tonight that you Okies are doing more of the up and down ride than we Californios; in fact, it is clear that it's all that fracking in red-state Oklahoma that is causing all the quakes.

OK, I'll try. I said Vandal relies on the external for everything. They depend on others to verify what they know. Ultimately, it's like what the Buddha said. You have to depend on yourself to know, as though it were the only lamp. This world is not an "other realm" that has no effect on your life; it IS your life. An external world implies an internal world. Otherwise, why use the word external? External to what? To the internal world, your own consciousness, supposedly. To know that, you turn your eyes around and look at yourself. That is the "spiritual" realm.

It's a great discovery for one like me, who wasn't educated to see this realm; I owe my life as I know it now to this discovery in the sixties.

Right like you said, it's your life. My "inner world" tends to be my conscious, my personal interests, my own philosophy. I was raised the opposite of you, entirely raised to idealistic

OK, I'll post this
http://youtu.be/RghL1rViX34

And through awareness of ourselves, we discover our connection to others too. We know that everything and everyone whom we might see as "external" to us, is really connected to and part of ourselves too. We know they are conscious too. This is also what quantum non-locality implies. Emotional needs for an afterlife don't necessarily figure into any of this.

I just don't see what this has to do with an afterlife or gods. An awareness of your self exists by seeing the bigger picture, which can be viewed in so many ways, history, astronomy, biology for example.

Personally, I think life without the afterlife is meaningless and futile. It's certainly an interesting issue. That is another question, though. You don't need to believe in an afterlife to investigate the internal world. You don't need to believe in anything. You just look within and be more conscious.

And yet you get by everyday knowing the possibility of an afterlife may not exist. Now I feel the opposite about this issue, To me a world with an afterlife just seems like a waste of time. Why are we here in the first place? Why weren't we just born in paradise already?

The internal world is indeed important, because only through self-awareness can we learn and grow and improve our conduct. It helps with any ability we develop too, to learn to focus and concentrate. It helps us receive insight and intuition on what to do, and when. It opens up interesting subjects to study, which may be taboo among materialists. It opens creativity. Knowing ourselves, listening and focusing is something we do in our awareness; it's not a scientific test.

I'm just not sure if some people are actually growing and evolving by exploring their inner life through religion or "isms." This is a terrible analogy to use, but it reminds me of the dog across the street which is constantly tethered. It gives the feeling and illusion that the dog is able to explore their yard, but they're really just confined to a limited space. If you confine yourself to the idea that there is a god and an afterlife, you're completely ruling out every single alternative possibility outside of that. Most people go even further by limited themselves to certain isms and religions. I don't see anything wrong with people seeking comfort and stability, but I just don't see it as growing spiritually in anyway. Isn't growing spiritually about accepting the truth, which is I don't know what exists outside of my own reality? Isn't it about challenging your own beliefs?

If you followed any of the links I posted, then you know there is great evidence for the internal world. But if you assume that science has trouble "proving" things of the internal world, then as I see it, that helps to show the inherent limits, not of the internal world, but of the methods of science itself. In reality, there is no internal world, except by comparison to the so-called external world. If you don't exclude the conscious and the spiritual from your "focus" and your study, then there's no reason to talk about different worlds at all.

I didn't see anything definitive provable in your links or videos. It just looked like someone was trying to justify their belief systems to fit the scientific world. Anyone can do that.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Vandal is never right.

He is most of the time. That's a lot more than I can say about that snake oil salesman Sheldrake. OK, some more adjectives are in order so I can get my point across
Sheldrake [shyster, phoney, looney, fake, junk scientist, charlatan, goof ball, buffoon, specious, fraudulent, deceptive, simulacra science, pretender, trickster, fruit bat ]

You missed the whole point, Sir Norse God. The point is what the measurements are over time. It's not his job to do that. Again, again: the point is that the measurers are covering up. Sheldrake got the data, but they don't admit that the "constant" is a sham. There are no constants; only habits. Sheldrake is right. This is a universe of spontaneous uncertainty and probability. Habits and regularities give it order, but it is not absolute law..

Uh, no c is a constant in Ragsland. If you can have your world, I can have mine. Btw,

Ragnarök isn't a Norse God, it's an event in Norse mythology.

Hint. I'm at Iraq and global warming at present. I'm also an inspiration to Wagner's Götterdämmerung. I chose it 'cause 1962 is the year of the Missile Crisis.

So, I'm a child of Camelot and a child of the "big fire".

Science knows very little about life. It does not know everything about anything. That's just arrogance to think it does.

Science knows the chemical formula of table salt. You seem to trip up on precision a lot wrt science. Table salt is composed of sodium and chlorine ions. It dissolves in polar solvents like water. Animals need both sodium and chloride ions. It's the most common salt in sea water.
It is classified as a salt because it is composed of ions. And so forth....

He needs to fill up on his supply, I reckon. When he does, I'll just snark him back for a post or two. There's no other communication possible with him. But it might be fun, for a little while. Its gets old quick tho.

I enjoy it. the fruit bat references were hilarious.

And now they are turning the tables on us. We taught them to use bullhorns; they ignored what we shouted through them.

Well, think about getting old has its advantages here. Hearing acuity tends to fade with age. So when you don't want to hear the bull horns, just unplug the hearing aid.

It's a sad fact that those who are censoring TED are not scientists, but militant skeptics. So you would be "saying" incorrectly. Rejection of psi research is done merely because the researcher claims evidence for psi. According to the dogma, that is impossible. So they reject and censor it. Don't believe scientists or their fans in the media are ethical or fair-minded; ain't necessarily so. No more so than FED bankers or PC politicians and academics.

1. TED has its own web site right? It's kinda hard to censor websites or youtube for that matter. At least some church ain't threatening them with a draw and quartering session, right?

By the way, the News reported tonight that you Okies are doing more of the up and down ride than we Californios; in fact, it is clear that it's all that fracking in red-state Oklahoma that is causing all the quakes.

You bet.
1. I know we've been having an epidemic of earthquakes because I've felt a few recently.
2. Yes, fracking is making this shit happen. The good news it that the worst faults are right under Oklahoma City. That means the enablers of fracking [our wonderful state government] is one thing that will get nailed the most.

Think of it as karma at work. If the capitol falls down, it will fall down on those who voted to allow it.

EDIT
add references to "fruit bat" Bwaaa hahhahahahahahah

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

He is most of the time. That's a lot more than I can say about that snake oil salesman Sheldrake. OK, some more adjectives are in order so I can get my point across
Sheldrake [shyster, phoney, looney, fake, junk scientist, charlatan, goof ball, buffoon, specious, fraudulent, deceptive, simulacra science, pretender, trickster, fruit bat ]

I don't know why you have that so wrong. But all I can do is point toward the truth. Sheldrake is brilliant and has offered us a better vision of how life evolves than the neo-Darwinian death model. I admire him a great deal. As for Vandal, he is the chief thief of the soul. again, I don't know how you get that wrong.

Uh, no c is a constant in Ragsland. If you can have your world, I can have mine. Btw,

No, it isn't. And no, you can't.

Ragnarök isn't a Norse God, it's an event in Norse mythology.

Hint. I'm at Iraq and global warming at present. I'm also an inspiration to Wagner's Götterdämmerung. I chose it 'cause 1962 is the year of the Missile Crisis.

So, I'm a child of Camelot and a child of the "big fire".

OK, sir.

Science knows the chemical formula of table salt. You seem to trip up on precision a lot wrt science. Table salt is composed of sodium and chlorine ions. It dissolves in polar solvents like water. Animals need both sodium and chloride ions. It's the most common salt in sea water.
It is classified as a salt because it is composed of ions. And so forth....

Like I say, science knows some things, at least in terms of its own language; a useful one for understanding and control. But that doesn't mean this is all that's going on. As Sheldrake says, the world is a living, self-organizing system. Listen to him and don't dismiss him, if you want to truly understand life. If you want to see his research for this, then read his book. If you don't want to read his book, then just leave him alone. If you want to be ignorant, that's your choice tho. Enjoy the bliss.

You got it right when you said that science should be open to psi and not suppress the knowledge through censorship. All Sheldrake is asking for is honesty here.

I enjoy it. the fruit bat references were hilarious.

Meaningless insults are just boring as hell.

Well, think about getting old has its advantages here. Hearing acuity tends to fade with age. So when you don't want to hear the bull horns, just unplug the hearing aid.

No thanks; idiots like these militant skeptics need to be stopped in their tracks. They have folks like you deceived.

1. TED has its own web site right? It's kinda hard to censor websites or youtube for that matter. At least some church ain't threatening them with a draw and quartering session, right?

That's true; it's just that his talk was taken down from the TED website because some militant skeptic idiots complained; using the kind of words you used above to describe him. Those words are completely wrong. He follows scientific protocols in his research. He is employed by Cambridge University. Stop insulting him, dude.

You bet.
1. I know we've been having an epidemic of earthquakes because I've felt a few recently.
2. Yes, fracking is making this shit happen. The good news it that the worst faults are right under Oklahoma City. That means the enablers of fracking [our wonderful state government] is one thing that will get nailed the most.

Think of it as karma at work. If the capitol falls down, it will fall down on those who voted to allow it.

OK, you nailed that one.

Originally Posted by Felix5

I just don't see what this has to do with an afterlife or gods. An awareness of your self exists by seeing the bigger picture, which can be viewed in so many ways, history, astronomy, biology for example.

Right, my point was that it doesn't have to do with afterlife or gods. Awareness of self is awareness of self; not science alone.

And yet you get by everyday knowing the possibility of an afterlife may not exist. Now I feel the opposite about this issue, To me a world with an afterlife just seems like a waste of time. Why are we here in the first place? Why weren't we just born in paradise already?

We are here to grow and learn. It's a good game, a story. All stories are based on this story; the hero with 1000 faces. In an infinite universe, there's more to discover and create all the time. Each artist creates something new. But in my view, growing is useless if you just die. But that's just my opinion. You are welcome to yours AFAIC.

I'm just not sure if some people are actually growing and evolving by exploring their inner life through religion or "isms." This is a terrible analogy to use, but it reminds me of the dog across the street which is constantly tethered. It gives the feeling and illusion that the dog is able to explore their yard, but they're really just confined to a limited space. If you confine yourself to the idea that there is a god and an afterlife, you're completely ruling out every single alternative possibility outside of that. Most people go even further by limited themselves to certain isms and religions. I don't see anything wrong with people seeking comfort and stability, but I just don't see it as growing spiritually in anyway. Isn't growing spiritually about accepting the truth, which is I don't know what exists outside of my own reality? Isn't it about challenging your own beliefs?

To me, the scientific materialist philosophy is what is terribly confining. It provides a view of the world with no-one home. Looking within opens up everything much wider. But religion is often confining as well. Yes, challenging beliefs is growing spiritually; and yes I agree, religion can be confining. You need to realize there's a whole other category of people that are spiritual but not religious; spiritual but not dogmatic or enchained to belief systems. You are not confined to a choice between science and dogmatic religion. I say, you're not limited to a choice between dogmatic science and dogmatic religion.

I didn't see anything definitive provable in your links or videos. It just looked like someone was trying to justify their belief systems to fit the scientific world. Anyone can do that.

There was evidence presented in those links, not justifying belief systems.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know why you have that so wrong. But all I can do is point toward the truth. Sheldrake is brilliant and has offered us a better vision of how life evolves than the neo-Darwinian death model. I admire him a great deal. As for Vandal, he is the chief thief of the soul. again, I don't know how you get that wrong.

'Tis the nature of GenX to be skeptics and at times cynics.

Cynicism isn't bad.

As such

Originally Posted by teh Wiki

There are four reasons why the Cynics are so named. First because of the indifference of their way of life, for they make a cult of indifference and, like dogs, eat and make love in public, go barefoot, and sleep in tubs and at crossroads. The second reason is that the dog is a shameless animal, and they make a cult of shamelessness, not as being beneath modesty, but as superior to it. The third reason is that the dog is a good guard, and they guard the tenets of their philosophy. The fourth reason is that the dog is a discriminating animal which can distinguish between its friends and enemies. So do they recognize as friends those who are suited to philosophy, and receive them kindly, while those unfitted they drive away, like dogs, by barking at them

No, it isn't. And no, you can't.

Yes, I can have my own world.

OK, sir.

Good, that's cleared up.

Like I say, science knows some things, at least in terms of its own language; a useful one for understanding and control. But that doesn't mean this is all that's going on. As Sheldrake says, the world is a living, self-organizing system. Listen to him and don't dismiss him, if you want to truly understand life. If you want to see his research for this, then read his book. If you don't want to read his book, then just leave him alone. If you want to be ignorant, that's your choice tho.

I'd guess there are other TED scientists that follow protocols that I think are valid. I'll choose them.

Enjoy the bliss.

Ignoring ignorance is bliss.

You got it right when you said that science should be open to psi and not suppress the knowledge through censorship. All Sheldrake is asking for is honesty here.

Uh, aren't there like other people doing psi research?

Meaningless insults are just boring as hell.

Even some obscure thing like fruit bats?

No thanks; idiots like these militant skeptics need to be stopped in their tracks. They have folks like you deceived.

OK. Another crusade for Eric(Global Warming, psi, Red States, Republicans);

That's true; it's just that his talk was taken down from the TED website because some militant skeptic idiots complained; using the kind of words you used above to describe him. Those words are completely wrong.

They didn't take him down. They just put a warning label on his stuff. Something like "keep out of reach of children".

He follows scientific protocols in his research.

No he does not. He's ignorant of biases.

He is employed by Cambridge University.

You should know better. Appeals to authority don't impress me one bit. [argumentum ad verecundiam ]

Stop insulting him, dude.

No, just for that. [quack]

OK, you nailed that one.

Shit yeah. The walls come tumbling down on a whole shitpot of dodos

When you say "c is a constant in Rags' world," and that's just the way it is, without any evidence whatsoever, you are doing philosophy. Even though you say you are bored with it, you have made an assumption and are holding to a materialist dogma. If you say certain living beings need bromine, so therefore all that's going on in life is chemistry, and Vandal is "right" about that, that is more philosophy. And it is unexamined philosophy, and as Socrates said, an unexamined life is not worth living.

It is worthwhile to examine your life. It is not boring. What is boring is just holding to dogmas for no reason.

But you did some good philosophy too when you correlated boomers with metals and Xers with non-metals. Let's look at that sodium-chloride phenomena again. Yes, science shows that salt is sodium bonding with chlorine; a metal with a non-metal. But WHY are there positive and negative charges? Your science has shown you THAT something occurs, but ONLY THAT. There is something else going on; a principle of positive and negative. Organisms beyond a certain level of complexity become male and female; positive and negative. And electricians even refer to the positive and negative ends of an electric cord. Why? There's a principle being observed. The Chinese call it yin and yang, and they use it in cooking, martial arts, divination, etc.

And you used it in your scheme of assigning metals to boomers and non-metals to Xers, because according to Generation Theory (the subject of this forum), prophets and civics are dominant types, and artists and nomads are recessive. Same principle. And those words remind me that the same distinction holds in genetics. It is not a physical law; it is a spiritual principle that applies in many fields. There's more going on than physical science can recognize. You need philosophy to see it.

And pan-psychism such as Sheldrake and Whitehead and other integral philosophers like Wilber propose, makes more sense than materialism. All things are conscious, at least to a degree.

'Tis the nature of GenX to be skeptics and at times cynics.

Cynicism isn't bad.

As such

Then why hold to materialist dogmas, like Vandal does? Why not be skeptical of them, as Sheldrake and I are?

Militant skeptics are not skeptics at all. They are zealots. Vandal is a zealot.

Yes, I can have my own world.

An unexamined world is not worth living in.

I'd guess there are other TED scientists that follow protocols that I think are valid. I'll choose them.

An arbitrary and meaningless choice. If you choose Vandal, you choose death.

Not only that, you are going along with authority. The authority of TED. You said if TED rejected Sheldrake, then it must be because they must know what they are doing. False. They rejected him because militant skeptics from the Skeptical Inquirer complained.

Uh, aren't there like other people doing psi research?

Yes, although as Sheldrake and Radin explained in their videos, it is a small field, because of the taboo. Sheldrake is no different than the others; they are all scientists using research protocols.

That doesn't mean he can't speculate and have opinions, which can later be researched. Science must start with ideas, and then they are tested to see whether they can be verified. Verification is not absolute truth, but it is evidence.

Why call Sheldrake "shyster, phoney, looney, fake, junk scientist, charlatan, goof ball, buffoon, specious, fraudulent, deceptive, simulacra science, pretender, trickster, fruit bat" simply because he has ideas that can be researched? Why are you rejecting the exploration of ideas, in favor of dogma and "that's the way it is in my world; it's not to be questioned; I just go along with whatever Vandal says, and not Eric"? Regardless of evidence?

Maybe pan-psychism is correct. Maybe "matter" is conscious. And if electrons are travelling at the speed of light, then they must be pure energy. Why reject Einstein too? And non-locality? Obviously, if quantum entanglement is true, which has been proven, then locality is out the window, spooky action at a distance is true, and the speed of light is not the barrier Einstein thought it was.

Question authority. Question Vandal.

OK. Another crusade for Eric (Global Warming, psi, Red States, Republicans);

Absolutely, and so it has been for me for 47 years.

It is not dogma though. The red/blue divide, for example, is not monolithic; it's just a trend, observable in the evidence, including much evidence I have posted. Republicans in congress appear to be mostly monolithic, but Republicans that have to deal with real world problems (governors and mayors) are not as dogmatic. Psi exists, but so do charlatans. Scientism is false; science is a method of partial understanding and control.

You see, I am not dogmatic like Vandal is, but you follow Vandal and not me. Vandal is a shyster, phoney, looney, fake, junk scientist, charlatan, goof ball, buffoon, specious, fraudulent, deceptive, simulacra science, pretender, trickster, fruit bat.

No he does not. He's ignorant of biases.

Prove it. You have not.

You should know better. Appeals to authority don't impress me one bit. [argumentum ad verecundiam ]

Why would a shyster be employed there? Don't you think you are misjudging him, if universities employ him? You can disagree with him, but your insults are invalid. It is your own judgement that is faulty here. It is not an appeal to authority; it is an appeal to qualification.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

When you say "c is a constant in Rags' world," and that's just the way it is, without any evidence whatsoever, you are doing philosophy.

There is evidence. Michelson-Morley and the speed of light

Even though you say you are bored with it, you have made an assumption and are holding to a materialist dogma. If you say certain living beings need bromine, so therefore all that's going on in life is chemistry, and Vandal is "right" about that, that is more philosophy.

No. That's just what the evidence indicates. Vitalism is dead.

And it is unexamined philosophy, and as Socrates said, an unexamined life is not worth living.

It is worthwhile to examine your life. It is not boring. What is boring is just holding to dogmas for no reason.

1- Biology isn't a dogma.

2- Evidence has shown the old view to be inaccurate.

But you did some good philosophy too when you correlated boomers with metals and Xers with non-metals.

That isn't philosophical thinking. It is analogous thinking.

Let's look at that sodium-chloride phenomena again. Yes, science shows that salt is sodium bonding with chlorine; a metal with a non-metal. But WHY are there positive and negative charges?

Physics. standard model

Your science has shown you THAT something occurs, but ONLY THAT. There is something else going on; a principle of positive and negative. Organisms beyond a certain level of complexity become male and female; positive and negative.

1- How exactly do you determine an organism's "level of complexity"?

2- Pick a "level of complexity" and I'll bet I can find an example of an organism that debunks your claim of "male and female".

3- Calling male and female equivalent to positive and negative is an analogy, not evidence.

And electricians even refer to the positive and negative ends of an electric cord. Why?

That makes no sense. A cord is not a circuit. DC circuits have positive and negative terminals but AC systems do not.

I guess we can add electrical systems to the growing list of subjects you think you understand but actually don't.

There's a principle being observed. The Chinese call it yin and yang, and they use it in cooking, martial arts, divination, etc.

Analogies are not evidence.

And you used it in your scheme of assigning metals to boomers and non-metals to Xers, because according to Generation Theory (the subject of this forum), prophets and civics are dominant types, and artists and nomads are recessive. Same principle.

Analogy.

And those words remind me that the same distinction holds in genetics.

If all you know about genetics is Mendel's Law of Dominance, then you are woefully ignorant of how genetics actually works.

It is not a physical law; it is a spiritual principle that applies in many fields. There's more going on than physical science can recognize. You need philosophy to see it.

Analogies are not evidence.

And pan-psychism such as Sheldrake and Whitehead and other integral philosophers like Wilber propose, makes more sense than materialism. All things are conscious, at least to a degree.

Zero evidence that that is true. You even claimed that it is impossible to get such evidence (consciousness not being measurable).

In other words, they and you are just making shit up.

Then why hold to materialist dogmas, like Vandal does? Why not be skeptical of them, as Sheldrake and I are?

Science is skepticism. You are the one who accepts claims without any evidence.

Militant skeptics are not skeptics at all. They are zealots. Vandal is a zealot.

You know that everyone here in the forum sees such claims as psychological projection, right?

An unexamined world is not worth living in.


An arbitrary and meaningless choice. If you choose Vandal, you choose death.

Not only that, you are going along with authority. The authority of TED. You said if TED rejected Sheldrake, then it must be because they must know what they are doing. False. They rejected him because militant skeptics from the Skeptical Inquirer complained.

Why do you blindly accept the word of Sheldrake and not the words of the organization that actually made the decision?

Your conspiracy mongering is a deep sign that you are listening to a crackpot.

Yes, although as Sheldrake and Radin explained in their videos, it is a small field, because of the taboo.

It's not taboo. It's just completely worthless as a scientific endeavor. There is no there, there.

Sheldrake is no different than the others; they are all scientists using research protocols.

No. He is a pseudo-scientist.

That doesn't mean he can't speculate and have opinions, which can later be researched. Science must start with ideas, and then they are tested to see whether they can be verified. Verification is not absolute truth, but it is evidence.

Pseudoscience. Real science designs experiments to refute ideas, not verify them.

Why call Sheldrake "shyster, phoney, looney, fake, junk scientist, charlatan, goof ball, buffoon, specious, fraudulent, deceptive, simulacra science, pretender, trickster, fruit bat" simply because he has ideas that can be researched?

Because his claims about his research are bogus pseudoscience. He is a crackpot.

Why are you rejecting the exploration of ideas, in favor of dogma and "that's the way it is in my world; it's not to be questioned; I just go along with whatever Vandal says, and not Eric"? Regardless of evidence?

Because I limit my scientific claims to the evidence we have not the evidence we could possibly get if only unicorns were real.

Maybe pan-psychism is correct. Maybe "matter" is conscious.

You and Sheldrake aren't claiming "maybe".

And if electrons are travelling at the speed of light, then they must be pure energy.

Electrons can never travel at the speed of light. Nothing with a resting mass can ever travel at the speed of light.

Why reject Einstein too?

You are the fruit bat that rejects Einstein. You just claimed that electrons can travel at the speed of light in complete violation of general relativity.

And non-locality? Obviously, if quantum entanglement is true, which has been proven, then locality is out the window, spooky action at a distance is true, and the speed of light is not the barrier Einstein thought it was.

You haven't got the foggiest idea how quantum mechanics actually works.

Question authority. Question Vandal.

Says the guy who unquestioningly accepts the words of every New Age crackpot that comes along.

Absolutely, and so it has been for me for 47 years.

It is not dogma though. The red/blue divide, for example, is not monolithic; it's just a trend, observable in the evidence, including much evidence I have posted. Republicans in congress appear to be mostly monolithic, but Republicans that have to deal with real world problems (governors and mayors) are not as dogmatic. Psi exists, but so do charlatans. Scientism is false; science is a method of partial understanding and control.

You see, I am not dogmatic like Vandal is, but you follow Vandal and not me.

1- Projection. Deal with it.

2- No one is following me. I find it interesting that you refer to this disagreement as an attempt to get followers. That Boomer ego knows no bounds, doesn't it?

Vandal is a shyster, phoney, looney, fake, junk scientist, charlatan, goof ball, buffoon, specious, fraudulent, deceptive, simulacra science, pretender, trickster, fruit bat.

Prove it. You have not.

Why would a shyster be employed there? Don't you think you are misjudging him, if universities employ him? You can disagree with him, but your insults are invalid. It is your own judgement that is faulty here. It is not an appeal to authority; it is an appeal to qualification.

Sheldrake has not worked for Cambridge University since 1974. Seriously, you know nothing about the guy except that he says words that you wish to be true.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

There is evidence. Michelson-Morley and the speed of light

Ahhh, he's baaaack. Time to dust off my snark bottle and open it up to respond to absolute bullshit.

Obviously, Chief Thief of Souls, you have shed no light on the situation!

No. That's just what the evidence indicates. Vitalism is dead.

No, YOU are dead. Well, I won't go further along that line. Why bury the dead?

1- Biology isn't a dogma.

2- Evidence has shown the old view to be inaccurate.

You are the champion dogmatist. In the dictionary, your picture is placed right next to the definition. You are so dogmatic you wouldn't know free inquiry if it bit you in the foot.

That isn't philosophical thinking. It is analogous thinking.

And you are analogous to a rat.

Physics. standard model

Standard models is all you will accept. You are stuck on standard models. You are a pathetic dogmatist.

1- How exactly do you determine an organism's "level of complexity"?

Anything more complex than YOU.

2- Pick a "level of complexity" and I'll bet I can find an example of an organism that debunks your claim of "male and female".

Ah, homosexual organisms! Have at it.

3- Calling male and female equivalent to positive and negative is an analogy, not evidence.

Which gives evidence about how narrow-minded and stupid you are!

That makes no sense. A cord is not a circuit. DC circuits have positive and negative terminals but AC systems do not.

You are lost; your cord is broken. You need to be wired up to the cosmos. You have been severed, and you are pathetically lacking in juice.

I guess we can add electrical systems to the growing list of subjects you think you understand but actually don't.

I guess we can add electrical systems to the growing list of subjects you think you understand but actually don't.

Analogies are not evidence.

The evidence indicates quite clearly that YOU are a fruitbat.

Analogy.

Analogies are so much better than the dogma that YOU peddle and impose on people.

If all you know about genetics is Mendel's Law of Dominance, then you are woefully ignorant of how genetics actually works.

All you know is bullshit. You know nothing but bullshit.

Analogies are not evidence.

Evidence is over-rated. Anything you say is wrong. You are analogous to a turtle.

Zero evidence that that is true. You even claimed that it is impossible to get such evidence (consciousness not being measurable).

In other words, they and you are just making shit up.

You are conscious and you ignore that fact. You are just stupid. You are a creep.

Science is skepticism. You are the one who accepts claims without any evidence.

And you accept every piece of stupid dogma that comes along, with no evidence whatsoever.

You know that everyone here in the forum sees such claims as psychological projection, right?

You claim you know what everybody in the forum thinks.

Why do you blindly accept the word of Sheldrake and not the words of the organization that actually made the decision?

Your conspiracy mongering is a deep sign that you are listening to a crackpot.

Your conspiracy theory is the scientistic skeptical dogmatists who want to shut off all debate and inquiry. You are the crackpot. Why do you blidnly accept the word of these crackpot militant skeptics? Because that's what you're doing. What you always do, because you are one of them. Fruitbat. Cockroach.

It's not taboo. It's just completely worthless as a scientific endeavor. There is no there, there.

You are not there. There is no there inside you, because you deny your own existence and everyone else's. There is just no there, there.

No. He is a pseudo-scientist.

And you are a pseudo human being. You are a pseudo teacher and not even a scientist. You are a peddler of superstition.

Pseudoscience. Real science designs experiments to refute ideas, not verify them.

Verity means truth. You don't know truth even if it stares you in the face.

Because his claims about his research are bogus pseudoscience. He is a crackpot.

And you are a coachroach. A zombie, a walking dead man. A vandal by your own admission. THere is no creep worse than you.

Because I limit my scientific claims to the evidence we have not the evidence we could possibly get if only unicorns were real.

I don't think you are real. No-one could be a bad as you. You must be a fantasy.

You and Sheldrake aren't claiming "maybe".

So here's my number, so call me maybe.

Electrons can never travel at the speed of light. Nothing with a resting mass can ever travel at the speed of light.

And yet you claim light is electro-magnetism lol
You make claims and back away from them. You are a pseudo-scientist and a pseudo human being; a walking zombie.

You are the fruit bat that rejects Einstein. You just claimed that electrons can travel at the speed of light in complete violation of general relativity.

And you just contradicted yourself for the umteenth time. You are ridiculous. You should change your name from Vandal to Zombie. Or maybe just add the word. Vandal Zombie; yeah, that fits!

You haven't got the foggiest idea how quantum mechanics actually works.

You haven't the foggiest idea how you get up in the morning.

Says the guy who unquestioningly accepts the words of every New Age crackpot that comes along.

Says the guy who accepts every word of every militant skeptic crackpot that comes along. And gets money for teaching what they say. Crackpot. Zombiehead!

1- Projection. Deal with it.

2- No one is following me. I find it interesting that you refer to this disagreement as an attempt to get followers. That Boomer ego knows no bounds, doesn't it?

You are a religious zealot here to convert people to your demented, bankrupt point of view. You are a jerk.

Sheldrake has not worked for Cambridge University since 1974. Seriously, you know nothing about the guy except that he says words that you wish to be true.

You're wrong, but who cares what you say. Nothing you say is true. Nothing you ever COULD say would be true. You are the blindest bat in the world.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Ahhh, he's baaaack. Time to dust off my snark bottle and open it up to respond to absolute bullshit.

Obviously, Chief Thief of Souls, you have shed no light on the situation!

No, YOU are dead. Well, I won't go further along that line. Why bury the dead?

You are the champion dogmatist. In the dictionary, your picture is placed right next to the definition. You are so dogmatic you wouldn't know free inquiry if it bit you in the foot.

And you are analogous to a rat.

Standard models is all you will accept. You are stuck on standard models. You are a pathetic dogmatist.

Anything more complex than YOU.

Ah, homosexual organisms! Have at it.

Which gives evidence about how narrow-minded and stupid you are!

You are lost; your cord is broken. You need to be wired up to the cosmos. You have been severed, and you are pathetically lacking in juice.

I guess we can add electrical systems to the growing list of subjects you think you understand but actually don't.

The evidence indicates quite clearly that YOU are a fruitbat.

Analogies are so much better than the dogma that YOU peddle and impose on people.

All you know is bullshit. You know nothing but bullshit.

Evidence is over-rated. Anything you say is wrong. You are analogous to a turtle.

You are conscious and you ignore that fact. You are just stupid. You are a creep.

And you accept every piece of stupid dogma that comes along, with no evidence whatsoever.

You claim you know what everybody in the forum thinks.

Your conspiracy theory is the scientistic skeptical dogmatists who want to shut off all debate and inquiry. You are the crackpot. Why do you blidnly accept the word of these crackpot militant skeptics? Because that's what you're doing. What you always do, because you are one of them. Fruitbat. Cockroach.

You are not there. There is no there inside you, because you deny your own existence and everyone else's. There is just no there, there.

And you are a pseudo human being. You are a pseudo teacher and not even a scientist. You are a peddler of superstition.

Verity means truth. You don't know truth even if it stares you in the face.

And you are a coachroach. A zombie, a walking dead man. A vandal by your own admission. THere is no creep worse than you.

I don't think you are real. No-one could be a bad as you. You must be a fantasy.

So here's my number, so call me maybe.

And yet you claim light is electro-magnetism lol
You make claims and back away from them. You are a pseudo-scientist and a pseudo human being; a walking zombie.

And you just contradicted yourself for the umteenth time. You are ridiculous. You should change your name from Vandal to Zombie. Or maybe just add the word. Vandal Zombie; yeah, that fits!

You haven't the foggiest idea ho you get up in the morning.

Say the guy who accept every word of every militant skeptic crackpot that comes along. And gets money for teaching what they say. Crackpot. Zombiehead!

You are a religious zealot here to convert people to your demented, bankrupt point of view. You are a jerk.

You're wrong, but who cares what you say. Nothing you say is true. Nothing you ever COULD say would be true. You are the blindest bat in the world.

Boring.

BTW: None of this is in the least bit snark.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Boring.

BTW: None of this is in the least bit snark.

A zombie is going to judge the competency of snark? Gimme a break! How would anyone expect a zombie to evaluate snark? That's like putting a storefront dummy in a chair at a symphony concert and then give his opinion of Mozart. You're tone deaf; you are truthdeaf. You are the ultimate bore. I hope you are bored with my posts, because lousy snark is all you're ever going to get from me from now on, zombie.