The bottom line is.......feel good all the time. Feeling bad sucks...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I'm sharing my view and my experiences. I don't push my view on anyone. It's an alternative one that I put out there. People choose for themselves.
Ok... it sure seems like you are insisting that you are enlightened, that you have more coherence in your brain than others. You insist your experiences were real. You ignore the fact that it may have been a psychotic episode and you become defensive when someone suggests it may have been. That is basically a religion.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Um.....sorry..........just skimming through and noticed this one and couldn't let it pass.
Isn't scientific perspective and science just humans doing? AND therefore would be through the "lense of human perception"? AND also just as open to flaws and interpretation? Yes scientists study a great deal to understand and further advance the theories on the science they are studying but they also have flaws and make mistakes just like the rest of us. THEY are only HUMAN after all.
you're right. science is the conclusion of flawed humans. the birthchild of man himself. just as early science concluded that the sun revolved the earth; and the world was flat. this is the same science.
thanks jeanie
Yes, when you conveniently remove the human scientist doing the observing, as Jeanie pointed out. yes, then it seems objective, but in reality it isn't.
That's what science as a whole does. It's only partially susceptible to human error and it gets weeded out. Like Dr. Emoto, he's full of shit, everyone knows that. He's been outed because he doesn't play by the rules. Anytime he can show others without applying his bias, then he will be given credit. Yet, you seem to believe that shit anyway. So your whole problem with science is so hipocritical.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
you're right. science is the conclusion of flawed humans. the birthchild of man himself. just as early science concluded that the sun revolved the earth; and the world was flat. this is the same science.
thanks jeanie
That wasn't science dude, read your history, that was religion that made those claims. Science isn't that old, philosophy, yes, but not science.
You are blurring the lines to support your dogmatic view of reality.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
science is, in essence, humanity's best attempt [yet...] at purifying and validating the phenomenon of perception and all of the effects [from the data] that perceiving creates.
Thanks rats! It just kinda leapt of the page at me!
I'm a firm "believer" in science but I recognize that it is all based on what we have known and what we know now and that it is all based purely on the perception.
Ok... it sure seems like you are insisting that you are enlightened, that you have more coherence in your brain than others. You insist your experiences were real. You ignore the fact that it may have been a psychotic episode and you become defensive when someone suggests it may have been. That is basically a religion.
What something "seems" like to you is about your perceptions.
I've told numerous people, including you, that I don't consider myself enlightened. I've admitted having psychotic experiences numerous times in this thread, alone, so your entire argument here is inaccurate. If you choose to weave together these innacuracies and then attribute them to me and make this about religious fervour, of course you are free to do so. I would posit, however, that it was actually more about your own unconscious issues than my own.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Thanks rats! It just kinda leapt of the page at me!
I'm a firm "believer" in science but I recognize that it is all based on what we have known and what we know now and that it is all based purely on the perception.
Hey? Are you actually in Malta right now?
It's not based purely on perception. That is complete rubbish.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ok... it sure seems like you are insisting that you are enlightened, that you have more coherence in your brain than others. You insist your experiences were real. You ignore the fact that it may have been a psychotic episode and you become defensive when someone suggests it may have been. That is basically a religion.
i didn't get that at all. i think she expressed an open mind to things unknown or not yet explainable. i can have the same experiences she does. and there's someone else here that can attest to that [if she cares to step forward]. people can link their minds too. the best example is twins; only because the study of people with altered brains is nil.
What something "seems" like to you is about your perceptions.
I've told numerous people, including you, that I don't consider myself enlightened. I've admitted having psychotic experiences numerous times in this thread, alone, so your entire argument here is inaccurate. If you choose to weave together these innacuracies and then attribute them to me and make this about religious fervour, of course you are free to do so. I would posit, however, that it was actually more about your own unconscious issues than my own.
Screw that. You just said that lucy whatever and myself are ignorant laymens, because we only look to science for answers and we don't have the superior consciousness you do. Stop flip-flopping and either stand-up for what you believe in or sit down.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That wasn't science dude, read your history, that was religion that made those claims. Science isn't that old, philosophy, yes, but not science.
You are blurring the lines to support your dogmatic view of reality.
Galileo was termed a heretic and issued under house arrest by the church for that claim (Earth revolves around the sun not vice-versa)...I agree with you on that....religion had science by the balls back in the day.....any voice of dissent was discriminated against.....funny really.....
i didn't get that at all. i think she expressed an open mind to things unknown or not yet explainable. i can have the same experiences she does. and there's someone else here that can attest to that [if she cares to step forward]. people can link their minds too. the best example is twins; only because the study of people with altered brains is nil.
BS. Twins are studied more than anything. Monozygous and Dizygous twin studies are used all over science. Where do you come up with this shit?
The experiences are explained by scientific understanding. It's all in yer head.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Screw that. You just said that lucy whatever and myself are ignorant laymens, because we only look to science for answers and we don't have the superior consciousness you do. Stop flip-flopping and either stand-up for what you believe in or sit down.
If you want to address specific points, I'll be glad to do so. When you are accusing me of thinking I'm enlightened, among other things, again, that's coming from your imagination.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Galileo was termed a heretic and issued under house arrest by the church for that claim (Earth revolves around the sun not vice-versa)...I agree with you on that....religion had science by the balls back in the day.....any voice of dissent was discriminated against.....funny really.....
Yea, but still going back before the modern scientific age with modern scientific methods. Actually going back to when science was a tool of the church to prove the church right. It backfired when it turns out that they are actually wrong.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If you want to address specific points, I'll be glad to do so. When you are accusing me of thinking I'm enlightened, among other things, again, that's coming from your imagination.
No it's coming from what you say. If you don't intend to convey that message than stop using the word enlightened, phrases like "far beyond" and bullshit like that. You butter it all up to be more than molecules floating around in your brain, which is all it is.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
read deeper. science and religion were one. the stars may have been studied for religious reasons; but the ACT of studying them is science.
Right, and you are trying to separate the two to absolve religion of the cause, and then you are saying that it proves religion is right, or better because the tool it created to prove it's right actually proves it's wrong. I can barely wrap my head around that logic, just sounds like making excuses and trying to rationalize shit that doesn't make sense.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
No it's coming from what you say. If you don't intend to convey that message than stop using the word enlightened, phrases like "far beyond" and bullshit like that. You butter it all up to be more than molecules floating around in your brain, which is all it is.
I use the words I choose, period. If you read into those words, that is about you, consciously or unconsciously. I 100% stand behind the words I specifically choose. If you would quote me specifically, then we could address the facts of what I say, and in what context. Interesting that you'd rather not do that.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I use the words I choose, period. If you read into those words, that is about you, consciously or unconsciously. I 100% stand behind the words I specifically choose. If you would quote me specifically, then we could address the facts of what I say, and in what context. Interesting that you'd rather not do that.
Explain how you 'know' that scientists are bias and use flawed human perspective to make determinations. So, you discredit much science because of human perception, yet you focus on your own perception and bias as the bloody word of God. Do you see how nonsensical and hyopcritical that is?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It's not based purely on perception. That is complete rubbish.
Oh bite me!! I don't think I said it is based PURELY on perception, clearly scientists have method BUT lets face it Ahnimus that's based on perception too, if you really wanna get down to it.
Galileo was termed a heretic and issued under house arrest by the church for that claim (Earth revolves around the sun not vice-versa)...I agree with you on that....religion had science by the balls back in the day.....any voice of dissent was discriminated against.....funny really.....
I like how the Egyptians used to build little escape hatch tunnels in the pyramids and put food and stuff as well in the burial chambers so the dead could come and go and have a snack every so often.
Funny how they all truly believed this. Why does it seem silly to us now?
Science has led basic understanding out of this notion of reality. I think in another 100 years what we thought now will be considered similar rhetoric in many ways.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Yea, well, science doesn't duke it out over something is red, pink or green. It actually measures the physical photons. Human percpetion is the grey area of disagreement. No, science goes beneath human percpetion to objective reality, that includes studying human percpetion and control mechanisms are used to eliminate any error in human perception during scientific discovery.
no, science tries[/] to go beneath human perception to objective reality, but reality is not entirely objective -- life exists, and therein emotions exist,.. and although emotions may have their roots in the intercourse of physical matter, their ends are not totally physical [hence the existence of the term "metaphysical"], and therefore science is endlessly trumped by the constant enquires of philosophy.
besides: what is a photon?
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Oh bite me!! I don't think I said it is based PURELY on perception, clearly scientists have method BUT lets face it Ahnimus that's based on perception too, if you really wanna get down to it.
No, I don't think so. If you ever watch experiemnts and read about the controls they use, there is little or no room for perception. For example, optical illusions where two object look different but are actually the same. Visual perception tells us that they are different, even if we know they are the same. A ruler tells us they are the same.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
no, science tries[/] to go beneath human perception to objective reality, but reality is not entirely objective -- life exists, and therein emotions exist,.. and although emotions may have their roots in the intercourse of physical matter, their ends are not totally physical [hence the existence of the term "metaphysical"], and therefore science is endlessly trumped by the constant enquires of philosophy.
besides: what is a photon?
A photon is a tiny particle of light.
Actually, the solidity of a table is metaphysical then, because if we look at the atomic structure of the table it should fall apart, but it doesn't. There are qualities of things that are ontologically subjective, and are understood as such in the objective study of them. Such as fear is an ontologically subjective experience that results from activity within the brain. I don't consider the solidity of a table to metaphysical.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Explain how you 'know' that scientists are bias and use flawed human perspective to make determinations. So, you discredit much science because of human perception, yet you focus on your own perception and bias as the bloody word of God. Do you see how nonsensical and hyopcritical that is?
I know it for the same reason you know human's can't trust their own perceptions. I know it because of Rats of Multa's signature. I know it because I've seen studies that have measured that scientists are normal and also have bias like all humans.
Also, if a scientist takes a look at my brain chemistry and tries to undertand why I am mentally ill, they show me where they are coming from--they show me their professionally agendaed (biased) position they are coming from.
If a scientist looks at my brain chemistry and tries to understand how to activate my natural innate healing, they show me the professionally agendaed (biased) position they are coming from. It's very easy to see with the plain eye. Just like on this board, it's simple to see what bias a person has: liberal or conservative.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
you're right. science is the conclusion of flawed humans. the birthchild of man himself. just as early science concluded that the sun revolved the earth; and the world was flat. this is the same science.
thanks jeanie
my pleasure babe. Just pointing out what I see and trying to remind us that we can know the past and the present but we can't know absolutely the future.
Explain how you 'know' that scientists are bias and use flawed human perspective to make determinations. So, you discredit much science because of human perception, yet you focus on your own perception and bias as the bloody word of God. Do you see how nonsensical and hyopcritical that is?
I see how the way you weave together your perceptions of me tells you this.
I don't ask scientists to believe my views, and I don't take their views on as my own. I don't see the hypocrisy.
I don't ask you to take on my worldview; I don't take on your worldview.
As far as objective study, I fully accept science, within it's parameters, done by fallible humans with human perception as the best thing we have going. In terms of the non-objective realms, it's free game and I respect and embrace all views.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I know it for the same reason you know human's can't trust their own perceptions. I know it because of Rats of Multa's signature. I know it because I've seen studies that have measured that scientists are normal and also have bias like all humans.
Also, if a scientist takes a look at my brain chemistry and tries to undertand why I am mentally ill, they show me where they are coming from--they show me their professionally agendaed (biased) position they are coming from.
If a scientist looks at my brain chemistry and tries to understand how to activate my natural innate healing, they show me the professionally agendaed (biased) position they are coming from. It's very easy to see with the plain eye. Just like on this board, it's simple to see what bias a person has: liberal or conservative.
Ok, but you didn't explain why your bias is better. Scientists have a hell of lot more knowledge about you than you do.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
you're right. science is the conclusion of flawed humans. the birthchild of man himself. just as early science concluded that the sun revolved the earth; and the world was flat. this is the same science.
thanks jeanie
Actually, early science conluded that teh world was round, dude called Copernicus. Later ignorance went back to teh flat Earth idea.
Science is quite hard to define, but a key element is that it is more than having a squiz at things and guessing what teh cause might be. Science involves forming an idea or hypothesis, then testing it REPEATEDLY, and getting teh same result, then someone else being able to run teh same experiment and still getting the same results.
Removal of or controlling what are called confounding variables, which are things that change and stuff the results is crucial. The two biggest confounders are observer bias and reporting bias, ie where the experimenter sees what they want to see, or a subject reports what they want to, usually in a subconscious attempt to polease the experimenter.
MAking basic assumptions which are incorrect is another good way to stuff your results, eg early attempts to meause teh speed of lightg using towers and lanterns etc werre based on teh assumption that hum,an relexes would be quick enough to produce meaningful results, which they weren't.
When you say "early science concluded the earth was flat", there was no science involved, just observation and speculation and deduction.
Comments
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Ok... it sure seems like you are insisting that you are enlightened, that you have more coherence in your brain than others. You insist your experiences were real. You ignore the fact that it may have been a psychotic episode and you become defensive when someone suggests it may have been. That is basically a religion.
you're right. science is the conclusion of flawed humans. the birthchild of man himself. just as early science concluded that the sun revolved the earth; and the world was flat. this is the same science.
thanks jeanie
That's what science as a whole does. It's only partially susceptible to human error and it gets weeded out. Like Dr. Emoto, he's full of shit, everyone knows that. He's been outed because he doesn't play by the rules. Anytime he can show others without applying his bias, then he will be given credit. Yet, you seem to believe that shit anyway. So your whole problem with science is so hipocritical.
That wasn't science dude, read your history, that was religion that made those claims. Science isn't that old, philosophy, yes, but not science.
You are blurring the lines to support your dogmatic view of reality.
Thanks rats! It just kinda leapt of the page at me!
I'm a firm "believer" in science but I recognize that it is all based on what we have known and what we know now and that it is all based purely on the perception.
Hey? Are you actually in Malta right now?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I've told numerous people, including you, that I don't consider myself enlightened. I've admitted having psychotic experiences numerous times in this thread, alone, so your entire argument here is inaccurate. If you choose to weave together these innacuracies and then attribute them to me and make this about religious fervour, of course you are free to do so. I would posit, however, that it was actually more about your own unconscious issues than my own.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's not based purely on perception. That is complete rubbish.
i didn't get that at all. i think she expressed an open mind to things unknown or not yet explainable. i can have the same experiences she does. and there's someone else here that can attest to that [if she cares to step forward]. people can link their minds too. the best example is twins; only because the study of people with altered brains is nil.
Screw that. You just said that lucy whatever and myself are ignorant laymens, because we only look to science for answers and we don't have the superior consciousness you do. Stop flip-flopping and either stand-up for what you believe in or sit down.
Galileo was termed a heretic and issued under house arrest by the church for that claim (Earth revolves around the sun not vice-versa)...I agree with you on that....religion had science by the balls back in the day.....any voice of dissent was discriminated against.....funny really.....
BS. Twins are studied more than anything. Monozygous and Dizygous twin studies are used all over science. Where do you come up with this shit?
The experiences are explained by scientific understanding. It's all in yer head.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yea, but still going back before the modern scientific age with modern scientific methods. Actually going back to when science was a tool of the church to prove the church right. It backfired when it turns out that they are actually wrong.
read deeper. science and religion were one. the stars may have been studied for religious reasons; but the ACT of studying them is science.
No it's coming from what you say. If you don't intend to convey that message than stop using the word enlightened, phrases like "far beyond" and bullshit like that. You butter it all up to be more than molecules floating around in your brain, which is all it is.
Right, and you are trying to separate the two to absolve religion of the cause, and then you are saying that it proves religion is right, or better because the tool it created to prove it's right actually proves it's wrong. I can barely wrap my head around that logic, just sounds like making excuses and trying to rationalize shit that doesn't make sense.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Explain how you 'know' that scientists are bias and use flawed human perspective to make determinations. So, you discredit much science because of human perception, yet you focus on your own perception and bias as the bloody word of God. Do you see how nonsensical and hyopcritical that is?
Oh bite me!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I like how the Egyptians used to build little escape hatch tunnels in the pyramids and put food and stuff as well in the burial chambers so the dead could come and go and have a snack every so often.
Funny how they all truly believed this. Why does it seem silly to us now?
Science has led basic understanding out of this notion of reality. I think in another 100 years what we thought now will be considered similar rhetoric in many ways.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
no, science tries[/] to go beneath human perception to objective reality, but reality is not entirely objective -- life exists, and therein emotions exist,.. and although emotions may have their roots in the intercourse of physical matter, their ends are not totally physical [hence the existence of the term "metaphysical"], and therefore science is endlessly trumped by the constant enquires of philosophy.
besides: what is a photon?
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
No, I don't think so. If you ever watch experiemnts and read about the controls they use, there is little or no room for perception. For example, optical illusions where two object look different but are actually the same. Visual perception tells us that they are different, even if we know they are the same. A ruler tells us they are the same.
A photon is a tiny particle of light.
Actually, the solidity of a table is metaphysical then, because if we look at the atomic structure of the table it should fall apart, but it doesn't. There are qualities of things that are ontologically subjective, and are understood as such in the objective study of them. Such as fear is an ontologically subjective experience that results from activity within the brain. I don't consider the solidity of a table to metaphysical.
Also, if a scientist takes a look at my brain chemistry and tries to undertand why I am mentally ill, they show me where they are coming from--they show me their professionally agendaed (biased) position they are coming from.
If a scientist looks at my brain chemistry and tries to understand how to activate my natural innate healing, they show me the professionally agendaed (biased) position they are coming from. It's very easy to see with the plain eye. Just like on this board, it's simple to see what bias a person has: liberal or conservative.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
And a Bank president.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
my pleasure babe.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I don't ask scientists to believe my views, and I don't take their views on as my own. I don't see the hypocrisy.
I don't ask you to take on my worldview; I don't take on your worldview.
As far as objective study, I fully accept science, within it's parameters, done by fallible humans with human perception as the best thing we have going. In terms of the non-objective realms, it's free game and I respect and embrace all views.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ok, but you didn't explain why your bias is better. Scientists have a hell of lot more knowledge about you than you do.
Actually, early science conluded that teh world was round, dude called Copernicus. Later ignorance went back to teh flat Earth idea.
Science is quite hard to define, but a key element is that it is more than having a squiz at things and guessing what teh cause might be. Science involves forming an idea or hypothesis, then testing it REPEATEDLY, and getting teh same result, then someone else being able to run teh same experiment and still getting the same results.
Removal of or controlling what are called confounding variables, which are things that change and stuff the results is crucial. The two biggest confounders are observer bias and reporting bias, ie where the experimenter sees what they want to see, or a subject reports what they want to, usually in a subconscious attempt to polease the experimenter.
MAking basic assumptions which are incorrect is another good way to stuff your results, eg early attempts to meause teh speed of lightg using towers and lanterns etc werre based on teh assumption that hum,an relexes would be quick enough to produce meaningful results, which they weren't.
When you say "early science concluded the earth was flat", there was no science involved, just observation and speculation and deduction.