Beyond Belief 2006

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Ahnimus, I'm all for real skepticism. I am for something not being considered scientifically proven until it meets the approval of scientific methods within the science community. To meet this standard, there is not room for mockery, and public humiliation. I'm not a fan of parading out the old social ostracization in the guise of skepticism. I prefer real skepticism. Social ostracization methods are unacceptable, imo because they give science--which is not to be confused as scientism--a bad name. People can disbelieve what they want, but when they try to trump another's belief with their own belief, using underhanded methods, I take issue.

Mr. Emoto is not under any pressure to do anything within the parameters of the scientific community, anymore than I am. Or anymore than you are held to the tenets of the Catholic religion. He can choose to do whatever he wants. If that bothers you and you think an appropriate response is to react with scientism, ostracization, public shaming, and maybe a red letter of shame pinned to him, due to your own feelings, that is not about Mr. Emoto. Just know that your scientism cannot trump pseudo-science.

I'm only into reality, if that's what scientism is, than I'll embrace it. You can say you can control the subatomic world as much as you have breath. But you can't do it, you can't prove it. Throughout human history many people have tried to alter reality with their minds, all they got was dementia.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm only into reality, if that's what scientism is, than I'll embrace it. You can say you can control the subatomic world as much as you have breath. But you can't do it, you can't prove it. Throughout human history many people have tried to alter reality with their minds, all they got was dementia.

It sounds like you have misunderstood: the quantum physics community agrees on wave particle duality within it's context. I agree with the philosophical ramifications of this concept that have been written about for the past 30 years by philosophers I am familiar with (maybe longer), based on the principle of complementarity.

If you want to stand behind scientism, be my guest.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

It sounds like you have misunderstood: the quantum physics community agrees on wave particle duality within it's context. I agree with the philosophical ramifications of this concept that have been written about for the past 30 years by philosophers I am familiar with (maybe longer), based on the principle of complementarity.

If you want to stand behind scientism, be my guest.

Umm, the scientific community is still divided on the philosophical implications of quantum physics, and most modern physicists I've actually heard speak, disagree with your interpretation.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Umm, the scientific community is still divided on the philosophical implications of quantum physics, and most modern physicists I've actually heard speak, disagree with your interpretation.

Science does not decide philosophical issues any more than it decides spiritual issues. I leave those disciplines for philosophy and the spiritual disciplines. It is only scientism that believes it can understand what it is not equipped to understand.

If a scientist does not choose my particular philosophical view or my beliefs, fair enough. They are entitled to their own beliefs.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Science does not decide philosophical issues any more than it decides spiritual issues. I leave those disciplines for philosophy and the spiritual disciplines. It is only scientism that believes it can understand what it is not equipped to understand.

If a scientist does not choose my particular philosophical view or my beliefs, fair enough. They are entitled to their own beliefs.

Ok.. but you are discussing the philosophical implications of a complex theory of physics. It would seem to me that it would take a physicist to properly predict what is going on in the world of quantum physics.

Science is not the realm of philosophy either. Philosophy is only concerned with issue that cannot, or do not seem to have been proven or disproven scientifically. Once a philosophical concept becomes testable, then it's science.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok.. but you are discussing the philosophical implications of a complex theory of physics. It would seem to me that it would take a physicist to properly predict what is going on in the world of quantum physics.

Science is not the realm of philosophy either. Philosophy is only concerned with issue that cannot, or do not seem to have been proven or disproven scientifically. Once a philosophical concept becomes testable, then it's science.

I am not talking about the realm of phsyics. I am talking about the philosophical concept of complementarity. When I use the term "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" I am not talking about a baby and bathwater. I am using the baby/bathwater-concept to depict metaphorically, a principle that is philosophical and physically invisible. This way, people can get a metaphorical image of what I am talking about so they can understand better.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I am not talking about the realm of phsyics. I am talking about the philosophical concept of complementarity. When I use the term "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" I am not talking about a baby and bathwater. I am using the baby/bathwater-concept to depict metaphorically, a principle that is philosophical and physically invisible. This way, people can get a metaphorical image of what I am talking about so they can understand better.

Right, but you recognize that metaphors are only good two dimensionally and only clarify a very basic structure of what you intend to say.

Don't thow out the baby with the bathwater. Don't throw out the babies bath toys either and if you are trying to throw it out your window, make sure you don't soak someone in the ally below.

I'm sure you can come up with some kind of rationalization to try and tie the rest of the analogy into a real life situation. But ultimately the metaphor does break-down. I view metaphors as an interesting way of explaining the two-dimensional structure of a value or fact, but they are certainly not facts themselves and stand as poor arguments.

I would suggest that in-fact what you are doing is throwing out the baby and not the bathwater. Because you don't seem to value science, rather you continiously suggest that science is "flawed" and "bias". You won't invest any belief in Ben Libet's discovery of a 500 ms delay to consciousness, discovered 22 years ago and has been repeated in controlled environments since. However, you do choose to believe in an experiment performed by a non-scientist Dr. Emoto, that was not a controlled environment and cannot be reproduced by real scientists.

So you may say that my view is biased, you can say that Ben Libet was biased. But you certainly don't have any right to suggest that you are not. You require no burden of proof from sources of information for which you choose to believe. Meanwhile, information with significant proof and support from the scientific community is to you considered to just be "flawed" in it's method.

ThumbingMyWay32

Ahnimus wrote:

However, you do choose to believe in an experiment performed by a non-scientist Dr. Emoto, that was not a controlled environment and cannot be reproduced by real scientists.

Oh I get it. This is kind of like non-scientist Al Gore.

angelica

Ahnimus, "What the bleep" was never pushed as hard science. The makers of the movies intended to integrate truths, so they brought together experts from numerous disciplines ranging, as you know, from a psychics/medium, to physicists. They are clear in their disclaimer that each individual portrayed was portraying their own view based on their own discipline, and not necessarily supporting the assertions of the movie as a whole or those of the other participants. Therefore the movie does not fall short of a scientific view. They didn't purport to be one from the beginning.

Ahnimus

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Oh I get it. This is kind of like non-scientist Al Gore.

You don't have to be a scientists to show facts. You have to be a scientist to discover facts.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Ahnimus, "What the bleep" was never pushed as hard science. The makers of the movies intended to integrate truths, so they brought together experts from numerous disciplines ranging, as you know, from a psychics/medium, to physicists. They are clear in their disclaimer that each individual portrayed was portraying their own view based on their own discipline, and not necessarily supporting the assertions of the movie as a whole or those of the other participants. Therefore the movie does not fall short of a scientific view. They didn't purport to be one from the beginning.

Certainly they did. This doesn't rationalize your obvious bias to mysticism over science though. It doesn't change the fact that you believe in something you can't actually prove.

ThumbingMyWay32

Ahnimus wrote:

You don't have to be a scientists to show facts. You have to be a scientist to discover facts.

LOL What? That makes absolutely no sense.

Ahnimus

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

LOL What? That makes absolutely no sense.

Then, I'd suggest some brain exercises.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Right, but you recognize that metaphors are only good two dimensionally and only clarify a very basic structure of what you intend to say.

Of course. This isn't rocket-science. However when a metaphor informs my actions, and what I create in reality, the metaphor contributes to what I create--such as lasting healing from mental health in terms of real brain chemistry. To me, that's as valid, if not more than brain science, in that neuroscience could not offer me that healing at this time, much less 5 or ten years ago. Your ideas also create your choices and your reality for you.

I'm sure you can come up with some kind of rationalization to try and tie the rest of the analogy into a real life situation. But ultimately the metaphor does break-down. I view metaphors as an interesting way of explaining the two-dimensional structure of a value or fact, but they are certainly not facts themselves and stand as poor arguments.

Ideas are not held to being facts--they are merely held to being "ideas". I determine the value of my ideas by how much they serve my life. And by how well they hold up when challenged for logic. It's called philosophy, not science.

I would suggest that in-fact what you are doing is throwing out the baby and not the bathwater. Because you don't seem to value science, rather you continiously suggest that science is "flawed" and "bias".

I have great respect for science. The physical level of reality is a crucial aspect of integrated understanding. Because I hold scientists to practice science and to let go of bias and ego is a different issue.

You won't invest any belief in Ben Libet's discovery of a 500 ms delay to consciousness, discovered 22 years ago and has been repeated in controlled environments since.

Where are you getting this from? Because I choose different sources than you? Are you talking about the thread where I mentioned how Young Driver's driver training supports the delay idea? I also went to high school and was on the same school bus with the New York Times author Malcolm Gladwell whose bestsellig book "Blink" talks about how we act before we know why we are acting. To me consciousness has three parts: subconsciousness, consciousness and superconsciousness--hence the fact that they all share the word consciousness.

However, you do choose to believe in an experiment performed by a non-scientist Dr. Emoto, that was not a controlled environment and cannot be reproduced by real scientists.

Show me where I said I believe this? I provided the link when the other poster mentioned it. What I took issue with what your counter source which did not prove anything. I said Mr. Emoto's assertion stood until proven otherwise. If you want to know, I think it's awesome that such possibilities are becoming more mainstream in general thought. It awakens people's minds about what is possible, which can give them more mind-power. I have no idea if Mr. Emoto's experiments are scientifically accurate. Until proven otherwise, I have no reason to believe otherwise. I pointed out that if you choose one view or another, you are proving the philosophical view of complementarity--you are proving PJPOWER's point: the science view can be just as biased in the absense of proof. Don't forget I am a very logical person and while I'm willing to try things out for myself I don't jump to conclusions.

So you may say that my view is biased, you can say that Ben Libet was biased. But you certainly don't have any right to suggest that you are not. You require no burden of proof from sources of information for which you choose to believe. Meanwhile, information with significant proof and support from the scientific community is to you considered to just be "flawed" in it's method.

You said you choose scientism. If that's the case, more power to you. If you choose scientism, you are acknowledge you are using science to support your opinion, under the guise as science. In the end, just like my views and opinions, it'll be just that--your views and opinions. All I've ever done is express that my views have worked for me. I recognize there are many valid ways for people to choose and I accept that.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Of course. This isn't rocket-science. However when a metaphor informs my actions, and what I create in reality, the metaphor contributes to what I create--such as lasting healing from mental health in terms of real brain chemistry. To me, that's as valid, if not more than brain science, in that neuroscience could not offer me that healing at this time, much less 5 or ten years ago. Your ideas also create your choices and your reality for you.


Ideas are not held to being facts--they are merely held to being "ideas". I determine the value of my ideas by how much they serve my life. And by how well they hold up when challenged for logic. It's called philosophy, not science.

I have great respect for science. The physical level of reality is a crucial aspect of integrated understanding. Because I hold scientists to practice science and to let go of bias and ego is a different issue.

Where are you getting this from? Because I choose different sources than you? Are you talking about the thread where I mentioned how Young Driver's driver training supports the delay idea? I also went to high school and was on the same school bus with the New York Times author Malcolm Gladwell whose bestsellig book "Blink" talks about how we act before we know why we are acting. To me consciousness has three parts: subconsciousness, consciousness and superconsciousness--hence the fact that they all share the word consciousness.

Show me where I said I believe this? I provided the link when the other poster mentioned it. What I took issue with what your counter source which did not prove anything. I said Mr. Emoto's assertion stood until proven otherwise. If you want to know, I think it's awesome that such possibilities are becoming more mainstream in general thought. It awakens people's minds about what is possible, which can give them more mind-power. I have no idea if Mr. Emoto's experiments are scientifically accurate. Until proven otherwise, I have no reason to believe otherwise. I pointed out that if you choose one view or another, you are proving the philosophical view of complementarity--you are proving PJPOWER's point: the science view can be just as biased in the absense of proof. Don't forget I am a very logical person and while I'm willing to try things out for myself I don't jump to conclusions.

You said you choose scientism. If that's the case, more power to you. If you choose scientism, you are acknowledge you are using science to support your opinion, under the guise as science. In the end, just like my views and opinions, it'll be just that--your views and opinions. All I've ever done is express that my views have worked for me. I recognize there are many valid ways for people to choose and I accept that.

Show me evidence of a super-consciousness.

Emoto's work cannot be proven wrong, first it must be proven right.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Show me evidence of a super-consciousness.

Emoto's work cannot be proven wrong, first it must be proven right.

I will when you show me evidence of an atom.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I will when you show me evidence of an atom.

It's got pretty pictures, big letters and layman terms
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/periodic_table/atom_structure_evidence.html

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

It's got pretty pictures, big letters and layman terms
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/periodic_table/atom_structure_evidence.html

I mean the evidence itself.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I mean the evidence itself.

Come to my lab and I will show you.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Come to my lab and I will show you.

Oh man, Ahnimus, is that like saying "come up to my apartment and I'll show you my etchings"??