According to Dr. Laura, the only thing that separates primates from humans is our ability to use foresight. I think she was being facetious, while at the same time, actually making somewhat of a valid point. But, feel free to take it with a grain of salt. I'm just posting for the sake of posting.
Determinism, although other mammals may not say it, is the belief in a genetic foregone conclusion. In a way, Ahnimus is anti-evolution, yet still an athiest. He's discovered his mammaliamism and doesn't want us to forget it.
Determinism, although other mammals may not say it, is the belief in a genetic foregone conclusion. In a way, Ahnimus is anti-evolution, yet still an athiest. He's discovered his mammaliamism and doesn't want us to forget it.
That's not the kind of foresight Dr. Laura was talking about, though. She was talking about impulse control. Primates act on impulses. People have the ability to control impulses by weighing out consequences and benefits.
Determinism is basically the matrix, IMO. At present, determinism is the only logical explanation for clairvoyance, which is something I believe exists. Neo, being ultra savvy with the matrix programming language, had the matrix equivalent of clairvoyance.
If determinism is real, then every event that takes place can be mathematically explained and predicted. Chaos math is a precursor to the kinds of analysis we'll have to do in order to make sense of determinism.
And, so it's my opinion that people who are clairvoyant are really autistic chaos mathematicians.
Autists like the Rainman type have no idea how they are able to do those massive calculations in their head. They just aren't conscious of it. All they know is that they put a couple of variables into the equation, and their brains spit back results. I watched an interview of a Rainman type autist one night and I'm paraphrasing what he described as what it's like to have a computer for a brain.
I think clairvoyant people are the same way, except their autism grants them ability to do chaos theory type shit. To me, it sorta makes sense considering that recent statistic which said that a shitload of people in our society are freakin autistic in some form or another.
Clairvoyant people don't know how they are able to do what they do. Their brains just spit back some shit for them to trip out on.
Determinism is basically the matrix, IMO. At present, determinism is the only logical explanation for clairvoyance, which is something I believe exists. Neo, being ultra savvy with the matrix programming language, had the matrix equivalent of clairvoyance.
You might be interested in the holographic model of the Universe, by physicist David Bohm:
"But the most staggering thing about the holographic model was that it suddenly made sense of a wide range of phenomena so elusive they generally have been categorized outside the province of scientific understanding. These include telepathy, precognition, mystical feelings of oneness with the universe, and even psychokinesis, or the ability of the mind to move physical objects without anyone touching them." http://twm.co.nz/holoUni.html
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
mystical feelings of oneness with the universe, and even psychokinesis, or the ability of the mind to move physical objects without anyone touching them."
I like the idea that the subconscious mind provides for clarevoyance.
My issue with the holographic universe theory is that it makes a giant leap to a God-like entity. Whereas determinism just uses what we already know.
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
At the same time, "what we already know" theories ask us to ignore, delete and minimize phenomena that do not fit conveniently in our theories. Ignoring/ignorance is poor science, in my opinion.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
At the same time, "what we already know" theories ask us to ignore, delete and minimize phenomena that do not fit conveniently in our theories. Ignoring/ignorance is poor science, in my opinion.
It's not ignoring anything. I've already explained Psychosis. Take Richard Dawkins. Says he climbed a mountain and had a "spiritual" experience, but he thinks of it like Einsteinian spirituality. Whereas myself, I just experience the beauty of the planet, and I think that's what he means. Perhaps beauty can be mistaken for a "spiritual" experience, but it's so damn subjective. It's just not good science to say that those experiences must be included in some theory about 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
It's not ignoring anything. I've already explained Psychosis. Take Richard Dawkins. Says he climbed a mountain and had a "spiritual" experience, but he thinks of it like Einsteinian spirituality. Whereas myself, I just experience the beauty of the planet, and I think that's what he means. Perhaps beauty can be mistaken for a "spiritual" experience, but it's so damn subjective. It's just not good science to say that those experiences must be included in some theory about reality.
I completely agree that it's the beauty--the aesthetic/subjective aspect of life--that is the spiritual. That's exactly it--the personal subjective experiential realm. And I agree you might conceptualize that differently than I do. What I mean about ignoring stuff is that there is a ton of paranormal stuff that has been scientifically shown to exist--for example remote viewing. The holographic universe theory is a theory that encompasses such facts. Other theories like determinism say they don't make sense and therefore minimize such existing facts.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I completely agree that it's the beauty--the aesthetic/subjective aspect of life--that is the spiritual. That's exactly it--the personal subjective experiential realm. And I agree you might conceptualize that differently than I do. What I mean about ignoring stuff is that there is a ton of paranormal stuff that has been scientifically shown to exist--for example remote viewing. The holographic universe theory is a theory that encompasses such facts. Other theories like determinism say they don't make sense and therefore minimize such existing facts.
Remote viewing is scientifically proven? Nope.
History
The Stargate Project was one of a number of code names used to cover "remote viewing programs". Others included Sun Streak, Grill Flame, Center Lane by DIA and INSCOM, and SCANATE by CIA, from the 1970s, through to 1995. It was an offshoot of research done at Stanford Research Institute (SRI). [4] Most of the SRI team, including project director Puthoff, and the CIA's star "psychic spies", Price and Swann, were Scientologists, a fact that skeptic Martin Gardner noted disparagingly. Puthoff and Swann were Operating Thetan (OT) level seven, and credited Scientology with their success in the CIA remote viewing program.[1][2] The Stargate Project created a set of protocols designed to make clairvoyance a more scientific process, and minimize as much as possible session noise and inaccuracy. The term "remote viewing" emerged as a generalised short hand to describe this more structured approach to clairvoyance.
The project was eventually terminated, according to the official report at the time, because there was insufficient evidence of the utility of the intelligence data produced.
In 1995 the project was transferred to the CIA and a retrospective evaluation of the results was done. The CIA contracted the American Institutes for Research for this evaluation. An analysis conducted by Professor Jessica Utts showed a statistically significant effect, with gifted subjects scoring 5%-15% above chance, though subject reports included a large amount of irrelevant information, and when reports did seem on target they were vague and general in nature. [5] Professor Ray Hyman concluded a null result. Based upon both of their collected findings, the CIA followed the recommendation to terminate the 20 million dollar project.Time magazine stated in 1995 three full-time psychics were still working on a $500,000-a-year budget out of Fort Meade, Maryland, which would soon close up shop. [5]
[edit] Criticism
In experiments conducted in 1973 at the Stanford Research Institute, the notes given to the judges contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday's two targets, or they had the date of the session written at the top of the page. These clues, it is asserted, are the reason for the experiment's high hit rates.[6]
Additionally, the information from remote viewing sessions can be vague and include a lot of erroneous data. The 1995 report for the American Institute for Research "An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications" by Mumford, Rose and Goslin, contains a section of anonymous reports describing how remote viewing was tentatively used in a number of operational situations. The three reports conclude that the data was too vague to be of any use, and in the report that offers the most positive results the writer notes that the viewers "had some knowledge of the target organizations and their operations but not the background of the particular tasking at hand."[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing
Yea, I watched soemthing about this before, the results were null. There is no evidence of clairvoyance, but if you still want to insist it's true to support your view of reality. Then consider this is also possible in terms of determinism.
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
History
The Stargate Project was one of a number of code names used to cover "remote viewing programs". Others included Sun Streak, Grill Flame, Center Lane by DIA and INSCOM, and SCANATE by CIA, from the 1970s, through to 1995. It was an offshoot of research done at Stanford Research Institute (SRI). [4] Most of the SRI team, including project director Puthoff, and the CIA's star "psychic spies", Price and Swann, were Scientologists, a fact that skeptic Martin Gardner noted disparagingly. Puthoff and Swann were Operating Thetan (OT) level seven, and credited Scientology with their success in the CIA remote viewing program.[1][2] The Stargate Project created a set of protocols designed to make clairvoyance a more scientific process, and minimize as much as possible session noise and inaccuracy. The term "remote viewing" emerged as a generalised short hand to describe this more structured approach to clairvoyance.
The project was eventually terminated, according to the official report at the time, because there was insufficient evidence of the utility of the intelligence data produced.
In 1995 the project was transferred to the CIA and a retrospective evaluation of the results was done. The CIA contracted the American Institutes for Research for this evaluation. An analysis conducted by Professor Jessica Utts showed a statistically significant effect, with gifted subjects scoring 5%-15% above chance, though subject reports included a large amount of irrelevant information, and when reports did seem on target they were vague and general in nature. [5] Professor Ray Hyman concluded a null result. Based upon both of their collected findings, the CIA followed the recommendation to terminate the 20 million dollar project.Time magazine stated in 1995 three full-time psychics were still working on a $500,000-a-year budget out of Fort Meade, Maryland, which would soon close up shop. [5]
[edit] Criticism
In experiments conducted in 1973 at the Stanford Research Institute, the notes given to the judges contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday's two targets, or they had the date of the session written at the top of the page. These clues, it is asserted, are the reason for the experiment's high hit rates.[6]
Additionally, the information from remote viewing sessions can be vague and include a lot of erroneous data. The 1995 report for the American Institute for Research "An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications" by Mumford, Rose and Goslin, contains a section of anonymous reports describing how remote viewing was tentatively used in a number of operational situations. The three reports conclude that the data was too vague to be of any use, and in the report that offers the most positive results the writer notes that the viewers "had some knowledge of the target organizations and their operations but not the background of the particular tasking at hand."[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing
Yea, I watched soemthing about this before, the results were null. There is no evidence of clairvoyance, but if you still want to insist it's true to support your view of reality. Then consider this is also possible in terms of determinism.
I refer to the various experiments documented in the book "The Holographic Universe".
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I refer to the various experiments documented in the book "The Holographic Universe".
Pribram and Bohm. But their work doesn't prove anything about spirituality. It's referring to the internal reality which can be manipulated externally through TMS.
I just love how these Science-Fiction authors like Talbot take good scientific research and turn it into something mystical when that's not it at all.
Complete garbage Angelica. "The Holographic Universe" is a work of fiction.
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
Pribram and Bohm. But their work doesn't prove anything about spirituality. It's referring to the internal reality which can be manipulated externally through TMS.
I just love how these Science-Fiction authors like Talbot take good scientific research and turn it into something mystical when that's not it at all.
Complete garbage Angelica. "The Holographic Universe" is a work of fiction.
Thanks for your opinion, Ahnimus.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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
According to Dr. Laura, the only thing that separates primates from humans is our ability to use foresight. I think she was being facetious, while at the same time, actually making somewhat of a valid point. But, feel free to take it with a grain of salt. I'm just posting for the sake of posting.
I don't believe that, animals display foresight. As an example, squirrels will hide hundreds of nuts to come back later and collect them. They are obviously thinking ahead. There isn't much that separates us from animals, fact is we are animals.
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
Determinism, although other mammals may not say it, is the belief in a genetic foregone conclusion. In a way, Ahnimus is anti-evolution, yet still an athiest. He's discovered his mammaliamism and doesn't want us to forget it.
Genetic determinism is equally as threatening to magic as physical determinism. I'm not denying anything that is proven. I'm not looking to prove determinism, or to deny mysticism, I'm just looking at the facts and being skeptical about outlandish claims like M. Talbot.
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
I think those are terms that would appear in a science (astrophysics, maths, etc) book... more like philosophy wouldn't you say?
David R. Schaffer's "Developmental Psychology" 4th Edition, uses both of those words. It's a scientific textbook.
Philosophy is used in all forms of science to explain the basis of different theories. Though the actual facts are proven through hypotheses.
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
Genetic determinism is equally as threatening to magic as physical determinism. I'm not denying anything that is proven. I'm not looking to prove determinism, or to deny mysticism, I'm just looking at the facts and being skeptical about outlandish claims like M. Talbot.
I may have gotten a little carried away last night, it was Buzz night. The thing is, I think I make a good point about Time. We humans really don't know what it is. Our knowledge of it is infantile, I think, with Einstein's Relativity maybe giving it a glimmer of juvenilia. Without knowing what Time is, one cannot know what the Mind is. You've got the brain part down, with what is known about the brain thus far, but the brain is not the mind.
I may have gotten a little carried away last night, it was Buzz night. The thing is, I think I make a good point about Time. We humans really don't know what it is. Our knowledge of it is infantile, I think, with Einstein's Relativity maybe giving it a glimmer of juvenilia. Without knowing what Time is, one cannot know what the Mind is. You've got the brain part down, with what is known about the brain thus far, but the brain is not the mind.
I disagree, I think they are separate things. I also think of time as a concept, more so than an actual objective 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
I disagree, I think they are separate things. I also think of time as a concept, more so than an actual objective reality.
It's one world. When it's all broken down it's all atoms and quarks and whatever else...and time is in there somewhere. Time is an operative in being. We can observe that. It's more than a concept.
It's one world. When it's all broken down it's all atoms and quarks and whatever else...and time is in there somewhere. Time is an operative in being. We can observe that. It's more than a concept.
Right, but because things at the macro, micro and quantum levels are all different, doesn't mean they apply to each other. Right?
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
Right, but because things at the macro, micro and quantum levels are all different, doesn't mean they apply to each other. Right?
What application? What are you trying to, er, assume?
I guess what I'm seeing from you is that the best knowledge/science of all things is out there, for you, today, and you agree with it. I don't assume that, not in the least. It's only been a few hundred years that many thought the world was a box.
What application? What are you trying to, er, assume?
I guess what I'm seeing from you is that the best knowledge/science of all things is out there, for you, today, and you agree with it. I don't assume that, not in the least. It's only been a few hundred years that many thought the world was a box.
I don't think that at all, one of my favorite quotes is
"To know that we know what we know and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge." - Copernicus.
But that doesn't mean that everything we think we don't know is fact.
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
I'll bet i can beat you 9 out of 10 in Trivial Pursuit. Any version.
I guarantee you could beat me at Trivial Pursuit. I don't know anything about movies and television.
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
Complete garbage Angelica. "The Holographic Universe" is a work of fiction.
I think you have a right to say what you said, but I just think it's really in poor taste in this instance when considering that Angelica has been nothing but cordial when dealing with your opposing view points. When most people would've gone on a war path at that point, angelica only works toward finding the common ground. And you receive that gesture of good will by responding with the above. Just bad taste, IMO.
I don't believe that, animals display foresight. As an example, squirrels will hide hundreds of nuts to come back later and collect them. They are obviously thinking ahead. There isn't much that separates us from animals, fact is we are animals.
However, that behavior might also be classified as instinct.
Let's assume that a squirrel puts nuts into a particular hole in the ground every year. Then let's suppose that during a particular year, we put nuts there for him.
My guess is that he'll still put more nuts there even though the nut quota was already filled by the external hand of observant and inquisitive man.
If the squirrel truly has foresight, he'll realize that he doesn't need to gather nuts. But, if he gathers nuts anyway, then it's instinct and not something that he is truly cognisant of.
Thought I might toss it up with a perspective more rooted in phenomenology.
As for the original statement that logic is inherent and "god-given" in some way, I don't really agree. I posit that logic is in it's nature man-made, as a schematic man forces the world through to make sense of it. Our brains seem to be pre-disposed to find order, just try a Rorscach (sp?) test or anything similar. In other words, if there aren't order, we'll create it. If things aren't logical, we will invent a logic that fits. That's how we tick, after all.
That we end up with a similar logic in groups (but not all similar, as a quick check across cultures will show) is not the same as that logic being hard-wired into us or having a natural objective state that we can access.
Scientific logic as we know it today, is a paradigm that has dominated for a while, and to such a degree that it's premises have been internalized by it's institutions. (That's what a paradigm is after all) Its way of seeing the world exclusively through testable theses and what we can in certain ways confirm has brought us much. It is still just one possible perspective of many, and it's scope in what it can know anything about is limited to these things (observable and testable). This works well for some purposes, pertaining to the visible physical world. How to make a car work, determine whether something is strong enough, will fall and so on. This works little when it comes to constructing meaning, however. Humans need meaning, as much as we need order and logic. They actually all interweave into a whole for most of us. Meaning has usually been constructed and maintained through religion and philosophy. But trying to create meaning using hard science, is about as useful as fixing your car with metaphysical concepts.
But my point is that logic in itself is a human thing, or man-made if you will. "Tabula rasa" would certainly warrant a man-made logic, as that theory demands a man-made evrything through experiences.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
Determinism, although other mammals may not say it, is the belief in a genetic foregone conclusion. In a way, Ahnimus is anti-evolution, yet still an athiest. He's discovered his mammaliamism and doesn't want us to forget it.
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.
That's not the kind of foresight Dr. Laura was talking about, though. She was talking about impulse control. Primates act on impulses. People have the ability to control impulses by weighing out consequences and benefits.
Determinism is basically the matrix, IMO. At present, determinism is the only logical explanation for clairvoyance, which is something I believe exists. Neo, being ultra savvy with the matrix programming language, had the matrix equivalent of clairvoyance.
If determinism is real, then every event that takes place can be mathematically explained and predicted. Chaos math is a precursor to the kinds of analysis we'll have to do in order to make sense of determinism.
And, so it's my opinion that people who are clairvoyant are really autistic chaos mathematicians.
Autists like the Rainman type have no idea how they are able to do those massive calculations in their head. They just aren't conscious of it. All they know is that they put a couple of variables into the equation, and their brains spit back results. I watched an interview of a Rainman type autist one night and I'm paraphrasing what he described as what it's like to have a computer for a brain.
I think clairvoyant people are the same way, except their autism grants them ability to do chaos theory type shit. To me, it sorta makes sense considering that recent statistic which said that a shitload of people in our society are freakin autistic in some form or another.
Clairvoyant people don't know how they are able to do what they do. Their brains just spit back some shit for them to trip out on.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
You might be interested in the holographic model of the Universe, by physicist David Bohm:
"But the most staggering thing about the holographic model was that it suddenly made sense of a wide range of phenomena so elusive they generally have been categorized outside the province of scientific understanding. These include telepathy, precognition, mystical feelings of oneness with the universe, and even psychokinesis, or the ability of the mind to move physical objects without anyone touching them."
http://twm.co.nz/holoUni.html
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
= Bullshit. Sorry it had to be said.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
My issue with the holographic universe theory is that it makes a giant leap to a God-like entity. Whereas determinism just uses what we already know.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's not ignoring anything. I've already explained Psychosis. Take Richard Dawkins. Says he climbed a mountain and had a "spiritual" experience, but he thinks of it like Einsteinian spirituality. Whereas myself, I just experience the beauty of the planet, and I think that's what he means. Perhaps beauty can be mistaken for a "spiritual" experience, but it's so damn subjective. It's just not good science to say that those experiences must be included in some theory about reality.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Remote viewing is scientifically proven? Nope.
History
The Stargate Project was one of a number of code names used to cover "remote viewing programs". Others included Sun Streak, Grill Flame, Center Lane by DIA and INSCOM, and SCANATE by CIA, from the 1970s, through to 1995. It was an offshoot of research done at Stanford Research Institute (SRI). [4] Most of the SRI team, including project director Puthoff, and the CIA's star "psychic spies", Price and Swann, were Scientologists, a fact that skeptic Martin Gardner noted disparagingly. Puthoff and Swann were Operating Thetan (OT) level seven, and credited Scientology with their success in the CIA remote viewing program.[1][2] The Stargate Project created a set of protocols designed to make clairvoyance a more scientific process, and minimize as much as possible session noise and inaccuracy. The term "remote viewing" emerged as a generalised short hand to describe this more structured approach to clairvoyance.
The project was eventually terminated, according to the official report at the time, because there was insufficient evidence of the utility of the intelligence data produced.
In 1995 the project was transferred to the CIA and a retrospective evaluation of the results was done. The CIA contracted the American Institutes for Research for this evaluation. An analysis conducted by Professor Jessica Utts showed a statistically significant effect, with gifted subjects scoring 5%-15% above chance, though subject reports included a large amount of irrelevant information, and when reports did seem on target they were vague and general in nature. [5] Professor Ray Hyman concluded a null result. Based upon both of their collected findings, the CIA followed the recommendation to terminate the 20 million dollar project.Time magazine stated in 1995 three full-time psychics were still working on a $500,000-a-year budget out of Fort Meade, Maryland, which would soon close up shop. [5]
[edit] Criticism
In experiments conducted in 1973 at the Stanford Research Institute, the notes given to the judges contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday's two targets, or they had the date of the session written at the top of the page. These clues, it is asserted, are the reason for the experiment's high hit rates.[6]
Additionally, the information from remote viewing sessions can be vague and include a lot of erroneous data. The 1995 report for the American Institute for Research "An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications" by Mumford, Rose and Goslin, contains a section of anonymous reports describing how remote viewing was tentatively used in a number of operational situations. The three reports conclude that the data was too vague to be of any use, and in the report that offers the most positive results the writer notes that the viewers "had some knowledge of the target organizations and their operations but not the background of the particular tasking at hand."[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing
Yea, I watched soemthing about this before, the results were null. There is no evidence of clairvoyance, but if you still want to insist it's true to support your view of reality. Then consider this is also possible in terms of determinism.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Pribram and Bohm. But their work doesn't prove anything about spirituality. It's referring to the internal reality which can be manipulated externally through TMS.
I just love how these Science-Fiction authors like Talbot take good scientific research and turn it into something mystical when that's not it at all.
Complete garbage Angelica. "The Holographic Universe" is a work of fiction.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
LMFAO!
I don't believe that, animals display foresight. As an example, squirrels will hide hundreds of nuts to come back later and collect them. They are obviously thinking ahead. There isn't much that separates us from animals, fact is we are animals.
Genetic determinism is equally as threatening to magic as physical determinism. I'm not denying anything that is proven. I'm not looking to prove determinism, or to deny mysticism, I'm just looking at the facts and being skeptical about outlandish claims like M. Talbot.
I think those are terms that would appear in a science (astrophysics, maths, etc) book... more like philosophy wouldn't you say?
David R. Schaffer's "Developmental Psychology" 4th Edition, uses both of those words. It's a scientific textbook.
Philosophy is used in all forms of science to explain the basis of different theories. Though the actual facts are proven through hypotheses.
I may have gotten a little carried away last night, it was Buzz night. The thing is, I think I make a good point about Time. We humans really don't know what it is. Our knowledge of it is infantile, I think, with Einstein's Relativity maybe giving it a glimmer of juvenilia. Without knowing what Time is, one cannot know what the Mind is. You've got the brain part down, with what is known about the brain thus far, but the brain is not the mind.
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.
I disagree, I think they are separate things. I also think of time as a concept, more so than an actual objective reality.
It's one world. When it's all broken down it's all atoms and quarks and whatever else...and time is in there somewhere. Time is an operative in being. We can observe that. It's more than a concept.
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.
Right, but because things at the macro, micro and quantum levels are all different, doesn't mean they apply to each other. Right?
What application? What are you trying to, er, assume?
I guess what I'm seeing from you is that the best knowledge/science of all things is out there, for you, today, and you agree with it. I don't assume that, not in the least. It's only been a few hundred years that many thought the world was a box.
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.
I don't think that at all, one of my favorite quotes is
"To know that we know what we know and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge." - Copernicus.
But that doesn't mean that everything we think we don't know is fact.
Unless God reveals himself to us.
Factoidman.
I'll bet i can beat you 9 out of 10 in Trivial Pursuit. Any version.
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.
I guarantee you could beat me at Trivial Pursuit. I don't know anything about movies and television.
I think you have a right to say what you said, but I just think it's really in poor taste in this instance when considering that Angelica has been nothing but cordial when dealing with your opposing view points. When most people would've gone on a war path at that point, angelica only works toward finding the common ground. And you receive that gesture of good will by responding with the above. Just bad taste, IMO.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
However, that behavior might also be classified as instinct.
Let's assume that a squirrel puts nuts into a particular hole in the ground every year. Then let's suppose that during a particular year, we put nuts there for him.
My guess is that he'll still put more nuts there even though the nut quota was already filled by the external hand of observant and inquisitive man.
If the squirrel truly has foresight, he'll realize that he doesn't need to gather nuts. But, if he gathers nuts anyway, then it's instinct and not something that he is truly cognisant of.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
As for the original statement that logic is inherent and "god-given" in some way, I don't really agree. I posit that logic is in it's nature man-made, as a schematic man forces the world through to make sense of it. Our brains seem to be pre-disposed to find order, just try a Rorscach (sp?) test or anything similar. In other words, if there aren't order, we'll create it. If things aren't logical, we will invent a logic that fits. That's how we tick, after all.
That we end up with a similar logic in groups (but not all similar, as a quick check across cultures will show) is not the same as that logic being hard-wired into us or having a natural objective state that we can access.
Scientific logic as we know it today, is a paradigm that has dominated for a while, and to such a degree that it's premises have been internalized by it's institutions. (That's what a paradigm is after all) Its way of seeing the world exclusively through testable theses and what we can in certain ways confirm has brought us much. It is still just one possible perspective of many, and it's scope in what it can know anything about is limited to these things (observable and testable). This works well for some purposes, pertaining to the visible physical world. How to make a car work, determine whether something is strong enough, will fall and so on. This works little when it comes to constructing meaning, however. Humans need meaning, as much as we need order and logic. They actually all interweave into a whole for most of us. Meaning has usually been constructed and maintained through religion and philosophy. But trying to create meaning using hard science, is about as useful as fixing your car with metaphysical concepts.
But my point is that logic in itself is a human thing, or man-made if you will. "Tabula rasa" would certainly warrant a man-made logic, as that theory demands a man-made evrything through experiences.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965