The Science of Interconnectedness.

[Heisenberg]

Say theres some people that KNOW 'god' (try to imagine 'god' not as 1 supreme being). Throw that subjectivity stuff out the window for now, these people are not being deluded and they know 'god' (remember, this is only an example). With their true relationship with 'god', they have the knowledge that really matters like how the universe started, what the REAL rules of reality are, what holds things together, and how they can use this knowledge to learn, evolve and achieve bigger and better things. Would science still be the superior form of knowledge? I really hope I dont get the response Im expecting with this question...

Science is not a form of knowledge, it is a process used to gain knowledge. If some other process delivered more accurate answers, then it would be superior. I concede that the value in science is it's ability to demonstrate accuracy. If communing with god gives us better answers, then science is inferior. This is assuming our goal is to gain the closest approximation of the truth possible by subjective beings. If something gets us closer to the truth than science, then I would be foolish not to acknowledge that.

Theres no inner conflict I am going through because of materialistic science not being able to justify my beliefs. I just know that 'if' the supernatural exists (god, spirit world) then materialism is an out dated concept and holding humanity back from objectively knowing these things, not that the scientific process is necessary for knowing these things, imo.

Materialism is a philosophy, a worldview. Science is not a worldview, it's a tool.

I never said you had inner conflict as in you struggle inside, I meant your ideas conflict, they demonstrate discourse that you can't ignore, and so you preserve your ideas by blaming this discourse on science, since science seems to be the source of the opposition. The concept of cognitive dissonance tells us this can easily happen with no inner struggle.

The only parts of science you want to 'update' is the quality controls, because it is the quality control that filters you out. What you want essentially is to dumb down science to your level.

Isnt the purpose of meditation to reduce suffering and reflect upon yourself to make you a better person? Achieving lucid dreaming can be an example of that as well because you gotta be a well balanced person who is comfortable and has his priorities straight. Lucid dreaming is just another form of astral projection too and theres much you can gain from astral projection. Dont worry, I know what you have to say about things like astral projection lol. Also, negativity and a destructive personality can leave you open to illness, so its good to be balanced and have a healthy spirit. I also know what you have to say about that lol.

I asked for a spiritual practice that gives us answers that help to reduce suffering. Laughing makes me feel good and helps my health. Meditation can help my mental state. Lucid dreaming can help me understand unrealized truths about myself. In none of those areas do I get any answers which can be used to help people survive or to reduce their suffering. As I said, spiritual practices can have benefits, but you were comparing it to answers science gives us and saying that to favor scientific answers is to belittle spirituality.

I didnt say criticizing bad ideas is the same as defending the uncertain. Im just saying that a lot of the ideas you see as bad is because of the materialistic paradigm, a paradigm that you are uncertain is the most correct path.

Again, admitting that we do not have absolute certainty is not the same as saying nothing has any degree of certainty. This is where the term 'reasonably certain' comes from. Since reasonably certain is all we can ever be, it becomes the highest level of certainty achievable. That fact that it's 'reasonably' certain means it's open to change, or reasoning. and based on logic or prior knowledge, aka reasoning.

People like Sheldrake want to play ball without learning the game, and when they break rules they blame it on the rule book. He is a bit like an american idol reject. He is unable to properly self-asses. He thinks his worldview is special and pleads the case, and when rejected he acts indignant and blames the system.

 

[cannabineer]

Professor Robert Moon proved that the periodic table of elements is found in the platonic solids.

I will restrict myself to the first link in tis chain of not-consequence.
Do you know what the periodic table of elements is?
It is a very specific and specified arrangement of the chemical elements. It has definite and definible properties.
The five Platonic solids are geometric concepts/constructs.
So tell me then, how can an arranged tabulation of the chemical elements be found in the Platonic solids?

The only way I can see is by engaging in the irresistibly human, irredeemably counterscientific activity: evocation. The only way periodic and Platonic can come together is by an act of magical thinking: to see meaning in the similarity of A to B.
I cannot stress how dangerous this is, because it is so easy and fun to do, how utterly human, and yet it always runs counter to science.
We humans are obsessed with pattern, correspondence, meaning, beauty. Our capacity for apophenia gives great leverage to that quest for pattern and correspondence.
Now if you can show me that the periodic table is objectively contained in the set of Platonic solids, and can supply a text reference to support this ... without involving the cheat of meaning, then I'll listen.
But I am not confident, since your view of the world seems to be all about meaning as a liaison between disparate patterns. It's why you're sympathetic to the works of Graham Hancock ... he glorifies and exploits the idea that there are meaningful links between, say, an asterism and the arrangement of the Pyramids.
The thing about meaning is that, even while it is so attractive, it is definitively subjective. The only time you'll hear scientists say "what does it mean", they're using a "safed" syntax ... what is the relation, never what is the purpose. Science doesn't do teleology. There is no delineation between a seemingly sober discussion of meaning ... and a slide into frank magic: portents, significations, reminders of our place in a shadowy pantheon of insensible but fateful monsters.

I am not saying that a search for pattern is a bad thing. Much of our personal experience of beauty comes from our seeing patterns and their beauty, and the especial sensation of beauty we get when disparate patterns correlate. But to elevate our nonrational, instinctive sense that these pattens mean something to a doctrine about physical reality ... is at best a hypothesis that would need to be proven by other means. If a scientific proof is sought, then the rules and limitations of science must be respected. The proponents of "sacred geometry" fail, because they cannot advance their models without invoking evocation, without pointing to beauty and insisting there be meaningfulness there.

But science requires one thing of any hypothesis that is advanced by virtue of its prettiness: physical test. In this description of the Moon hypothesis, I saw tremendous use of the words "imagine" and "assume" in order to build the conceptual bridge, and a complete absence of emphasis on test. In fact an admission that the Moon model was not consistent with physical measurement (e.g. spectroscopy, which revealed the particulars about the quantum energetics of the atom) was made, then ignored. This is a plain violation of the rules of the game.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/moon_nuc.html
(N.b. 21st-Century Science is a publication of the LaRouche movement.)

The platonic solids make up Metitrons Cube. Metitrons Cube is found in the Fruit of Life. The fruit of life is found in the Flower of Life. It is all dismissed as multiple coincidences because the ancients valued the Flower of Life that holds all this amazing information and theres apparently no way they knew these things. Now that you know the periodic table is found in the geometry of the Flower of Life, Im guessing that you too see this as multiple coincidences that say nothing about reality.

We are starting to form plausible theories that if proven true would abolish the laws of reality that we accept. The topic of this thread is an example of that. It wouldnt completely destroy how we see physics though, we would just view things from a new light and discard out dated material concepts for the good of humanity.

Forming plausible hypotheses (theories are essentially confirmed by physical test) is a worthy pursuit. But equal priority should be given to figuring out how to test the hypotheses, how to subject them to a proofing. Hypotheses that resist test will naturally lose stature. The key is your phrase "if proven true". This will require, that these hypotheses confine themselves to the provable-true. And we must always be faithful to T.H. Huxley's maxim: "The great tragedy of science ... the slaying of a beautiful theory by an inconvenient fact." That is what slays the Moon nuclear model, and breaks the chain of meaning needed to give the appearance of science to the mysticism of "sacred geometry". cn

 

[Doer]

If we throw in but one word, what do we have?

"The platonic solids make up Metitrons Theatan Cube. Metitrons Theatan Cube is found in the Fruit of Theatan Life. The fruit of Theatan life is found in the Theatan Flower of Life. It is all dismissed as multiple coincidences because the ancients valued the Theatan Flower of Life that holds all this amazing information and theres apparently no way they knew these things. Now that you know the periodic table is found in the geometry of the Theatan Flower of Life, Im guessing that you too see this as multiple coincidences that say nothing about reality.

We are starting to form plausible Theatan theories that if proven true would abolish the laws of reality that we accept. The topic of this thread is an example of that. It wouldn't completely destroy how we see physics though, we would just view Theatan things from a new light and discard out dated material, concepts for the Theatan good of Theatan humanity. "

Scientology.

-...dismissed...because the ancients valued...
-...holds all this amazing information..
-...apparently no way they knew these things
-... Now that you !!know!!...the periodic table is found in the geometry
-...starting to form plausible
-... if proven true
-...would abolish the laws of reality
-...wouldn't completely destroy how we see physics
-...discard out dated, material concepts
-...for the good of humanity

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

I will restrict myself to the first link in tis chain of not-consequence.
Do you know what the periodic table of elements is?
It is a very specific and specified arrangement of the chemical elements. It has definite and definible properties.
The five Platonic solids are geometric concepts/constructs.
So tell me then, how can an arranged tabulation of the chemical elements be found in the Platonic solids?

The only way I can see is by engaging in the irresistibly human, irredeemably counterscientific activity: evocation. The only way periodic and Platonic can come together is by an act of magical thinking: to see meaning in the similarity of A to B.
I cannot stress how dangerous this is, because it is so easy and fun to do, how utterly human, and yet it always runs counter to science.
We humans are obsessed with pattern, correspondence, meaning, beauty. Our capacity for apophenia gives great leverage to that quest for pattern and correspondence.
Now if you can show me that the periodic table is objectively contained in the set of Platonic solids, and can supply a text reference to support this ... without involving the cheat of meaning, then I'll listen.
But I am not confident, since your view of the world seems to be all about meaning as a liaison between disparate patterns. It's why you're sympathetic to the works of Graham Hancock ... he glorifies and exploits the idea that there are meaningful links between, say, an asterism and the arrangement of the Pyramids.
The thing about meaning is that, even while it is so attractive, it is definitively subjective. The only time you'll hear scientists say "what does it mean", they're using a "safed" syntax ... what is the relation, never what is the purpose. Science doesn't do teleology. There is no delineation between a seemingly sober discussion of meaning ... and a slide into frank magic: portents, significations, reminders of our place in a shadowy pantheon of insensible but fateful monsters.

I am not saying that a search for pattern is a bad thing. Much of our personal experience of beauty comes from our seeing patterns and their beauty, and the especial sensation of beauty we get when disparate patterns correlate. But to elevate our nonrational, instinctive sense that these pattens mean something to a doctrine about physical reality ... is at best a hypothesis that would need to be proven by other means. If a scientific proof is sought, then the rules and limitations of science must be respected. The proponents of "sacred geometry" fail, because they cannot advance their models without invoking evocation, without pointing to beauty and insisting there be meaningfulness there.

But science requires one thing of any hypothesis that is advanced by virtue of its prettiness: physical test. In this description of the Moon hypothesis, I saw tremendous use of the words "imagine" and "assume" in order to build the conceptual bridge, and a complete absence of emphasis on test. In fact an admission that the Moon model was not consistent with physical measurement (e.g. spectroscopy, which revealed the particulars about the quantum energetics of the atom) was made, then ignored. This is a plain violation of the rules of the game.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/moon_nuc.html
(N.b. 21st-Century Science is a publication of the LaRouche movement.)



Forming plausible hypotheses (theories are essentially confirmed by physical test) is a worthy pursuit. But equal priority should be given to figuring out how to test the hypotheses, how to subject them to a proofing. Hypotheses that resist test will naturally lose stature. The key is your phrase "if proven true". This will require, that these hypotheses confine themselves to the provable-true. And we must always be faithful to T.H. Huxley's maxim: "The great tragedy of science ... the slaying of a beautiful theory by an inconvenient fact." That is what slays the Moon nuclear model, and breaks the chain of meaning needed to give the appearance of science to the mysticism of "sacred geometry". cn

Im sorry Neer, but I just see a whole argument out of ignorance. You WANT it to be a form of magical irrelevant pattern recognition because it makes you feel more comfortable about your world views. Much like you didnt reply to my last response about free/unlimited energy because my argument actually made sense and acknowledging that would drastically change some of your faulty world views (political and scientific) that you hold so dearly. The funny thing is that the Flower of Life plays a key role in the many versions of free/unlimited energy devices that I presented to you. I just decided to not show you that part of the video and just show you the strictly scientific part so that you might take more interest in it, but you didnt, and an argument out of ignorance resulted from it.

I stumbled upon the perfect link to show you though. I'm about half way through it and its been going in the right direction the whole time, and its not even the least bit spiritual. I'm so surprised this guy never made the connection to sacred geometry, everything he talks about has to do with it, he must be atheist and not even interested or aware of sacred geometry I guess. I knew of a lot of the information he has covered though, he had no idea that it was also spirit science . I especially enjoyed "The Philosopher Stoned" article that he provided that shows the 64 tetrahedron structure. Little did he know that if you put a sphere around each of the 64 tetrahedrons you get... wait for it... The Flower of Life.

Enjoy.
http://www.energeticforum.com/new-members-area/7372-better-way-present-periodic-table.html

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

I cant help thinking this when discussing here... "This is the song that never ends. It goes on and on my friends!..."... It seems impossible to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[cannabineer]

I do not recall you presenting any free/unlimited energy devices.
And no; I'd really enjoy a reproducible way to access something beyond nature. I truly would. But I would also want to know that I am not simply being hoodwinked by my human talent for divining pattern and purpose where that may not be appropriate. cn

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

I do not recall you presenting any free/unlimited energy devices.
And no; I'd really enjoy a reproducible way to access something beyond nature. I truly would. But I would also want to know that I am not simply being hoodwinked by my human talent for divining pattern and purpose where that may not be appropriate. cn

I did present such devices in the form of a video. One of the genius inventors did a great job at explaining his device. This technology could of been old news and apart of every day life but Tesla's free, radiant energy breakthrough was repressed and destroyed because it would of meant a huge loss of money and power for those that had it. Thats a fact of what happened in the past, but if the same thing happens in the future then its automatically a crazy conspiracy theory?... Btw, if it happens, then it is nature, not above it lol.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

Here is the thread where I presented the information.
https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/552831-abortion-
birth-control-resource-depletion-2.html

(edit) start watching the video at 16 minutes if you want to know how the flower of life has to do with these unlimited/free energy devices. I warn you that what you see you have a good chance as dismissing as "woo" because of previous things supposedly "debunked".

 

[cannabineer]

I did present such devices in the form of a video. One of the genius inventors did a great job at explaining his device. This technology could of been old news and apart of every day life but Tesla's free, radiant energy breakthrough was repressed and destroyed because it would of meant a huge loss of money and power for those that had it. Thats a fact of what happened in the past, but if the same thing happens in the future then its automatically a crazy conspiracy theory?... Btw, if it happens, then it is nature, not above it lol.

One thing that argues strongly for it being bad science (or technology) is that harnessing such a thing would give any national entity a colossal edge. There can be no suppressing such a thing if it could be made to work. The only way to hold onto such a wacky sci-tech idea is to counterweight it with an even less likely assertion: that every organization in the world is conspiring to keep it secret; keep it safe. And that beggars the belief of all but the most credulous. What is it about the human organism that we so love the idea of a colossal conspiracy? Could it be that that way, we get to believe that there is magic, but it's being blocked by the storm troopers of materialism? ~nnaahh~ cn

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

One thing that argues strongly for it being bad science (or technology) is that harnessing such a thing would give any national entity a colossal edge. There can be no suppressing such a thing if it could be made to work. The only way to hold onto such a wacky sci-tech idea is to counterweight it with an even less likely assertion: that every organization in the world is conspiring to keep it secret; keep it safe. And that beggars the belief of all but the most credulous. What is it about the human organism that we so love the idea of a colossal conspiracy? Could it be that that way, we get to believe that there is magic, but it's being blocked by the storm troopers of materialism? ~nnaahh~ cn

Read the argument that you didnt reply to in the thread that this was originally brought up in for my response to this argument... Also, once again, this has happened before with Tesla. Do you not agree that those that were in power repressed and destroyed Teslas research when he was about to discover free/unlimited energy? You seem to block that part of the argument out of your mind. The repression of this technology has happened before in the past, but if one says that its happening now then its a crazy conspiracy theory?... C'mon now Neer... This would leave all other energy obsolete and 200 trillion dollars would be tossed down the drain because energy would be FREE!. It makes sense Neer lol

 

[Heisenberg]

Im sorry Neer, but I just see a whole argument out of ignorance. You WANT it to be a form of magical irrelevant pattern recognition because it makes you feel more comfortable about your world views.

You see patterns, you make assumptions, and you figure your assumption is beyond scrutiny. In fact, any who scrutinize and doubt your conclusion just can't handle the truth. You've left no possibility for yourself to be wrong. You have a closed mind.

The only parts of science you want to 'update' is the quality controls, because it is the quality control that filters you out. What you want essentially is to dumb down science to your level.

 

[cannabineer]

Read the argument that you didnt reply to in the thread that this was originally brought up in for my response to this argument... Also, once again, this has happened before with Tesla. Do you not agree that those that were in power repressed and destroyed Teslas research when he was about to discover free/unlimited energy? You seem to block that part of the argument out of your mind. The repression of this technology has happened before in the past, but if one says that its happening now then its a crazy conspiracy theory?... C'mon now Neer... This would leave all other energy obsolete and 200 trillion dollars would be tossed down the drain because energy would be FREE!. It makes sense Neer lol

No. And no. I think you've been lured in by something irresistible to you ... a combination of supernature, science and grand conspiracy. It's your tuna fish sandwich. cn

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

You see patterns, you make assumptions, and you figure your assumption is beyond scrutiny. In fact, any who scrutinize and doubt your conclusion just can't handle the truth. You've left no possibility for yourself to be wrong. You have a closed mind.

The only parts of science you want to 'update' is the quality controls, because it is the quality control that filters you out. What you want essentially is to dumb down science to your level.

"This is the song that never ends, it goes on and on my friends! Everyone started singing it not knowing what it was, but everyone kept on singing it, forever JUST BECAUSE!"

Its impossible for you to agree to disagree, you are the prime example of this. We both present information about our world views but our world views conflict at every turn so nothing gets accomplished. Its an infinite loop with both sides saying "You're closed minded!". We both think that our passions are deluding us about reality, so why bother arguing any further? We both think that the others standards for reality is ridiculous, nothing gets accomplished. So whats the point of these exchanges? Do you want to understand other perspectives of life or do you want to be a guardian of material facts and engage those that attempt to spread information that conflicts with your knowledge of reality thus feeling like you're protecting people from being fooled?

Im not trying to dumb down science. Things like god, the soul, the spirit world, they are not material. So 'if' they are real then we are being mislead by these materialistic standards that the majority of the scientific community holds so dearly. But, no matter how against it you are, scientists are finally starting to look past these out dated materialistic concepts and test the natural qualities of the "supernatural" and they are getting consistent results. Progress does not care what you think or what you value.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

No. And no. I think you've been lured in by something irresistible to you ... a combination of supernature, science and grand conspiracy. It's your tuna fish sandwich. cn

Ah, so you dismiss what happened to Tesla as false because it conflicts with your political, scientific views?... Ignorance is bliss

 

[cannabineer]

Ah, so you dismiss what happened to Tesla as false because it conflicts with your political, scientific views?... Ignorance is bliss

A different reason ... because it didn't happen. cn

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

A different reason ... because it didn't happen. cn

Ah, so Tesla wasnt studying radiant energy after all?... You say it didnt happen because it makes you feel more comfortable about your political and scientific views. Ignorance is bliss =)

 

[cannabineer]

Ah, so Tesla wasnt studying radiant energy after all?... You say it didnt happen because it makes you feel more comfortable about your political and scientific views. Ignorance is bliss =)

Oh I dunno about that.

I am sure Tesla did study radiant energy, and that he did study transmission of electrical power at a modest distance.
However I do not believe that he found "free" energy or an efficient way to capture it.
There's a baby in that bathwater. cn

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

Oh I dunno about that.

I am sure Tesla did study radiant energy, and that he did study transmission of electrical power at a modest distance.
However I do not believe that he found "free" energy or an efficient way to capture it.
There's a baby in that bathwater. cn

So if he DID find free/radiant energy and he DID transfer energy at kinda long distance, his main investor J.P Morgan (makes millions off of costly energy) wouldnt of destroyed Tesla's lab and repress this information because this information would of cost him millions?

 

[Heisenberg]

"This is the song that never ends, it goes on and on my friends! Everyone started singing it not knowing what it was, but everyone kept on singing it, forever JUST BECAUSE!"

Its impossible for you to agree to disagree, you are the prime example of this. We both present information about our world views but our world views conflict at every turn so nothing gets accomplished. Its an infinite loop with both sides saying "You're closed minded!". We both think that our passions are deluding us about reality, so why bother arguing any further? We both think that the others standards for reality is ridiculous, nothing gets accomplished. So whats the point of these exchanges? Do you want to understand other perspectives of life or do you want to be a guardian of material facts and engage those that attempt to spread information that conflicts with your knowledge of reality thus feeling like you're protecting people from being fooled?

Nothing gets accomplished because you are unwilling to grow, and you are unable to present any information that helps me grow. You are uneducated academically and green when it comes to life. The problem isn't that we can't agree to disagree, the problem is you are unwilling to learn and unable to teach. The problem is not that your views conflict with mine, it's that they conflict with logic and each other while managing to say nothing meaningful. They are the refuge of a confused and inadequate mind, and because your mind is closed, it will always be inadequate. This is the reason you are constantly missing the point. This is the reason you have trouble with subtleties and nuance. You have forgone teaching yourself how to think, and concentrated completely on telling yourself what to think. Learning how to think is a life long process that you somehow got completely right by age 20.

Im not trying to dumb down science. Things like god, the soul, the spirit world, they are not material. So 'if' they are real then we are being mislead by these materialistic standards that the majority of the scientific community holds so dearly.

Yes, you hide behind the idea that spirit is beyond science so science must change, yet the only changes you want to make are the ones that causes science to agree with you.

But, no matter how against it you are, scientists are finally starting to look past these out dated materialistic concepts and test the natural qualities of the "supernatural" and they are getting consistent results. Progress does not care what you think or what you value.

This is only true if you do not understand the difference between science and pseudoscience. There are in fact real scientists researching these subjects, and they are getting consistent results, negative ones, for nearly 100 years. We can make the results positive, but we must throw out certain standards of science, making it pseudoscience.

 

[Heisenberg]

Here is an example of one of the things Sheldrake would change about science, the null hypothesis.

His posit of morphic resonance basically states that memory is inherit in nature. So when a certain shape, structure, behavior, ect has occurred many times, it becomes more likely to occur again. We each have fields, and those fields are based off previous fields. Similar fields are connected and resonate with each other. This offers an explanation for all sorts of phenomena like esp and precognition, such as knowing who is calling on the phone before you answer. He points to examples of these fields when we see a flock of birds move in perfect unison, or how a squirrel knows to gather nuts for the winter when he has never been through one. It's basically an expanded concept of collective memory to include consciousness.

But science looks at this hypothesis and see possible predictions. If the idea were happening, shouldn't we see chemical compounds being easier and easier to synthesize as their shapes enter into natures memory? Shouldn't things like puzzles and video games become easier to solve as they enter more and more into the collective consciousnesses? Mankind has been learning to ride a bike for a pretty long time now, how come it has not gotten any easier for children of today to learn than it was 100 years ago? How come every year there are a percentage of squirrels who do not gather food for winter and die?

Well this is where Sheldrake starts criticizing science. Somehow, asking these questions becomes being anchored in the materialistic paradigm. He feels no need to consider the null hypothesis. Yet, when he finds studies that seem to support the idea, he accepts them. Rats learning to run a maze better and better with each generation. Termites working together perfectly even though they are blind and separated by a steal plate. When it is pointed out that these studies are sloppy and flawed, it's back to the "science is outdated" rhetoric.

Sheldrake sees evidence in anecdotal information. If someone feels compelled to stop their car and then a tree falls in front of them, it''s confirmation. If someone is thinking about their mother and then she calls, it's evidence. He makes no mention of the times when we think of someone and they do not call, or the times we stop our car and nothing happens. He glances over basic critical thinking concepts such as confirmation bias, he devalues scientific concepts like experimental protocol, and then when he isn't taken seriously he blames the system for not being as deluded as him.

Here is a paper that demonstrates what can happen when we ignore scientific protocols when doing science. This paper shows a positive conclusion that listening to music about being old actually makes you physically younger. When you use methods such as Sheldrake's you can pretty much show a positive result for anything. So the idea that listening to music about being old will reverse your aging process has as much support as Sheldrake's interconectedness.