The Science of Interconnectedness.

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

This is not a counter, this is an example of you making as many assumptions as needed to support your view. Show to me that these aren't assumptions and I will pay attention. You do not think similar minded people find puzzles an interesting hobby? You don't think similar personalities are attracted to video games? You think bike riding is so uncommon that not enough of the same group has learned to ride? Certainly all types of people have learned to use the English alphabet, yet it has not gotten any easier for kids to grasp when learning it. Are there just not enough of the same personalities that read for it to become easier? How many Chinese children have learned to use chopsticks? Shouldn't they be using them shortly after birth by now?

Strange how resonance fields are unique in just that certain way which gets them around elementary scrutiny.

It is a counter, but you have a "you're definitely wrong" attitude instead of a "I think you're wrong" attitude because of the ego you have grown. How often are similar personalities doing the same puzzle? I dont know what your point is about video games. Children are unstable and all over the place so how can they be in harmony with other unstable children with different personalities? I guess you'll dismiss this as desperate assumptions to prove the theory though. A theory that brilliant scientists couldnt disprove yet somehow you can, funny.

This is the song that never ends...

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

you want to use science to prove your concepts hold weight , . but you want to ignore how the scientific method is done

I dont NEED science to prove these things to me. I have experienced enough to know how these things work. My experiences mean nothing to anyone else though so Im just trying to show that science can be applied to these things but the scientific community stubbornly holds on to materialism.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

you call it materialism . .. i call it causality . . .and the scientific method how ever mis used is still the only quantitative way to explain our universe, and there are new particles and types of matter being worked on every year to explain the elements of the our galaxy and there relationship to each other, quantum physics . . . , math is king and the human brain and perception is entirely fallible

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

Then why like my post on page 5 that is totally against materialistic science?

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

you got spunk, i like your thoughts . . . . but if you have to throw away a good methodology in order to believe another that is unproven in any way other then in your head, then i see no logic in that

to invalidate science in order to give weight to your beliefs, is a fallacy . . .

if life was interconnected then it would follow a design or constant, but it doesn't , the only constant is change and evolution of ideas. some of your ideas might come together with science some day but until then its entertainment and without people thinking against the grain like yourself not much would ever change

doesnt mean i agree with you though . . . .friends . . . ?

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

I dont want to throw it away. I dont think throwing materialism away is throwing science away. A lot of science fanatics agree that there may indeed be things that are above materialistic science that influence our reality (god). So how is it the closest approximation to the truth if it is forbidden to go beyond materialism?

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

ill got to go back and re read your thoughts on materialism . . . as my ideas of how/why science is key to quantitative results is the scientific method, and thats it

 

[Heisenberg]

It is a counter, but you have a "you're definitely wrong" attitude instead of a "I think you're wrong" attitude because of the ego you have grown. How often are similar personalities doing the same puzzle? I dont know what your point is about video games. Children are unstable and all over the place so how can they be in harmony with other unstable children with different personalities? I guess you'll dismiss this as desperate assumptions to prove the theory though. A theory that brilliant scientists couldnt disprove yet somehow you can, funny.

This is the song that never ends...

You like to re-frame my words. I didn't say you are definitely wrong, I said your hypothesis makes predictions that do not hold true. In each case, you ignore the null and instead make the assumptions you need to explain away the lack of results. People of all ages and types use math, math is all about symbols. Math is integral to the universe, one of the oldest studies, yet we do not see intuitive quantitative aptitude. Math still takes study and discipline, just as it always has.

It's odd how morphic fields just happen to behave in such a way to avoid the concept of null hypothesis. When you throw out principals such as null hypothesis and Occam's razor, you throw out science and replace it with a corrupt form of science, aka pseudoscience. It could be true that spiritual matters are beyond science and we need a different tool, but you are using that idea as an excuse to favor junk science. Using a different tool is one thing, pleading that your theory is special and deserves a pass through science's filters is another.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

You like to re-frame my words. I didn't say you are definitely wrong, I said your hypothesis makes predictions that do not hold true. In each case, you ignore the null and instead make the assumptions you need to explain away the lack of results. People of all ages and types use math, math is all about symbols. Math is integral to the universe, one of the oldest studies, yet we do not see quantitative aptitude. Math still takes study and discipline, just as it always has.

It's odd how morphic fields just happen to behave in such a way to avoid the concept of null hypothesis. When you throw out principals such as null hypothesis and Occam's razor, you throw out science and replace it with a corrupt form of science, aka pseudoscience. It could be true that spiritual matters are beyond science and we need a different tool, but you are using that idea as an excuse to favor junk science. Using a different tool is one thing, pleading that your theory is special and deserves a pass through science's filters is another.

How come this argument has not won over unbiased audiences of debates hosted by brilliant scientific minds? Surely if it was so logical and undeniable it would of made some progress in dismantling his theory. It seems you have done what much greater scientists have failed to do and disproved Sheldrakes theory, that is quite an accomplishment.

This is the song that never ends....

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

theorys get proved or they are considered unproven already by the classification as a theory .. . . . . not fact

 

[Heisenberg]

How come this argument has not won over unbiased audiences of debates hosted by brilliant scientific minds? Surely if it was so logical and undeniable it would of made some progress in dismantling his theory. It seems you have done what much greater scientists have failed to do and disproved Sheldrakes theory, that is quite an accomplishment.

This is the song that never ends....

Really? You're gonna fall back on the authority angle? "I can't defend or even explain this theory but someone did before and some other people said it was right" Are you trying to imply that there are aspects of his explanations which I can not understand, and therefore must rely on scientists who do AND agree? It seems you are the one who doesn't understand the theory, since you are unable to answer these basic questions that must have been asked by these brilliant scientists. Your answer is to move the goalpost and plead for special consideration, but you're unable to demonstrate why, just like Sheldrake. The theory does not stand up to it's own implications. We do not see evidence for his theory when we look in the most likely places to find it, and only on the fringes when we make those fringes very wide, wide enough in fact to include all pseudoscience. This is why it is not taken seriously. It's defense of an ideology, not of a explanatory model.

 

[Doer]

Originally Posted by Chief Walkin Eagle
........ 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.


No, no, no. This is why we have science. Because what we "want", and "comfortable world views" are precisely the problem. You act like we happy to be deaf, dumb and blind to your truth. I know I spent a lifetime wishing this all was true. Cn would sign over his Lear Jet to you, I'm sure, if you could provide Proof of anything but, talk, teachings, opinions, and passing along the confusion of other folks with comfortable world views like yours.

The Spiritual,"want" to believe after only being told about something. When you experience Self, the rest is stories.

In Science, we are not Right, we are in a lather to Investigate anything and everything, for which experimentation can be created. And it ALL has been investigated. I, myself, have spend considerable time tracking down the stories. Dead Ends.

Now, do I believe myself as a Spiritual Being in a Human existence? Yes! Do I ever expect to prove that to cn for the keys to his Lear Jet......no.

 

[cannabineer]

Yes, you said "this is not my motivation" for engaging in wild goose chases, so I figured the topic was motivation. It seems like you twisting things in your favor again. Can you tell me your motivation for starting wild goose chases? Im trying to improve science by taking the materialism out of it because I'm convinced things like the soul, the spirit world, and god are not of material.

Again, you are avoiding the argument. I am talking about specific things, not about the non material examples that you have provided... Why do you think that things like the soul, the spirit world, and god would be made of material? We cannot detect the soul, the spirit world, and god using materialism, therefore it probably doesnt exist?

So if you except that there may be something sacred about reality that is above science, why not remove the part of science that is stopping it from exploring this sacred reality? Why are controlled experiments impossible when materialism is thrown away? It seems stubborn and lazy. Im only making this point because I got the impression that you think things like god must be material.

I told you why your take on Sheldrake is wrong in my last response about his theory. You seem pretty confident that you have proved him wrong when scientists of much higher stature than yourself have failed to.

You have just shot your entire thesis in the foot. You've been maintaining all along that there can be a science of the spirit. If these things cannot be detected in the world our sensory organs inhabit, then there can be no study of them. Every last single interaction of a person wit the supernatural has been mediated by the meat of our sensation, perception and cognition. We describe dreams, visions, visitations in sensory terms. I would replace the word "materialism", which describes a philosophy and premise (and so sneaks that persona non grata, meaning, in through a back door) with "the material", which describes a condition, a property of our sensory and cognitive equipment, both organic and artificial.

But you've just laid out in plainest language that what you seek, you cannot get, entirely using premises you've provided.

The remainder of the post is a dizzying sleighride down the contradiction thus created into triple-distilled woo. You really are not listening at all. One cannot selectively keep or discard pretty/inconvenient bits of the edifice. Remember Huxley: there is nothing so tragic as a beautiful theory slain by one inconvenient fact. Any system of "learning" or "knowledge" that seeks to ignore that basic principle fails from wilful abandonment of rigor. cn

 

[cannabineer]

I dont NEED science to prove these things to me. I have experienced enough to know how these things work. My experiences mean nothing to anyone else though so Im just trying to show that science can be applied to these things but the scientific community stubbornly holds on to materialism.

Chief, would you like to play Scrabble? However, I don't want you to stubbornly hold onto the dictionary. It's so limiting. And of course this way, when I triumphantly claim a Triple Word Score with ZARQXVUB, there is no objection you can make. Sound like fun? No? Why not?

Because if you make up your own rules, you'll be playing by yourself.
cn

 

[Doer]

theorys get proved or they are considered unproven already by the classification as a theory .. . . not fact

Not hardly! Quite the opposite in fact. Every job, has it's on terms and meaning. In Science, Theory is good as it gets. For example, we have a very tech based Theory of Gravity, we know what it does, but not how. There is Black Hole Theory that is standing up very well. And of course, we have Theory of Evolution, which has no counter evidence.


Only Religion has to hide behind shouting THIS IS RIGHT!! you poor ignorants just need the Koolaid.

 

[Doer]

OMG, you invoked the Sacred name of a Frst Order deamon of the XDR-M.....(tremble) ZARQXVUB


....and nothing happened, see Chief?

 

[tyler.durden]

Got to hand it to you gentlemen, this thread is awesome! Chief, it is obvious to anyone with critical thinking and logic skills that you were knocked out pages ago by post #100 if not before. You didn't expect Heis to be so familiar with your quack messiah's bullshit, he understands it even better than you and your the one who brought it to the table. That's gotta sting. You complain about the uselessness of engaging each other, yet you couldn't wait to keep engaging yourself. You're obviously not trying to convince anyone here but yourself, I've never seen someone so desperate to believe in something. I've asked you multiple times if you would be able to handle a material world with nothing beyond, it is obvious that this concept scares you to death. What made you so afraid of this world that you constantly need to try to find an escape hatch?
To Heis, Neer and Doer, that was thoroughly thought-provoking and entertaining shit. My hat is off to you...

 

[Doer]

Got to hand it to you gentlemen, this thread is awesome! Chief, it is obvious to anyone with critical thinking and logic skills that you were knocked out pages ago by post #100 if not before. You didn't expect Heis to be so familiar with your quack messiah's bullshit, he understands it even better than you and your the one who brought it to the table. That's gotta sting. You complain about the uselessness of engaging each other, yet you couldn't wait to keep engaging yourself. You're obviously not trying to convince anyone here but yourself, I've never seen someone so desperate to believe in something. I've asked you multiple times if you would be able to handle a material world with nothing beyond, it is obvious that this concept scares you to death. What made you so afraid of this world that constantly need to try to find an escape hatch?
To Heis, Neer and Doer, that was thoroughly thought-provoking and entertaining shit. My hat is off to you...

With a mountain of very due, respect, let me add this. It is really beyond the vague "world view" of the Natter-Mind. Anyone and everyone is in the same boat.

And the N-M can't be expected to admit anything. But, you said, you're self, 100s of posts and we are all still here. Like Moths to the Idea flame.

It's never been about us and them to me. I'm sure, Chief has invested his attention to a sufficient degree, in his life and in response to us, to awaken Self. (just my opinion, OK?)

The rest of it is just talking it out to Unify this "material vs spiritual world" business.

In the quest of Oneness we can have no Duality.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

Not hardly! Quite the opposite in fact. Every job, has it's on terms and meaning. In Science, Theory is good as it gets. For example, we have a very tech based Theory of Gravity, we know what it does, but not how. There is Black Hole Theory that is standing up very well. And of course, we have Theory of Evolution, which has no counter evidence.


Only Religion has to hide behind shouting THIS IS RIGHT!! you poor ignorants just need the Koolaid.

ok my definition of a theory was flawed, but theorys have to be disproven or proved, or they are just theorys(edit ideas), but they are always becoming more complex so i get what you mean

also there is totally another theory to evolution that holds water, the theory of genetic drift and variation to by chance produce a better more adapted version of the original genetic code . . . . i think current idea on evolution fall short in a few areas like taking into account for random mutations that end up being dominate and expressive traits to help those who express them to get ahead

 

[Heisenberg]

Lets just hope it's a while before Chief discovers Dean Radin or Daryl J. Bem.