The Science of Interconnectedness.

[cannabineer]

ok my definition of a theory was slightly simple, but theorys have to be disproven or proved, or they are jsut theorys, but they are always becoming more complex so i get what you mean

In science, "theory" means "established". Something that still needs to be verified by experiment or observation is classed as "hypothesis". So, gravitation is theory, but supersymmetry (in particle models) is hypothesis.

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

I think that modern evolutionary theory has no trouble reconciling Darwinian and molecular-genetic concepts. I see no contradiction between the two. cn

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

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.

Lol then why so passionately engage me if you think I am wrong? You still have never answered that question. What is your motivation for these wild goose chases besides self benefit? Do you feel like a guardian of truth and engage those that dont make sense according to you thus feeling like you are saving people from being fooled? What is your motivation?

And my arguments do apply to all the examples you have provided. I would add a few of my own spiritual aspects to Sheldrakes theory, I have always knew a form of interconnectedness existed, Sheldrake was just the first scientist that tried to explain this spiritual aspect of the world, but like I said that would be too far fetched for you and its really not worth mentioning.

This is the song that never ends....

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

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

Holy shit, a smiley face! This is the second time I have ever seen you show emotion. I knew you were a real boy

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

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

So what material aspect would you assign to 'god', souls, and the spirit world? Is the spirit world made out of Earthly material? Would that world have to abide my Earthly science? Yes, we can experience such things through dreams, visions, hallucinations, but you are certain that those are material things? How certain are you that we only experience those things in our heads? What eyes are you seeing with in a dream? What ears are you listening with? Is it possible to objectively prove these things without the aid of science?

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

i thought the theory of evolution doesn't give credit to sociological variables in evolutions like language and sharing of knowledge to further advance communities around the world through trade

idk maybe its a stretch but i seem to remember a women who preached this concept and was starting to get recognition

 

[cannabineer]

So what material aspect would you assign to 'god', souls, and the spirit world?

That is the great mystery, no? But I cannot "assign" a material aspect, unless I also admit that I'm assigning (making up) the nature of the spiritual agency. I would want to "observe" that material aspect rather than "assign" it.

Is the spirit world made out of Earthly material?

What do youuu think?

Would that world have to abide my Earthly science?

It would need to be consistent with it. that's worlds apart from your well-poisoning term "abide".

Yes, we can experience such things through dreams, visions, hallucinations, but you are certain that those are material things? How certain are you that we only experience those things in our heads? What eyes are you seeing with in a dream? What ears are you listening with? Is it possible to objectively prove these things without the aid of science?

This would mire us in a pondering of objectivity ... but without scientific method there can be no assurance of objectivity.
I think that the unifying character of dreams, visions, contact experiences ... is that (assuming they were not generated internally, i.e. hallucinations) they all impinge on our material sensory/cognitive apparatus. Our sense of sight has two components, not counting the wiring: the sensor (eye) and the processor (visual cortex). In our dreams, the processor is active, and it is receiving real physical detectable signals from our other neurons. Thus it seems reasonable to me that if there really is an external agent providing the visionary content, traditional/conventional neurophysiology is the way into studying that.

And that is a problem for a science of the spirit. It must be fully consistent with the ways of science ... and with the ways of spirit, whatever those turn out to be. That provides two independent sources for that inconvenient theory-ruining fact. cn

 

[cannabineer]

i thought the theory of evolution doesn't give credit to sociological variables in evolutions like language and sharing of knowledge to further advance communities around the world through trade

idk maybe its a stretch but i seem to remember a women who preached this concept and was starting to get recognition

It might be a matter of timescale. Effects of Darwinian evolution on populations take millennia to manifest, absent an extraordinary selector (like man breeding domestic animals). Sociological studies have been around for less than 150 years.
At the same time, some really sketchy concepts are being bruited about by sociologists and especially cultural anthropologists, who have an unfortunate tencdency to get off the reservation f scientific protocol in the pursuit of a dogma. cn

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

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 . . . ?

Yes, friends. I also like the way you think. If only others were just as humble.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

It might be a matter of timescale. Effects of Darwinian evolution on populations take millennia to manifest, absent an extraordinary selector (like man breeding domestic animals). Sociological studies have been around for less than 150 years.
At the same time, some really sketchy concepts are being bruited about by sociologists and especially cultural anthropologists, who have an unfortunate tencdency to get off the reservation f scientific protocol in the pursuit of a dogma. cn

no species on the planet is evolving at suck a pace as how far we have come in 50,000 years . .. . if theory of evolution holds true, many species in the past should have evolved to a similar degree as far as we know there is none,so i beg to differ, our sociological effects have stimulated our evolution in a way darwins theory doesn't explain . . . but . . i should say it has been a long time since i read darwins complete theory or any accessory theories that lend credit to its principles

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

That is the great mystery, no? But I cannot "assign" a material aspect, unless I also admit that I'm assigning (making up) the nature of the spiritual agency. I would want to "observe" that material aspect rather than "assign" it.
What do youuu think?
It would need to be consistent with it. that's worlds apart from your well-poisoning term "abide".

This would mire us in a pondering of objectivity ... but without scientific method there can be no assurance of objectivity.
I think that the unifying character of dreams, visions, contact experiences ... is that (assuming they were not generated internally, i.e. hallucinations) they all impinge on our material sensory/cognitive apparatus. Our sense of sight has two components, not counting the wiring: the sensor (eye) and the processor (visual cortex). In our dreams, the processor is active, and it is receiving real physical detectable signals from our other neurons. Thus it seems reasonable to me that if there really is an external agent providing the visionary content, traditional/conventional neurophysiology is the way into studying that.

And that is a problem for a science of the spirit. It must be fully consistent with the ways of science ... and with the ways of spirit, whatever those turn out to be. That provides two independent sources for that inconvenient theory-ruining fact. cn

Why must the spirit world be consistent with science? So when you die and go to the spirit world, you gunna be like "Wtf god? That guy just turned into a tiger with wings, and my surroundings appear to be made out of light and I appear to be apart of everything. What kinda shit show are you running here?"

 

[mindphuk]

no species on the planet is evolving at suck a pace as how far we have come in 50,000 years . .. . if theory of evolution holds true, many species in the past should have evolved to a similar degree as far as we know there is none,so i beg to differ, our sociological effects have stimulated our evolution in a way darwins theory doesn't explain . . . but . . i should say it has been a long time since i read darwins complete theory or any accessory theories that lend credit to its principles

You seem to be conflating sociological evolution with biological. There has been no exceptionally rapid changes to our genome in the manner in which you describe.

 

[cannabineer]

Why must the spirit world be consistent with science?

I never said that. The rest of your post is a consequence of your taking your misunderstanding of what I wrote and running with it like a football. You might want to check the team logo in the end zone, however. cn

So when you die and go to the spirit world, you gunna be like "Wtf god? That guy just turned into a tiger with wings, and my surroundings appear to be made out of light and I appear to be apart of everything. What kinda shit show are you running here?"

 

[mindphuk]

This conversation reminds me of this Louis CK bit about arguing with a 3 year old.

[video=youtube;s120QJv6Ikg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s120QJv6Ikg[/video]

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

I never said that. the rest of your post is a consequence of your taking your misunderstanding and running with it like a football. You might want to check the team logo in the end zone, however. cn

You did say that. You said the spirit world would have to be consistent with Earthly science.

 

[cannabineer]

You did say that. You said the spirit world would have to be consistent with Earthly science.

No. I said the science of spirit yadaa yadaa. That is distinct, as the map is not the territory. If you disagree, please quote he paragraph in question. cn

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

This conversation reminds me of this Louis CK bit about arguing with a 3 year old.

[video=youtube;s120QJv6Ikg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s120QJv6Ikg[/video]

So Heis should know better than to discuss with me? Or three year olds like to argue with other three year olds?

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

No. I said the science of spirit yadaa yadaa. That is distinct, as the map is not the territory. If you disagree, please quote he paragraph in question. cn

So science would be useless and obsolete in spiritual reality? Scientists must be beyond disappointed when they die lol.

 

[Doer]

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

Did I say flawed? Oh, no. It is just that the lingo of Science is neither good, bad, or indifferent. It is what it is. And my theory of theory is much like yours. It's all context or there is no meaning.

And BRAVO!!. Seriously, I don't know if you meant to re-state the Theory of Evolution in practical terms, but you just did. You may think this idea is in conflict, but it is not.

It is in conflict of the Popular View of Evolution, perhaps. Evolution is not zigging the Saber Cat and then telling the wife during sex to pass on the genes. It is precisely the natural changing in the genes, the random mutations, the drift and variations, that caused the fast enough zig reaction in the first place, as well as the lighting fast decision not to zag like your hunting partner did. Same thing, right?

 

[cannabineer]

So science would be useless and obsolete in spiritual reality? Scientists must be beyond disappointed when they die lol.

I interpret your not quoting the paragraph in question as a retraction of your complaint. And yet you're not correcting your stance accordingly. You're chasing your very own straw man. cn

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

Did I say flawed? Oh, no. It is just that the lingo of Science is neither good, bad, or indifferent. It is what it is. And my theory of theory is much like yours. It's all context or there is no meaning.

And BRAVO!!. Seriously, I don't know if you meant to re-state the Theory of Evolution in practical terms, but you just did. You may think this idea is in conflict, but it is not.

It is in conflict of the Popular View of Evolution, perhaps. Evolution is not zigging the Saber Cat and then telling the wife during sex to pass on the genes. It is precisely the natural changing in the genes, the random mutations, the drift and variations, that caused the fast enough zig reaction in the first place, as well as the lighting fast decision not to zag like your hunting partner did. Same thing, right?

i guess its the same, i seem to be recalling something about the development and mutation that evolved our voice box and how being able to communicate like that further advanced out evolution differently then other species because of something about the way we socialize, which is not a genetic evolution as you said but sociological, commuity based . . i dont know now ill have to go back and look it up, some old lady on a ted talks episode . . .it was intriguing at the time but i have forgotten some of its key concepts