On 6/18/2014 6:53 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
wrote:
salyavin, why do we have to start with simplicity? It's an assumption
that everyone seems to have. But those are often the best ones to
question, aren't they?
>
Most scientists are naive realists, Share.
According to my philosophy professor, "...the last resort of the naive
realist is an appeal to instruments." Because this appeal to
instruments, like the appeal to other senses, to past experiences and to
other persons, is a confession of failure. It is a confession that
/apparently obvious objects are NOT simple or self-evident./
Western scientific ontology is complicated, while Eastern spiritual
ontological notions are simple in comparison. Objects which are known do
NOT exist independently of their being known. Consciousness changes
everything - /we don't see or know things as they really are./
>
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:55 AM, salyavin808
<no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :
Richard,
You're absolutely correct. For the same reason, Hawking and Krauss
concluded that the universe created itself. How absurd can you get?
What they actually say is that it didn't need a creator as there are
known physical principles that can mean matter and space are self
creating. It didn't "create" itself in any sort of "this bit goes
here" sort of way, you would need intelligence and planning for that
which is why god concepts of whatever stripe don't explain creation
because they would have to be around before. You have to start with
simplicity.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote :
On 6/17/2014 7:40 PM, jr_esq@... <mailto:jr_esq@...> [FairfieldLife]
wrote:
Many of the popular physics writers, like Hawking and Krauss,
don't believe in including consciousness in their
cosmological theories. If they did, they'd realize that
their assumptions about the beginning of the universe to be
illogical and wrong.
>
Apparently there is nothing in physics that indicates that
there should be a human consciousness. Go figure.
>
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>,
<no_re...@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
wrote :
Worth a read. Woomeister Chopra challenges science to explain
consciousness with a Randi style prize. The money suggests he
feels confident that there is no scientific solution to the
hard problem of consciousness- in the same way that James
Randi feels confident there is no paranormal.
The trouble for Chopra is that, while no one has managed to
demonstrate even a tiny morsel of magical powers, we know
quite a lot about consciousness already.
Here's hoping for a swift solution to the hard problem as
he's one bullshit artist I'd like to see with some egg on his
face. And a million bucks would be a lot of egg.....
Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a
million-dollar prize
<http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/>
image
<http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/>
Deepak Chopra embarrasses himself by offering a million-...
<http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/>
I realize now that Chopra's affliction with Maru's
Syndrome—the condition described by Dr. Maru as "When I see a
box, I cannot help but enter"—is ...
View on whyevolutionistrue.wor...
<http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/>
Preview by Yahoo
