The sculpture photo has haunted me Facil. It almost said 'ant' to me given my current fascination with the creatures. Then a Liverpool slave sculpture - I think 'the thinker in chains'. Fantastic in all kinds of meaning.
On Saturday, 11 October 2014 06:06:43 UTC+1, facilitator wrote: > > 'physics envy' That is the funniest thing I have heard in about a month! > > I told a fellow worker today: "Do you think people in California consider > China, the Far West?" > > We can take little steps. Like explaining to people, contrary to what the > collective is told by Meteorologists, the Sun never rises or sets. Back to > a matter of perspective. It is an ill conceived notion that is perpetuated > by naked kings. I actually have fewer doubts knowing I could be wrong. It > gives me much more freedom. It is like the saying: "Since I gave up hope I > feel much better!" Of late, science seems to be orgasmic about the concept > (Panspermia) of the god called "Mars" having started life sooner than on > Earth. The Earth it seems was not so friendly to life as it would appear. > The origins timeline being pushed to it's ill conceived limits so as to > require a third party. A bit of Menage a trois planetary orgy of sorts. > Or is it all just because some need funding to travel to the ginger > planet! Follow the money. > > > > On Friday, October 10, 2014 10:33:36 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >> >> How much should we charge for our 'Quantum Suspension of Belief Therapy' >> sessions Tony? Should we be as touchy-feely as Molly's 'Embrace the >> Paradox' class? I milked cows in my youth but am not Allan (inferior >> precious metal bashing skills here). In Fleck's system, religion has a lot >> of active elements directing how to see the world, science tending to more >> passive element collection. I must say I have met little of Tony's 'we >> might both (all) be wrong' perspective, though even this perspective, as >> with any doubting can become prescriptive or merely the rule of the >> doubters' club. >> > > "Early choices of what clubs we join may have to do with competence." > So true! I sohudl nto hvea jniode nya cbul taht acpcedte me as a mberem. > >> >> >> On Saturday, 11 October 2014 01:41:59 UTC+1, archytas wrote: >>> >>> I had Pat on the garden path to the Kaliber Yawn space (getting stuck >>> with the fairies at the bottom of the garden with only non-alcoholic beer) >>> - and liked him because he had a better sense of humour than Zarathustra. >>> I remember my first lab coat more or less as Facil describes. There is >>> something of one of Molly's paradoxes with authority in science - the rules >>> are always up for grabs in a perpetual legitimation crisis of a club >>> designed around a 'no rules rule book'. >>> >>> I rather liked Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961), a Polish-Jewish >>> microbiologist. Fleck claimed that cognition is a collective activity, >>> since it is only possible on the basis of a certain body of knowledge >>> acquired from other people. When people begin to exchange ideas, a thought >>> collective arises, bonded by a specific mood, and as a result of a series >>> of understandings and misunderstandings a peculiar thought style is >>> developed. When a thought style becomes sufficiently sophisticated, the >>> collective divides itself into an esoteric circle (professionals) and an >>> exoteric circle (laymen). A thought style consists of the active elements, >>> which shape ways in which members of the collective see and think about the >>> world, and of the passive elements, the sum of which is perceived as an >>> “objective reality”. What we call “facts”, are social constructs: only what >>> is true to culture is true to nature. >>> >>> This is only the beginning. We couldn't distinguish the merits of >>> evolution and creationism on this basis, or economics from a real science >>> (economists basically suffer from 'physics envy'). Back in the 80's I came >>> across people with laboratories and lab coats 'experimenting' with >>> electrodes placed on human heads to prove left brain right brain >>> hemispheric differences. They attracted a lot of funding, yet were so >>> stupid they considered music a stimulus rather than a complex set of >>> stimuli and could rarely describe any actual brain structure to someone >>> like me who actually diced the things from time to time. Their equivalent >>> today are those who calibrate various brain scanners so badly that they >>> find intelligent activity in dead salmon. Quantum mechanics arises from >>> black body radiation experiments, but we are not that sure quite what such >>> is. >>> >>> Early choices of what clubs we join may have to do with competence. >>> Anyone can bend the knee to the blue and white chequered rabbit, but not >>> many can, say, dissect a rat solar plexus. I no longer possess a lab coat >>> and am thus not a credible scientist. >>> >>> >>> On Friday, 10 October 2014 20:01:43 UTC+1, facilitator wrote: >>>> >>>> Funny you should mention "Diversion". That is exactly what each is. >>>> I look at them as being almost identical in presentation. Both rely on a >>>> set of "Fixed" beliefs. And both are dependent on adherents accepting >>>> those "Beliefs". The priest wears robes and tunics and the scientist >>>> escapes dissent among ranks by wearing the lab coat. Each new theorem >>>> postulated requires a quantum suspension of belief until proven. (Or >>>> unproven) >>>> >>>> On Friday, October 10, 2014 7:52:01 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm often struck that science versus religion is a diversion. There >>>>> is bad science, there is bad religion. Some 'religion' (economics) >>>>> pretends to be science. Some dreadful power gamers pretend to be >>>>> religious. >>>>> >>>>> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
