Point taken - I shall now live in dread of my plumbing coming alive! On Sunday, 12 October 2014 15:28:33 UTC+1, facilitator wrote: > > > <https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-7DtdkKYQpHA/VDqP9cqe1EI/AAAAAAAAADs/pU0vxMkHuc4/s1600/1a.jpg> > Yes, when you said "Ant" it immediately came to mind although that was not > part of my objective in making it. > > Some other views might help: > > > <https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-QPZVrxRQN0Y/VDqPlOkmjYI/AAAAAAAAADk/0TKzd5-Glho/s1600/new%2Bcaptures%2B100.jpg> > > > On Sunday, October 12, 2014 5:17:39 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >> >> 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.
