On Feb 27, 2009, at 6:18:48 PM, "Platt Holden" <[email protected]> wrote: Mark,
Can you cite some scientists who are challenging any of the assumptions listed above? I can think of two such scientists: physicist Robert Jahn and biologist Rupert Sheldrake. But Jahn has closed up shop and Sheldrake is considered a kook by main stream science. Hi Platt, Thanks for the request, as it gives me reason to reflect on where I have been on my trip through the High Country. I began this journey about 18 months ago when I abruptly left a successful career in biotechnology, to find meaning. I feel personal affinity towards Phaedrus as portrayed in ZMM (which I read initially over 30 years ago). During this drift, I do not take many notes, as I find they hinder rather than help. I do keep bookmarks in my browser however. Recently I had a computer crash which left me bare, and I was initially annoyed and then relieved. I find that the internet allows me to travel quickly and laterally through the forks (links) of experience provided. This tool is certainly something that the great thinkers of old did not have (not that I claim fellowship with them). My method for lateral drift is to dump large amounts of information from eclectic sources into my subconscious, and let it deal with the connections. My conscious ideas are then brought forth by techniques such as music, very simple video games, simple meditation and yoga, and other "mindless" methods. Back to your request. Rather than go point by point, I can provide some references and let you decide if they fulfill your criteria. Some of it can be considered fringe and maybe not science at all. I have been interested in applying the scientific method to that which cannot be measured. One example of this can be found in the writings of the late Evan Harris Walker, such as the Physics of Consciousness, wherein he defines consciousness as real, but not directly measurable. He speculates that our connection of such consciousness is through the quantum tunneling happening in the synaptic regions of the brain. His concept of consciousness may be similar to Quality, but is not hierarchical. You will find many scientists trained in physics to be somewhat mystical, such as Fred Alan Wolf, and Paul Davies amongst many others, dead and alive. The big bang theory is simply that. For a discussion on its shortcoming and a superiority of a static universe theory (in which there is no directional change) see papers by the late Thomas van Flanders and others at metaresearch.com. For example, http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp Respectable scientific refutation of Darwinistic evolution can be found at evolutionnews.org, (some of it may be "religious" to you, but there is also sound science). Unfortunately the concept of evolution is found everywhere in today's world because it helps justify behavior. The idea that it is directional or goal oriented is misleading in my mind. If it is through natural selection, then what is doing the selecting? Statistics refutes a random selection process (reference lost), and it has been found to be mathematically impossible through mutation (reference also lost). In my mind, what becomes, is simply filling in the gap left by what is. There is no struggle. In terms of mathematical representation of reality, Godel's theorem puts a crimp in that, as the great physicist Steven Hawking is coming to terms with in http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strings02/dirac/hawking/ I have recently become interested in Syncronicity and find Dr. Roth entertaining at http://www.psychovision.ch/rfr/roth_e_synchronicity.htm. Indeed, the collective consciousness of Jung is very appealing. I can go on, but these are simply my personal road signs during my journey. Science, for me, is a tool for labeling and organizing experiences in a useful, and possibly, meaningful way which can be communicated. The spectrum of scientists ranges from the purely technical, to the entirely creative. Any assumption should be questioned, in my opinion. My reality is no more meaningful than that of a dung beetle. In fact, though all this labeling I create a cage which separates me from Quality much more than the dung beetle may be (but who knows?) Sorry for the lengthy discourse. Willblake2 (Mark) Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
