Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi Craig Weinberg IMHO Sheldrake is one of the very few who have had the courage to prove and call materialism bad science. I think he is the vanguard of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas. A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because materialism can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must be physical). [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 11:57:45 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:44:17 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results (there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things. Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. I agree, I think that Sheldrake is obviously sincere and while his efforts may fall short of the expectations of some as far as scientific rigor goes, it is clear to me that the general topic of his research is valid. There does seem to be much more to the content of experience and the sharing of awareness than our current science has accounted for. The fact that this is such a polarizing subject, turning those who claim to be scientifically minded into witch-hunting bigots makes me suspect that this is indeed an important direction for science to investigate fully. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ZD0DoE04VB0J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: What Hell is like
Hi Craig Weinberg You're right, I was thinking as a jew might, but if orgot that jesus introduced the concept of thought crimes (intentions). [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 12:05:31 Subject: Re: Re: What Hell is like On Thursday, January 3, 2013 9:11:29 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg All of your quotes are very good advice. What's your point ? My point is that any worthwhile religion is very much concerned with intentions and the content of your 'heart', at least as much as whether you violate the letter of any particular religious law. You were saying that all that matters is whether you sinned or not, whether you break the law or not, and that your good or evil intentions don't matter. I am saying that intention is a defining aspect of any honest conception of good and evil. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 08:47:13 Subject: Re: What Hell is like On Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:06:42 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg It doesn't matter whether you have good or bad intentions. The law and God judge us by what we do. You do the crime, you do the time. I'll let the Bible speak for itself, if that is the God you are talking about: Timothy 1:5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. Hebrews 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Timothy 3:13 While evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. Philippians 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Philippians 1:15-18 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Romans 2:5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. You sin, you go to Hell. If you repent, you go to Heaven. Personally, I believe that the eternal torture of Hell is not to be able to feel God's love and forgiveness. That would be Hell to a Jesus. He refers to being tossed out and undergoing a weeping and gnashing of teeth. Hindus and Buddhists believe in reincarnation, which from what we observe, is not always a pleasant life. Personally I believe that Hell and Heaven are metaphors which extrapolate the ordinary high and low moods of human consciousness to a super-significance. God is a metaphor in the exact same way - an algebraic concept of X = Infinite proprietary superlatives. If you are in a world of competing polytheistic deities, each the representation of a personal superlative or sphere of influence (God of war, Goddess of beauty, etc), then the invention of a supreme ultimate deity who trumps all others in all categories is an excellent political strategy. It's a convenient way to consolidate allegiance and direct everyone's personal insecurities to a mass psychology solution. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 20:24:14 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:21:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm. First, it implies that socially bad
Re: Re: Re: Why bad things happen to good people--Leibniz's Theodicy
Hi Craig Weinberg According to my belief in orthodox Lutheranism (in contrast to Billy Graham), we cannot decide for Christ, He decides for us. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 12:07:38 Subject: Re: Re: Why bad things happen to good people--Leibniz's Theodicy On Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:14:41 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg If you jump off of a building, gravity will kill you. Is that God's fault ? IMHO since God created nature, he also created the natural forces, which cause tsunamis. God is lawful, so He follows his own natural laws. Crap happens down here. We aren't yet in Heaven. Maybe it makes more sense to wait until (just before) we get to Heaven to start believing in God...since he is of no help to us down here in the crap...(his crap?) [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 17:31:16 Subject: Re: Why bad things happen to good people--Leibniz's Theodicy On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 8:13:20 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Why bad things happen to good people--Leibniz's Theodicy This is because things can't be good everywhere at the same time. Thus evil and catastrophes are probabilistic. Why not? If evil and catastrophes are probabilistic, what it the point of God? I thought your view was that this probabilistic indifference of nature was countered by the presence of a divine referee? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/0D4yauElsE0J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/k6Ym00qKQoIJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: a Sheldrake computer:: the universe as a random + mechanism---habit computer
Hi Craig Weinberg Richard rejects the concept of inextended space. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 12:13:16 Subject: Re: a Sheldrake computer:: the universe as a random + mechanism---habit computer On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:45:01 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: BTW my stichk is that consciousness comes from discrete compactified space that is arithmetic, in both the megaverse and in each universe. Richard Why would consciousness come from discrete compactified space? To me, all that this kind of explanation does is shift the mystery of consciousness from a person to a space. It ascribes the power of feeling and thinking to an arithmetic idea rather than a person, leaving us right back where we started - asking why does an arithmetic idea have thoughts and feelings. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Eq5Ru03zbcEJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The two basic theologies
Hi Craig Weinberg Yes, there is no calculus for the quality of life. But we still have to make decisions about it. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 12:21:51 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: The two basic theologies On Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:22:24 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Enhancing Life is not a very arbitrary value, I don't know about arbitrary, but it is a very nebulous value. What does the enhancement of life consist of? The growth of bacteria? The improvement of the standard of living of one species or group over another? Population growth or maximization of ecological niche coverage on Earth? Anything can be seen as enhancing life. We stockpile nerve gas and nuclear weapons because we feel that it enhances our lives. People keep loaded guns under their pillow because it enhances their lives. It is apparent that people have very different ideas of what enhances life - in many cases opposite ideas. To me, linking good and evil to such a subjective definition is asking for trouble. Equating good with socially benevolent qualities seems more accurate and useful. Craig but of course interpreting what that means can differ from person to person. That's why we have laws, either religious or legal ones. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 12:07:03 Subject: Re: Re: Re: The two basic theologies On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:29:55 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So what's good for one may be evil for another. No surprise there. That's why an overriding referee or judge (God) is necessary. Why would the relativity of value necessitate some kind of referee? Any physical change robs one system of energy by increasing the energy of another. Why should there be an independent judge watching over these transactions? With sense instead of God, the weight of consequence is within the experience itself, subjectively implicit rather than an objectively explicit independent entity. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/2/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-01, 17:42:20 Subject: Re: Re: The two basic theologies On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 4:14:18 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg CRAIG: Enhance whose life though? ROGER: Anybody's life. Disinfectants destroy microbiotic life. CRAIG: Would slavery Good or Evil? ROGER: The masters diminish the life of the slaves. The slaves have their lives diminished. So there's no good in it at all. The slaves enhance the lives of their masters. Their masters have their lives enhanced. So there's as much good in it as not. CRAIG: What about promiscuity or dessert or yeast? ROGER: Promiscuity diminishes the value of love and commitment, hence of life. I have no opinions on dessert or yeast. Promiscuity without contraception enhances the number of pregnancies. If you have no opinion on the others, does that mean that they don't fit into the good/evil dichotomy? CRAIG: Is cell division good or evil? I would say that growth of healthy cells is goog because they enhance life. And growth of cancer cells is evil or bad because they can cause death. Cancer cells enhance their own life. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/1/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-01, 15:03:10 Subject: Re: The two basic theologies On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:08:36 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: A Theology for Atheists There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call Evil. Enhance whose life though? Would slavery Good or Evil? What about promiscuity or dessert or yeast? Is cell division good or evil? Who determines what 'enhanced' or 'diminished' means? As evidenced, these can be present in both happenings and in people. We have the freedom to support either cause or not support one. Don't we support both at all times, just by being alive? -- A Theology for Theists The same holds as above, with the addition that there is some overriding intelligence which causes the happenings, good or evil, either preferably
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/3/2013 11:47 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Most scientific publications are based on the 19th century religious cult of materialism, which dogmatically rejects mind and spirit for atheistic purposes (not reasons, there are none). Do you have any citations showing where this dogma is written down? It cannot deal with fields at all, Ever hear of quantum *field* theory. for example the theory of relativity, since that theory asserts that there is no such thing as space (and yet it works). General relativity is a theory of metric space. M does not believe in fields, for they are anathema: immaterial, purely mathematical. So of course monads and morphisms are nonsense to a materialist. He lives in a fantasy world. You must be living in some other world to think scientist cannot deal with fields - a concept they invented. Brent [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 18:32:37 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 01:46:20PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote: While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012. Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf Richard I'm sceptical of Sheldrake's explanation in terms of morphic fields (or even monads). It makes no sense. However, the empirical effect he observed may well stand. We should probe such results, test for any methodological flaws, and if they continue to hold up, look for alternative explanations that might work. Of course it is a hard row to hoe. A few years ago, I had some empirical results that literally flew in the face of neutral evolution thoery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution). I could not get these results published, and got treated by scorn by journal referees. Then after about a year of thought, I worked out the mechanism - in the end it was quite a simple, but nevertheless real effect. This time, the paper was accepted without question. You can see the resulting paper at arXiv:nlin.AO/0404012 In spite of thise result having quite profound implications for things like the molecular clock idea, AFAIK, nobody has investigated whether anything like this happens in real biology. It does also stand as an example of what is required to publish contra-paradigmatic results. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe
Hi Craig Weinberg You're welcom to your views, which seem socially based, but my views are no different than those of many modern physicists. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 13:39:09 Subject: Re: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe On Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:14:15 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe What is space ? Space is the experience of gaps between public presences, or alternatively the distance which can be measured of one object against another. There is no such thing as space, there are only fields, which are mathematical structures. What's a mathematical structure? What is it made of? Fields too... aren't they really complete abstractions? What is matter ? Matter is the direct experience or indirect inference of public presences. It could be described also as an experience of an obstacle or obstructive invariance within a given range of sensory detection. There is no such thing as matter, because it is only a field. There is no such thing as mass, which is why there is no such thing needed as a Higgs field to form what we call mass. Hence we haven't found a Higgs or field. What causes a foetus to grow into a baby ? Is it DNA ? Biologists agree DNA does not do that. Yes, this is the important question. A foetus, baby, and adult can be thought of as one continuous presence with different qualities.There are thousands of causes; physical, biological, zoological, anthropological... If these questions puzzle or intrigue you, you might want to watch Rupert Sheldrake's The Morphogenetic Universe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dm8-OpO9oQ [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/JKsseFY3WtQJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The best of all possible Worlds.
On 1/3/2013 11:58 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerb, Heaven is not part of contingent creation, so your statement that there is no heaven is illogical or irrelevant. It was an inference from your statement, This is because things can't be good everywhere at the same time. After the second coming and we're all in heaven or hell aren't things supposed to good everywhere. The virtuous are comfortably enjoying the torments of the damned. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/4/2013 12:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg IMHO Sheldrake is one of the very few who have had the courage to prove and call materialism bad science. You don't know how to count. The world is full of mystics and the superstitious who don't even know what materialism means. They are 90% of the Earth's population - the ignorant 90%. I think he is the vanguard of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas. So why doesn't he do an experiment that tests his theory and can be replicated? A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because materialism can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must be physical). That doesn't mean that anything that is not materialism can explain consciousness. Materialism at least explain why getting hit on the head changes your consciousness. Brent The first principle of religion is to fool yourself - and you are the easiest person for you to fool. --- with apologies to R. Feynman -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi Telmo Menezes Sheldrake, as you might surmise, is totally empirical, which is the irrefutable tactic to disprove materialism. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 11:17:59 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Thanks Roger! I'm intrigued and will investigate further when time permits. Another more mundane explanation might be related to the effect of knowing that something is possible. I believe there is some research on this effect. In sports, for example, when someone breaks a psychological barrier (e.g. running a mile under 4 minutes), it's not unusual for other athletes to replicate the record soon enough. But I'm talking out of my ass, as you Americans say. I'll read for myself. I agree with you that too much skepticism can be counterproductive. As Carl Sagan put it, there's an ideal mix of skepticism and wonder. On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results (there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things. Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. You might try lookking at his results: Contempt prior to investigation will keep you forever in ignorance. - Herbert Spencer . 1:25:27 Dr Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion (May 2012) by Alan Roberts 6 months ago 10,803 views In May of 2012, Dr Alan Roberts, in association with the Wilmslow Guild, located near Manchester, UK, invited Dr Sheldrake to ... 1:20:28 Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe by BroadcastBC 8 months ago 6,707 views In 1981 Rupert Sheldrake outraged the scientific establishment with his hypothesis of morphic resonance. A morphogenetic field ... 1:37:42 The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence by GoogleTechTalks 4 years ago 250,577 views enabling widespread participation. Speaker: Rupert Sheldrake Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than ... CC 1:02:24 Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion | London Real by LondonRealTV 1 month ago 10,264 views London Real talks to Biologist Writer Dr. Rupert Sheldrake TWEET this video clicktotweet.com VISIT us @ www.LondonReal.tv ... 9:38 Rupert Sheldrake 1 - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay by conscioustv 3 years ago 10,340 views Rupert Sheldrake - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than ... 7:10 Rupert Sheldrake on Morphic Fields and Systemic Family Constellations by Dan Booth Cohen 4 months ago 2,601 views Biologist Rupert Sheldrake speaks about morphic fields and Systemic Family Constellations. He explains how all social animals ... 31:00 Rupert Sheldrake - Distant Mental Influence by metaRising 1 year ago 4,889 views Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the ... 1:14:36 Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis by loadedshaman 1 year ago 15,768 views Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis (1995) 1:05:49 Rupert Sheldrake: the Evolution of Telepathy by Brian Josephson 1 year ago 10,918 views The Perrott-Warrick Lecture by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (February 9th. 2011), in which were described phenomena indicative of the ... 4:38 Science Set Free -- Rupert Sheldrake by Bill Weaver 4 months ago 11,200 views HD 5:45 Rupert Sheldrake: Telephone Telepathy by Matthew Clapp 5 years ago 86,152 views The renowned biologist Rupert Sheldrake presents his recent findings, powerfully suggesting that part of us extends beyond our ... 10:24 Rupert Sheldrake - The Extended Mind - Telepathy. Pt 1/3 by xcite83 3 years ago 89,453 views Rupert Sheldrake is a British former biochemist and plant physiologist who now researches and writes on parapsychology and ... 9:48 Rupert Sheldrake - Genie oder Scharlatan? 1/4 by quantumsciencetv 1 year ago 9,105 views Die ?liche Biologie f?rt in eine Sackgasse. (RS) ?er die Thesen des umstrittenen Wissenschaftlers, den Bezug zur ... 3:24 The Morphogenic Field Part 1 by Dyule 4 years ago 9,922 views Rupert Sheldrake on morphogenic fields. www.sheldrake.org ... dyule ... physical science biology consciousness ... 5:57 Rupert Sheldrake - The Rise of Shamanism by heartofthehealer 3 years ago 25,632 views Rupert Sheldrake, one of the worlds most innovative biologists, is best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic ... 1:37:11 Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton A Quest Beyond the Limits of the Ordinary by
Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil
Hi meekerdb That's so sad. I'm so sorry for your friend. My personal belief is that prayers are more effective when the cancer isn't so advanced, because you are fighting good against evil. Life against death. Lem needs tio read Leibniz's theodicy. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 12:53:17 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On 1/3/2013 2:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote: While chemotherapy works against the cancer, on the other hand, Christian believers such as me believe that the holy spirit, if so requested, can fill you with life and so defeat a cancer by that means. Hmmm. I guess my friend Dan, who is a devout Catholic, just didn't get the right words into the thousand or so prayers in which he asked that his young daughter be cured of the leukemia that caused her to die in agony at age 11. Brent For moral reasons I am an atheist - for moral reasons. I am of the opinion that you would recognize a creator by his creation, and the world appears to me to be put together in such a painful way that I prefer to believe that it was not created by anyone than to think that somebody created this intentionally. --- Stanislaw Lem -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 1/3/2013 10:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb Although a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt a communist and so anti-christian). His diatribe against Christianity is a prime example. It's totally misinformed and mistaken. Ethics is, at bottom, loving your neighbor as your self. Well that's easy. I don't love or even particularly like myself. Dear Telmo, That sounds like a personal pathology. I feel badly for you. Hi Stephen, There's no need to feel bad. I have a tendency for depression but nothing serious. I suspect it's rather common. I can feel joy in many things and I can love other people, that's good enough. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: What Hell is like
Hi meekerdb Personally, I find that Leibniz has given me the most satisfactory explanations for God's actions in this world in his theodicy. Also, his monadology can be used to develop your own logical solutions to just about anything. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 13:04:46 Subject: Re: What Hell is like On 1/3/2013 5:47 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Personally, I believe that the eternal torture of Hell is not to be able to feel God's love and forgiveness. That would be Hell to a Jesus. He refers to being tossed out and undergoing a weeping and gnashing of teeth. Heaven and Hell were invented so that injustice, so obviously missing on Earth, could be redressed in an afterlife. I think it has a lake of fire because people didn't think 'not feeling God's love' was enough punishment for say Hitler. Of course then they got carried away by superlatives, Believe in my god or he'll punish you worse than your god. Hindus and Buddhists believe in reincarnation, which from what we observe, is not always a pleasant life. Personally I believe that Hell and Heaven are metaphors which extrapolate the ordinary high and low moods of human consciousness to a super-significance. God is a metaphor in the exact same way - an algebraic concept of X = Infinite proprietary superlatives. If you are in a world of competing polytheistic deities, each the representation of a personal superlative or sphere of influence (God of war, Goddess of beauty, etc), then the invention of a supreme ultimate deity who trumps all others in all categories is an excellent political strategy. It's a convenient way to consolidate allegiance and direct everyone's personal insecurities to a mass psychology solution. Right. See Craig A. James book, The Religion Virus for a nice explication of this. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: What Hell is like
Hi meekerdb Presumably they have no remorse. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 13:07:26 Subject: Re: What Hell is like Or But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. --- Jesus, Luke 19:27 On 1/3/2013 6:11 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg All of your quotes are very good advice. What's your point ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 08:47:13 Subject: Re: What Hell is like On Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:06:42 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg It doesn't matter whether you have good or bad intentions. The law and God judge us by what we do. You do the crime, you do the time. I'll let the Bible speak for itself, if that is the God you are talking about: Timothy 1:5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. Hebrews 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Timothy 3:13 While evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. Philippians 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Philippians 1:15-18 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Romans 2:5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. You sin, you go to Hell. If you repent, you go to Heaven. Personally, I believe that the eternal torture of Hell is not to be able to feel God's love and forgiveness. That would be Hell to a Jesus. He refers to being tossed out and undergoing a weeping and gnashing of teeth. Hindus and Buddhists believe in reincarnation, which from what we observe, is not always a pleasant life. Personally I believe that Hell and Heaven are metaphors which extrapolate the ordinary high and low moods of human consciousness to a super-significance. God is a metaphor in the exact same way - an algebraic concept of X = Infinite proprietary superlatives. If you are in a world of competing polytheistic deities, each the representation of a personal superlative or sphere of influence (God of war, Goddess of beauty, etc), then the invention of a supreme ultimate deity who trumps all others in all categories is an excellent political strategy. It's a convenient way to consolidate allegiance and direct everyone's personal insecurities to a mass psychology solution. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 20:24:14 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:21:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm. First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are ultimately personal values. Speaking of sloppy. I'm not sure what that was intended to say. Without some explanation of why you say that evil is other than intentional social harm, it sounds like you are just saying that you disagree. Second, it implies that as soon as we find a physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a behavior it's not longer evil.
Re: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe
Hi Roger, On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe What is space ? There is no such thing as space, there are only fields, which are mathematical structures. Fine. What is matter ? There is no such thing as matter, because it is only a field. There is no such thing as mass, which is why there is no such thing needed as a Higgs field to form what we call mass. Hence we haven't found a Higgs or field. Ok. What causes a foetus to grow into a baby ? Is it DNA ? Biologists agree DNA does not do that. This I have a problem with. Biologists agree on no such thing and they do have very compelling explanations for how morphogenesis works. As an aside, I find that someone using some variation of the phrase all scientists agree is a very bad sign. I believe this results from an outdates view of the DNA as an inert blueprint. We now know that DNA is a computer program, capable of conditional execution based on inputs from the environment. Biologists call these mechanisms gene regulatory networks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_regulatory_network The initial undifferentiated cell divides a number of times, and the accumulation of cells and their interactions eventually changes the environment in a way that triggers the expression of other segments of the genetic code. If these questions puzzle or intrigue you, you might want to watch Rupert Sheldrake's The Morphogenetic Universe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dm8-OpO9oQ [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil
Hi meekerdb I found this on wikipedia: Russell begins by defining what he means by the term Christian and sets out to explain why he does not believe in God and in immortality and why he does not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, the two things he identifies as essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. He considers a number of logical arguments for the existence of God, including the cosmological argument, the natural-law argument, the teleological argument and moral arguments following what he describes as the intellectual descent that the Theists have made in their argumentations. He also goes into specifics about Christian theology, alleging defects in Jesus's teaching and his moral character, in particular because Jesus believed in hell and everlasting punishment. He argues ad absurdum against the argument from design, and favors Darwin's theories: 1) Russell was an atheist (probably a communist), so what could you expect ? This is an ignorant political (communist-atheist) diatribe. 2) Russell was also a disciple of the 19th century religious cult of materialism, to which the idea of spirit and immortality were anathema. That enough is to disqualify him. You might as well have a champanzee review a bach motet. 3) Russell was a total believer in logic, which is incapable of understranding anything. So while he was a brilliant logician, he was illiterate as far as anything human or spiritual is concerned. Again, that disqualifies him. 4) He confessed at one time that he hadn't a clue as to the meaning of pragmatism. He understood Leibniz's logic and wrote a book on it, but said that L's metaphnysics was a fairy tale. What you can infer from this is that he was an expert in logic, but logic is useless to understand anything. Not anything human anyway or spiritual. 5) So he naturally rejects Christianity as an illogical, political tract, which it is not intended to be. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 13:13:07 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On 1/3/2013 7:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Although a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt a communist and so anti-christian). He was anti-communist too. His diatribe against Christianity is a prime example. It's certainly a prime example of his brilliance and logic. It's totally misinformed and mistaken. Ethics is, at bottom, loving your neighbor as your self. And your evidence for this is...? Brent Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. --- Mark Twain [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 18:21:27 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm. First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are ultimately personal values. Second, it implies that as soon as we find a physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a behavior it's not longer evil. But all behavior has a physical cause. So I'm ok with just dropping the term 'evil' and just referring to good/bad for individuals and good/bad for society as derivative. But I think it's a hangover from theodicy to refer to human actions as evil but not natural events - it's part of the idea that humans are apart from nature. Brent Ethics is, at bottom, the art of recommending to others the self-sacrifice necessary to cooperate with ourselves. --- Bertrand Russell No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6005 - Release Date: 01/02/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: Re: Monads and Sheldrake
Hi meekerdb If there is empirical evidence for the truth of those, I'll accept them. Sheldrake's work is totally empirical. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 14:30:28 Subject: Re: Monads and Sheldrake Don't be so narrow-minded. You must also incorporate Orgone, Feng Shui, Qi, ectoplasma, the astral plane, and NDE's. Nevermind those piddling rational, mechanistic, material problems like global warming, overpopulation, lack of water, depletion of oil... Brent There are those who claim that magic is like the tide; that it swells and fades over the surface of the earth, collecting in concentrated pools here and there, almost disappearing from other spots, leaving them parched for wonder. There are also those who believe that if you stick your fingers up your nose and blow, it will increase your intelligence. -- The Teachings of Ebenezum, Volume VII On 1/3/2013 10:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Morphic fields are your god??? On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist They rule everything. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 11:48:05 Subject: Re: Monads and Sheldrake Roger, But how do morphic fields fit in with this scheme of things? Richard On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Sheldrake says that, if I remember properly, monads are a combination of mind and body, so are mindbrains. The perceptions of these in turn reflect all of the perceptions of all of the other monads in the universe, so the universe is a giant mindbrain. Then there is a universal memory. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 10:47:59 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Roger, How are morphic fields related to monads? Richard On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results (there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things. Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. You might try lookking at his results: Contempt prior to investigation will keep you forever in ignorance. - Herbert Spencer . 1:25:27 Dr Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion (May 2012) by Alan Roberts 6 months ago 10,803 views In May of 2012, Dr Alan Roberts, in association with the Wilmslow Guild, located near Manchester, UK, invited Dr Sheldrake to ... 1:20:28 Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe by BroadcastBC 8 months ago 6,707 views In 1981 Rupert Sheldrake outraged the scientific establishment with his hypothesis of morphic resonance. A morphogenetic field ... 1:37:42 The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence by GoogleTechTalks 4 years ago 250,577 views enabling widespread participation. Speaker: Rupert Sheldrake Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than ... CC 1:02:24 Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion | London Real by LondonRealTV 1 month ago 10,264 views London Real talks to Biologist Writer Dr. Rupert Sheldrake TWEET this video clicktotweet.com VISIT us @ www.LondonReal.tv ... 9:38 Rupert Sheldrake 1 - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay by conscioustv 3 years ago 10,340 views Rupert Sheldrake - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than ... 7:10 Rupert Sheldrake on Morphic Fields and Systemic Family Constellations by Dan Booth Cohen 4 months ago 2,601 views Biologist Rupert Sheldrake speaks about morphic fields and Systemic Family Constellations. He explains how all social animals ... 31:00 Rupert Sheldrake - Distant Mental Influence by metaRising 1 year ago 4,889 views Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the ... 1:14:36 Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis by loadedshaman 1 year ago 15,768 views Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis (1995) 1:05:49 Rupert Sheldrake: the Evolution of Telepathy by Brian Josephson 1 year ago 10,918 views The Perrott-Warrick Lecture by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (February 9th. 2011), in which were described phenomena indicative of the ... 4:38 Science
Re: Fwd: [FOM] Preprint: Topological Galois Theory
On 1/3/2013 8:34 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/3/2013 5:06 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Bruno, You might be interested in this! How about giving us a 500 word summary including an example of it's application. Hi Brent, I guess that you can't be bothered to read it for yourself. OK, but why advertize the fact? I guess you don't understand category theoretical stuff... OK. Section 6.3 and 6.4 are very nice formal treatments of the idea that I am exploring, the Stone duality thing that I am often sputtering on and on about. ;-) My idea is that Boolean algebras can evolve via non-exact homomorphsims. ;-) I just don't happen to think or write in formal terms. Brent Original Message Subject:[FOM] Preprint: Topological Galois Theory Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 20:08:04 +0100 From: Olivia Caramello oc...@hermes.cam.ac.uk Reply-To: Foundations of Mathematics f...@cs.nyu.edu To: Foundations of Mathematics f...@cs.nyu.edu Dear All, The following preprint is available from the Mathematics ArXiv at the addresshttp://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0300 : O. Caramello, Topological Galois Theory Abstract: We introduce an abstract topos-theoretic framework for building Galois-type theories in a variety of different mathematical contexts; such theories are obtained from representations of certain atomic two-valued toposes as toposes of continuous actions of a topological group. Our framework subsumes in particular Grothendieck's Galois theory and allows to build Galois-type equivalences in new contexts, such as for example graph theory and finite group theory. This work represents a concrete implementation of the abstract methodologies introduced in the paper The unification of Mathematics via Topos Theory, which was advertised on this list two years ago. Other recent papers of mine applying the same general principles in other fields are available for download at the addresshttp://www.oliviacaramello.com/Papers/Papers.htm . Best wishes for 2013, Olivia Caramello -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 1/4/2013 2:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King The only miracle that the holy spirit can work with is life, for it, like God, is life, or represents life. We do not disagree. ;-) [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 19:57:51 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On 1/3/2013 1:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:44:32 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Chemotherapy is generally thought to be evil to the cancer (it tries to kill it) and good to the patient (it tries ultimately to cure him through killing the cancer). While chemotherapy works against the cancer, on the other hand, Christian believers such as me believe that the holy spirit, if so requested, can fill you with life and so defeat a cancer by that means. Yet being filled with the holy spirit cannot reverse an amputated limb, or protect against a tsunami? Hi Craig, The premise of this line of thinking seems not even wrong to me. Is is even logical to consider an entity that can both note the vocalizations of finite creatures and make chances for them? Santa Clause is more plausible... Can people not just grow up and see the world as something other than a supplication game? There is no man in the sky. Relics of monarchical ages need to be left behind. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The best of all possible Worlds.
On 1/4/2013 3:18 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/3/2013 11:58 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerb, Heaven is not part of contingent creation, so your statement that there is no heaven is illogical or irrelevant. It was an inference from your statement, This is because things can't be good everywhere at the same time. After the second coming and we're all in heaven or hell aren't things supposed to good everywhere. The virtuous are comfortably enjoying the torments of the damned. Brent Dear Brent, I have no idea what religion you might be referring to that has such notions other than a poorly draw cartoon of a straw man ! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/4/2013 3:24 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/4/2013 12:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg IMHO Sheldrake is one of the very few who have had the courage to prove and call materialism bad science. You don't know how to count. The world is full of mystics and the superstitious who don't even know what materialism means. They are 90% of the Earth's population - the ignorant 90%. Ah, and you are in that elite 10%! Congratulations are in order! I think he is the vanguard of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas. So why doesn't he do an experiment that tests his theory and can be replicated? He does propose experiments. They cost money to perform... A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because materialism can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must be physical). That doesn't mean that anything that is not materialism can explain consciousness. Materialism at least explain why getting hit on the head changes your consciousness. Good! But it still cannot explain how! Brent The first principle of religion is to fool yourself - and you are the easiest person for you to fool. --- with apologies to R. Feynman -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 1/4/2013 3:32 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/3/2013 10:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb Although a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt a communist and so anti-christian). His diatribe against Christianity is a prime example. It's totally misinformed and mistaken. Ethics is, at bottom, loving your neighbor as your self. Well that's easy. I don't love or even particularly like myself. Dear Telmo, That sounds like a personal pathology. I feel badly for you. Hi Stephen, There's no need to feel bad. I have a tendency for depression but nothing serious. I suspect it's rather common. I can feel joy in many things and I can love other people, that's good enough. Hi Telmo, I have my own difficulties that are similar. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Science is a religion by itself.
Science is a religion by itself. Why? Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe only using physical laws, formulas, equations. Here is the scheme of His plane. =. God : Ten Scientific Commandments. § 1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= ∞ ,p= 0, t=∞ . § 2. Particles: C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, i^2=-1. § 3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb. § 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* . § 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : HeII -- HeI -- H -- . . . § 6. Proton: (p). § 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton: a) electromagnetic, b) nuclear, c) biological. § 8. The Physical Laws: a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy/ Mass, b) Pauli Exclusion Law, c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law. § 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness. § 10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation. ===. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On morphic telepathy
On 1/4/2013 1:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: On morphic telepathy Note that Leibniz for good reasons (similar to Kant) did not consider time and space to be substances, so the monads all exist as a dust of points in an inextended domain (to use Descartes' concepts) which is by definition outside of spacetime (is in mental domain). Space and time do not exist ion the mental domain, so it is like a nonlocal field. Dear Roger, Is it necessary that monads are a substance? Could we think of them as pure process the product of which is the content of experience of the monad? Is this formulation antithetical to the definition that Leibniz gives monads? So had the monads windows, they would be in continual direct instant communcation with each other, which L disallows by not permitting them to have windows. Or they could be in a continuous state of simulating the effects of said communications on themselves an behaving 'as if' they where observing each other. What the 'no windows' postulate provides is a denial of 'exchange of substances' - which makes sense if there are no substances at all anyway! The supreme monad however can see everything with perfect undistorted clarity from ts domain and instantly updates the perceptions of each monad. Why is this necessary? Why not have any one monad reflect in its process all other monads? Every monad is in a sense 'the supreme monad' in this way. No need for a hierarchical structure... I use the since the actual perceptions are indirect as described above. Sure. It is as if they have continual direct communication with each other. But they do not have perfect or equal undistorted clarity of vision, so telepathy is individual and can be sketchy. Sure. QM allows for this kind of telepathy! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/4/2013 3:24 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/4/2013 12:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg IMHO Sheldrake is one of the very few who have had the courage to prove and call materialism bad science. You don't know how to count. The world is full of mystics and the superstitious who don't even know what materialism means. They are 90% of the Earth's population - the ignorant 90%. Ah, and you are in that elite 10%! Congratulations are in order! I think he is the vanguard of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas. So why doesn't he do an experiment that tests his theory and can be replicated? He does propose experiments. They cost money to perform... A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because materialism can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must be physical). That doesn't mean that anything that is not materialism can explain consciousness. Materialism at least explain why getting hit on the head changes your consciousness. Good! But it still cannot explain how! Brent The first principle of religion is to fool yourself - and you are the easiest person for you to fool. --- with apologies to R. Feynman -- Onward! Stephen I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that I and others then claimed to be a property of a Dark Matter axion condensate that was a BEC composed of nearly motionless cosmic axions. In particular the Quantum Information Theory derived by Boris Iskatov for such a medium had solutions (described in the paper) that could well explain some of the empirical effects claimed for the morphic field. An open question in this paper is the coupling mechanism between physical consciousness in the brain and the non-local consciousness of the axion condensate. I now believe that the coupling is between a physical brain BEC and the axion BEC, except that I also now believe that the particles of compactified space of string theory, also a BEC, more actively manifest a non-local consciousness based on CTM. The paper also reviews empirical evidence for non-local consciousness presented at that conference that may of of interest: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/4/2013 7:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that I and others then claimed to be a property of a Dark Matter axion condensate that was a BEC composed of nearly motionless cosmic axions. In particular the Quantum Information Theory derived by Boris Iskatov for such a medium had solutions (described in the paper) that could well explain some of the empirical effects claimed for the morphic field. An open question in this paper is the coupling mechanism between physical consciousness in the brain and the non-local consciousness of the axion condensate. I now believe that the coupling is between a physical brain BEC and the axion BEC, except that I also now believe that the particles of compactified space of string theory, also a BEC, more actively manifest a non-local consciousness based on CTM. The paper also reviews empirical evidence for non-local consciousness presented at that conference that may of of interest: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html Richard Hi Richard, I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other representationally? -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/4/2013 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/4/2013 7:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that I and others then claimed to be a property of a Dark Matter axion condensate that was a BEC composed of nearly motionless cosmic axions. In particular the Quantum Information Theory derived by Boris Iskatov for such a medium had solutions (described in the paper) that could well explain some of the empirical effects claimed for the morphic field. An open question in this paper is the coupling mechanism between physical consciousness in the brain and the non-local consciousness of the axion condensate. I now believe that the coupling is between a physical brain BEC and the axion BEC, except that I also now believe that the particles of compactified space of string theory, also a BEC, more actively manifest a non-local consciousness based on CTM. The paper also reviews empirical evidence for non-local consciousness presented at that conference that may of of interest: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html Richard Hi Richard, I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other representationally? Hi Richard, I looked at the paper and my skeptisism remains. I don't understand the proposed mechanism of the BEC such that it allows for informative relations between differing BECs. A BEC is a state of a medium, as I understand such. Why not look at the essential effect that the BEC engenders and not the particular BEC 'substance'? ISTM, that it the link that matters, not what is making it up... The relations and statistics that appear in quantum pseudo-telepathy are much more 'informative' and seem to have more of a 'representational' flavor than a BEC mechanism, IMHO. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/4/2013 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/4/2013 7:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that I and others then claimed to be a property of a Dark Matter axion condensate that was a BEC composed of nearly motionless cosmic axions. In particular the Quantum Information Theory derived by Boris Iskatov for such a medium had solutions (described in the paper) that could well explain some of the empirical effects claimed for the morphic field. An open question in this paper is the coupling mechanism between physical consciousness in the brain and the non-local consciousness of the axion condensate. I now believe that the coupling is between a physical brain BEC and the axion BEC, except that I also now believe that the particles of compactified space of string theory, also a BEC, more actively manifest a non-local consciousness based on CTM. The paper also reviews empirical evidence for non-local consciousness presented at that conference that may of of interest: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html Richard Hi Richard, I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other representationally? More from the paper: Briefly the model of consciousness is that*Cooper-pair*layers of positive and negative half-spin axions couple to the */corporeal/*physical brain on one (metaphorical) side, and to an */incorporeal/*higher self or soul composed of half-spin axions on the other. The incorporeal layer is said by Jerome to be a living, sentient life-form. The actual*coupling mechanism*to the brain is also incorporeal, i.e. not chemical or electrical, consistent with Bohm theory below. How is this qualitatively different from Descartes postulation of the Pinial gland as the point where res extensa and res cognitas met and interact? The Stone duality idea works so much better that applies to any logical structure and its dual, particles or axion are just versions of Stone spaces in my thinking! (And there is no dependence on temperature for their isomorphism to hold!) -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/4/2013 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/4/2013 7:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that I and others then claimed to be a property of a Dark Matter axion condensate that was a BEC composed of nearly motionless cosmic axions. In particular the Quantum Information Theory derived by Boris Iskatov for such a medium had solutions (described in the paper) that could well explain some of the empirical effects claimed for the morphic field. An open question in this paper is the coupling mechanism between physical consciousness in the brain and the non-local consciousness of the axion condensate. I now believe that the coupling is between a physical brain BEC and the axion BEC, except that I also now believe that the particles of compactified space of string theory, also a BEC, more actively manifest a non-local consciousness based on CTM. The paper also reviews empirical evidence for non-local consciousness presented at that conference that may of of interest: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html Richard Hi Richard, I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other representationally? Sorry but I do not understand what this last sentence means. BECs certainly can copy each others configurations. More from the paper: Briefly the model of consciousness is that Cooper-pair layers of positive and negative half-spin axions couple to the “corporeal” physical brain on one (metaphorical) side, and to an “incorporeal” higher self or soul composed of half-spin axions on the other. The incorporeal layer is said by Jerome to be a living, sentient life-form. The actual coupling mechanism to the brain is also incorporeal, i.e. not chemical or electrical, consistent with Bohm theory below. How is this qualitatively different from Descartes postulation of the Pinial gland as the point where res extensa and res cognitas met and interact? The Stone duality idea works so much better that applies to any logical structure and its dual, particles or axion are just versions of Stone spaces in my thinking! (And there is no dependence on temperature for their isomorphism to hold!) -- Onward! Stephen I expect that a physical BEC pervades the entire brain if not the body sorta along the lines of the Penrose-Hamerof microtuble model. I previously mentioned to you that the Calabi-Tau compact manifolds appear to have the properties of a Stone space. But I cannot remember my reasoning. I also do not understand the relationship of the axions to the compact manifolds. However, on another list a fellow made an interesting case based on evolution that the volume of the pineal gland contains our thinking. Richard Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi Stephen P. King very few scientists Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically prove what he claims. The results are in his books. Some have been published in New Scientist. See http://www.sheldrake.org/Research/overview/ [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-04, 04:24:57 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 1/4/2013 3:24 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/4/2013 12:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg IMHO Sheldrake is one of the very few who have had the courage to prove and call materialism bad science. You don't know how to count. The world is full of mystics and the superstitious who don't even know what materialism means. They are 90% of the Earth's population - the ignorant 90%. Ah, and you are in that elite 10%! Congratulations are in order! I think he is the vanguard of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas. So why doesn't he do an experiment that tests his theory and can be replicated? He does propose experiments. They cost money to perform... A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because materialism can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must be physical). That doesn't mean that anything that is not materialism can explain consciousness. Materialism at least explain why getting hit on the head changes your consciousness. Good! But it still cannot explain how! Brent The first principle of religion is to fool yourself - and you are the easiest person for you to fool. --- with apologies to R. Feynman -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 03 Jan 2013, at 10:17, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Jan 2013, at 13:08, Telmo Menezes wrote: In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes we all have in common. These brain processes make us pursue the best interest of society instead of our own self- interest. I believe they have two main sources: 1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin- selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or group- selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling evidence to support this theory. Social insects are extremely altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with goodness and different races with evil. 2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the prisoner's dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse. And a bad one, especially as a ruse. Everyone know what good is and bad is, for them. So it is better to do the good for the sake of the good than from anything coming from any authority. I expect a person liking me to do the good to me by selfishness, and not because she or he fears some punishment or because they would feel guilty or something. I remember an extreme case where I was in a long flight sitting next to a representative of a given religion. At some point he asked for a blanket and covered me with it when I was half-asleep, but he wouldn't talk and seemed repulsed by me. The ruse is a diabolical trap. All attempts to define good and evil as a fundamental property of the universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: good is what good people do, good people are the ones who do good things. Good and evil cannot be defined but there are many examples. Basically the good start when constraints are satisfied. If you are hungry and can eat, that's the good. Wandering on a field of mines might not be that good, for you, but (perhaps) good for your children and grandchildren. You don't seem to have a lot of faith in the quality of my genetic material! :) Er well, try do the children before going on the field of mines! It seems to me that nature illustrates that selfishness and altruism are natural complement of each other. I would oppose it to egocentrism, where a special kind of extreme selfishness develop as it rules out the selfishness of others in non reasonable proportions. Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings that is not supported by evidence. I am not so sure about that. Most humans would be more happier just knowing than more humans can be happier (if it is not their neighbors). I agree. But will they pay the cost? Will they chose giving to charity or buying the BMW? Giving charity does not help the humans to be more happy. If they are altruist they should buy the BMW. When money represent work, or speculation on work: that makes human more happier in the middle run. When money represent lies, that leads to misery. When money is a gift: that's a total poison. Don't take this too much literally. I have never believed in any notion like charity, or distribution of wealth. It *looks* nice, but it generates poverty. I think that some problem comes from too much altruistic dreams, and few awkward real practice, but they keep growing. Presently alas the 'natural altruism is confronted to the usual fear sellers, and all this is aggravated by dilution of responsibility, motivated by will of control, motivated by the fear of the unknown, manipulated by minorities (not always aware of this, but I think some are). I agree with all you say here. Fear is the mind-killer. Hmm... Fear is an old friend too, but the danger is the manipulation and exploitation by bandits. My point is just that we should not try to live in a system that assumes a level of altruism that isn't there. For example, when people ask for more government regulation, they don't consider that the legislators will likely design that legislation with selfish goals in mind. Selfishness is good and natural. It leads to natural altruism toward those you can
Re: Re: On morphic telepathy
STEPHAN: Is it necessary that monads are a substance? Could we think of them as pure process the product of which is the content of experience of the monad? Is this formulation antithetical to the definition that Leibniz gives monads? ROGER: Keep in mind that Leibniz formulated his ideas in the 17th century, when aside from Spinoza, there had been little new done since Aristotle. Leibniz was trying to establish something fundamental to base his metaphysics on. Something specific that you could essentially point to. He had done away with two-substance cartesian dualism by considering both mind and body from a mental or logical aspect. Of course the phenomenol world still existed, so he still needed some appropriate way of mentally designating material objects. These were all substances, but L only considered as real or permanent only indivisible substances (substances of only one part-- without internal boundaries.) These indivisible real objects he called monads. These have the same or at least very similar characteristics as morphic fields. Time is not a feature in monadic space, which essentially rules out experiemnces except as snapshots. Only the supreme monad can have experiences, IMHO. The monads below only have fixed sets of perceptions, which are like snapshots in an album of memories. ROGER (previously) So had the monads windows, they would be in continual direct instant communcation with each other, which L disallows by not permitting them to have windows. STEPHAN: Or they could be in a continuous state of simulating the effects of said communications on themselves an behaving 'as if' they where observing each other. What the 'no windows' postulate provides is a denial of 'exchange of substances' - which makes sense if there are no substances at all anyway! ROGER: OK. Except the time continuity would only be as if. Personally I believe that the denial of windows is deliberately to disempower the monads so that only the omniscient supreme monad is aware, as we ordinarily think of the term. In essence the physical universe is simply the body of one great soul or person. (ROGER previously) The supreme monad however can see everything with perfect undistorted clarity from ts domain and instantly updates the perceptions of each monad. STEPHAN: Why is this necessary? Why not have any one monad reflect in its process all other monads? Every monad is in a sense 'the supreme monad' in this way. No need for a hierarchical structure... ROGER: A single monad reflects all of the other monads, but only from his perspective. Only the Supreme Monad sees things as they really are (from all perspectives at once (incomprehensible to us) instead of the single perspective we call the phenomenol world). I use the since the actual perceptions are indirect as described above. STEPHEN:Sure. ROGER: It is as if they have continual direct communication with each other. But they do not have perfect or equal undistorted clarity of vision, so telepathy is individual and can be sketchy. Sure. QM allows for this kind of telepathy! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: What Hell is like
On Friday, January 4, 2013 3:09:11 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg You're right, I was thinking as a jew might, but if orgot that jesus introduced the concept of thought crimes (intentions). I was thinking as a jew might, lol [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-03, 12:05:31 *Subject:* Re: Re: What Hell is like On Thursday, January 3, 2013 9:11:29 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg All of your quotes are very good advice. What's your point ? My point is that any worthwhile religion is very much concerned with intentions and the content of your 'heart', at least as much as whether you violate the letter of any particular religious law. You were saying that all that matters is whether you sinned or not, whether you break the law or not, and that your good or evil intentions don't matter. I am saying that intention is a defining aspect of any honest conception of good and evil. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-03, 08:47:13 *Subject:* Re: What Hell is like On Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:06:42 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg It doesn't matter whether you have good or bad intentions. The law and God judge us by what we do. You do the crime, you do the time. I'll let the Bible speak for itself, if that is the God you are talking about: Timothy 1:5http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+1%3A5version=ESV The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Timothy 6:10http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+6%3A10version=ESV For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. Hebrews 12:14http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+12%3A14version=ESV Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Timothy 3:13http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A13version=ESV While evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. Philippians 4:8http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+4%3A8version=ESV Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Philippians 1:15-18http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+1%3A15-18version=ESV Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, Ephesians 2:8-9http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A8-9version=ESV For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Romans 2:5http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2%3A5version=ESV But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. You sin, you go to Hell. If you repent, you go to Heaven. Personally, I believe that the eternal torture of Hell is not to be able to feel God's love and forgiveness. That would be Hell to a Jesus. He refers to being tossed out and undergoing a weeping and gnashing of teeth. Hindus and Buddhists believe in reincarnation, which from what we observe, is not always a pleasant life. Personally I believe that Hell and Heaven are metaphors which extrapolate the ordinary high and low moods of human consciousness to a super-significance. God is a metaphor in the exact same way - an algebraic concept of X = Infinite proprietary superlatives. If you are in a world of competing polytheistic deities, each the representation of a personal superlative or sphere of influence (God of war, Goddess of beauty, etc), then the invention of a supreme ultimate deity who trumps all others in all categories is an excellent political strategy. It's a convenient way
Re: Re: Re: Monads and Sheldrake
Hi Richard Ruquist No, morphic fields are not God, they are the tools of God. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 13:32:24 Subject: Re: Re: Monads and Sheldrake Morphic fields are your god??? On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist They rule everything. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 11:48:05 Subject: Re: Monads and Sheldrake Roger, But how do morphic fields fit in with this scheme of things? Richard On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Sheldrake says that, if I remember properly, monads are a combination of mind and body, so are mindbrains. The perceptions of these in turn reflect all of the perceptions of all of the other monads in the universe, so the universe is a giant mindbrain. Then there is a universal memory. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 10:47:59 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Roger, How are morphic fields related to monads? Richard On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results (there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things. Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. You might try lookking at his results: Contempt prior to investigation will keep you forever in ignorance. - Herbert Spencer . 1:25:27 Dr Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion (May 2012) by Alan Roberts 6 months ago 10,803 views In May of 2012, Dr Alan Roberts, in association with the Wilmslow Guild, located near Manchester, UK, invited Dr Sheldrake to ... 1:20:28 Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe by BroadcastBC 8 months ago 6,707 views In 1981 Rupert Sheldrake outraged the scientific establishment with his hypothesis of morphic resonance. A morphogenetic field ... 1:37:42 The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence by GoogleTechTalks 4 years ago 250,577 views enabling widespread participation. Speaker: Rupert Sheldrake Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than ... CC 1:02:24 Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion | London Real by LondonRealTV 1 month ago 10,264 views London Real talks to Biologist Writer Dr. Rupert Sheldrake TWEET this video clicktotweet.com VISIT us @ www.LondonReal.tv ... 9:38 Rupert Sheldrake 1 - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay by conscioustv 3 years ago 10,340 views Rupert Sheldrake - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than ... 7:10 Rupert Sheldrake on Morphic Fields and Systemic Family Constellations by Dan Booth Cohen 4 months ago 2,601 views Biologist Rupert Sheldrake speaks about morphic fields and Systemic Family Constellations. He explains how all social animals ... 31:00 Rupert Sheldrake - Distant Mental Influence by metaRising 1 year ago 4,889 views Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the ... 1:14:36 Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis by loadedshaman 1 year ago 15,768 views Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis (1995) 1:05:49 Rupert Sheldrake: the Evolution of Telepathy by Brian Josephson 1 year ago 10,918 views The Perrott-Warrick Lecture by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (February 9th. 2011), in which were described phenomena indicative of the ... 4:38 Science Set Free -- Rupert Sheldrake by Bill Weaver 4 months ago 11,200 views HD 5:45 Rupert Sheldrake: Telephone Telepathy by Matthew Clapp 5 years ago 86,152 views The renowned biologist Rupert Sheldrake presents his recent findings, powerfully suggesting that part of us extends beyond our ... 10:24 Rupert Sheldrake - The Extended Mind - Telepathy. Pt 1/3 by xcite83 3 years ago 89,453 views Rupert Sheldrake is a British former biochemist and plant physiologist who now researches and writes on parapsychology and ... 9:48 Rupert Sheldrake - Genie oder Scharlatan? 1/4 by quantumsciencetv 1 year ago 9,105 views Die ?liche Biologie f?rt in eine Sackgasse. (RS) ?er die Thesen des umstrittenen Wissenschaftlers, den Bezug zur ... 3:24
Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi Richard Ruquist New Scientist has published work by Sheldrake. But we'll have to wait for the materialist trolls which decide what can be published die off. Materialism cannot be justified scientifically. That journal will be an obsolete curiosity. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 13:46:20 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:44:17 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results (there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things. Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. I agree, I think that Sheldrake is obviously sincere and while his efforts may fall short of the expectations of some as far as scientific rigor goes, it is clear to me that the general topic of his research is valid. There does seem to be much more to the content of experience and the sharing of awareness than our current science has accounted for. The fact that this is such a polarizing subject, turning those who claim to be scientifically minded into witch-hunting bigots makes me suspect that this is indeed an important direction for science to investigate fully. While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012. Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ZD0DoE04VB0J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil
Hi Bruno Marchal Religion cannot save you, it cannot even make you a better person. Only God can do that. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-04, 10:37:13 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On 03 Jan 2013, at 10:17, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jan 2013, at 13:08, Telmo Menezes wrote: In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes we all have in common. These brain processes make us pursue the best interest of society instead of our own self-interest. I believe they have two main sources: 1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin-selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or group-selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling evidence to support this theory. Social insects are extremely altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with goodness and different races with evil. 2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the prisoner's dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse. And a bad one, especially as a ruse. Everyone know what good is and bad is, for them. So it is better to do the good for the sake of the good than from anything coming from any authority. I expect a person liking me to do the good to me by selfishness, and not because she or he fears some punishment or because they would feel guilty or something. I remember an extreme case where I was in a long flight sitting next to a representative of a given religion. At some point he asked for a blanket and covered me with it when I was half-asleep, but he wouldn't talk and seemed repulsed by me. The ruse is a diabolical trap. All attempts to define good and evil as a fundamental property of the universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: good is what good people do, good people are the ones who do good things. Good and evil cannot be defined but there are many examples. Basically the good start when constraints are satisfied. If you are hungry and can eat, that's the good. Wandering on a field of mines might not be that good, for you, but (perhaps) good for your children and grandchildren. You don't seem to have a lot of faith in the quality of my genetic material! :) Er well, try do the children before going on the field of mines! It seems to me that nature illustrates that selfishness and altruism are natural complement of each other. I would oppose it to egocentrism, where a special kind of extreme selfishness develop as it rules out the selfishness of others in non reasonable proportions. Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings that is not supported by evidence. I am not so sure about that. Most humans would be more happier just knowing than more humans can be happier (if it is not their neighbors). I agree. But will they pay the cost? Will they chose giving to charity or buying the BMW? Giving charity does not help the humans to be more happy. If they are altruist they should buy the BMW. When money represent work, or speculation on work: that makes human more happier in the middle run. When money represent lies, that leads to misery. When money is a gift: that's a total poison. Don't take this too much literally. I have never believed in any notion like charity, or distribution of wealth. It *looks* nice, but it generates poverty. I think that some problem comes from too much altruistic dreams, and few awkward real practice, but they keep growing. Presently alas the 'natural altruism is confronted to the usual fear sellers, and all this is aggravated by dilution of responsibility, motivated by will of control, motivated by the fear of the unknown, manipulated by minorities (not always aware of this, but I think some are). I agree with all you say here. Fear is the mind-killer. Hmm... Fear is an old friend too, but the danger is the manipulation and exploitation by bandits. My point is
Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi Stephen P. King L states that all substances are alive, that's how they can communicate. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-04, 07:26:21 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 1/4/2013 7:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that I and others then claimed to be a property of a Dark Matter axion condensate that was a BEC composed of nearly motionless cosmic axions. In particular the Quantum Information Theory derived by Boris Iskatov for such a medium had solutions (described in the paper) that could well explain some of the empirical effects claimed for the morphic field. An open question in this paper is the coupling mechanism between physical consciousness in the brain and the non-local consciousness of the axion condensate. I now believe that the coupling is between a physical brain BEC and the axion BEC, except that I also now believe that the particles of compactified space of string theory, also a BEC, more actively manifest a non-local consciousness based on CTM. The paper also reviews empirical evidence for non-local consciousness presented at that conference that may of of interest: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html Richard Hi Richard, I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other representationally? -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe
Hi Telmo Menezes All I can find on the web is that DNA only contains instructions to make various biomolecules such as proteins, RNA, etc. It only works on the molecular scale; the morphic fields are needed for larger macrostructrures. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-04, 03:51:54 Subject: Re: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe Hi Roger, On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Roger Clough wrote: ?upert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe What is space ? ?here is no such thing as space, there are only fields, ? ? which are mathematical structures. Fine. ? What is matter ? There is no such thing as matter, because it is only a field. ? ? There is no such thing as mass, which is why there is no such thing needed ? ? as a Higgs field to form what we call mass. Hence we haven't found a Higgs ? ? or field. Ok. ? What causes a foetus to grow into a baby ? Is it DNA ? Biologists agree DNA does not do that. This I have a problem with. Biologists agree on no such thing and they do have very compelling explanations for how morphogenesis works. As an aside, I find that someone using some variation of the phrase all scientists agree is a very bad sign. I believe this results from an outdates view of the DNA as an inert blueprint. We now know that DNA is a computer program, capable of conditional execution based on inputs from the environment. Biologists call these mechanisms gene regulatory networks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_regulatory_network The initial?ndifferentiated?ell divides a number of times, and the accumulation of cells and their interactions eventually changes the environment in a way that triggers the expression of other segments of the genetic code. ? If these questions puzzle or intrigue you, you might want to watch Rupert Sheldrake's ?The Morphogenetic Universe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dm8-OpO9oQ [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: What Hell is like
On 03 Jan 2013, at 14:47, Craig Weinberg wrote (to Roger Clough): Personally I believe that Hell and Heaven are metaphors which extrapolate the ordinary high and low moods of human consciousness to a super-significance. God is a metaphor in the exact same way - an algebraic concept of X = Infinite proprietary superlatives. I don't disagree. Possible. If you are in a world of competing polytheistic deities, each the representation of a personal superlative or sphere of influence (God of war, Goddess of beauty, etc), then the invention of a supreme ultimate deity who trumps all others in all categories is an excellent political strategy. Yes. Unless the unique God is used in a normative way, like if some people knew better than others in some public way. Then it is no more an excellent political strategy, but the worst. Normally comp well understood prevent God, or actually anyone, to be thinking at your place. It's a convenient way to consolidate allegiance and direct everyone's personal insecurities to a mass psychology solution. (I imagined well you were using politics in a pejorative sense, but politics for me is like sailing, except the boat is not always close to the sea). By definition I would say that an excellent politics is one which optimizes stable (perdurable) majority satisfactions. It is here, like in science, that God is probably the best idea and God is probably the worst idea. That's the difficulty in theology: to distinguish God from any Gods. The confusion is easy, even more in time theology is artificially separated from the scientific attitude. By using religion and politics only in the pejorative sense, not much hope can remain. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi meekerdb 1) Materialists don't have any dogmas. Just ask one of them. 2) quanta are not materials. 3) materialism cannot accept empty space, since it isn't a material. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-04, 03:14:17 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 1/3/2013 11:47 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Most scientific publications are based on the 19th century religious cult of materialism, which dogmatically rejects mind and spirit for atheistic purposes (not reasons, there are none). Do you have any citations showing where this dogma is written down? It cannot deal with fields at all, Ever hear of quantum *field* theory. for example the theory of relativity, since that theory asserts that there is no such thing as space (and yet it works). General relativity is a theory of metric space. M does not believe in fields, for they are anathema: immaterial, purely mathematical. So of course monads and morphisms are nonsense to a materialist. He lives in a fantasy world. You must be living in some other world to think scientist cannot deal with fields - a concept they invented. Brent [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 18:32:37 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 01:46:20PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote: While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012. Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf Richard I'm sceptical of Sheldrake's explanation in terms of morphic fields (or even monads). It makes no sense. However, the empirical effect he observed may well stand. We should probe such results, test for any methodological flaws, and if they continue to hold up, look for alternative explanations that might work. Of course it is a hard row to hoe. A few years ago, I had some empirical results that literally flew in the face of neutral evolution thoery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution). I could not get these results published, and got treated by scorn by journal referees. Then after about a year of thought, I worked out the mechanism - in the end it was quite a simple, but nevertheless real effect. This time, the paper was accepted without question. You can see the resulting paper at arXiv:nlin.AO/0404012 In spite of thise result having quite profound implications for things like the molecular clock idea, AFAIK, nobody has investigated whether anything like this happens in real biology. It does also stand as an example of what is required to publish contra-paradigmatic results. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net Spirit, like life, like God, like faith, like love, and like mind, is not extended in space Those objects you mention are extended in space. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: socra...@bezeqint.net Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-01-04, 04:47:30 Subject: Science is a religion by itself. Science is a religion by itself. Why? Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe only using physical laws, formulas, equations. Here is the scheme of His plane. =. God : Ten Scientific Commandments. ? 1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= 8 ,p= 0, t=8 . ? 2. Particles: C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, i^2=-1. ? 3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb. ? 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* . ? 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : HeII -- HeI -- H -- . . . ? 6. Proton: (p). ? 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton: a) electromagnetic, b) nuclear, c) biological. ? 8. The Physical Laws: a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy/ Mass, b) Pauli Exclusion Law, c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law. ? 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness. ? 10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation. ===. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 03 Jan 2013, at 16:13, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb Although a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt a communist and so anti-christian). His diatribe against Christianity is a prime example. It's totally misinformed and mistaken. Ethics is, at bottom, loving your neighbor as your self. Well that's easy. I don't love or even particularly like myself. loving your neighbor as your self makes also the masochist into a sadist. I think we should respect ourself and ourselves (unless victim of disrespect), but to love, necessarily? Love also can be applied only on the lovable one. Like with all forces, it is a question of right exchanges. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 18:21:27 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm. First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are ultimately personal values. Second, it implies that as soon as we find a physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a behavior it's not longer evil. But all behavior has a physical cause. So I'm ok with just dropping the term 'evil' and just referring to good/bad for individuals and good/bad for society as derivative. But I think it's a hangover from theodicy to refer to human actions as evil but not natural events - it's part of the idea that humans are apart from nature. Brent Ethics is, at bottom, the art of recommending to others the self-sacrifice necessary to cooperate with ourselves. --- Bertrand Russell -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
New Scientist has very little credibility in the scientific world. They are in business to make money and paranormal material sells. On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist New Scientist has published work by Sheldrake. But we'll have to wait for the materialist trolls which decide what can be published die off. Materialism cannot be justified scientifically. That journal will be an obsolete curiosity. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 13:46:20 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:44:17 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results (there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things. Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. I agree, I think that Sheldrake is obviously sincere and while his efforts may fall short of the expectations of some as far as scientific rigor goes, it is clear to me that the general topic of his research is valid. There does seem to be much more to the content of experience and the sharing of awareness than our current science has accounted for. The fact that this is such a polarizing subject, turning those who claim to be scientifically minded into witch-hunting bigots makes me suspect that this is indeed an important direction for science to investigate fully. While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012. Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ZD0DoE04VB0J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: So how ever many years ago you there confident that CERN would discover the Higgs? About 15, and in not one of those 15 years would I have confidently predicted that nothing new about the Higgs would be discovered in the next year, but I will make that prediction about the paranormal. And this post proves? That in the last 200 years research into the supernatural has produced precisely ZERO results; and I'm not even talking about developing a theory to explain how it works, I'm talking about obtaining enough experimental evidence to show that a explanation is needed. We could be having this same exact conversation about the paranormal in 1913, or even 1813 and you could still be complaining that mainstream scientists (they were called Natural Philosophers back then) were not paying enough attention to psi or ESP or spiritualism or whatever. The field has not moved one inch in centuries, not one Planck Length. As a result those doing full time ESP work today are third or fourth rate, if they were really skilled in the art of experimentation they'd be doing other things, they would never pick a field as moribund as parapsychology. However if you're all thumbs in the lab then parapsychology researcher is the perfect career choice because if you're looking for something that doesn't exist a poor researcher will get more encouraging results than a good one. Pfft, do better, John. If you disagree with me then show the courage of your convictions and let's make a bet! If there is a article in Science or Nature or Physical Review Letters about something (by whatever name) in the brain or in the mind that violates the known laws of physics before January 4 2014 I will give you $1000, and if there is not you only have to give me $100. I don't demand a explanation of this new phenomena just that the editors of one of those journals thinks that there is something interesting there, something that needs to be explain. So do we have a bet? I'm completely serious about this and if there is anybody else who would like to take this bet please say so; come on, I'm giving you 10 to 1 odds. if you believe in this crap then it's easy money. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Physarum machine
On 26.12.2012 13:45 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 26 Dec 2012, at 12:45, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: I have recently seen a paper on a Physarum machine A Adamatzky Physarum machine: implementation of a Kolmogorov-Uspensky machine on a biological substrate http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0703128 The author also has a book on this theme: Physarum Machines: Computers from Slime Mould. Any comment? I love slime mold. Nice paper. Not sure if it is not a bit out of topic except as a weak evidence for comp among many. It is convincing for the implementation of variate UTMs by 'nature'. Our terrestrial body future relies in coming back to bacteria and amoeba :) Bruno, John Yates starts experiments with physarum. On his blog http://ttjohn.blogspot.in/2013/01/progress-towards-describing-tensed-time.html he mentions that Now Adamatzky considers that a good model for physarum behaviour may be the KUM model, which basically is like a Turing machine but in many dimensions, i.e. we can abstractly think of a multidimensional tape. Now it turns out that a KUM machine will be Turing-complete but may have some computational advantages beyond those of a Turing machine. As I understand it the Turing machine and the KUM will be Turing-equivalent. In fact the KUMs are pointer machines. Do you know what is the KUM model and how it is related to a Turing machine? Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/4/2013 9:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King very few scientists Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically prove what he claims. The results are in his books. Some have been published in New Scientist. Seehttp://www.sheldrake.org/Research/overview/ *A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see thelight http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Light, but rather because its opponents eventuallydie http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Death, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck.* -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The best of all possible Worlds.
On 1/4/2013 1:23 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/4/2013 3:18 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/3/2013 11:58 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerb, Heaven is not part of contingent creation, so your statement that there is no heaven is illogical or irrelevant. It was an inference from your statement, This is because things can't be good everywhere at the same time. After the second coming and we're all in heaven or hell aren't things supposed to good everywhere. The virtuous are comfortably enjoying the torments of the damned. Brent Dear Brent, I have no idea what religion you might be referring to that has such notions other than a poorly draw cartoon of a straw man ! It's that cartoon known as the Christian Bible. Brent For Christians, it's far more important to believe in a god than to determine the accuracy of the hypothesis. That's why they had only two significant publications, and the most recent one is 2000 years old. --- Ludwig Krippahl, biologist -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/4/2013 1:24 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/4/2013 3:24 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/4/2013 12:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg IMHO Sheldrake is one of the very few who have had the courage to prove and call materialism bad science. You don't know how to count. The world is full of mystics and the superstitious who don't even know what materialism means. They are 90% of the Earth's population - the ignorant 90%. Ah, and you are in that elite 10%! Congratulations are in order! I think he is the vanguard of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas. So why doesn't he do an experiment that tests his theory and can be replicated? He does propose experiments. They cost money to perform... A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because materialism can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must be physical). That doesn't mean that anything that is not materialism can explain consciousness. Materialism at least explain why getting hit on the head changes your consciousness. Good! But it still cannot explain how! How? is one of those perpetual questions, like the child that responds to every answer with Why?. When Newton was asked how gravity pulled on the planets he said, Hypothesi non fingo. So let's see Sheldrake explain some what. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 1/4/2013 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Don't take this too much literally. I have never believed in any notion like charity, or distribution of wealth. It *looks* nice, but it generates poverty. Oops, too late! I already gave my kids several hundred thousand dollars in services and education. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/4/2013 8:31 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Hi Richard, I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other representationally? Sorry but I do not understand what this last sentence means. BECs certainly can copy each others configurations. Hi Richard, This ability to copy each others configuration , does it give us some thing like representability? What does representability mean to you? -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/4/2013 8:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb 1) Materialists don't have any dogmas. Just ask one of them. Theists have nothing but dogmas and you don't have to ask them, they tell you, e.g. one of their dogmas is that materialism is wrong, humans have immortal souls, and God will punish you if you don't like Him. 2) quanta are not materials. If electrons and quarks aren't material, what is? 3) materialism cannot accept empty space, since it isn't a material. What is this accept? Is it like have faith in? Does it mean accept as dogma? Most models of the physical world include empty space (although 'empty' is relative to the model). Brent [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-04, 03:14:17 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 1/3/2013 11:47 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Most scientific publications are based on the 19th century religious cult of materialism, which dogmatically rejects mind and spirit for atheistic purposes (not reasons, there are none). Do you have any citations showing where this dogma is written down? It cannot deal with fields at all, Ever hear of quantum *field* theory. for example the theory of relativity, since that theory asserts that there is no such thing as space (and yet it works). General relativity is a theory of metric space. M does not believe in fields, for they are anathema: immaterial, purely mathematical. So of course monads and morphisms are nonsense to a materialist. He lives in a fantasy world. You must be living in some other world to think scientist cannot deal with fields - a concept they invented. Brent [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 18:32:37 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 01:46:20PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote: While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012. Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf Richard I'm sceptical of Sheldrake's explanation in terms of morphic fields (or even monads). It makes no sense. However, the empirical effect he observed may well stand. We should probe such results, test for any methodological flaws, and if they continue to hold up, look for alternative explanations that might work. Of course it is a hard row to hoe. A few years ago, I had some empirical results that literally flew in the face of neutral evolution thoery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution). I could not get these results published, and got treated by scorn by journal referees. Then after about a year of thought, I worked out the mechanism - in the end it was quite a simple, but nevertheless real effect. This time, the paper was accepted without question. You can see the resulting paper at arXiv:nlin.AO/0404012 In spite of thise result having quite profound implications for things like the molecular clock idea, AFAIK, nobody has investigated whether anything like this happens in real biology. It does also stand as an example of what is required to publish contra-paradigmatic results. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to
Re: Re: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe
Hi Roger, On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes All I can find on the web is that DNA only contains instructions to make various biomolecules such as proteins, RNA, etc. That's enough. Proteins fold into complex 3D structures with very specific chemical affinities. They are capable of self-assembling into specific macro-structures. Here's a simulation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm-dAvbl330 There's a field of biology dedicated to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_biology It only works on the molecular scale; the morphic fields are needed for larger macrostructrures. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-04, 03:51:54 Subject: Re: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe Hi Roger, On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Roger Clough wrote: ?upert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe What is space ? ?here is no such thing as space, there are only fields, ? ? which are mathematical structures. Fine. ? What is matter ? There is no such thing as matter, because it is only a field. ? ? There is no such thing as mass, which is why there is no such thing needed ? ? as a Higgs field to form what we call mass. Hence we haven't found a Higgs ? ? or field. Ok. ? What causes a foetus to grow into a baby ? Is it DNA ? Biologists agree DNA does not do that. This I have a problem with. Biologists agree on no such thing and they do have very compelling explanations for how morphogenesis works. As an aside, I find that someone using some variation of the phrase all scientists agree is a very bad sign. I believe this results from an outdates view of the DNA as an inert blueprint. We now know that DNA is a computer program, capable of conditional execution based on inputs from the environment. Biologists call these mechanisms gene regulatory networks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_regulatory_network The initial?ndifferentiated?ell divides a number of times, and the accumulation of cells and their interactions eventually changes the environment in a way that triggers the expression of other segments of the genetic code. ? If these questions puzzle or intrigue you, you might want to watch Rupert Sheldrake's ?The Morphogenetic Universe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dm8-OpO9oQ [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year
On Friday, January 4, 2013 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 Stephen P. King step...@charter.net javascript:wrote: So how ever many years ago you there confident that CERN would discover the Higgs? About 15, and in not one of those 15 years would I have confidently predicted that nothing new about the Higgs would be discovered in the next year, but I will make that prediction about the paranormal. And this post proves? That in the last 200 years research into the supernatural has produced precisely ZERO results; and I'm not even talking about developing a theory to explain how it works, I'm talking about obtaining enough experimental evidence to show that a explanation is needed. We could be having this same exact conversation about the paranormal in 1913, or even 1813 and you could still be complaining that mainstream scientists (they were called Natural Philosophers back then) were not paying enough attention to psi or ESP or spiritualism or whatever. The field has not moved one inch in centuries, not one Planck Length. As a result those doing full time ESP work today are third or fourth rate, if they were really skilled in the art of experimentation they'd be doing other things, they would never pick a field as moribund as parapsychology. However if you're all thumbs in the lab then parapsychology researcher is the perfect career choice because if you're looking for something that doesn't exist a poor researcher will get more encouraging results than a good one. Pfft, do better, John. If you disagree with me then show the courage of your convictions and let's make a bet! If there is a article in Science or Nature or Physical Review Letters about something (by whatever name) in the brain or in the mind that violates the known laws of physics before January 4 2014 I will give you $1000, and if there is not you only have to give me $100. I don't demand a explanation of this new phenomena just that the editors of one of those journals thinks that there is something interesting there, something that needs to be explain. So do we have a bet? I'm completely serious about this and if there is anybody else who would like to take this bet please say so; come on, I'm giving you 10 to 1 odds. if you believe in this crap then it's easy money. John K Clark That's like betting that the Catholic Church won't make Martin Luther a saint again this year. If you notice, no private phenomena can be easily substantiated. There won't be any publications proving the fact that we laugh because things are funny, or that there is another way that blueness can be demonstrated besides seeing it for yourself. Research of psi may indeed be misguided in trying to make public that which is so specifically private. To me, it makes sense that there is a directly proportionate relation, so that the more interior and esoteric the experience, the more resistant it will be to public examination. This seems to be our intuition - 'you're not going to believe this,' etc. This doesn't mean that there are not experiences which do not fit easily into a simplistic cartoon of physics which imagines thoughtless matter accidentally thinking. Science may forever preside only over the realism of public space, and forever sneer at private experience, or it may address privacy itself in a scientific and unbiased way someday. As has been pointed out here, quoted from Planck, it is not likely that the old guard of physics will ever be able to get beyond their own prejudice, and will go to their graves hanging on to the legacies of the 19th and 20th centuries...two centuries which may, like the fossil fuels which powered them, turn out to be anomalies. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/CedJoGEj3SYJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 1/4/2013 1:24 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/4/2013 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Don't take this too much literally. I have never believed in any notion like charity, or distribution of wealth. It *looks* nice, but it generates poverty. Oops, too late! I already gave my kids several hundred thousand dollars in services and education. That's not charity, it's protecting your genes. So my motive makes a difference in the result? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/4/2013 8:31 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Hi Richard, I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other representationally? Sorry but I do not understand what this last sentence means. BECs certainly can copy each others configurations. Hi Richard, This ability to copy each others configuration , does it give us some thing like representability? What does representability mean to you? Well in the Consciousness Canonizer my string consciousness model is listed or categorized under Representational Qualia Theory but I do not really have an appreciation for what that means The Stanford Encyl has an article on Representational Theories of Consciousness which says that intentionality is representation??? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-representational/ That defines a word in terms of another word that I do not understand- a problem I often have on this list. However further into the article is a clarifying sentence: Like public, social cases of representation such as writing or mapmaking, intentional states such as beliefs have truth-value; they entail or imply other beliefs; they are (it seems) composed of concepts and depend for their truth on a match between their internal structures and the way the world is; and so it is natural to regard their aboutness as a matter of mental referring or designation. So I conclude that this is quite different issue from one BEC copying what exists in another BEC. Representionality is closer to IMO Godelian incompleteness or Marchal's CTM wherein beliefs and truth, etc. can be represented. I do not know how. But my conjecture is that whatever representations exist in the CTM BEC of string theory can be copied into the BEC of (human brain) physical consciousness, and vice versa. This is essentially a mind/body duality. Richard -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On morphic telepathy
On 1/4/2013 10:41 AM, Roger Clough wrote: STEPHEN: Is it necessary that monads are a substance? Could we think of them as pure process the product of which is the content of experience of the monad? Is this formulation antithetical to the definition that Leibniz gives monads? ROGER: Keep in mind that Leibniz formulated his ideas in the 17th century, when aside from Spinoza, there had been little new done since Aristotle. Dear Roger, I am trying to bring Leibniz' ideas in line with current understanding of the universe. ;-) Leibniz was trying to establish something fundamental to base his metaphysics on. Yes, an alternative, even, to Descartes ideas. I see both of these men as valiantly attacking the hardest problems in philosophy and partly succeeding. Something specific that you could essentially point to. OK. He had done away with two-substance cartesian dualism by considering both mind and body from a mental or logical aspect. Yes, but at a price. I am, you could say, trying to make the price reasonable. His PEH is, IMHO, too costly ontologically speaking. I am seeking to replace it with a ongoing computation idea. Of course the phenomenal world still existed, so he still needed some appropriate way of mentally designating material objects. Sure, and we can capture the materialness of physical reality with appropriate concepts while not having to conjure utopian fantasies of perfection. The way that computers can simulate each other perfectly captures the interaction model what L proposed for interaction between monads, but to use it we need a different way of thinking. IMHO, the pseudo-telepathy of quantum games theory is perfect but still too theoretical as it exists today. These were all substances, but L only considered as real or permanent only indivisible substances (substances of only one part-- without internal boundaries.) These indivisible real objects he called monads. My claim is that we can dispense completely with substances and use relative invariances instead. These have the same or at least very similar characteristics as morphic fields. I agree. Time is not a feature in monadic space, which essentially rules out experiemnces except as snapshots. Only the supreme monad can have experiences, IMHO. The monads below only have fixed sets of perceptions, which are like snapshots in an album of memories. I agree but I argue that this is a feature of the PEH idea, which I am trying to show to be flawed. ROGER (previously) So had the monads windows, they would be in continual direct instant communcation with each other, which L disallows by not permitting them to have windows. STEPHEN: Or they could be in a continuous state of simulating the effects of said communications on themselves an behaving 'as if' they where observing each other. What the 'no windows' postulate provides is a denial of 'exchange of substances' - which makes sense if there are no substances at all anyway! ROGER: OK. Except the time continuity would only be as if. yes, but as if for each and every monad thus setting up a 'multisolipsistic' regime as Andrew Soltau discusses in his work. Personally I believe that the denial of windows is deliberately to disempower the monads so that only the omniscient supreme monad is aware, as we ordinarily think of the term. In essence the physical universe is simply the body of one great soul or person. Yes, but to do so makes the role of free will degenerate. This is too high a price, IMHO. It is like thehyper-Calvinist doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-Calvinism. (ROGER previously) The supreme monad however can see everything with perfect undistorted clarity from ts domain and instantly updates the perceptions of each monad. STEPHEN: Why is this necessary? Why not have any one monad reflect in its process all other monads? Every monad is in a sense 'the supreme monad' in this way. No need for a hierarchical structure... ROGER: A single monad reflects all of the other monads, but only from his perspective. Only the Supreme Monad sees things as they really are (from all perspectives at once (incomprehensible to us) instead of the single perspective we call the phenomenol world). My vision of L's idea was that all monads reflected all others. The relation between them is that of a network, not a hierarchical tree. It is interesting to note that if the network is large enough, there will almost always be tree graphs definable in it as subsets. This leads to a predominance of the appearance of a hierarchy for individual monads within the network. I use the since the actual perceptions are indirect as described above. STEPHEN:Sure. ROGER: It is as if they have continual direct communication Yes. with each other. But they do not have perfect or equal undistorted clarity of vision, so telepathy is individual and can be
