Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Backlash of decision to remove Sheldrake vid: http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/ted-chased-by-army-of-passionate-supporters-escapes-into-tardis/ I would love to see a list of who composes the TED board.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Has the internet trumped the skeptics? http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/the-psi-wars-come-to-ted/ This supports my hunch that the internet is changing how science is done by making the skeptical gate keeping much more difficult. Information about consciousness research has spread far and wide and its supporters are growing ever more vocal. Among those supporters is a growing group of people who are persistent and engaged enough to do battle with the skeptical paradigm. Their numbers are apparently growing from what I’ve seen while the number of skeptics has stayed pretty much even. It looks like the tipping point has been reached. Skeptics are not winning.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
As long as the pseudo-skeptics retain the title of 'skeptics' rather than true-disbelievers, the tipping point has not been reached. On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Has the internet trumped the skeptics? http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/the-psi-wars-come-to-ted/ This supports my hunch that the internet is changing how science is done by making the skeptical gate keeping much more difficult. Information about consciousness research has spread far and wide and its supporters are growing ever more vocal. Among those supporters is a growing group of people who are persistent and engaged enough to do battle with the skeptical paradigm. Their numbers are apparently growing from what I’ve seen while the number of skeptics has stayed pretty much even. It looks like the tipping point has been reached. Skeptics are not winning.
RE: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Is it ever possible to discuss Intelligent Design without being a crypto-creationist? Judging from the nearly violent reception given to Ben Stein's Expelled, I guess not. Blogs loaded up with long diatribes against Creationism by people who refused to even watch the movie. There was a scientist named Shapiro who talked about a 'dialog of the deaf' as he saw defects in Darwinism but found no logic in Creationism and argued that we need a Third Way, that fits the facts. Perhaps Asian tradition would serve us better with their concept of the Tao.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: There was a scientist named Shapiro who talked about a 'dialog of the deaf' as he saw defects in Darwinism . . . Everyone sees defects in Darwinism, including Darwin. He wrote some of the sharpest critiques of his own theory. He pointed out many weaknesses, inconsistencies and incomplete points. The theory has been revised and expanded since he wrote it. It will continue to be revised for as long as people do biology. No theory is ever complete. There is never a last word in science. As Fleischmann said, when you hear people say this field is mature you can be sure it is poised for an unexpected breakthrough. Darwinism is the best overall answer we have at present. I do not expect a better one to emerge, but you never know. Creationism is not a theory in any sense. It cannot be tested for falsified. Proposed replacement scientific theories such as neo-Lamarkianism are interesting and have some merit, but I do not think they answer as many questions as elegantly as Darwinism does. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Here's an interesting article along these lines of discussion. Trolls win: Rude blog comments dim the allure of science online February 14, 2013 http://phys.org/news/2013-02-trolls-rude-blog-comments-dim.html The trolls are winning. Pick a story about some aspect of science, any story, scroll down to the blog comments and let the bashing begin. Wonder how much taxpayer cash went into this 'deep' study?” “I think you can take all these studies by pointy headed scientists, 99 percent of whom are socialists and communists, and stick them where the sun don't shine.” “Yawn. Climate change myth wackos at it again.” “This article is 100 percent propaganda crapola.” “Speaking of dolts, if you were around in the 70s, when they also had scientists, the big talk then was about the coming ice age. And don't give me any of that carbon emission bull@!$%#. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-trolls-rude-blog-comments-dim.html#jCp Such nasty back and forth, like it or not, is now a staple of our news diet, and in the realm of online science news, the diatribes, screeds and rants are taking a toll on the public perception of science and technology, according to a study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. * br / * UW-Madison science communication researcher Dominique Brossard reported the results of a study showing the tone of blog comments alone can influence the perception of risk posed by nanotechnology, the science of manipulating materials at the smallest scales.* br / *The study, now in press at the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, was supported by the National Science Foundation. It sampled a representative cross section of 2,338 Americans in an online experiment, where the civility of blog comments was manipulated. For example, introducing name calling into commentary tacked onto an otherwise balanced newspaper blog post, the study showed, could elicit either lower or higher perceptions of risk, depending on one's predisposition to the science of nanotechnology.* br / *It seems we don't really have a clear social norm about what is expected online, says Brossard, a UW-Madison professor of Life Science Communication, contrasting online forums with public meetings where prescribed decorum helps keep discussion civil. In the case of blog postings, it's the Wild West.* br / *For rapidly developing nanotechnology, a technology already built into more than 1,300 consumer products, exposure to uncivil online comments is one of several variables that can directly influence the perception of risk associated with it.* br / *When people encounter an unfamiliar issue like nanotechnology, they often rely on an existing value such as religiosity or deference to science to form a judgment, explains Ashley Anderson, a postdoctoral fellow in the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University and the lead author of the upcoming study in the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication.* br / *Highly religious readers, the study revealed, were more likely to see nanotechnology as risky when exposed to rude comments compared to less religious readers, Brossard notes.* br / *Blogs have been a part of the new media landscape for quite some time now, but our study is the first to look at the potential effects blog comments have on public perceptions of science, says Brossard.* br / * While the tone of blog comments can have an impact, simple disagreement in posts can also sway perception: Overt disagreement adds another layer. It influences the conversation, she explains.* br / * UW-Madison Life Sciences Communication Professor Dietram Scheufele, another of the study's co-authors, notes that the Web is a primary destination for people looking for detailed information and discussion on aspects of science and technology. Because of that trend, studies of online media are becoming increasingly important, but understanding the online information environment is particularly important for issues of science and technology. * br / * Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-trolls-rude-blog-comments-dim.html#jCp Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-trolls-rude-blog-comments-dim.html#jCp
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
A link to the book by Thomas Nagel mentioned by Sheldrake in his talk. http://www.amazon.ca/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8qid=1361040962sr=8-1 Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False Thomas Nagel Book Description Publication Date: Sep 6 2012 In Mind and Cosmos Thomas Nagel argues that the widely accepted world view of materialist naturalism is untenable. The mind-body problem cannot be confined to the relation between animal minds and animal bodies. If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such. No such explanation is available, and the physical sciences, including molecular biology, cannot be expected to provide one. The book explores these problems through a general treatment of the obstacles to reductionism, with more specific application to the phenomena of consciousness, cognition, and value. The conclusion is that physics cannot be the theory of everything. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_and_Cosmos Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False is a 2012 book by Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy at New York University. Overview In the book, Nagel argues that the materialist version of evolutionary biology is unable to account for the existence of mind and consciousness, and is therefore at best incomplete. He writes that mind is a basic aspect of nature, and that any philosophy of nature that cannot account for it is fundamentally misguided.[1] He argues that the standard physico-chemical reductionist account of the emergence of life – that it emerged out of a series of accidents, acted upon by the mechanism of natural selection — flies in the face of common sense.[2] Nagel's position is that principles of an entirely different kind may account for the emergence of life, and in particular conscious life, and that those principles may be teleological, rather than materialist or mechanistic. He stresses that his argument is not a religious one (he is an atheist), and that it is not based on the theory of intelligent design (ID), though he also writes that ID proponents such as Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and David Berlinski do not deserve the scorn with which their ideas have been met by the overwhelming majority of the scientific establishment.[3] Harry
RE: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Giovanni may be close to correct in his criticism with Dawkins than Sheldrake. With Sheldrake - it is more of a case of being on the cutting edge, and being read out of context. The bleeding edge, as the Brit's like to call it - is a place where many claims are by nature hard to substantiate . and even if correct, the proponent comes out looking bloody. Such is the morphic field which is further complicated by its ties to religion and ID not as competing but more as explanatory.. It is very easy to slip off of this edge, bloody or not - and RS provides his critics a large target. If he is remembered for nothing else then the morphic field paradigm . Sheldrake will be considered as one of the great thinkers in human history, along with this mirror image, or is that his evil twin - Richard Dawkins, the meme-man. The two want to have nothing to do with each other - which is a strange irony. They are a Janus-headed pair, good-cop, bad cop etc who together epitomize the two most important paradigms in modern PsySci (parapsychology combined with philosophy). IMO these two ought to be read together, since a morphic field is of little use in our day-to-day context without memes. Problem is - Sheldrake takes every opportunity to extend his insight to areas of lower-fit - such as with Pets - and many of those suggestions have even lower proof levels; whereas Dawkins takes every opportunity to espouse atheism as its own religion, which ironically is inherently best-explained by memes and holons as a necessary stage of societal development. For instance- even in the context of today's Science news, consider the 'bigger picture' in its PsySci context - by taking the meme of hidden threat from outer space which is embodied in the Tunguska event and recently came into focus with the news of a large meteorite approaching close earth contact - and then add in the surprise News of meteorites in Russia. Is there a religious/spiritual connotation, or is this merely random coincidental occurrence which our TV media wants to sensationalize? Had it been closer to Dec 22, 2012 you can imagine the headlines. Sheldrake might go further out on a limb to say that the worldwide focus on a latent meme will actually increase the probability field of it happening. There is no proof of that, but it is intriguing. Perhaps this meteorite is not the best example of increasing the probability of a random event, but that would not deter RS from saying that it was. Strong Caveat: this is my strained example, and I do not know what, if anything RS has to anything to say about this particular incident. From: Giovanni Santostasi Sheldrake makes a lot of absurd claims that are unsubstantiated. And he doesn't understand how creation from nothing is the most natural thing of all. Giovanni Terry Blanton wrote: Rupert Sheldrake is sometimes annoying to conventional science. Published late last month this talk in two parts is amusing at times; but, always thought provoking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waMBY3qEA4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRKvvxku5So
RE: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Dawkins is an example of 'atheist theology' (oxymoron). He seems to desire a neat, ordered, understandable world without any Creator behind it. He extends traditional moral concerns to general society, as if they still had a Divine authority behind them. Why is objective truth important? Why aren't some lies better? I prefer to think that the lack of a Creator suggests that we should expect a sort of patchwork universe, full of paradoxes and anomalies - such as Feyerabend suggested. It would make a lot more sense - and might lead us into unexpected discoveries.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
I have always been interested in how people describe a Creator. Are you claiming that the universe resulted from some super intelligent life-form getting the idea that a new universe would be an interesting project and then set about creating it? Or is the idea of a creator an abstract simplification of a process that would have occurred regardless of any intent? Too often the idea is applied to mankind as a reason why we are so special. Or at a more childish level, that God is here to answer our requests for personal protection or to help win sporting events. At which level are you describing the Creator and what use is the concept to anyone? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Chris Zell wrote: Dawkins is an example of 'atheist theology' (oxymoron). He seems to desire a neat, ordered, understandable world without any Creator behind it. He extends traditional moral concerns to general society, as if they still had a Divine authority behind them. Why is objective truth important? Why aren't some lies better? I prefer to think that the lack of a Creator suggests that we should expect a sort of patchwork universe, full of paradoxes and anomalies - such as Feyerabend suggested. It would make a lot more sense - and might lead us into unexpected discoveries.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
I will reply later in more details, but besides a lot of unfalsifiable claims Sheldrake says a lot of false stuff, like most of what he said about memory and the brain function. There is ton and ton of evidence to show that indeed mind is in the brain and nowhere else. Giovanni On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Giovanni may be close to correct in his criticism with Dawkins than Sheldrake. ** ** With Sheldrake – it is more of a case of being on the cutting edge, and being read out of context. The bleeding edge, as the Brit’s like to call it - is a place where many claims are by nature hard to substantiate … and even if correct, the proponent comes out looking bloody. Such is the “morphic field” which is further complicated by its ties to religion and ID not as competing but more as explanatory.. ** ** It is very easy to slip off of this edge, bloody or not - and RS provides his critics a large target. If he is remembered for nothing else then the morphic field paradigm … Sheldrake will be considered as one of the great thinkers in human history, along with this mirror image, or is that his evil twin – Richard Dawkins, the meme-man. ** ** The two want to have nothing to do with each other – which is a strange irony. They are a Janus-headed pair, good-cop, bad cop etc who together epitomize the two most important paradigms in modern PsySci (parapsychology combined with philosophy). IMO these two ought to be read together, since a morphic field is of little use in our day-to-day context without memes. Problem is - Sheldrake takes every opportunity to extend his insight to areas of lower-fit – such as with Pets - and many of those suggestions have even lower proof levels; whereas Dawkins takes every opportunity to espouse atheism as its own religion, which ironically is inherently best-explained by memes and holons as a necessary stage of societal development. ** ** For instance- even in the context of today’s Science news, consider the ‘bigger picture’ in its PsySci context – by taking the meme of “hidden threat from outer space” which is embodied in the Tunguska event and recently came into focus with the news of a large meteorite approaching close earth contact - and then add in the surprise News of meteorites in Russia. Is there a religious/spiritual connotation, or is this merely random coincidental occurrence which our TV media wants to sensationalize? Had it been closer to Dec 22, 2012 you can imagine the headlines.** * * Sheldrake might go further out on a limb to say that the worldwide focus on a latent meme will actually increase the probability field of it happening. There is no proof of that, but it is intriguing. Perhaps this meteorite is not the best example of “increasing the probability of a random event”, but that would not deter RS from saying that it was. ** ** Strong Caveat: this is my strained example, and I do not know what, if anything RS has to anything to say about this particular incident. ** ** *From:* Giovanni Santostasi ** ** Sheldrake makes a lot of absurd claims that are unsubstantiated. And he doesn't understand how creation from nothing is the most natural thing of all. Giovanni ** ** ** ** Terry Blanton wrote: ** ** Rupert Sheldrake is sometimes annoying to conventional science. Published late last month this talk in two parts is amusing at times; but, always thought provoking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waMBY3qEA4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRKvvxku5So ** **
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
The laws of physics derive from a slight alteration of the perfect symmetry of nothing. Symmetry is the most fundamental principle of natural law. No much space for patchwork universe there. Giovanni On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I have always been interested in how people describe a Creator. Are you claiming that the universe resulted from some super intelligent life-form getting the idea that a new universe would be an interesting project and then set about creating it? Or is the idea of a creator an abstract simplification of a process that would have occurred regardless of any intent? Too often the idea is applied to mankind as a reason why we are so special. Or at a more childish level, that God is here to answer our requests for personal protection or to help win sporting events. At which level are you describing the Creator and what use is the concept to anyone? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Chris Zell wrote: Dawkins is an example of 'atheist theology' (oxymoron). He seems to desire a neat, ordered, understandable world without any Creator behind it. He extends traditional moral concerns to general society, as if they still had a Divine authority behind them. Why is objective truth important? Why aren't some lies better? I prefer to think that the lack of a Creator suggests that we should expect a sort of patchwork universe, full of paradoxes and anomalies - such as Feyerabend suggested. It would make a lot more sense - and might lead us into unexpected discoveries.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
I agree, but as has been noted many times before, Nature always tests all possibilities until the one that works is found. Presumably, our universe is here because it worked. We humans are here because we survived the tests used by Nature to determine what works. Presumably, many life-forms having greater awareness exist throughout the universe. Any life-form that fails the test is eliminated, both on a personal level as well as on a planet-sized level without any consideration by a Creator. That's my opinion. On Feb 15, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: The laws of physics derive from a slight alteration of the perfect symmetry of nothing. Symmetry is the most fundamental principle of natural law. No much space for patchwork universe there. Giovanni On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I have always been interested in how people describe a Creator. Are you claiming that the universe resulted from some super intelligent life-form getting the idea that a new universe would be an interesting project and then set about creating it? Or is the idea of a creator an abstract simplification of a process that would have occurred regardless of any intent? Too often the idea is applied to mankind as a reason why we are so special. Or at a more childish level, that God is here to answer our requests for personal protection or to help win sporting events. At which level are you describing the Creator and what use is the concept to anyone? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Chris Zell wrote: Dawkins is an example of 'atheist theology' (oxymoron). He seems to desire a neat, ordered, understandable world without any Creator behind it. He extends traditional moral concerns to general society, as if they still had a Divine authority behind them. Why is objective truth important? Why aren't some lies better? I prefer to think that the lack of a Creator suggests that we should expect a sort of patchwork universe, full of paradoxes and anomalies - such as Feyerabend suggested. It would make a lot more sense - and might lead us into unexpected discoveries.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
In other words your God is an experimentalist., or what you call Nature. Harry On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I agree, but as has been noted many times before, Nature always tests all possibilities until the one that works is found. Presumably, our universe is here because it worked. We humans are here because we survived the tests used by Nature to determine what works. Presumably, many life-forms having greater awareness exist throughout the universe. Any life-form that fails the test is eliminated, both on a personal level as well as on a planet-sized level without any consideration by a Creator. That's my opinion. On Feb 15, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: The laws of physics derive from a slight alteration of the perfect symmetry of nothing. Symmetry is the most fundamental principle of natural law. No much space for patchwork universe there. Giovanni On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I have always been interested in how people describe a Creator. Are you claiming that the universe resulted from some super intelligent life-form getting the idea that a new universe would be an interesting project and then set about creating it? Or is the idea of a creator an abstract simplification of a process that would have occurred regardless of any intent? Too often the idea is applied to mankind as a reason why we are so special. Or at a more childish level, that God is here to answer our requests for personal protection or to help win sporting events. At which level are you describing the Creator and what use is the concept to anyone? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Chris Zell wrote: Dawkins is an example of 'atheist theology' (oxymoron). He seems to desire a neat, ordered, understandable world without any Creator behind it. He extends traditional moral concerns to general society, as if they still had a Divine authority behind them. Why is objective truth important? Why aren't some lies better? I prefer to think that the lack of a Creator suggests that we should expect a sort of patchwork universe, full of paradoxes and anomalies - such as Feyerabend suggested. It would make a lot more sense - and might lead us into unexpected discoveries.
RE: [Vo]:Science Set Free
A middle ground - based on expanding Sheldrake's thinking is that group mind (collective consciousness, or even a collective intelligence combined with a directed unconsciousness evolved from morphic fields) fits the definition of divinity in a defensible, scientific way. Of course, this kind of sensibility and rationality please no one - the evangelicals hate it more so than the atheists... which probably means it is as correct as human mentality can imagine. From: Edmund Storms I have always been interested in how people describe a Creator. Are you claiming that the universe resulted from some super intelligent life-form getting the idea that a new universe would be an interesting project and then set about creating it? Or is the idea of a creator an abstract simplification of a process that would have occurred regardless of any intent? Too often the idea is applied to mankind as a reason why we are so special. Or at a more childish level, that God is here to answer our requests for personal protection or to help win sporting events. At which level are you describing the Creator and what use is the concept to anyone? Chris Zell wrote: Dawkins is an example of 'atheist theology' (oxymoron). He seems to desire a neat, ordered, understandable world without any Creator behind it. He extends traditional moral concerns to general society, as if they still had a Divine authority behind them. Why is objective truth important? Why aren't some lies better? I prefer to think that the lack of a Creator suggests that we should expect a sort of patchwork universe, full of paradoxes and anomalies - such as Feyerabend suggested. It would make a lot more sense - and might lead us into unexpected discoveries. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Yes, but more exactly a trial-and-errorist. On Feb 15, 2013, at 10:47 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: In other words your God is an experimentalist., or what you call Nature. Harry On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I agree, but as has been noted many times before, Nature always tests all possibilities until the one that works is found. Presumably, our universe is here because it worked. We humans are here because we survived the tests used by Nature to determine what works. Presumably, many life- forms having greater awareness exist throughout the universe. Any life-form that fails the test is eliminated, both on a personal level as well as on a planet-sized level without any consideration by a Creator. That's my opinion. On Feb 15, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: The laws of physics derive from a slight alteration of the perfect symmetry of nothing. Symmetry is the most fundamental principle of natural law. No much space for patchwork universe there. Giovanni On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I have always been interested in how people describe a Creator. Are you claiming that the universe resulted from some super intelligent life-form getting the idea that a new universe would be an interesting project and then set about creating it? Or is the idea of a creator an abstract simplification of a process that would have occurred regardless of any intent? Too often the idea is applied to mankind as a reason why we are so special. Or at a more childish level, that God is here to answer our requests for personal protection or to help win sporting events. At which level are you describing the Creator and what use is the concept to anyone? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Chris Zell wrote: Dawkins is an example of 'atheist theology' (oxymoron). He seems to desire a neat, ordered, understandable world without any Creator behind it. He extends traditional moral concerns to general society, as if they still had a Divine authority behind them. Why is objective truth important? Why aren't some lies better? I prefer to think that the lack of a Creator suggests that we should expect a sort of patchwork universe, full of paradoxes and anomalies - such as Feyerabend suggested. It would make a lot more sense - and might lead us into unexpected discoveries.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
But whose mind? Which group? I believe minds do communicate in unconventional ways, but this is a natural aspect of how nature works. Minds of birds and fish clearly communicate directly. This behavior can be seen in other animals as well. Even certain humans have this ability to a small extent. However, this ability is a natural part of how the universe is designed and is nothing special. The big question is, In whose mind is the universe itself? What size is the collective mind that communicates information between all intelligent lif-forms throughout the universe? Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Jones Beene wrote: A middle ground - based on expanding Sheldrake's thinking is that group mind (collective consciousness, or even a collective intelligence combined with a directed unconsciousness evolved from morphic fields) fits the definition of divinity in a defensible, scientific way. Of course, this kind of sensibility and rationality please no one - the evangelicals hate it more so than the atheists... which probably means it is as correct as human mentality can imagine. From: Edmund Storms I have always been interested in how people describe a Creator. Are you claiming that the universe resulted from some super intelligent life-form getting the idea that a new universe would be an interesting project and then set about creating it? Or is the idea of a creator an abstract simplification of a process that would have occurred regardless of any intent? Too often the idea is applied to mankind as a reason why we are so special. Or at a more childish level, that God is here to answer our requests for personal protection or to help win sporting events. At which level are you describing the Creator and what use is the concept to anyone? Chris Zell wrote: Dawkins is an example of 'atheist theology' (oxymoron). He seems to desire a neat, ordered, understandable world without any Creator behind it. He extends traditional moral concerns to general society, as if they still had a Divine authority behind them. Why is objective truth important? Why aren't some lies better? I prefer to think that the lack of a Creator suggests that we should expect a sort of patchwork universe, full of paradoxes and anomalies - such as Feyerabend suggested. It would make a lot more sense - and might lead us into unexpected discoveries. winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Yes, but more exactly a trial-and-errorist. Which is hardly god-like ... it seems to me that the Catholic god (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent) is what a true god should be ... the alpha and omega ... all other flavors of god are, at best, demi-gods. So, if god is an experimentalist that would imply that he doesn't know the outcome of his experiments and therefore he/she is not a true god. [m]
RE: [Vo]:Science Set Free
That's the point. To make the concept of Divinity acceptable to science, it must have the aspect of appearing as nothing special in the sense that it is natural, evolved, cumulative, all-encompassing, voluntary and timeless. That does not mean that to any one individual, the concept cannot be perceived to be what Gibbs calls the Catholic god (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent etc.) IOW - Divinity ... like lightspeed... is relative to the observer -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms But whose mind? Which group? I believe minds do communicate in unconventional ways, but this is a natural aspect of how nature works. Minds of birds and fish clearly communicate directly. This behavior can be seen in other animals as well. Even certain humans have this ability to a small extent. However, this ability is a natural part of how the universe is designed and is nothing special. The big question is, In whose mind is the universe itself? What size is the collective mind that communicates information between all intelligent lif-forms throughout the universe? Ed attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Science Set Free
First, I used to be an ardent Creationist but realized that nature does not allow for such a notion. There's far too much that exists that's just horrible - and ( seemingly) Really Well Designed - such as Guinea worms, Crocodiles, Tyrannosaurus Rex and more. A personal Creator would have to be a psychopath and would resemble something out of a H.P. Lovecraft novel. However, that still allows for a transcendent impersonal God who operates as a system - and might even answer prayers. I think the human race has a perceptual block in that they use the brain as an analogy for a God as Designer instead of seeing Him as being more like the body - a marvelous system of systems that needs no immediate conscious direction to grow or exist ( I still breathe and my heart still beats even though I don't think about it) As for symmetry and more, I have one thing to say: Folks, at some level, the universe just is. Yep, that's right - reductionism fails, ends, no mas. Victor Mansfield realized this ( Buddhist physicist) - so have some atheist scientists who critique entanglement results ( Victor Stenger) Which leaves me wondering, what in the macro world might just be? Ghosts? ESP? Bigfoot? I don't know but I do get a laugh whenever some Great Authority pontificates about what can or can't exist according to some neat, elegant theory of reality. Ultimately, it all, 'just is'. That's why I had no trouble believing that Cold Fusion could be real. Plasmons and such are nice but , in the end, stuff 'just is'.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: However, that still allows for a transcendent impersonal God who operates as a system - and might even answer prayers. A true god would not answer prayers as he would have created the conditions that required your prayers and would have determined the outcome presumably prior to genesis (when the universe was on the drawing board, so to speak) so your prayers would make no difference other than to be what he wanted you to do. If there is, indeed, a true god then we're nothing but automatons or puppets going about our pre-ordained existences and everything is as it was intended to be and can never be otherwise. If I believed that I would have to shoot myself. And that would have preordained anyway. [m]
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Here you and I agree. I just is!! But what is it? The universe is not designed for us. We are temporary inhabants just like the dinosaurs and millions of other life-forms. What is the universe designed to do? I believe it is designed to acquire awareness. The awareness starts in the various life-forms throughout the universe and it eventually is accumulated elsewhere. Identifying this elsewhere is the big problem. As for free will, I believe nothing stops us from doing anything we want except our own mental limitations. It does not matter to the system because we will either pass the test and continue to exist or fail and die. The system does not care. The system is designed to create by trial and error the most efficient product. We humans are not the best example of this process nor is it clear we will pass the coming tests. We will only pass the tests if we play by the required rules. To do this, we must understand the rules. Unfortunately, this understanding is severely lacking. Ed On Feb 15, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Chris Zell wrote: First, I used to be an ardent Creationist but realized that nature does not allow for such a notion. There's far too much that exists that's just horrible - and ( seemingly) Really Well Designed - such as Guinea worms, Crocodiles, Tyrannosaurus Rex and more. A personal Creator would have to be a psychopath and would resemble something out of a H.P. Lovecraft novel. However, that still allows for a transcendent impersonal God who operates as a system - and might even answer prayers. I think the human race has a perceptual block in that they use the brain as an analogy for a God as Designer instead of seeing Him as being more like the body - a marvelous system of systems that needs no immediate conscious direction to grow or exist ( I still breathe and my heart still beats even though I don't think about it) As for symmetry and more, I have one thing to say: Folks, at some level, the universe just is. Yep, that's right - reductionism fails, ends, no mas. Victor Mansfield realized this ( Buddhist physicist) - so have some atheist scientists who critique entanglement results ( Victor Stenger) Which leaves me wondering, what in the macro world might just be? Ghosts? ESP? Bigfoot? I don't know but I do get a laugh whenever some Great Authority pontificates about what can or can't exist according to some neat, elegant theory of reality. Ultimately, it all, 'just is'. That's why I had no trouble believing that Cold Fusion could be real. Plasmons and such are nice but , in the end, stuff 'just is'.
RE: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Ah, see just is in previous section. Einstein was obsessed with determinism. Didn't like that Heisenberg Principle. I used to feel the same way but realized that you just run out of causes for stuff. Things become emergent in our macro world because it's difficult to neatly explain all the stuff at the top with only a few basic things at the bottom. Very liberating.
RE: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Yes ! I'm also tempted by the thought in The Physics of Immortality in which God appears in the future and works backward thru time to fix things. This would make a person an atheist ( but only for now) until universal awareness (God) emerges. He quoted the revelation to Moses as ( ehyeh asher ehyeh) I will prove to be or I will be what I will be - a future God. As to predestination, I can only cite Zeno, as the master beating his slave for stealing. the slave said but I was destined to steal. Zeno replied and I was destined to beat you ( rimshot)
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: There is ton and ton of evidence to show that indeed mind is in the brain and nowhere else. How does the fully partitioned mind collapse the wave function outside?
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** However, that still allows for a transcendent impersonal God who operates as a system - and might even answer prayers. This sounds a lot like deism. Many of the philosophers, scientists and public intellectuals of the eighteenth and nineteenth century were deists. Atheism wasn't even much of a possibility back then. By that I mean that people didn't entertain it as a serious possibility, if they could even imagine it. There is a great book by Charles Taylor, the philosopher, called A Secular Age, which tries to explain how over two or so centuries atheism became a respectable choice, and, in today's age, it is becoming more and more a predominant view in some areas such as science. Personally, I note that with regard to the question of whether there is a creator there is an epistemological dimension, a philosophical/aesthetic one and a social one. In the epistemological dimension, I doubt there is any way whatsoever to distinguish using empirical means between a world in which there is a creator and any variety of scenarios where there isn't one. This conclusion for me takes the subject wholly out of the realm science; any strong claims to the contrary, either on the creationist side or on the evangelical atheist side, seem to me to be fundamentally ill-conceived. There is also an aesthetic and philosophical dimension to the question of whether there is a creator. People find beauty in mathematics, in art, and in any number of other things, and they also often find beauty in different ways of making sense of the human situation. Perhaps they conceive of a clockwork universe that God wound up at the beginning of time and let go on its way, like the deists did. Perhaps they perceive a design and purpose in everyday life which either lends itself to some larger intent or, alternatively, specifically does not. Perhaps they see ugliness and war and see no possibility of any kind of higher purpose or rhyme or reason. Here we're in the realm of aesthetics, and there is the latin saying, *de gustibus non est disputandum* -- there's no disputing taste. But people do in fact argue about religion and God and fight over it in the public sphere, which takes us into the realm of society. It seems to me that in a world where people are expected to justify their actions with reasons, especially when we're talking about things like public policy and law, you have to use a language that everyone can agree on. Not everyone can agree on a justification that involves religion, so unless a decision is being made that narrowly affects a specific community, there's not much place for religion in working out general arrangements. For general decisions, it seems to me that you need a secular language that does not make reference to religion. Eric
[Vo]:Science Set Free
Rupert Sheldrake is sometimes annoying to conventional science. Published late last month this talk in two parts is amusing at times; but, always thought provoking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waMBY3qEA4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRKvvxku5So
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Rupert Sheldrake is sometimes annoying to conventional science. Published late last month this talk in two parts is amusing at times; but, always thought provoking. One topic Vorts will find interesting in the first part are the human calorimetry studies by Paul Webb performed for the US government. Did you know that we are all violators of the 2LoT?
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Unfortunately, he has no idea were the energy resulting from cold fusion comes from. He puts this phenomenon in the category of perpetual motion. What else has he misinterpreted? Ed On Feb 14, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: Rupert Sheldrake is sometimes annoying to conventional science. Published late last month this talk in two parts is amusing at times; but, always thought provoking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waMBY3qEA4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRKvvxku5So
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Unfortunately, he has no idea were the energy resulting from cold fusion comes from. He puts this phenomenon in the category of perpetual motion. What else has he misinterpreted? Everything. Consider it a philosophical interlude.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Sheldrake makes a lot of absurd claims that are unsubstantiated. And he doesn't understand how creation from nothing is the most natural thing of all. Giovanni On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Rupert Sheldrake is sometimes annoying to conventional science. Published late last month this talk in two parts is amusing at times; but, always thought provoking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waMBY3qEA4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRKvvxku5So
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Sheldrake makes a lot of absurd claims that are unsubstantiated. And he doesn't understand how creation from nothing is the most natural thing of all. I rather found him entertaining. His ideas are the type which are usually welcomed on this forum. I told you he could be annoying.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
I'm listening to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPccMlgug8A He is interesting and he has good points but he makes too much of them. The problem is when you do real science you realize that his points are not practical or useful. For example the constant changing with time. Look what happened with the speed of the neutrinos few months ago. In the end it was found to be a problem with one of the wires of the devices used. Chasing each anomalies one can think about is pretty wasteful use of resources and time. Also it seems that his criticism of conventional science comes from the bias he has towards his silly theory. Science is wrong for him because he wants his spiritualist theories are in contrast with it Giovanni On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Sheldrake makes a lot of absurd claims that are unsubstantiated. And he doesn't understand how creation from nothing is the most natural thing of all. I rather found him entertaining. His ideas are the type which are usually welcomed on this forum. I told you he could be annoying.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Rupert Sheldrake is sometimes annoying to conventional science. Published late last month this talk in two parts is amusing at times; but, always thought provoking. One topic Vorts will find interesting in the first part are the human calorimetry studies by Paul Webb performed for the US government. Did you know that we are all violators of the 2LoT? As long as science refuses to acknowledge its own dogmas, one can expect political blowback... http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/missouri-bill-redefines-science-gives-equal-time-to-intelligent-design/ Harry
