Messages

[philosophy]

I must say Johnathon, i have heard both sides of this debate more than times then i care to remember, but you have done a very good job of breaking the issue down in a easy, understandable way.  

I think i can sum this up rather quickly. ID isn't science, its a philosophy regarding science. That's all there is to it. It doesn't belong in science class, it belongs in philosophy class or some other non-science class, as Johnathon has pointed out.  I think anyone who has put forth an honest effort to understand both sides of of the issue realize this point.

i hear ya man. Video are videos.

As for the notion that ID is open to other explanations besides religious ones....i doubt it.  Sure, perhaps ET made us, but who made the ET's?  No matter how much they try to beat around the bush, the real question is and always was about the origin of life in its most absolute sense.

I just said this about 5 minutes ago on an other thread:

"I hate the 'god of the gaps' stance that many religious people take, ie those who believe in the 'theory' of intelligent design. Basically, its says that anything science cant explain at this very moment, will never be able to be explained by science. How foolish. Science is a provisional truth that is always refining but will never be complete. Its truth without certainty. What its discoveries is true, but its never the whole truth, it can never be the whole truth for certain. Look at history and its relentless ability to explain away 'supernatural' phenomena as natural phenomena for example. Those who believe in intelligent design seem to believe in a few other notions that I, and I'm willing to bet that themselves might, find very disturbing. The first is the belief in the finicity of God's capability as an ironic result of trying to prove his omnipotent ability. Simply put, they doubt that God has the ability to create a self-sufficient, self-governing system (known as Nature)...and thus, God himself has to personally and continuously step in and tinker with this system in order to keep it from breaking down, and in turn, God can be found in the gaps of science. The second belief is a product of the first. According to process theology, the only way for God to grant the beings in the universe "free will" is to make the universe itself independently functioning and self-governing. So as a product of believing in Intelligent Design, you not only undermine the power of science and rationality, you also undermine the power of God and ones own free will."

There are gaps in the theory of evolution, insignificant ones that don't discredit what evolution has discovered.  For those who say "wheres the proof?" ill respond with "how can you prove what wasn't, first, theorized?"  

Give it time.

I hate the 'god of the gaps' stance that many religious people take, ie those who believe in the 'theory' of intelligent design. Basically, its says that anything science cant explain at this very moment, will never be able to be explained by science. How foolish.  Science is a provisional truth that is always refining but will never be complete. Its truth without certainty.  What its discoveries is true, but its never the whole truth, it can never be the whole truth for certain. Look at history and its relentless ability to explain away 'supernatural' phenomena as natural phenomena.  Those who believe in intelligent design deductively believe in a few other notions that I, and I'm willing to bet that themselves might, find very disturbing. The first is the belief in the finicity of God's capability as an ironic result of trying to prove his omnipotent ability. Simply put, they doubt that God has the ability to create a self-sufficient, self-governing system (known as Nature)...and thus, God himself has to personally and continuously step in and tinker with this system in order to keep it from breaking down.  The second belief is a product of the first.  According to process theology, the only way for God to grant the beings in the universe "free will" is to make the universe itself independently functioning and self-governing. So as a product of believing in Intelligent Design, you not only undermine the power of science and rationality, you also undermine the power of God and ones own free will.

And for the record, according to the most recent studies, signs of morality have thought to have existed millions of years before any religious and philosophical concepts, even before homo sapeins had developed. Many believe it was a product of humans living in groups, having to account for the other members as one would account for himself.

http://0-wos17.isiknowledge.com.bianca.penlib.du.edu/CIW.cgi

You are over intellectualizing. Reality is subjective.

Even if that were the case, the totality of all realities would be an objective truth. Truth itself is objective in nature, thus no matter what the Truth is, its intrinsically objective.  Reality in its absolute sense cannot be subjective, only our perceptions of it are.

In Totality, it either does or it doesn't, otherwise we wrongly fall into a logical paradox which often gets mistaken with an intellectual epiphany.  I'm sure you've seen it before. A famous one is "If God is omnipotent, is he powerful enough to create a being more powerful than himself?" or the even more cliched "the impossible is possible."  No, the impossible is not possible, and similarly, if god is omnipotent, he cannot create a being more powerful than himself. Basically what it boils down to is this:

A = B, yet A doesn't = B

Its an impossibility presented as a possibility using the manipulation of words and faulty logic.  I don't think it has a formal name as of yet, but i like to call it a P.M. Fallacy.

of course it does. Our senses are simply a stimuli intake.  The stimuli its self, ie reality, is not dependent on the sensory intakes at all. In fact, its the other way around.  To that person without any senses, that tree may not *seem to exist because that person has no way of sensing it. However, the tree itself does exist regardless of that persons ability to experience it.

full details here

This experiment consisted of a deck of playing cards and some masking tape.  What i did was shuffle the cards vigorously, cut the deck a few times, and then pull a random card out.  With the card face down and without me looking at what it was, i taped the card to the window of my bed room (facing out).  I was to project, look at the card, then will myself back to my body to see if i Really saw the card in my projection.  After 12 trials, the overall probabilities suggested that my outcomes had less than a 1% chance that they were coincidence, and over a 99% chance that something else effect my results. Other than that, i tried to design a make-shift point system to account for the instability of the astral realm...but take that all with a pinch of salt.



OK, the first figure will be what card i saw in the projection, the second will be the actual card.
T1. 2 clubs, 7 spades (0 pts)
T2. Queen clubs, Queen spades (2 pts: odds=1/26)
T3. Jack (red suit), Jack clubs (1 pt: odds=1/13)
T4. 3 hearts, 2 clubs (1 pt)
T5. Ace hearts, 3 hearts (2 pts: odds=1/4)
T6. (1)Ace clubs, Queen spades (2 pts: odds=1/2)
T7. 7 hearts, 3 spades (0 pts)
T8. Queen hearts, Jack diamonds (8 pts: odds=1/2)
T9. King (red suit), King diamonds (3 pts: odds=1/26)
T10. 9 hearts, 6 Hearts (3 pts: odds=1/2)

T11. Ace hearts, Ace clubs (1 pt: odds=1/13)
T12. King clubs, Jack clubs (4 pts: odds=1/4)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Point System
1.) Same Color Suit
-Clubs and Spades (2pt)
-Hearts and diamonds (2pt)

2.) Face Cards
-Suited Queens and Jacks: Diamonds only (5 pts)
 -Queens and Jacks: Any other combo (2 pts)
-Suited Kings and Queens: Hearts, Clubs, and Spades (5 pts)
 -Kings and Queens: Any other suit (2pts)
Kings and Jacks: Spades, Hearts, Diamonds (3 pts)
 -Kings and Jacks: Clubs (2 pts)

3.)6's and 9's (1pt)
        Aces and 4's (1 pt)

4.)Cards Within One increment away
- Face cards (2 pts)
-8's and 9's (2 pts)
-All other combos (1 pt)



*the higher the point value, the higher the extent that Astral-fluidity could have effected the results. Apply all results to the point system and add all point that apply, together. Any other factors i have left out are because i already know the probabilities behind them (exact suit, exact increment, etc)  



1 pt total = Low extent/chance that astral instability affected the results
5 pts total = Decent extent/chance that astral instability affected the results
10 pts total= Very high extent/chance that astral instability affected the results

people seem to forget about exegesis and hermeneutics.

Ive tried a few times but didn't get any results.  I think that maybe i would be able to if i tried hard enough, long enough...but for right now, i like the results I'm getting.  I think ill just try to develop TK using my hands for now.

yes!! a badge!!

wait, what exactly do you mean by "blue and green can never be seen"? It seems a little cryptic to me right now.

morality has been around a lot longer than any religion or philosophy by at least 700,000 years or so, but most likely a few million according to the most recent studies. We're talking prehistoric hominids...way before refined language, writing, and even cave paintings. We're talking like before man knew how to make fire, back before we were homosapien when we were just homoerectus


http://0-wos17.isiknowledge.com.bianca.penlib.du.edu/CIW.cgi

[One]

i have a major problem with time travel theories that involve anything more than past/future observation.  Things that have already happened have already happened, case closed.  You may be able to re-watch it happening, or you may be able to see what will happen next...but i doubt you can change the past/future.  However, I'm much much more willing to accept changing the future as opposed to the past, but even that has its complications.

for example, if you can travel to and alter the past, you must be able to do so in your own past.  If this is true, you can, theoretically change your own past. But there is a major problem with this as you will soon see. Lets say when you were growing up, you wanted to change something about your past.  Lets say that you wanted to ask out this girl, but never did.  So, you go into the past, ask her out, etc.  If you actually were able to change the past, it would thus change the present.  This means that you would have asked her out years ago, and thus, you would have never gone into the past to ask her out (because you already did). That's the first reason why its impossible.  The second reason would be the instantaneous consequence of the first impossibility.  If you never go from the present to the past to ask her out (because you succeeded in doing so in the past) then you never would have succeed in asking her out using time travel.  In essence, if you succeed in changing your past, you intrinsically fail in changing your past.    

Its like this:

1.) If you travel to the past and change it, in the future, you wouldn't travel to the past to change anything (because its already the way you want it)

BUT

2.) If you do #1, then you would instantaneously fail at changing the past, and thus, would prompt you to change to the past, in the future.

All we can conclude is that either A.) altering the past is impossible or B.) You get stuck in a loop of [If 1 then 2] [If 2 then 1].  

If the answer is B, then one of three things could happen.  One, you would be stuck in the infinite loop forever. Two, you would be stuck in the infinite loop until you die of old age, which in effect, would cause you to die of old age the instant you travel into the past. Or three, you get stuck in the loop and age, much like two, but you realize that something is wrong and stop time-traveling when you notice you have significantly aged before you had even traveled into the past (as far as you know).

either way, you fail to change the past and sever consequences result.

[be]

not everything has an opposite.  Look at this deductive argument:

-For something to have an opposite, that opposite must exist in order to be.

-By nature, Non-existence does not exist.

.:Therefor, non-existence cannot be the opposite of existence.

An "opposite" is intrinsically an existence, a being, thus the only thing without an opposite (i suppose) is existence/being itself.  Saying that non-existence is the opposite of existence would not only contradict the nature of an "opposite", but it would also contradict the nature of "non-existence."  

so what do i win?  

Truth is absolute existence. No matter what Truth might be, whether or not we can comprehend it, a truth cannot contradict the Truth.  The sky may be green to one person, it may be blue to an other (at a given moment). All this means is the people's perceptions are subjective, and thus, any perception, by nature, cannot be universal.  There is no contradiction here. In fact, there are no objective contradictions at all, only conflicting perceptions of the objective.

i like the phrase, "those who know do not speak, and those who speak do not know" but i think that applies more to enlightenment/nirvana then language itself.  I was just thinking about this subject earlier today. Its the nature of enlightenment to be free of ego, and in turn, be free of suffering. This stills the waters of the mind allowing a person to exist in utter tranquility.  Any agenda is a desired outcome; Any desire is a product of an ego, thus by deduction, any agenda is a product of ego.  All voluntary actions are executed because of one or multiple agendas, speech included. This also includes eating and drinking as the agenda is satisfying ones hunger/thirst and in turn, preserving one's life.  Those who have studied enlightenment/nirvana know that reflection stops when you are in a zen-type mind set, and so to does reaction.  In the end, those who are enlightened desire nothing, and in turn, have no agendas...not even survival. They would not speak of enlightenment because they have no desire to, no desires at all in fact.

So how do i know this since I'm obviously not enlightened? Because i have been there, i just cant stay Zen for more than 10 seconds or so at a time. But not only that, i have discovered a logical equation that deductively concludes all voluntary action as a product of ego/reaction/reflection...none of which are an aspect of enlightenment.

That is unless enlightenment isn't freeing oneself of all desires?

enlightenment is a funny thing you see,

as i take it, its breaking the hold that all egos have on a person, thus enabling them to simply be free to exist. No suffering, but no pleasure...just utter serenity.

but any agenda is a product of an ego, even the ones essential to survival. All a "need" is, is an essential something required for a desired result. (Surely you don't need to eat if you don't intend on living.) Yet, any desire or agenda is a product of an ego, and thus, any voluntary action would be a product of an ego, or perhaps many egos. A truly enlightened person would cease act voluntarily. Though they would hunger and thirst, they wouldn't drink or eat because such actions are reactions in an attempt to pursue and agenda i.e. living.  So what does true enlightenment get you? dead.  But you could care less because the hardest ego to get over is the desire to exist, or perhaps the desire to desire.

how couldn't it?

Whether or not the entire universe is an illusion or dream is irrelevant to the question. Even the voids found in space are things that exist. Space itself is an existence because, if it weren't, everything would be a singularity....and yet, how can a singularity even exist without occupying space?  It cant.  So why does existence exist? Because existence has no other option.

[edit] as for integral philosophy, truth cannot contradict truth. Any contradictions that exist must either come from errors in one or all disciplines. Truth is the validity of existence, and existence either is or isn't. So in the grand scheme of things, there is only one Truth that encompasses all existence, and whatever it may be...it cannot be contradicted by itself.

thank you  

(((((this just in)))))

smaller file sizes for faster downloads (1 MB instead of 9 MB), no download limits, and a choice of streaming or down-loadable video!!!

http://psifly.com/video/real/psiwheel_LQ.ram - Streaming
http://psifly.com/video/real/psiwheel_LQ.rm- Download

Follow the instructions below the link:

http://rapidshare.de/files/8313165/PsiwheelUnderGlass.ASF.html

when you click the link, it will bring you to a web page with a lot of shtuff on it. Ignore that shtuff and scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the download button that says "Free" (unless you want to pay for it lol). When you do that, it will yet again bring you to a page with a lot of shtuff on it. Ignore all that shtuff and scroll down to the bottom of the page again. You will see the file name (PsiwheelUnderGlass.ASF). Its 9 mb (1 min, 30 sec.), so if you have a 56k modem, it might take a while to download. If this is you, just start the download and minimize it while you do other shtuff. Then, Voila....a kickass video of me moving a PSI wheel UNDER A GLASS.  (lol yeah i know, its complicated...but its worth it!!) (oh, and you'll probably want to save it so you don't have to download again to watch it again)




By the way, Im [lotus] from AS.  There has always been a discrepancy about how air currents or the heat from a person's hand can effect a psi wheel and make it move. Having moved a psi wheel a few times on my own, i decided to give it a try with a glass container over it to eliminate the possibility of heat or air currents moving the psi wheel on accident. At first, i had 0 success and even after much practice,i just couldn't move the psi wheel when it was under glass.  I finally got it to twitch a few times, and that sparked my confidence a bit.  Having seen that a psi wheel can indeed move when its covered by glass, i became more and more determined to make it spin at least a single 360 degree turn.  That was about 3-4 months ago.  Since then i have managed to hone my skills quite a bit. Now that i have a working digital camcorder, I'm finally able to show some people my progress in this unbelievably impractical art of spinning small paper squares, under glass.

Ill explain the video a bit.  After i turn on the camcorder, I assembled the psi wheel in front of the camera to show that there isn't any weird trickery going on.  In addition, i mount the psi wheel on a clear plastic food container so that you can see that there aren't any mechanisms or devices below the wheel itself which would make it move. I then place a glass over the psi wheel and make it start spinning and stop spinning two separate times to show that i have sufficient control over the psi wheel's actions. I then disassemble the psi wheel. There aren't any strings, magnets, etc whatsoever involved.  I did pretty much all i was able to emphasize this point in the video.

But in the end, you just have to judge this video for yourself. Knowing myself and my skeptical nature, i would be very hesitant to accept any video of TK as good proof for its validity.  Considering this, i don't expect anyone to have an metaphysical Epiphany, though if you do, that's cool too.  I just want to share this video with you guys because i know people can learn from it, and ideally, i hope it opens some people's minds a bit about what they believe can and cannot be done by an individual.  So i hope you all enjoy the show!

oh also, the video can only be downloaded once an hour (because i have the free rapidshare account), so its first come first serve. Don't get discouraged if you cant get it right away, just check back every now and then.