Prev: If You Don't Like Header Changing, Take Action!
Next: $50,000 for KILLING FBI, CIA, NSA and NIS DIRECTORS
From: Don Martin on 20 May 2010 14:35
On May 20, 1:59 pm, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...(a)fuzzysys.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:40:45 -0700 (PDT), Don Martin <drdonmar...(a)comcast..net> wrote:
> >On May 19, 9:30 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Traditionally religion has marked off what science should not be
> >> concerned with;
>
> >Science should be concerned with anything for which there is
> >evidence.  It is unlikely to examine the claims of religion any time
> >soon.
>
> The neural basis of all religious experiences and the social
> structures thereof are all valid evidence studies.

But that is the study of human physiology, psychology, and sociology,
not of claims that sky pixies exist.


From: Sir Frederick Martin on 22 May 2010 07:18
On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:35:21 -0700 (PDT), Don Martin <drdonmartin(a)comcast.net> wrote:

>On May 20, 1:59�pm, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...(a)fuzzysys.com>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:40:45 -0700 (PDT), Don Martin <drdonmar...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>> >On May 19, 9:30�pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Traditionally religion has marked off what science should not be
>> >> concerned with;
>>
>> >Science should be concerned with anything for which there is
>> >evidence. �It is unlikely to examine the claims of religion any time
>> >soon.
>>
>> The neural basis of all religious experiences and the social
>> structures thereof are all valid evidence studies.
>
>But that is the study of human physiology, psychology, and sociology,
>not of claims that sky pixies exist.
>
I was referring to neurotheology and neurophilosophy.
Look them up in Wiki.
Those pixie claims are complete confabulations based on brain
functions and 'our' need for stories.
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 22 May 2010 11:32
On May 22, 7:18 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...(a)fuzzysys.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:35:21 -0700 (PDT), Don Martin <drdonmar...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> >On May 20, 1:59 pm, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...(a)fuzzysys.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:40:45 -0700 (PDT), Don Martin <drdonmar...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >On May 19, 9:30 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> Traditionally religion has marked off what science should not be
> >> >> concerned with;
>
> >> >Science should be concerned with anything for which there is
> >> >evidence. It is unlikely to examine the claims of religion any time
> >> >soon.
>
> >> The neural basis of all religious experiences and the social
> >> structures thereof are all valid evidence studies.
>
> >But that is the study of human physiology, psychology, and sociology,
> >not of claims that sky pixies exist.
>
> I was referring to neurotheology and neurophilosophy.
> Look them up in Wiki.
> Those pixie claims are complete confabulations based on brain
> functions and 'our' need for stories.

This is not unlike some Chomsky I've been trying to digest, where he
claims that linguistic patterns are fixed; essentially prewired.

Who will deny ego? Somewhere between the god gene and a claim of the
ego's connection to god is a great way to derail a human. How many
permutations of these as primitives could we engage in? Narcissism is
right nearby isn't it? It would be better to assume a position that is
subject to falsification, rather than take such an isolated stance.

All of human knowledge is constructed. If it is in a book then it is
constructed out of words which were created by the human. The
condition of scientific knowledge is limited to belief. Science merely
means a strong belief; a belief with some support. Empirical implies
experimental, whereas theoretical implies a deeper construction. These
have become grayed out in modern science where often the best that can
be done is curve fitting, which to me is not at all a theoretical
basis.

Back on language: to what degree is science stunted by linguistic
limitation? Consider that the word 'charge' has undergone a change in
meaning over time, and that this moving meaning of a constant word may
not be done moving. This is obviously a very confusing problem; one
that does argue for a scholium type of treatment within the texts,
which we rarely see anymore.

There are confounded places within physics now due to these changes.
The isotropic reliance of relativity theory contradicts it's own
asymmetrical metric. The isotropic charge which was assumed by Maxwell
is not the electron charge that we are taught in modernity, which
includes a spin and so has additional geometry of an anisotropic
nature. These are matters that are difficult to find clean discussion
on and physics has come to accept its own contradictions; an
unscientific philosophy. We struggle to find the truth. It is an open
problem, and this is the best part of the scientific attitude; not the
attitude that what is published and has been published is true. The
ladder collapses sometimes, and if it does not then the farther it
climbs the shakier it gets. The rapidity of the growth is not helping
the integrity. We live with false assumptions and exposing them is not
a straightforward procedure. Somehow we keep trying in the hope that
it will all come out cleanly. What else is there to do?

- Tim
From: Sir Frederick Martin on 22 May 2010 11:58
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:32:17 -0700 (PDT), "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttpppggg(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>On May 22, 7:18 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...(a)fuzzysys.com>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:35:21 -0700 (PDT), Don Martin <drdonmar...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>> >On May 20, 1:59 pm, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...(a)fuzzysys.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:40:45 -0700 (PDT), Don Martin <drdonmar...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >On May 19, 9:30 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Traditionally religion has marked off what science should not be
>> >> >> concerned with;
>>
>> >> >Science should be concerned with anything for which there is
>> >> >evidence. It is unlikely to examine the claims of religion any time
>> >> >soon.
>>
>> >> The neural basis of all religious experiences and the social
>> >> structures thereof are all valid evidence studies.
>>
>> >But that is the study of human physiology, psychology, and sociology,
>> >not of claims that sky pixies exist.
>>
>> I was referring to neurotheology and neurophilosophy.
>> Look them up in Wiki.
>> Those pixie claims are complete confabulations based on brain
>> functions and 'our' need for stories.
>
>This is not unlike some Chomsky I've been trying to digest, where he
>claims that linguistic patterns are fixed; essentially prewired.
>
>Who will deny ego? Somewhere between the god gene and a claim of the
>ego's connection to god is a great way to derail a human. How many
>permutations of these as primitives could we engage in? Narcissism is
>right nearby isn't it? It would be better to assume a position that is
>subject to falsification, rather than take such an isolated stance.
>
>All of human knowledge is constructed. If it is in a book then it is
>constructed out of words which were created by the human. The
>condition of scientific knowledge is limited to belief. Science merely
>means a strong belief; a belief with some support. Empirical implies
>experimental, whereas theoretical implies a deeper construction. These
>have become grayed out in modern science where often the best that can
>be done is curve fitting, which to me is not at all a theoretical
>basis.
>
>Back on language: to what degree is science stunted by linguistic
>limitation? Consider that the word 'charge' has undergone a change in
>meaning over time, and that this moving meaning of a constant word may
>not be done moving. This is obviously a very confusing problem; one
>that does argue for a scholium type of treatment within the texts,
>which we rarely see anymore.
>
>There are confounded places within physics now due to these changes.
>The isotropic reliance of relativity theory contradicts it's own
>asymmetrical metric. The isotropic charge which was assumed by Maxwell
>is not the electron charge that we are taught in modernity, which
>includes a spin and so has additional geometry of an anisotropic
>nature. These are matters that are difficult to find clean discussion
>on and physics has come to accept its own contradictions; an
>unscientific philosophy. We struggle to find the truth. It is an open
>problem, and this is the best part of the scientific attitude; not the
>attitude that what is published and has been published is true. The
>ladder collapses sometimes, and if it does not then the farther it
>climbs the shakier it gets. The rapidity of the growth is not helping
>the integrity. We live with false assumptions and exposing them is not
>a straightforward procedure. Somehow we keep trying in the hope that
>it will all come out cleanly. What else is there to do?
>
> - Tim

'We' could at least study 'our' 'own' human condition
constraints as well! That includes all : hubris, brain structure,
ego, linguistics, putative higher 'dimensions and information
structures', 'purpose' or lack thereof, etc.
From: Monsieur Turtoni on 22 May 2010 13:14
On May 22, 11:32 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On May 22, 7:18 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...(a)fuzzysys.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:35:21 -0700 (PDT), Don Martin <drdonmar...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> > >On May 20, 1:59 pm, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...(a)fuzzysys.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:40:45 -0700 (PDT), Don Martin <drdonmar...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> >On May 19, 9:30 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >> Traditionally religion has marked off what science should not be
> > >> >> concerned with;
>
> > >> >Science should be concerned with anything for which there is
> > >> >evidence.  It is unlikely to examine the claims of religion any time
> > >> >soon.
>
> > >> The neural basis of all religious experiences and the social
> > >> structures thereof are all valid evidence studies.
>
> > >But that is the study of human physiology, psychology, and sociology,
> > >not of claims that sky pixies exist.
>
> > I was referring to neurotheology and neurophilosophy.
> > Look them up in Wiki.
> > Those pixie claims are complete confabulations based on brain
> > functions and 'our' need for stories.
>
> This is not unlike some Chomsky I've been trying to digest, where he
> claims that linguistic patterns are fixed; essentially prewired.
>
> Who will deny ego? Somewhere between the god gene and a claim of the
> ego's connection to god is a great way to derail a human. How many
> permutations of these as primitives could we engage in? Narcissism is
> right nearby isn't it? It would be better to assume a position that is
> subject to falsification, rather than take such an isolated stance.
>
> All of human knowledge is constructed. If it is in a book then it is
> constructed out of words which were created by the human. The
> condition of scientific knowledge is limited to belief. Science merely
> means a strong belief; a belief with some support. Empirical implies
> experimental, whereas theoretical implies a deeper construction. These
> have become grayed out in modern science where often the best that can
> be done is curve fitting, which to me is not at all a theoretical
> basis.
>
> Back on language: to what degree is science stunted by linguistic
> limitation? Consider that the word 'charge' has undergone a change in
> meaning over time, and that this moving meaning of a constant word may
> not be done moving. This is obviously a very confusing problem; one
> that does argue for a scholium type of treatment within the texts,
> which we rarely see anymore.
>
> There are confounded places within physics now due to these changes.
> The isotropic reliance of relativity theory contradicts it's own
> asymmetrical metric. The isotropic charge which was assumed by Maxwell
> is not the electron charge that we are taught in modernity, which
> includes a spin and so has additional geometry of an anisotropic
> nature. These are matters that are difficult to find clean discussion
> on and physics has come to accept its own contradictions; an
> unscientific philosophy. We struggle to find the truth. It is an open
> problem, and this is the best part of the scientific attitude; not the
> attitude that what is published and has been published is true. The
> ladder collapses sometimes, and if it does not then the farther it
> climbs the shakier it gets. The rapidity of the growth is not helping
> the integrity. We live with false assumptions and exposing them is not
> a straightforward procedure. Somehow we keep trying in the hope that
> it will all come out cleanly. What else is there to do?
>
>  - Tim

Any *real* revolution in the human condition can likely only occur
with a totally new adoption of more useful tools. For example, a new
"language". This will probably happen via technology. I imagine our
individual consciousness's will be transmitted in some new way between
each other, although this sounds a little scary (the borg springs to
mind), it could open up a whole new world.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: If You Don't Like Header Changing, Take Action!
Next: $50,000 for KILLING FBI, CIA, NSA and NIS DIRECTORS