The 21st Century

  • 21 Replies
  • 9236 Views
The 21st Century
« on: August 02, 2005, 03:10:42 AM »
Greetings,

I found this website while searching for information about when, in recorded history, the majority of people on our little blue planet believed it was flat.

While it is interesting to know that there are those among us in the 21st Century who still believe the earth is flat, it is not so surprising. After all, how many of us currently live from day to day completely aware that we are at cause over all of our experiences? How many even know what that means?

How many of us have figured out that the thousands of seemingly unimportant thoughts and emotions - many negative and fearful - that run rampant through our minds from the moment we awaken in the morning, till we fall asleep at night, are setting in motion future events that will allow us to experience the consequences of those thoughts and emotions? How many of you, on this forum, are aware of your true power as co-creators on this earth?

I venture to guess, that those who crudely slander this group using words loaded with hatred, anger, or disgust can count themselves among yet another group who have no understanding of the laws of attraction; of cause and effect; of the interconnectedness of all of life, and therefore… of all beings.

This is also not surprising.

After all, being pinpointed in time by means of a physical body tends to restrict our viewpoint. It makes us believe that we are separate from, and therefore independent of all others; that life is coming at us from some mysterious outside force.

In reality, life streams from you, out into the world.

All life is energy. You are an energetic being who is energetically connected to every other human being on the planet – at all times. These “others” are attracted to you by the very nature of your energetic though forms. Furthermore, you are constantly causing atomic particles to vibrate and arrange themselves according to those same thought forms. Your most predominant thoughts and feelings become the blueprint from which the Universe generates your experiences.

So I would consider carefully what you are asking the Universe to provide you, when you send hatred, anger, or disgust outward from your person. You will be given the perfect opportunity to experience just that, in some form… in your own life.

In Light,

Merlin

The 21st Century
« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2005, 10:01:58 AM »
Live and let live...

?

WTF

  • 256
Re: The 21st Century
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2005, 03:12:43 PM »
What the heck is your point?  And do you have any support for your statements, such as:

Quote from: "Merlin"

All life is energy. You are an energetic being who is energetically connected to every other human being on the planet – at all times. These “others” are attracted to you by the very nature of your energetic though forms.


?

Re: The 21st Century
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2005, 11:10:37 PM »
Quote from: "WTF"
What the heck is your point?  And do you have any support for your statements, such as:

Quote from: "Merlin"

All life is energy. You are an energetic being who is energetically connected to every other human being on the planet – at all times. These “others” are attracted to you by the very nature of your energetic though forms.


?


WTF

My point is compassion. Have a little for those who think differently; it is necessary for the evolution of consciousness.

As for the support, if you have a predisposition for continuous higher learning, the Universe will make available to you all the knowledge you can handle. Otherwise, you will likely resist every idea that goes against what you've been taught, and nothing I could ever say would convince you. In the latter case, I would not even try.

However, if you're serious about finding the truth of the matter, and feel that I may be of some service to you, I will gladly point you in a direction.

Merlin

?

WTF

  • 256
Re: The 21st Century
« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2005, 04:46:05 AM »
Quote from: "Merlin"

 if you have a predisposition for continuous higher learning, the Universe will make available to you all the knowledge you can handle.


Um, how is that exactly?  You might want to define "continuous higher learning" because I have a feeling your definition differs from mine.

Quote
Otherwise, you will likely resist every idea that goes against what you've been taught, and nothing I could ever say would convince you. In the latter case, I would not even try.


This is pretty uninformed.  I have full confidence in the process of science, and science is ALL ABOUT disproving its own hypotheses.  Ever heard of the Nobel Prize?  The most sure-fire way to earn one is to overthrow a commonly accepted scientific theory.  Scientists are not only open to going against what they are taught, many of them work every day to do so.

Quote
However, if you're serious about finding the truth of the matter, and feel that I may be of some service to you, I will gladly point you in a direction.


Sorry, I don't think you'd be of much service to me in finding any truth.  I've never been a fan of metaphysical/transcendental ambiguities

The 21st Century
« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2005, 10:23:44 AM »
WTF,

Higher learning is: Education or academic accomplishment at the college or university level. Continuous was the keyword however. Some of us are inclined to put aside such matters after graduation.

When I stated that "if you yourself are predisposed to continuous higher learning, the Universe will make available to you all the knowledge you can handle" I was loosely suggesting that you seek out the answers for yourself.

To clarify, a person inclined to continue their higher education all throughout their life would research a new idea before pushing it aside. Whereas, someone with no interest in higher learning - on a continual bases, would likely resist a new idea that runs counter to their accepted view. So I say “In the latter case, I would not even try”.

Fan or not, a great teacher once said “I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, Go, throw yourself to the sea, and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and  it will be yours.” Quantum Mechanics is showing why this is true.

You are right RTF, I have no truth for you. But it is out there. Should you lean towards it, it will reciprocate.

Good Speed,

Merlin

?

WTF

  • 256
The 21st Century
« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2005, 04:27:22 PM »
Quote from: "Merlin"
WTF,

Higher learning is: Education or academic accomplishment at the college or university level. Continuous was the keyword however. Some of us are inclined to put aside such matters after graduation.


Ok, gotcha.

Quote
When I stated that "if you yourself are predisposed to continuous higher learning, the Universe will make available to you all the knowledge you can handle" I was loosely suggesting that you seek out the answers for yourself.


Ok, gotcha

Quote
To clarify, a person inclined to continue their higher education all throughout their life would research a new idea before pushing it aside. Whereas, someone with no interest in higher learning - on a continual bases, would likely resist a new idea that runs counter to their accepted view. So I say “In the latter case, I would not even try”.


Ok, here is where there is a problem.  If you (the general sense "you") truly want to learn anything significant, you have to learn the appropriate places to do this research you suggest.  There is only so much time you have on this planet, and it's not possible to research every idea "for yourself".  You'd die before you even scratched the surface of every field of discipline.  This is why that in order to make progress, once certain truths are established beyond reasonable doubt, you cease investigating them.
The shape of the earth far, far, far exceeds those requirements.  To even begin to accept such a theory, you must for example:
1)  create a world-wide conspiracy involving millions of people, across dozens or hundreds of industries, and involving a number of governments.
2) Throw entire fields of science with proven success out the window.  For example, an impossibly small sun, an impossible formed planet, an impossibly contained atmosphere, etc.

And so on.  It isn't reasonable.  This battle is over, and if someone is really interested in any kind of significant truth they see this topic matter and move on to something that isn't so obvious.

Quote
Fan or not, a great teacher once said “I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, Go, throw yourself to the sea, and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and  it will be yours.” Quantum Mechanics is showing why this is true.


I'm not sure how QM relates.  Expand on that?

The 21st Century
« Reply #7 on: August 04, 2005, 04:04:02 AM »
Quote from: "WTF"

Ok, here is where there is a problem.  If you (the general sense "you") truly want to learn anything significant, you have to learn the appropriate places to do this research you suggest.  There is only so much time you have on this planet, and it's not possible to research every idea "for yourself".  You'd die before you even scratched the surface of every field of discipline.  This is why that in order to make progress, once certain truths are established beyond reasonable doubt, you cease investigating them.


Very true indeed. But remember, our discussion began when you challenged my views on energy, and how it connects us together. From my point of view, you would not have challenged my statements if you knew them to be true. Therefore I concluded, that at least on that subject matter, you were not actively pursuing a higher understanding. I apologize if my assumptions were incorrect.

It is also worth noting, that I was not implying that I, or anyone else for that matter, was capable of studying every known discipline. I choose the things I want to learn, and they generally have led me to other studies… which lead me to even more and varied subjects. For me, learning is a continuous movement…. but that is not to say that I continuously study every subject known to man – just the important ones. ;-)
 
Quote from: "WTF"

The shape of the earth far, far, far exceeds those requirements.  To even begin to accept such a theory, you must for example:
1)  create a world-wide conspiracy involving millions of people, across dozens or hundreds of industries, and involving a number of governments.
2) Throw entire fields of science with proven success out the window.  For example, an impossibly small sun, an impossible formed planet, an impossibly contained atmosphere, etc.

And so on.  It isn't reasonable.  This battle is over, and if someone is really interested in any kind of significant truth they see this topic matter and move on to something that isn't so obvious.


Bravo!! Well said. This battle is over.

I know this forum is just beginning, but how far back does it go? From what I’ve read, there are no serious discussions between “flat-earthers’ about the dynamics of a flat earth. There is only “us” and “them”, locked in a heated battle of wits. I’m beginning to feel that we have been duped; that this forum was started as a hoax to see what would happen. (You build it, they will come)

If I am wrong however, and this forum was started by true believers of a flat earth; so that like minded individuals may congregate and discuss issues that are important to them, then I’m sure my thread has become a source of diversion, and needs to end.

Quote from: "WTF"
Quote from: "Merlin"

Fan or not, a great teacher once said “I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, Go, throw yourself to the sea, and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and  it will be yours.” Quantum Mechanics is showing why this is true.



I'm not sure how QM relates.  Expand on that?


Bare with me - when I was in the 3rd grade, I was given my first “hands on” lesson in mind over matter. Our teacher told us we were going to play a game. She did not go into detail, she simply placed a girl in a small chair in the middle of the room. Four other students, one being myself, was asked to participate. With two of us on each side of the girl, who was sitting in the chair, we were asked to kneel down beside her, and place the index finger of each hand between her and the chair. We were told to relax, close our eyes, and imagine we were lifting the girl up. After a short time, four little children lifted this girl out of her seat with no effort whatsoever, about six inches. I remember being amazed at how light she was; I couldn’t feel her weight on my fingers.

Quantum Physics is the study of the building blocks of the universe, and Quantum Mechanics is its underlying framework – it's all about energy. Your body is made up of cells, which are made up of molecules, which are made up of atoms, which are made up of subatomic particles. All subatomic particles can be considered as bundles of energy. You are literally made up of energy. Everything around you is made up of energy. Thought is energy. Intent is energy. As children, our minds had not yet been corrupted by the numerous limitations of the adult mindset. We had no doubts, and lifted the girl effortlessly, with nothing more than Intent.

The famous Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics implies that if given enough time, something can be created from nothing - because particles can appear in places where they have no right to be.

You may want to Google these search terms:

Quantum Entanglement - http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/quantum/
Zero Point Field - http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

Also:
William A Tiller – Physicist - http://www.tiller.org/

I could go on, but I feel this thread has probably gone too far, as it has nothing to do with the subject matter of the forum.

Merlin

The 21st Century
« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2005, 05:47:19 AM »
I think this forum has everything to do with exploiting peoples general intolerance of competing beliefs (genuine or otherwise) to have a bit of sport.

This thread is only unusual in not having decayed into invective after a couple of posts.

?

WTF

  • 256
The 21st Century
« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2005, 07:27:07 PM »
Quote
Very true indeed. But remember, our discussion began when you challenged my views on energy, and how it connects us together. From my point of view, you would not have challenged my statements if you knew them to be true. Therefore I concluded, that at least on that subject matter, you were not actively pursuing a higher understanding. I apologize if my assumptions were incorrect.


The assumption here that I think is flawed, is your assumption that you are right beyond any doubt.  I have that same assumption in a round earth, but I present multiple independent lines of evidence to support my claim.  You briefly mentioned QM, but didn't explain how that supports your claim.  To my knowledge, it doesn't.  You expand on that a bit below in the thread, so let's take a look in a bit...

Quote
It is also worth noting, that I was not implying that I, or anyone else for that matter, was capable of studying every known discipline. I choose the things I want to learn, and they generally have led me to other studies… which lead me to even more and varied subjects. For me, learning is a continuous movement…. but that is not to say that I continuously study every subject known to man – just the important ones. ;-)


Works for me
 
Quote
I know this forum is just beginning, but how far back does it go? From what I’ve read, there are no serious discussions between “flat-earthers’ about the dynamics of a flat earth. There is only “us” and “them”, locked in a heated battle of wits. I’m beginning to feel that we have been duped; that this forum was started as a hoax to see what would happen. (You build it, they will come)


There is nothing I'd love more than for one of these flat-earthers to engage in a "serious" discussion about a flat earth.  But go read the posts.  I continually try and pin down their specific arguments, the specific arrangments, the specific predictions, and I point out specific violations of known, widely accepted science.  Their position is filled with fallacy and the only method to argue it without "losing" within a post or 2 is to remain as vague as possible.


Quote
Bare with me - when I was in the 3rd grade, I was given my first “hands on” lesson in mind over matter. Our teacher told us we were going to play a game. She did not go into detail, she simply placed a girl in a small chair in the middle of the room. Four other students, one being myself, was asked to participate. With two of us on each side of the girl, who was sitting in the chair, we were asked to kneel down beside her, and place the index finger of each hand between her and the chair. We were told to relax, close our eyes, and imagine we were lifting the girl up. After a short time, four little children lifted this girl out of her seat with no effort whatsoever, about six inches. I remember being amazed at how light she was; I couldn’t feel her weight on my fingers.


I'm sure you believe this to be true; but I don't.  If it can't be repeated for any arbitrary observer, it's much more likely that your interpretation of what happened is wrong.

Quote
Quantum Physics is the study of the building blocks of the universe, and Quantum Mechanics is its underlying framework – it's all about energy. Your body is made up of cells, which are made up of molecules, which are made up of atoms, which are made up of subatomic particles. All subatomic particles can be considered as bundles of energy. You are literally made up of energy. Everything around you is made up of energy. Thought is energy. Intent is energy. As children, our minds had not yet been corrupted by the numerous limitations of the adult mindset. We had no doubts, and lifted the girl effortlessly, with nothing more than Intent.


Everything has wave-like properties and particle-like properties. (The Principle of Wave-Particle Duality) It's just that at the macroscopic scales (and slow speeds) we are used to, the wave properties are negligible.  But as a particle's size approaches it's wavelength, these wave  properties become more dominant.  I think you are stretching this theory way too far though, in claiming that everything "is" energy, and everything is connected, and so on.  It sounds like you are speaking in terms of metaphysics, not physics, unless you are misunderstanding what QM really predicts.  I am just not following the logical leaps you are making, there is a whole lot missing in the middle to come to such conclusions.
Don't forget; QM is a point-particle theory.

Quote
The famous Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics implies that if given enough time, something can be created from nothing - because particles can appear in places where they have no right to be.


Yeah, I'm not sure how this relates.  You don't even need to stipulate "given enough time" really, because this isn't an unusual occurance.  (according to QM, and backed experimentally)Space is filled with newly created particle pairs, but they quickly annihilate each other.  They live on borrowed time (and energy).  But again, I'm not sure how this relates.

I think you are just taking some basic ideas in QM and expanding them to mean things they do not.  Not that I'm an expert either.

The 21st Century
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2005, 01:01:04 AM »
Hang on, this is going to get bumpy…

You see WTF, what we have here is a failure to communicate. I laid down my initial post as is; in an effort to reach those who were already developed enough to comprehend my meaning, not to teach those who were not. You are obviously among the “Not” group, but are hell bent on trying to get me to explain it to you anyway - and you have gone about it in a very crude manor. Here’s the thing: if you were capable of understanding the concepts in my first post, you would not have asked the question “What the heck is your point”. So I assumed I was dealing with someone who had no prior experience with those concepts. I tried to be cordial however, and offered to point you in a direction. Your response was to scoff and insult me… how predictable!

It is not my responsibility to teach you complex concepts, all of which, are apparently new to you. You seem to have a good mind, but your development in other areas is painfully lax. This being the case, it is highly unlikely that you and I would ever find ourselves sitting down discussing the human condition in real life, so why do it here? I’m simply not interested.

Instead of wasting my time with another “breakdown” of our miscommunication, why don’t you open another browser window into your favorite search engine, and copy and paste the concepts you don’t understand into the search box… and find the truth yourself?

Now that I think about it, I don’t believe you really care to understand any of the things you keep asking me to explain; I believe your agenda all along was to debunk them. I can point you in that direction as well: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html#main

Thanks for your little Quantum Physics lesson, now let me share this with you:

Before the birth of Quantum Physics, there were the Laws of Thermodynamics. The first law states that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. However, it can not be created nor destroyed. Einstein’s formula E=mc˛ shows us that energy and matter are interchangeable at the atomic level. Energy and matter can be converted into each other, ergo, they are different forms of the same thing. So the first law applies to both matter and energy. This is probably the most fundamental law of nature. It applies to all systems; small or large; simple or complex; living or inanimate. It is believed that this law has never been violated anywhere in the Universe. No new physical theory is ever proposed without first checking to see whether it upholds this law.

Can we agree that the monitor or LCD screen you are using to read this post is a type of matter? And can we also agree that all matter is made of molecules which are in turn made up of atoms? How about that atoms are composed of sub-atomic particles know as protons, electrons, and neutrons? Or that protons and neutrons cluster together at the central part of the atom known as the nucleus, and the electron orbits the nucleus? So while you're reading this sentence, image that at the sub-atomic level, your monitor is this one big mass of sub-atomic particles. What are they doing? Are they sitting still? It sure looks that way doesn’t it? But they are not. Your monitor and all of its parts are vibrating at a given frequency in accordance with their molecular structures. The same thing is going on in your body, your house, and your car… heck, it’s happening to everyone, and every thing.

But here is where I draw the line:
I refuse to enter into a discussion on the dynamics of  consciousness, thought, or intent, and their inherent ability to affect physical systems with someone who has no background on the subjects. It would be an exercise in futility. Besides, my first post gives you plenty of research material should you lean in that direction… which I doubt.

So say your little piece, and then I’m going to try and let this thread die and move on.

Good day,

Merlin

?

WTF

  • 256
The 21st Century
« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2005, 03:13:53 PM »
Quote from: "Merlin"


You see WTF, what we have here is a failure to communicate. I laid down my initial post as is; in an effort to reach those who were already developed enough to comprehend my meaning, not to teach those who were not.


But what if you are wrong?  If you can't support your arguments, or fill in the extremely large gaps in the middle of your logic, it seems to me that you really don't know what you are talking about.  You can't just post a link that doesn't support your argument in an obvious way (or at all) and think the job is done.  You have to explain it.

Quote
You are obviously among the “Not” group, but are hell bent on trying to get me to explain it to you anyway - and you have gone about it in a very crude manor. Here’s the thing: if you were capable of understanding the concepts in my first post, you would not have asked the question “What the heck is your point”.


Half of what you say is more metaphysics than physics.  It's vague.  It needs some definitions and explanations.  

Quote
So I assumed I was dealing with someone who had no prior experience with those concepts. I tried to be cordial however, and offered to point you in a direction. Your response was to scoff and insult me… how predictable!


You're wrong on that.  I'm no expert on QM, but I've read a couple books that mention it in part, and a couple books that are dedicated specifically to it.  If you managed to refrain from extreme vagueness and map out your logic, I could show you where you are wrong.  If you are not interested in doing that, I really don't care.  Move on then, like you say you want to.  Just don't expect anyone to believe what you are saying.

Quote
It is not my responsibility to teach you complex concepts


That's fortunate.  I'm going to skip the rest of your rant part and just get down to the science part.

Quote
Before the birth of Quantum Physics, there were the Laws of Thermodynamics.


....and after...

Quote
The first law states that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. However, it can not be created nor destroyed. Einstein’s formula E=mc˛ shows us that energy and matter are interchangeable at the atomic level. Energy and matter can be converted into each other, ergo, they are different forms of the same thing. So the first law applies to both matter and energy.


I realize that...

Quote
This is probably the most fundamental law of nature. It applies to all systems; small or large; simple or complex; living or inanimate. It is believed that this law has never been violated anywhere in the Universe. No new physical theory is ever proposed without first checking to see whether it upholds this law.

Can we agree that the monitor or LCD screen you are using to read this post is a type of matter? And can we also agree that all matter is made of molecules which are in turn made up of atoms? How about that atoms are composed of sub-atomic particles know as protons, electrons, and neutrons? Or that protons and neutrons cluster together at the central part of the atom known as the nucleus, and the electron orbits the nucleus? So while you're reading this sentence, image that at the sub-atomic level, your monitor is this one big mass of sub-atomic particles. What are they doing? Are they sitting still? It sure looks that way doesn’t it? But they are not. Your monitor and all of its parts are vibrating at a given frequency in accordance with their molecular structures. The same thing is going on in your body, your house, and your car… heck, it’s happening to everyone, and every thing.


ok...

Quote
But here is where I draw the line:
I refuse to enter into a discussion on the dynamics of  consciousness, thought, or intent, and their inherent ability to affect physical systems with someone who has no background on the subjects. It would be an exercise in futility. Besides, my first post gives you plenty of research material should you lean in that direction… which I doubt.

So say your little piece, and then I’m going to try and let this thread die and move on.

Good day,

Merlin


I'm not sure why you are so pissed, or what you feel insulted.  I've insulted people before, but I haven't yet insulted you like you have me.  I have merely disagreed with your conclusions.  As far as the science...

That's all super.  I don't disagree with any of it - it's basic shit.  So again, I fail to see your point.  None of that has anything to do with thought, or "mind over matter", or the nature of consciousness, or anything of the sort.

However, you can't use science to defend magic(unless there's some as-of-yet undiscovered force that the mind can manipulate.  You have a nobel prize around the corner I am sure, if you can prove that).  You talk about some science, but fail to extend it in any of the critical areas necessary to accept your more far-fetched claims.

The 21st Century
« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2005, 08:52:44 PM »
Fascinating!

Apparently no one else on this “Flat Earth Society” forum wants to talk about the ideas I laid down in my original post. Just you WTF. Why is that? Oh that’s right, it’s a flat earth forum! Perhaps I was out of line by posting here, but my intentions were good.

Based on your previous posts, I see that you despise all things that take on a metaphysical air - so why would you want to engage someone in a discussion on the fundamental nature of reality? You don’t really want to discuss this stuff, do you? You think you’ve found another “metaphysical” airhead, and you are dying to take a stance against him, aren’t you?

The “basic shit” as you so eloquently put it, along with Quantum Entanglement, and Zero Point Energy should have given you plenty of research material, but you’d rather I try to squeeze 23 years of my personal studies into a few lines on the pages of a forum for Flat Earthers. You can’t be serious!!

You and I are not going to have that conversation my friend, unless there is an explosion of interest from a significant number of  people on this forum.

I can see them lining up now to chime in.

?

WTF

  • 256
The 21st Century
« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2005, 09:50:05 PM »
It's not my job to research your claims.  It's your job to support them, at least if they are outlandish.  And whether you are right or wrong, you have to admit they are not common.
But, like I said...I really don't care if you choose to support them or not.  Honestly.

I don't "despise all things that take on a metaphysical air" - not at all.  Why would you think that?  But if someone tries to pass them off as science, they are wrong.  Just like when people try to pass off Creationism as science, or Intelligent Design as science.  None of the above qualifies as science, nor do stories about levitating schoolchildren, all life being connected, or "mind over matter".   Here, you make what I would dub metaphysical (or some plain old outlandish) statements and then you claim that QM backs you up - which it doesn't.  You then go on to claim that because I disagree with you, I lack understanding of the topic matter.  You'll have to forgive me if I find that a bit ridiculous.
If I'm mistaken and QM does indeed support your claims, feel free to correct me.   But like I said, it's not my job to make your case for you.

The 21st Century
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2005, 11:09:40 PM »
Very well written!

Not common huh.... well, I seem to remember a time when it was not so common to view the earth as a sphere, and now look how far we’ve come. ;-)

You’ve made several negative connotations regarding metaphysics, what else was I to assume?
------------------------
Science:
a.   The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b.   Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c.   Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
·  Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
·  An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
·  Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
------------------------
I can certainly understand your aversion to someone trying to pass off Creationism or Intelligent Design as fact, but it doesn’t mean that scientific research was not undertaken in an effort to support those conclusions... although I suspect that ontological, rather than empirical scientific methodologies were used to formulate them.

Now, stories of levitating children, all life being connected, and mind over matter were never passed off as “science”. I never used that word. What I said, was that QM was showing why it is possible that a man could move a mountain. I’m 41 years old, so it is possible that my memory of third grade is a little foggy, but for you to flat out say that you don’t believe it to be true, is perhaps the easiest; most used debunk of all time.

Research is ongoing at Princeton University, which does relate Quantum Mechanics to mind over matter; I didn’t just make that up. See for yourself: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/ (This research is still in its infancy in my opinion)

Do you believe that consciousness is evolving?

I think your disagreeing with me is very healthy, what I am concerned about is whether you intend to meet me on the same level to discuss this topic seriously, or whether your interests are to debunk every claim automatically simply because it goes against the current educated view.

?

WTF

  • 256
The 21st Century
« Reply #15 on: August 06, 2005, 08:48:05 AM »
Quote from: "Merlin"

Not common huh.... well, I seem to remember a time when it was not so common to view the earth as a sphere, and now look how far we’ve come. ;-)


Certainly true.  But that doesn't mean every "not so common" view is bound for greatness, or that they don't require detailed explanation.



Quote
I can certainly understand your aversion to someone trying to pass off Creationism or Intelligent Design as fact, but it doesn’t mean that scientific research was not undertaken in an effort to support those conclusions... although I suspect that ontological, rather than empirical scientific methodologies were used to formulate them.


Well, if you are doing experiments to try and prove something that is not a scientific theory, you are not doing science.  This probably isn't too an important a point and I have no problem agreeing to disagree on it.  But in science you start with evidence, and formulate a theory to explain the evidence.  You figure out predictions and consequences of your theory, and set out to try and disprove any and all of them.  If you fail to do so, your theory has support.  If you falsify a prediction, your theory must be modified or discarded.
The problem with ID/Creation is they start with the conclusion, and try to shoehorn data to support it while ignoring the rest.  It does not start with evidence, it starts with a conclusion.  Can anyone tell me what evidence exists that would lead one to propose ID/Creation?  Then, why is ID/Creation a better proposal than the theory of evolution for that evidence?  What testable predictions does it make?  How can we go about falsifying it?  In my experience, people argue for ID and Creation in such a way as to make it unfalsifiable.  That characteristic by itself makes it not science.  Those questions all need answers before anyone can claim that it's science.

Quote
Now, stories of levitating children, all life being connected, and mind over matter were never passed off as “science”. I never used that word.


Ok, perhaps I misunderstood you.

Quote
What I said, was that QM was showing why it is possible that a man could move a mountain.


Ok...how?  QM deals with the microscopic.  While it is certainly possible for a mountain to spontaneously move, it would require an identical quantum effect of each and every molecule in the mountain at the same time.  The chances of that happening are statistically insignificant in the truest sense of the word, and are unrelated to what humans do.  Which theory are you saying supports this conclusion, and how?  I'm not just saying this to argue like you seem to think.  I don't believe you are correct, but if you ARE correct I'd like to know about it.

Quote
I’m 41 years old, so it is possible that my memory of third grade is a little foggy, but for you to flat out say that you don’t believe it to be true, is perhaps the easiest; most used debunk of all time.


Fair enough, but personal testimony isn't useful.  A Christian may say he has personal experience with God, but that doesn't mean much to anyone else.  Whether I believe your claim or not it doesn't matter, because the nature of the evidence is shaky all the same.

Quote
Research is ongoing at Princeton University, which does relate Quantum Mechanics to mind over matter; I didn’t just make that up. See for yourself: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/ (This research is still in its infancy in my opinion)


Ah here we go.  Gonna click over now...

Well, the first thing I noticed is the publication their paper on human/machine interaction is featured in.  Seeing the Journal of Scientific Exploration does not fill me with hope, as I could easily see their paper published between articles about UFO's on one side, and Bigfoot on the other.  In fact after browsing over PEAR's list of published material, almost all of it is found in this journal.
Well after seeing this warning sign, I did a little googling and saw that there are a lot of criticisms of PEAR's methodology.  Some suspect they fudge data, some suspect they use sloppy methods which influence results, and so on.  One example of a PEAR critique is here

In fact, some are so confident that their methods are inadequate and results untrue, that the PEAR group's research has been challenged such that if PEAR can repeat it (the hallmark of science and an absolute requirement of science), they can claim a one-million dollar prize.  PEAR has declined The JREF challenge. I just don't buy it.  PEAR seems like another RATE to me.

Is there any work published in more reputable peer reviewed journals, that doesn't have seemingly questionable procedures?  Even if their work is largely fair, I have a hard time accepting it as such given some of reasons I've mentioned.

Quote
Do you believe that consciousness is evolving?


What do you mean exactly? Do I think that genes which control various properties of the brain are subject to mutation and selection?  Sure.  To what degree you can call this selection "natural" is up for debate but ignoring that issue, then I guess I'd answer yes.  

Quote
I think your disagreeing with me is very healthy, what I am concerned about is whether you intend to meet me on the same level to discuss this topic seriously, or whether your interests are to debunk every claim automatically simply because it goes against the current educated view.


I am a supporter of science, and an opponent of pseudoscience.  The conclusions drawn are of little consequence to me because I know how powerful the scientific method is.  Any amount of analysis of the world around us is testimony to the power of science.  There are frequent challenges to the accepted views, so I have no problem with that.  As long as there is evidence-based reason to do so.

The 21st Century
« Reply #16 on: August 06, 2005, 01:27:38 PM »
Quote from: "WTF"
Well, if you are doing experiments to try and prove something that is not a scientific theory, you are not doing science.  This probably isn't too an important a point and I have no problem agreeing to disagree on it.  But in science you start with evidence, and formulate a theory to explain the evidence.  You figure out predictions and consequences of your theory, and set out to try and disprove any and all of them.  If you fail to do so, your theory has support.  If you falsify a prediction, your theory must be modified or discarded.
The problem with ID/Creation is they start with the conclusion, and try to shoehorn data to support it while ignoring the rest.  It does not start with evidence, it starts with a conclusion.  Can anyone tell me what evidence exists that would lead one to propose ID/Creation?  Then, why is ID/Creation a better proposal than the theory of evolution for that evidence?  What testable predictions does it make?  How can we go about falsifying it?  In my experience, people argue for ID and Creation in such a way as to make it unfalsifiable.  That characteristic by itself makes it not science.  Those questions all need answers before anyone can claim that it's science.


My goodness how you do love to rattle on... didn't you bother to read the last sentence? I suspect that Ontological was their method of choice. This is precisely why I knew better than to get involved in a ridiculous forum debate. I will have to spend most of my energy trying to correct misinterpretations, or deal with the inability of my debating partner to interpret anything for him/herself; anything that is not already laid down in some book or scientific study. There is no scientific evidence for God either WTF, so are you telling us that you don’t believe in a Source, or Higher Power, or the Underlying Intelligence of the Universe?

Quote
…I'm not just saying this to argue like you seem to think.


Of course you are. I can see your intelligence from your words – you can string them together coherently enough, but what I can't see anywhere in your writing, is your development as a free thinking being. In other words, you don’t seem to be able to readily draw connections between physical reality, consciousness, and being – on your own. You do not write like a free thinker, so I assume if something is not founded in current scientific evidence, it is not real to you.

Well, think on this: “sometime around 440 or 470 BCE, Leucippus of Miletus (some believe it was Democritus) originated the concept of the Atom. That idea was strongly opposed by Aristotle and other scholars. Because of this, the atom receded into the background. Although there is a fairly continuous pattern of atomistic thought through the ages, only a relatively few scholars gave it much thought”.

Only a few scholars gave it much thought… why? Because there was no scientific evidence at that time to support it. More then 2000 years “of no scientific evidence” later, John Dalton introduced the atom idea on a solid scientific basis. In 1897, J.J. Thomson's discovery of the electron showed us that the atom had an internal structure.

Free thinkers are what we need WTF, not drones who mindlessly follow the established order. Some of us have to think outside the box.

I believe Quantum Entanglement, and Zero Point Energy is the right path to be on to tie consciousness to the manipulation of matter, but I am not about to type out that entire Theory on this forum. Are you mad? If you’re interested, look into it. If you’re not, don’t give it much thought. I don’t care.

Quote
Fair enough, but personal testimony isn't useful.  A Christian may say he has personal experience with God, but that doesn't mean much to anyone else.  Whether I believe your claim or not it doesn't matter, because the nature of the evidence is shaky all the same.


Once again, let me state for the record: I never said that my experience in the 3rd grade was “scientific evidence”. I do see your point; since I can’t prove it, it’s useless as scientific data.

Quote
Well, the first thing I noticed is the publication their paper on human/machine interaction is featured in.  Seeing the Journal of Scientific Exploration does not fill me with hope, as I could easily see their paper published between articles about UFO's on one side, and Bigfoot on the other.  In fact after browsing over PEAR's list of publicated material, almost all of it is found in this journal.
Well after seeing this warning sign, I did a little googling and saw that there are a lot of criticisms of PEAR's methodology.  Some suspect they fudge data, some suspect they use sloppy methods which influence results, and so on.  One example of a PEAR critique is here

In fact, some are so confident that their methods are inadequate and results untrue, that the PEAR group's research has been challenged such that if PEAR can repeat it (the hallmark of science and an absolute requirement of science), they can claim a one-million dollar prize.  PEAR has declined The JREF challenge. I just don't buy it.  PEAR seems like another RATE to me.

Is there any work published in more reputable peer reviewed journals, that doesn't have seemingly questionable procedures?  Even if their work is largely fair, I have a hard time accepting it as such given some of reasons I've mentioned.


yada, yada, yada,

I’ve read all your skeptic reports, and then some. I’ll even give you one: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68216,00.html

I’m not a drone WTF, I don’t just accept fly-by-night theories. My point was clear: “Research is ongoing at Princeton University, which does relate Quantum Mechanics to mind over matter; (This research is still in its infancy in my opinion)”

Whether or not PEAR has produced repeatable results in the past, does in no way suggest that they will not be able to produce them at some point in the future; or that some other scientific body will not be able to. The point is, they are willing to risk thinking outside the box, just like Leucippus did almost 3000 years ago.

Quote
What do you mean exactly? Do I think that genes which control various properties of the brain are subject to mutation and selection?  Sure.  To what degree you can call this selection "natural" is up for debate but ignoring that issue, then I guess I'd answer yes.


Think outside the box WTF; consciousness is not “genetic properties of the brain”.

Quote
I am a supporter of science, and an opponent of pseudoscience.


Here is an interesting quote:
“A pseudoscience is an established body of knowledge which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms; it is often known as fringe- or alternative  science. The most important of its defects is usually the lack of the carefully controlled and thoughtfully interpreted experiments which provide the foundation of the natural sciences and which contribute to their advancement.”

There are numerous scientific research centers all over the world, working hard to develop carefully controlled and thoughtfully interpreted experiments related to this field – and no I’m not going to list them for you. Are you recommending that they cease and desist because there is yet a scientific body of evidence to support their studies? How would such a body of evidence come into existence, if not by those willing to do the research?

Quote
The conclusions drawn are of little consequence to me because I know how powerful the scientific method is.  Any amount of analysis of the world around us is testimony to the power of science.  There are frequent challenges to the accepted views, so I have no problem with that.  As long as there is evidence-based reason to do so.


yada, yada, yada.

This post was the determining factor for me. We are not on the same page, and I have no interest in trying to get us there.

?

WTF

  • 256
The 21st Century
« Reply #17 on: August 06, 2005, 03:17:42 PM »
Quote from: "Merlin"

My goodness how you do love to rattle on... didn't you bother to read the last sentence? I suspect that Ontological was their method of choice. This is precisely why I knew better than to get involved in a ridiculous forum debate. I will have to spend most of my energy trying to correct misinterpretations, or deal with the inability of my debating partner to interpret anything for him/herself; anything that is not already laid down in some book or scientific study. There is no scientific evidence for God either WTF, so are you telling us that you don’t believe in a Source, or Higher Power, or the Underlying Intelligence of the Universe?


No, I don't believe in a "Source, Higher Power, or the Underlying Intelligence of the Universe".  I see no reason to.

Quote
Of course you are. I can see your intelligence from your words – you can string them together coherently enough, but what I can't see anywhere in your writing, is your development as a free thinking being.


What about not believing concepts where there is no real reason to believe them, leads you to conclude that someone doesn't think "freely"?

Quote
In other words, you don’t seem to be able to readily draw connections between physical reality, consciousness, and being – on your own. You do not write like a free thinker, so I assume if something is not founded in current scientific evidence, it is not real to you.


I don't think the connections are there, and this is what I've been asking you to explain from the get-go.  You refuse.  Instead, you just cite some theory and claim it makes the connection for you, when it doesn't.  Like I said, it's not my job to dot your i's and cross your t's.  If you refuse, you refuse, fine.  Just quit pretending like you are right beyond any doubt when the subject matter is certainly not open and shut.

Quote
Well, think on this: “sometime around 440 or 470 BCE, Leucippus of Miletus (some believe it was Democritus) originated the concept of the Atom. That idea was strongly opposed by Aristotle and other scholars. Because of this, the atom receded into the background. Although there is a fairly continuous pattern of atomistic thought through the ages, only a relatively few scholars gave it much thought”.


Who cares?  This doesn't prove anything.  For every "forward" thinking example you show, there are dozens of absurd notions from the same time period.  This is why it's reasonable to expect some kind of evidence before believing in seemingly absurd notions beyond what your personal beliefs or desires might tell you.

Quote
Only a few scholars gave it much thought… why? Because there was no scientific evidence at that time to support it. More then 2000 years “of no scientific evidence” later, John Dalton introduced the atom idea on a solid scientific basis. In 1897, J.J. Thomson's discovery of the electron showed us that the atom had an internal structure.


Again, big deal?

Quote
Free thinkers are what we need WTF, not drones who mindlessly follow the established order. Some of us have to think outside the box.


You might want to define what a free thinker is since you keep using the term.  Are you suggesting that theories without evidence are good things?

Quote
I believe Quantum Entanglement, and Zero Point Energy is the right path to be on to tie consciousness to the manipulation of matter, but I am not about to type out that entire Theory on this forum. Are you mad? If you’re interested, look into it. If you’re not, don’t give it much thought. I don’t care.


I did look them up.  But they don't support any of your claims. This is why I asked for clarification from you.  I could see some weird conclusions being drawn from a basic understanding of these theories along the lines of what you are proposing, but it still seems clear to me that you are extending what these theories describe with some very unusual interpretation.

Quote
I’m not a drone WTF, I don’t just accept fly-by-night theories. My point was clear: “Research is ongoing at Princeton University, which does relate Quantum Mechanics to mind over matter; (This research is still in its infancy in my opinion)”

Whether or not PEAR has produced repeatable results in the past, does in no way suggest that they will not be able to produce them at some point in the future; or that some other scientific body will not be able to. The point is, they are willing to risk thinking outside the box, just like Leucippus did almost 3000 years ago.


I fail to see the appeal you have in bad science.  To each their own I suppose.  Just because it's interesting and "outside the box" doesn't mean it should be given much consideration.  Like I said, these articles are found alongside articles about UFO's and Bigfoot.  How seriously do you take those topics?  They qualify as "outside the box" do they not?
What distinguishes those from "outside the box" topics that DO deserve consideration?

Quote from: "Merlin"
Quote from: "WTF"
What do you mean exactly? Do I think that genes which control various properties of the brain are subject to mutation and selection?  Sure.  To what degree you can call this selection "natural" is up for debate but ignoring that issue, then I guess I'd answer yes.

Quote from: "Merlin"
Think outside the box WTF; consciousness is not “genetic properties of the brain”.


This is exactly why I asked for clarification.  A definition of consciousness perhaps.  Or, if you don't mean evolution in the biological sense, how do you mean it?  Because if we are talking biological evolution, then we are talking about mutation (of genes) and selection (of traits).  Which is how I attempted to answer your vague question.

Quote
There are numerous scientific research centers all over the world, working hard to develop carefully controlled and thoughtfully interpreted experiments related to this field – and no I’m not going to list them for you. Are you recommending that they cease and desist because there is yet a scientific body of evidence to support their studies? How would such a body of evidence come into existence, if not by those willing to do the research?


I was making a general statement about myself, not characterizing any particular discipline.  If their research is honest and repeatable, I'd be first in line to take a look at it.  Of course, I wouldn't have to - because they could get published in more reputable peer reviewed journals if there was anything to it.  Perhaps down the road they'll do better work.

Quote
This post was the determining factor for me. We are not on the same page, and I have no interest in trying to get us there.


You reply a lot for someone who isn't interested :P

The 21st Century
« Reply #18 on: August 06, 2005, 03:29:30 PM »
Quote from: "WTF"

No, I don't believe in a "Source, Higher Power, or the Underlying Intelligence of the Universe".  I see no reason to.


And there it is!! All communication is pointless from this moment on.

Good Day

?

WTF

  • 256
The 21st Century
« Reply #19 on: August 06, 2005, 03:37:05 PM »
Quote from: "Merlin"
All communication is pointless from this moment on.


I guess I'll call my phone company then.

?

WTF

  • 256
The 21st Century
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2005, 09:37:01 PM »
Actually, Merlin, I think that YOU should apply for The JREF challenge!

Not only can you get me to eat crow in the biggest imaginable way by winning, not only can you prove to the scientific community and indeed the world that your claims aren't just gobbledegook, but you can walk out with a cool million dollars too.  Talk about win/win!

Now, you may reply that you are not interested in proving anything to anybody, and money isn't important and so on...but not everyone feels that way, and if "light as a feather, stiff as a board" was anything other than a 5 year old girl's slumber-party activity, someone would have proven it by now.

The 21st Century
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2005, 03:06:55 AM »
Quote from: "Merlin"
And there it is!! All communication is pointless from this moment on.

Good Day


As good a point as any to try to dig himself out of a hole I suppose...

Great thread; I enjoyed that one :wink:
sst...

....wanna buy some particles?