You said science was immoral. I think it is niether moral or immoral. It is a method used to explain the universe around us. (simplistic definition)duendy said:me))))does science Do itself?....did science invent itself?...can we dispense with Glaileo's part in it, and the rest, like Bacon, Descartes and so on...welll?the answer is no. science is used by people with subjective as well as objective mindsets
I don't know. Which is why I said "Yes the problem is that no one seems to have telepathy." That is a perfectly correct statement until it is proven to exist.duendy said:me))))how do yo KNOW?.....i know what yu are gonna say next cause i'm telepathic. ie., 'noone has proved it yet'.am i right? THERE dear boyyy is your eveeedence!!
Ophiolite did mention a possible test on a previous page involving a target concentrating on something while a telepath writes down their thoughts.duendy said:let me ask you this. how do you envisage a succesful scientific experiment proving telepathy to your specifications?
shaman_ said:You said science was immoral. I think it is niether moral or immoral. It is a method used to explain the universe around us. (simplistic definition)
mew____no i mean both Mscience itself and
Mscientists+Mscience-----from now on i am gonna do this term 'Mscience to mean materialistic science, OK..........alright alright, as A tool itis useful analytically. but when seen as philosophy, tus making out all is lifeless material cept precious scientist brain. then it's immoral, cause power corrupts......might seem harml;ess here in thises boards----tho efen here tings can get hosTILE d'youlll!....but its mode of operation has crushed people wit differentworldviews....whcih is immorality
I don't know. Which is why I said "Yes the problem is that no one seems to have telepathy." That is a perfectly correct statement until it is proven to exist.
me)))))))you mscientists seem to confuse 'i dont know' it all is matter and this will be too when proven
Ophiolite did mention a possible test on a previous page involving a target concentrating on something while a telepath writes down their thoughts.
Using strict testing protocols someone would have to get results above those expected by chance. This would have to be repeatable of course.
Huh? You don't make a whole lot of sense here. You go from the accusation that science says all material is lifeless except err scientist's brains so it is immoral (?!) because power corrupts. Righty.duendy said:mew____no i mean both Mscience itself and
Mscientists+Mscience-----from now on i am gonna do this term 'Mscience to mean materialistic science, OK..........alright alright, as A tool itis useful analytically. but when seen as philosophy, tus making out all is lifeless material cept precious scientist brain. then it's immoral, cause power corrupts......might seem harml;ess here in thises boards----tho efen here tings can get hosTILE d'youlll!....but its mode of operation has crushed people wit differentworldviews....whcih is immorality
Yes reality often seems boring to believers. I guess this is why you are so keen to believe in anything that will make your life seem more interesting.duendy said:ohhhmy gaaaaaawd, how veery booooorin
I have direct 'eye' witnesses that would swear in court under oath as to what they have experienced which you will discount as you are not one of them. And even if you were a direct witness you would not accept as it violates your invested 'world view'.SkinWalker said:To my experience you are either lying or deluded. You can either demonstrate the telepathy or you can't.
Impossible to do. At some and many points, you will believe in assumptions and work from there. You cannot eliminate 'belief'. You appear to 'believe' in the infallibility of 'empiricism'...Crunchy Cat said:The response is intended to remove the 'belief' assertion from the equation.
That's just it, I try my hardest to eliminate 'belief' as a way to understand reality.
Perhaps for you. Seems funny, though, that after all this time, science is still being surprised at the directions that those questions lead and the paradoxes they entail. Science can not yet define 'reality'. That is for metaphysics. Truthful? Show me any scientific text that defines 'Truth'!Science has proven to be the best way to ask reality questions and get truthful answers.
How did I know that you'd have to go there?(Q) said:I have direct 'eye' witnesses that would swear in court under oath...
And of course, no one has ever lied under oath.
*tongue planted firmly in cheek*
Dont break your arm patting yourself on the back.Crunchy Cat said:Looks like you riled up his emotions there skin
nameless said:Impossible to do. At some and many points, you will believe in assumptions and work from there. You cannot eliminate 'belief'. You appear to 'believe' in the infallibility of 'empiricism'...
nameless said:Perhaps for you. Seems funny, though, that after all this time, science is still being surprised at the directions that those questions lead and the paradoxes they entail. Science can not yet define 'reality'. That is for metaphysics.
nameless said:Truthful? Show me any scientific text that defines 'Truth'!
nameless said:Dont break your arm patting yourself on the back.
One, at least I have emotions, and two I am enjoying telling you clueless cement headed clenched uncreative fossils what I feel about your mewlings.
I an playing the game. Do you really think that you have that much power? Hahahahahaahahahahahaah... It is you who are deluded!
Wrong, Crunch, it is what the whole HUMAN thing is about. Believing what is most rewarding. Everyone 'believes' what is most rewarding. Of the definition of 'rewarding', logical and intellectual is only a subset. I dont express emotions to make me feel anything, I express them because they are there and part of my humanity which cannot be divorced from my 'intellectualism'. Lack of integration of one's 'completeness' is pathological.Crunchy Cat said:Self back-patting is being confused with pointing out an intentional action that produced a predictable result. I think it's great that you have such strong emotion and that it gives you pleasure expressing them. That's really what the whole PSI thing is all about. Expressing your emotions and making yourself feel good / creative / important / attractive.
Nonsense. He displays little understanding of the totality of what it means to be an integrated human, and 'made' me do nothing. Or is this some around the corner way of trying to invalidate something I said by creating this straw-man?Any 'power' anyone has comes from their understanding and what they can do with it. In Skin's case he understood human psychology quite well and made you behave in a manner that he wanted.
It is impossible to eliminate and you are unwilling to accept its necessary existence as an integral part of the equation. 'Mitigate'? A fools errand...Crunchy Cat said:I actually agree somewhat. 'Belief' is impossible to eliminate for any human being today. What is not impossible is to understand that 'belief' is often used as substitution for 'i dont know'. Knowing this, anyone can mitigate the risk of 'belief'.
What a pathetic life. You are the helpless victim of a life that comes from somewhere 'out there', with which you muct somehow 'cope' the best you can, under the circumstances. How powerless. How... 'grey'. YOUR truth, YOUR reality, YOUR life, not mine. You cannot even find a universally accepted definition of Reality in any scientific tomes. It has been the subject of metaphysical philosophy for millenia. Yet all of a sudden, YOU KNOW what it is... for everyone. So, if we just accept your definition (forthcoming?) we all will finally know? How exciting!I think 'belief' in empiricism is being confused with acceotance of reality. It doesn't matter what I believe... reality is what it is.
The 'empirical evidence' (your 'Jesus' again) is that previous TRUTHS that science has found had subsequently, almost all of them, been altered as new data is found, again, and again... Just stopping somewhere on the continuum and saying that you are done looking, you will accept the current understanding as your TRUTH is intellectually lazy and exactly equates to religious fundamnentalism.It's not a personal 'Jesus' kind of thing (i.e. just for me). No other method on earth allows us to ask reality questions and get truthful answers. Please feel free to contradict the assertion with evidence.
Anyone that discounts the field of metaphysics as fantasy is either horribly ignorant, incapable of understanding what it is, or a blind 'true believer'. You sound like the 'believer'.Science may produce surprising results, certainly has not uncovered all the answers, hasn't defined reality yet, etc. So what? Having to say "I don't know" is far superior than substituting the absence of knowedge with fantasy (metaphysics... intelligent design... psychic powers... god... the tooth fairy).
No need to even go there as I see what the link says, "Theories_about_truth"Here's a starter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth#Theories_about_truth
Basically it's reality without interpretation or interpretation validated by reality.
nameless said:Wrong, Crunch, it is what the whole HUMAN thing is about. Believing what is most rewarding. Everyone 'believes' what is most rewarding. Of the definition of 'rewarding', logical and intellectual is only a subset. I dont express emotions to make me feel anything, I express them because they are there and part of my humanity which cannot be divorced from my 'intellectualism'. Lack of integration of one's 'completeness' is pathological.
nameless said:Nonsense. He displays little understanding of the totality of what it means to be an integrated human, and 'made' me do nothing. Or is this some around the corner way of trying to invalidate something I said by creating this straw-man?
nameless said:It is impossible to eliminate and you are unwilling to accept its necessary existence as an integral part of the equation. 'Mitigate'? A fools errand...
nameless said:What a pathetic life. You are the helpless victim of a life that comes from somewhere 'out there', with which you muct somehow 'cope' the best you can, under the circumstances. How powerless. How... 'grey'. YOUR truth, YOUR reality, YOUR life, not mine. You cannot even find a universally accepted definition of Reality in any scientific tomes. It has been the subject of metaphysical philosophy for millenia. Yet all of a sudden, YOU KNOW what it is... for everyone. So, if we just accept your definition (forthcoming?) we all will finally know? How exciting!
nameless said:The 'empirical evidence' (your 'Jesus' again) is that previous TRUTHS that science has found had subsequently, almost all of them, been altered as new data is found, again, and again... Just stopping somewhere on the continuum and saying that you are done looking, you will accept the current understanding as your TRUTH is intellectually lazy and exactly equates to religious fundamnentalism.
nameless said:Anyone that discounts the field of metaphysics as fantasy is either horribly ignorant, incapable of understanding what it is, or a blind 'true believer'. You sound like the 'believer'.
"I have my beliefs, I will not hear your fantasy! It is the work of the devil!!"
Unclench your mind!
nameless said:No need to even go there as I see what the link says, "Theories_about_truth"
Is that the best you got?
Christian sites do better to promote their TRUTH. At least they come right out and tell you that their belief is the TRUTH! Not a 'theory'. I guess if you do not know Truth, all you can do is 'theorize'...
No, 'emotional rewards' is merely a subset of 'all possible rewards'.Crunchy Cat said:Interesting response and from what I gather, the assertion is people 'believe' what is most rewarding and emotional processing is a determinant of what 'most rewarding' is.
nameless said:I have direct 'eye' witnesses that would swear in court under oath as to what they have experienced which you will discount as you are not one of them.
nameless said:Now, the poster of this topic had a specific question that he wished to discuss. Why it it that you clenched materialists feel the need to obfuscate and HIJACK every thread of this nature?
nameless said:The question was not "Do you believe and why".
nameless said:No, 'emotional rewards' is merely a subset of 'all possible rewards'.
The brain "tends to search for and hold onto the most rewarding view of events, much as it does of objects," -www.edge.org. It is much more rewarding to attribute death to God's will, and to see in disasters hints of the hand of God.
nameless said:"We humans are naturally gullible — disbelieving requires an extraordinary expenditure of energy. It is a limited resource. I suggest ranking the skepticism by its consequences on our lives. True, the dangers of organized religion used to be there — but they have been gradually replaced with considerably ruthless and unintrospective social-science ideology." - http://www.edge.org/
__________________________________________________