|
Post by silver on Oct 5, 2013 19:37:17 GMT -5
if someone wants to talk science then by definition they want to debate what ideas are right and which aren't ... if it hurts yer sensitive little ears just cover'em up ... aye aye capn
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2013 20:08:02 GMT -5
if someone wants to talk science then by definition they want to debate what ideas are right and which aren't ... if it hurts yer sensitive little ears just cover'em up ... by definition? I like talking about science, and could absolutely do so without debating whether the idea is right or wrong. science is always a work in progress, no? but then, maybe my secret is that I don't know anything about it. lol (other than a handful of Jeopardy answers that I might get right)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 5, 2013 20:42:47 GMT -5
if someone wants to talk science then by definition they want to debate what ideas are right and which aren't ... if it hurts yer sensitive little ears just cover'em up ... by definition? I like talking about science, and could absolutely do so without debating whether the idea is right or wrong. science is always a work in progress, no? but then, maybe my secret is that I don't know anything about it. lol (other than a handful of Jeopardy answers that I might get right) Well if someone is genuinely curious about a topic in science they are unfamiliar with then that's not a debate but if someone is going to refer to science as an authority for an idea then the likelihood of debate will involve a number of factors. To get what I meant by "right and wrong" consider the difference in the way a Math test is graded from the way an English test is graded.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 5, 2013 22:08:26 GMT -5
Greetings.. It's funny that you'd dismiss this idea in favor of some sort of hope for the future that would re-establish a completely material world view ... it's an inside-out version of what the Vatican used to do in suppressing scientific inquiry. It's this, Bill.. where you intend to create an inaccurate illusion about my intentions, it is manipulative misrepresentation.. as i've stated repeatedly, my intention is to pay attention without attaching to this or that belief.. What is observable is that you are attached to specific beliefs and the if/then scientific conclusions that support those beliefs.. people that are attached to beliefs, such as " when it comes to the question of existence, of being, of identity, of what we are beyond appearances, there's just nothing there", they are guided by bias confirmation, meaning they will look for and embellish evidence that supports their beliefs and dismiss or misrepresent evidence that does not support their beliefs.. it is my habit to pay attention without attaching to this or that belief, bypassing the bias confirmation that creates greater illusions and more attachments.. Here you describe a bias confirmation preference, assuming that "physicists have had to admit a non-physical component", when that is not actually the case.. the non-physical component is the the 'if/then' explanation that best supports the model preferred by your beliefs.. as i have suggested, there is equal likelihood, in the absence of 'actual evidence', that there is a physical component existing beyond the capabilities of our current methods of observation and measurement.. it is this evolving refinement of methods of observation and measurement that brings us to the 'double slit experiment', but which you wish to abandon in favor of your non-physical beliefs.. in actuality, physicists have not had to admit anything about a non-physical component, it is one of several possible variables that could explain the results of the double slit experiment.. physicists are still collecting evidence and refining measurement and observation methods to better explain and evolve the double slit experiment.. I won't "conjecture that some future discovery will obsolete this description", and i will acknowledge that Newtonian physics has its place, but.. i will also point out that the prior science, 'flat earth' and a universe revolving around the earth, finally yielded to more evolved and refined methods of observation and measurement, even as those 'scientists' employed the church and beliefs of their time to enforce adherence to their version of bias confirmation, your "Vatican" analogy applied appropriately to the beliefs that sourced its invocation.. it's just what happens when people attach to their preferences and beliefs and desires rather than remain open to what is actually happening and evolving beyond where the attachments remain stuck.. allowing for the consistent evolution of history to do what has always done, reveal to the current believers of their infallibility, the folly of that belief.. What 'is' is revealed to the liberated experiencer, whose mind is still, open, and receptive to possibilities beyond the comfort of evidence selected or manipulated to fulfill and confirm their desires and beliefs, and.. what 'is' is revealed to those willing to be free of their self-'image', and explore the potential of their clarity and self-awareness.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 5, 2013 22:18:43 GMT -5
Greetings.. if someone wants to talk science then by definition they want to debate what ideas are right and which aren't ... if it hurts yer sensitive little ears just cover'em up ... No, Bill.. that's your imagined justification for the debate you want to have.. i have a Meade Schmidt-Cassegrain hybrid reflector telescope, and a tracking motor/tripod system, see, i'm talking 'science' and there's no debate "by definition" or otherwise.. though i can imagine you are developing a strategy for creating conflict which you can label 'debate'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Oct 5, 2013 22:21:33 GMT -5
Greetings.. It's funny that you'd dismiss this idea in favor of some sort of hope for the future that would re-establish a completely material world view ... it's an inside-out version of what the Vatican used to do in suppressing scientific inquiry. It's this, Bill.. where you intend to create an inaccurate illusion about my intentions, it is manipulative misrepresentation.. as i've stated repeatedly, my intention is to pay attention without attaching to this or that belief.. What is observable is that you are attached to specific beliefs and the if/then scientific conclusions that support those beliefs.. people that are attached to beliefs, such as " when it comes to the question of existence, of being, of identity, of what we are beyond appearances, there's just nothing there", they are guided by bias confirmation, meaning they will look for and embellish evidence that supports their beliefs and dismiss or misrepresent evidence that does not support their beliefs.. it is my habit to pay attention without attaching to this or that belief, bypassing the bias confirmation that creates greater illusions and more attachments.. Here you describe a bias confirmation preference, assuming that "physicists have had to admit a non-physical component", when that is not actually the case.[/size]. the non-physical component is the the 'if/then' explanation that best supports the model preferred by your beliefs.. as i have suggested, there is equal likelihood, in the absence of 'actual evidence', that there is a physical component existing beyond the capabilities of our current methods of observation and measurement.. it is this evolving refinement of methods of observation and measurement that brings us to the 'double slit experiment', but which you wish to abandon in favor of your non-physical beliefs.. in actuality, physicists have not had to admit anything about a non-physical component, it is one of several possible variables that could explain the results of the double slit experiment.. physicists are still collecting evidence and refining measurement and observation methods to better explain and evolve the double slit experiment.. I won't "conjecture that some future discovery will obsolete this description", and i will acknowledge that Newtonian physics has its place, but.. i will also point out that the prior science, 'flat earth' and a universe revolving around the earth, finally yielded to more evolved and refined methods of observation and measurement, even as those 'scientists' employed the church and beliefs of their time to enforce adherence to their version of bias confirmation, your "Vatican" analogy applied appropriately to the beliefs that sourced its invocation.. it's just what happens when people attach to their preferences and beliefs and desires rather than remain open to what is actually happening and evolving beyond where the attachments remain stuck.. allowing for the consistent evolution of history to do what has always done, reveal to the current believers of their infallibility, the folly of that belief.. What 'is' is revealed to the liberated experiencer, whose mind is still, open, and receptive to possibilities beyond the comfort of evidence selected or manipulated to fulfill and confirm their desires and beliefs, and.. what 'is' is revealed to those willing to be free of their self-'image', and explore the potential of their clarity and self-awareness.. Be well.. Have you not heard of Q Physics where what is being observe changes with the mind of the observer?[/size]
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 6, 2013 0:08:54 GMT -5
Greetings..
Yes.. it's an effect of the Uncertainty Principle, which as its name suggests is not so certain as to be functionally understood.. the Uncertainty Principle, is often invoked where there is not sufficient 'certainty' to substantiate the intended theory.. a self-fulfilling principle/prophesy..
Be well..
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 6, 2013 0:13:00 GMT -5
if someone wants to talk science then by definition they want to debate what ideas are right and which aren't ... if it hurts yer sensitive little ears just cover'em up ... That's a misperception, because science is not about the universe as it is, it's only what we say about the universe... it's actually the spiritual standpoint of 'is' that implies a right and wrong. The double slit experiment could be used to reinforce a belief like the observation changed reality. The scientist merely notices that if you place a measuring device to find out what's really going on, that affects the experimental outcome... but we don't know why.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Oct 6, 2013 10:10:55 GMT -5
Surrender, earthlings, your concepts are useless against us. Well, you sometimes talk of TMT -- you're the most likely member to reply to something with the simple notice that you didn't read what you're replying to because it contained too much minding ... what I'm talking about is a line of thinking that can lead one to understand the value of the pointer of TMT. What would you say to someone who asserts that science corroborates the spiritual idea of a common source for everything that can be described as an ocean of consciousness? ... and to be clear here, that's not my as$ertion. I'd say, 'cool. Could you please pass the soy sauce?'
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 6, 2013 10:34:38 GMT -5
Greetings.. It's funny that you'd dismiss this idea in favor of some sort of hope for the future that would re-establish a completely material world view ... it's an inside-out version of what the Vatican used to do in suppressing scientific inquiry. It's this, Bill.. where you intend to create an inaccurate illusion about my intentions, it is manipulative misrepresentation.. as i've stated repeatedly, my intention is to pay attention without attaching to this or that belief.. What is observable is that you are attached to specific beliefs and the if/then scientific conclusions that support those beliefs.. people that are attached to beliefs, such as " when it comes to the question of existence, of being, of identity, of what we are beyond appearances, there's just nothing there", they are guided by bias confirmation, meaning they will look for and embellish evidence that supports their beliefs and dismiss or misrepresent evidence that does not support their beliefs.. it is my habit to pay attention without attaching to this or that belief, bypassing the bias confirmation that creates greater illusions and more attachments.. Here you describe a bias confirmation preference, assuming that "physicists have had to admit a non-physical component", when that is not actually the case.. the non-physical component is the the 'if/then' explanation that best supports the model preferred by your beliefs.. as i have suggested, there is equal likelihood, in the absence of 'actual evidence', that there is a physical component existing beyond the capabilities of our current methods of observation and measurement.. it is this evolving refinement of methods of observation and measurement that brings us to the 'double slit experiment', but which you wish to abandon in favor of your non-physical beliefs.. in actuality, physicists have not had to admit anything about a non-physical component, it is one of several possible variables that could explain the results of the double slit experiment.. physicists are still collecting evidence and refining measurement and observation methods to better explain and evolve the double slit experiment.. I won't "conjecture that some future discovery will obsolete this description", and i will acknowledge that Newtonian physics has its place, but.. i will also point out that the prior science, 'flat earth' and a universe revolving around the earth, finally yielded to more evolved and refined methods of observation and measurement, even as those 'scientists' employed the church and beliefs of their time to enforce adherence to their version of bias confirmation, your "Vatican" analogy applied appropriately to the beliefs that sourced its invocation.. it's just what happens when people attach to their preferences and beliefs and desires rather than remain open to what is actually happening and evolving beyond where the attachments remain stuck.. allowing for the consistent evolution of history to do what has always done, reveal to the current believers of their infallibility, the folly of that belief.. What 'is' is revealed to the liberated experiencer, whose mind is still, open, and receptive to possibilities beyond the comfort of evidence selected or manipulated to fulfill and confirm their desires and beliefs, and.. what 'is' is revealed to those willing to be free of their self-'image', and explore the potential of their clarity and self-awareness.. Be well.. The only way I can see you asserting an "equal likelihood of an undiscovered physical component" is if there is a confirmation bias bordering on denial. What are these "other possible variables"?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 6, 2013 10:37:34 GMT -5
Greetings.. if someone wants to talk science then by definition they want to debate what ideas are right and which aren't ... if it hurts yer sensitive little ears just cover'em up ... No, Bill.. that's your imagined justification for the debate you want to have.. i have a Meade Schmidt-Cassegrain hybrid reflector telescope, and a tracking motor/tripod system, see, i'm talking 'science' and there's no debate "by definition" or otherwise.. though i can imagine you are developing a strategy for creating conflict which you can label 'debate'.. Be well.. That's not science, it's an inventory of your hall closet contents.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 6, 2013 10:52:11 GMT -5
Well, you sometimes talk of TMT -- you're the most likely member to reply to something with the simple notice that you didn't read what you're replying to because it contained too much minding ... what I'm talking about is a line of thinking that can lead one to understand the value of the pointer of TMT. What would you say to someone who asserts that science corroborates the spiritual idea of a common source for everything that can be described as an ocean of consciousness? ... and to be clear here, that's not my as$ertion. I'd say, 'cool. Could you please pass the soy sauce?' (** scribbles notes **)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 6, 2013 11:23:57 GMT -5
if someone wants to talk science then by definition they want to debate what ideas are right and which aren't ... if it hurts yer sensitive little ears just cover'em up ... That's a misperception, because science is not about the universe as it is, it's only what we say about the universe... It is a misconception as I admitted to farmer in that not all discussions about science need be scientific. it's actually the spiritual standpoint of 'is' that implies a right and wrong. Well on this point I do disagree. Science is the skeptical investigation of theory through experiment, and the result of science is a theory confirmed by current experimental means, which are, beliefs. What I meant by "debate by definition" is that the process of skeptical investigation involves, by definition, the question "is this theory right?", or some variation suggesting refinement "is this theory completely right?" or "would greater precision in measurement require modifying the theory?". One of the most famous of these types of debates where between Einstein and Bohr over the very idea of Quantum Mechanics. Other examples include the rivalry between Newton and Leibniz over the notation for calculus (comedic note: "The Great Sulk"), and although is is more along the lines of technology, Tesla's AC current vs. Edison's DC current. The difference between scientific debate and religious debate is that scientific debate has been eventually extinguished via the mechanism of consensus. The double slit experiment could be used to reinforce a belief like the observation changed reality. The scientist merely notices that if you place a measuring device to find out what's really going on, that affects the experimental outcome... but we don't know why. Yes, I agree with you on these points. Science is ultimately about belief, and in the final analysis, why will always be an open question.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 6, 2013 11:27:00 GMT -5
Greetings.. if someone wants to talk science then by definition they want to debate what ideas are right and which aren't ... if it hurts yer sensitive little ears just cover'em up ... No, Bill.. that's your imagined justification for the debate you want to have.. i have a Meade Schmidt-Cassegrain hybrid reflector telescope, and a tracking motor/tripod system, see, i'm talking 'science' and there's no debate "by definition" or otherwise.. though i can imagine you are developing a strategy for creating conflict which you can label 'debate'.. Be well.. Describing a scientific instrument would be more along the lines of a chat about technology. Here's an example of an opening to what was a scientific debate 500 years ago: "does the Sun revolve around the Earth?".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 6, 2013 12:23:25 GMT -5
Greetings.. It's funny that you'd dismiss this idea in favor of some sort of hope for the future that would re-establish a completely material world view ... it's an inside-out version of what the Vatican used to do in suppressing scientific inquiry. It's this, Bill.. where you intend to create an inaccurate illusion about my intentions, it is manipulative misrepresentation.. as i've stated repeatedly, my intention is to pay attention without attaching to this or that belief.. Well, science is all about beliefs, and you've said that you look to science to confirm your world view. What I say is that in the context of the question of "what am I?", no conceptual worldview is useful, and in fact, any such world view is unhelpful. What is observable is that you are attached to specific beliefs and the if/then scientific conclusions that support those beliefs.. people that are attached to beliefs, such as " when it comes to the question of existence, of being, of identity, of what we are beyond appearances, there's just nothing there", Science embodies a pattern of skeptical inquiry that's similar to the suggested process of neti-neti. In the case of science, the process can be summarized as "is my description of the appearance correct and accurate?", while neti-neti goes "is this appearance what I am?". The science of Physics started with the assumption of objective material reality and set about the question "what is the smallest indivisible (atomic) unit of material?". What they eventually found wasn't some material atom, but rather a phenomenon that they could not describe independently of the observation of it. Both processes reach a point where the looking is all that's left, and that's what I mean in what you quoted me on. they are guided by bias confirmation, meaning they will look for and embellish evidence that supports their beliefs and dismiss or misrepresent evidence that does not support their beliefs.. it is my habit to pay attention without attaching to this or that belief, bypassing the bias confirmation that creates greater illusions and more attachments.. I'll give you this: you don't cite the words of others for your formulations, but what you're doing there is either refraining from sharing the names of those who have influenced you or denying them. As far as any confirmation bias on my part is concerned, google "collapse of the material assumption" ... who am I confirming with that term? Who confirms it? Any conceptual statement has an associated bias embedded into it. Mine is that a worldview is unhelpful yours is counter to that. Here you describe a bias confirmation preference, assuming that "physicists have had to admit a non-physical component", when that is not actually the case.. the non-physical component is the the 'if/then' explanation that best supports the model preferred by your beliefs.. Well here I have to admit flat-out that you're right on the point of that description. My characterization of "a non-physical component to physical reality" isn't something that would be greeted with consensus among Physicists. There's a bit of a story there that I promise to elaborate on over the next few days. Nevertheless, there is a different formulation that still applies: the physical reality that they investigate is not independent from the observation of it. as i have suggested, there is equal likelihood, in the absence of 'actual evidence', that there is a physical component existing beyond the capabilities of our current methods of observation and measurement.. it is this evolving refinement of methods of observation and measurement that brings us to the 'double slit experiment', but which you wish to abandon in favor of your non-physical beliefs.. in actuality, physicists have not had to admit anything about a non-physical component, it is one of several possible variables that could explain the results of the double slit experiment.. physicists are still collecting evidence and refining measurement and observation methods to better explain and evolve the double slit experiment.. Yes, you're right, they are refining the experiment, but the fact of the influence on the outcome by the act of observation that reveals the wave/particle duality isn't the subject of investigation. Also not subject to investigation by physicists is the question of "what exactly is the Quantum Observer?". This question isn't under investigation because the Quantum Observer is not a physically quantifiable phenomenon ... it either happens or it doesn't -- that might sound like common sense but it it's not, as there is consensus that there is a subtle and underlying semantic at play that shatters the Newtonian world view. I won't "conjecture that some future discovery will obsolete this description", and i will acknowledge that Newtonian physics has its place, but.. i will also point out that the prior science, 'flat earth' and a universe revolving around the earth, finally yielded to more evolved and refined methods of observation and measurement, even as those 'scientists' employed the church and beliefs of their time to enforce adherence to their version of bias confirmation, your "Vatican" analogy applied appropriately to the beliefs that sourced its invocation.. it's just what happens when people attach to their preferences and beliefs and desires rather than remain open to what is actually happening and evolving beyond where the attachments remain stuck.. allowing for the consistent evolution of history to do what has always done, reveal to the current believers of their infallibility, the folly of that belief.. To re-iterate from above, there is no limit to the horizons of scientific discovery, but present consensus and future discovery does limit past possibility. The idea of inert matter independent of observation, the material assumption, is history, and questions on the nature of the observer seem to be outside the purview of the science that made this discovery. What 'is' is revealed to the liberated experiencer, whose mind is still, open, and receptive to possibilities beyond the comfort of evidence selected or manipulated to fulfill and confirm their desires and beliefs, and.. what 'is' is revealed to those willing to be free of their self-'image', and explore the potential of their clarity and self-awareness.. Be well.. When we talk science we're talking ideas and beliefs. We both seem to share an opinion that setting aside these beliefs results in an altered perception, one that I will admit to recommending and that I perceive you as recommending also. To pick up ideas for the purposes of exploring them and the associated beliefs doesn't necessarily imply attachment to them, and I'd invite you to continue this conversation in a spirit that sets aside competition over who is the one speaking from greater clarity. I'm unlikely to change your mind and you're unlikely to change mine but the exchange of ideas doesn't necessarily have to involve this constant game of one-upsmanship.
|
|