I really like this new film. I was very attracted to the science in the first film and I love the new information this time around.
The Dr Quantum animations are simple and entertaining enough for shcool kids to get the point.
I really liked the addition of Dean Radin and Lynn McTaggert and hearing more from Stuart Hameroff.
Don't call it science, because that's not what it is. Philosophy, maybe, but not science.
shareDon't put in more science, cause they'll just fv<k it up with pseudospiritual bull$#!+.
shareIt's not philosophy, either. Philosophy requires actual thinking and insight. This is just a bunch of cultish BS. The term "Philosophy" gets abused a lot, much like "theory" in science: a theory isn't just something someone pulls out of his ass, and Philosophy isn't just any crackpot belief that some group of cult members adhere to.
(I'm not trying to be snarky with you, since we're definitely on the same page, but I think you're allowing it too much credit by allowing it to even be "maybe" philosophy. :-) )
...a theory isn't just something someone pulls out of his ass...
Philosophy isn't just any crackpot belief that some group of cult members adhere to.
"Theories of scientists are no different from theories of you and me other than the fact that their scientists want to prove them to the whole world."
that is flat out not true. an hypothesis becomes a theory when it is first supported facts and experiments: CONTROLED, REPEATABLE EXPERIMENTS. and second when it can be used to predict phenomena with a high degree of accuracy.
and this is exactly what the difference is between theories of scientists and "theories" from you.
My friend, a scientific theory is not just like a single people theory.
The science is a colective enterprise built on a huge amount of thought, work and experimentation.
While you or I can put out of our asses a "theory",
the scientist has to study years to understand the Theory of Relativity, for example.
We can not call "theories" to our floating thinkings about reality, life or universe. They are just ideas, opinions, not elaborated "visions" of those matters.
Sorry for my english, I can talk much better in spanish.
Pleasure. Bye.
P
"Everything is a theory, you see the whole world through your own little theory, and there really isn't a lot of science involved.
Every thought you have about anything you think is the way it is is a theory of none other than you.
Theories of scientists are no different from theories of you and me other than the fact that their scientists want to prove them to the whole world. "
Wow, you really have no idea what you're talking about.
Your biggest problem is that you're quite obviously incapable of differentiating between the scientific definition of "theory" ("A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.") and the more colloquial one ("guess or conjecture").
When a scientist postulates a "theory," he is without exception using that word with the first definition. He is quite plainly NOT saying, "Now, this is just a notion of mine." He provides data, past hypotheses, experiments done to test those hypotheses, new data gleamed from those experiments, new hypotheses, etc.
Anyway, that's all the time I'll spend refuting you, because if that simple explanation doesn't clear things up for you, you're beyond all hope of education.
I guess you must simply be the kind of person that actually buys into the idiocy that this movie peddles.
While I cannot agree with the comments in which you are refuting, I also cannot agree with yours. I do agree with your scientific principles on analysis and credence. However, I would not be so hasty as to name what is obviously base-line, and only speculatory information as "idiocy." The information presented in this film was shown as a small credence to perhaps influence peoples minds to see a little bit more of their universe, the majority of the world is completely ignorant of quantum mechanics and its implication on day to day life. There is nothing wrong with a few educated talking heads speaking on their experiences as scientists.
I do not want to hear from you or another that these physics are broken or not backed up, for these physics are still in such early years of growth that such mindless judgment would only put a damper on possibility. There is evidence that these things might have substance, and there is evidence that they may not. No true scientist in this day and age truly understands the real and vast implications of these new studies into our universe, you cannot make that judgment in an ignorance completely shadowed by the wisdom of peer's for whom you presume to make assumptions of action and word. I say, before we say humbug to our own opinion, we give a thing a chance.
Good post!
shareEven if Gomuncio lives for 35,000 years he will never be smart enough to detect bull***t
You've got red on you
All science is is the explination of philosophy. Most science is subjective fact in search of the objective through that even the most fundamental principles of science have yet to find. Look up those defenitions, you want "proof" that what these people speak of on the movie is correct? first understand that proof is subjective, then you have no arguement.
share'you want "proof" that what these people speak of on the movie is correct? first understand that proof is subjective, then you have no arguement.'
You could say that about anything at all. I could suggest im green have tentacles on my head and fire for organs and if someone disputes this I could simply say. 'Proof is subjective you have no argument.'
Your point has, like others, dissolved in to abstract meaningless, that could give credence to this film, unicorns, super powered bottle tops and any other idea you could ever come up with.
it was NOT science in the first film. ive taken only highschool level physics and i can debunt pretty much all the crap that is espoused in this film.
said the shotgun to the head
-Saul Williams
i think you give yourself too much credit, these arent people they just picked up off the street, they're quantum physicists that have looked a little more into the subject then lets say a 16 yr old high school student.
but ... please debunt away if you must
but crap like a particle being in 2 places at once is simply not possible. as a matter of definition, if the particle is in 2 places, it is 2 particles...not one. furthermore, simply SEEING it isnt enough to prove it. they would need to capture and analyse the particle(s) to prove that they were in fact 2 identical ones.
also, the 'pretty crystal' bit was totally made up. the 'interviews' were SCRIPTED and several of the doctors were also actors.
THAT was my issue. and im not 16.
said the shotgun to the head
-Saul Williams
Dont you think they did that? why else would they say it was the same particle?
The point of the whole movie was to question what you now take for granted, yes, i think its more of a philosophical show that a scientific one, but its using science to trigger philosophical thought.
Pretty Crystal ... is that the thing about that Japanese guy changing the look of water molecules by the word written on it?
yea...the crystal bit was TOTALLY unscientific. i would recieve an F if i had turned that in during 7th grade biology class.
and i saw no evidence other than the particles LOOKING the same.
said the shotgun to the head
-Saul Williams
Amazing that you know more than some of the greatest minds in the worlds.....read Stephen Hawkings - A Brief History of Time for more on Quantum theory and Entanglement....A very interesting read, and Hawkings is really good at making very complex concepts understandable.
Now I know they didn't do a good job of explaining entanglement, but basically, the reason it is known that the particle/s in question are but one particle is the act of change.
They did mention it briefly. If you do something to one, the other (the same) mirrors the reaction......so the idea is either A:) the two particles are somehow inherintly connected (like the idea of twins feeling things when not together) or that they are in fact the same particle.
Now, I will give you the fact that most of this movie is total hippy new age...i read a quantum theory book and i think im an expert in String Theory...so now i should make a movie, style. But there are some actual know concepts in there....they are just in the begining.....the last half tho is total crap and a waste of time....repeating the same concepts over and over until you just have to say....OK I GET IT!!!! Geez.
It sounds like you haven't studied quantum physics yet.
A lot of the material in the film is shakey, but the "2 places at once" thing is sort of true. Read up about particle entanglement.
like others have said, the concept of a particle being in two places at once is one of the underlying principles of modern physics. by modern, i mean since 1905 or so. it doesn't sound like you've read much at all in this direction, because there's a wealth of "intro to physics" literature out there that discusses this very topic.
shareThe people talking in this movie are all either members of the RSE, (the cult that made the film), or were completely misquoted. This is not a science movie and you should not accept it as such.
shareThis is absolutley not true.
Wolf, Pert, Hammerof, McTaggert, Goswami, Heaglin, are not Ramtha students.
And since they toured with the movie related conferences last year, I don't think they were all upset at being misquoted.
Really Tieburn? Im taking the college level sciences as we speak and you know what my chem professor said yesterday? And i quote "There is more to life than what can be explored by science, there are aspects of the human experience that do not fall into the scientific perception." So your "highschool level physics" is most obviously outdated and wrong in the new understanding of things.
sharewere you refering to me?
if you were, one science professor at a (most likely no-name college because you didn't name drop it) does not mean that the majority of science opinion has changed. what you state is one mans opinion, which he is entitled to. but it doesn't make this movie legit.
said the shotgun to the head
-Saul Williams
Thats not an argument. Thats an anecdote about someone who has little relevance to the conversation. Last I checked Chemistry professors are experts in... chemistry not the nature of science itself. Many scientists are religous does that make any particular religeon they are within correct?
Please make a point instead of joining the small army that feels they are somehow superior to me and the other skeptics, and can look down on us with their baseless theories and childish philosophies.
The bottom line is that this is a propaganda film made by a cult. There is no real science involved, and the "experts" are a shady group of chiropractors and
self-help gurus (ie. not really doctors or philosophers). Anyone that buys into this crap either neeeds something to believe, or is just plain stupid.
Wolf and Goswami both hold Phds in Physics.
There is plenty of real science involved. You just have to go look for the sources.
The work on neurotransmitters and the hypothalmus is right on.
OTOH, none of the stuff talked about WRT quantum physics, little black boxes that can alter the pH, crystals in water shaped by words on the label, etc. is science. There is no testability -- are no repeatable experiments in the bunch. No double-blind experiments. And, AFAICT, no publications in peer-reviewed journals. Even the bleeping website doesn't call it science -- it's called "phenomena" there.
If you think there are repeatable experiments, please provide a URL. Ditto for testability. Ditto for peer-reviewed journals.
The movie talks about addictions. I have a question: what if the producers of this flick have an addiction to the mysterious?
What if everything described in the film could be completely explained without ever going down the rabbit hole? How would that possibly invalidate anything?
Think about it!
I haven't gone into these in depth but here's a few links
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/
http://www.noetic.org/
I don't know about peer review bhut if you find anything let us know.
Please tell us: what EXACT study is peer-reviewed and repeatable that shows us that conscious will can somehow affect conscious interaction. It's somewhat disingenuous to have a thread called "more science" if you've never actually chased down the links.
I went down the rabbit hole with one of the PEAR studies; the rabbit hole was empty. The particular publication said that they did NOT have a result showing conscious interaction having the desired effect.
Also, can you explain why the film spends so much darn time talking about Emoto -- and then acknowledges on the website that that's not science?
As I said elsewhere: "Makes you think, doesn't it?"
--phil
"Please tell us: what EXACT study is peer-reviewed and repeatable that shows us that conscious will can somehow affect conscious interaction. It's somewhat disingenuous to have a thread called "more science" if you've never actually chased down the links."
I meant "quantum interaction".
Slooper: please respond to the request. Give us one specific of the "more science" you imply.
Thanks!
Whoever said a particle cannot be in 2 places at once has never looked at a quantum physics textbook. It is proven. It just goes to show that some people are so closed minded that they will argue anything. I agree that some things in the movie seem silly but there is real science in the movie.
share
Whoever said a particle cannot be in 2 places at once has never looked at a quantum physics textbook. It is proven. It just goes to show that some people are so closed minded that they will argue anything. I agree that some things in the movie seem silly but there is real science in the movie.
Please tell us: what EXACT study is peer-reviewed and repeatable that shows us that conscious will can somehow affect quantum interaction?
Can you explain why the film spends so much darn time talking about Emoto -- and then acknowledges on the website that that's not science?
I think the purpose of using the emoto water effect was to show that people who are negative all the time will effect themselves in a negative way. Its like being stressed all the time can make you gain weight and age faster.
I'm currently reading Michael Talbot's book "The holographic universe" which supports the consiousness creates reality theory. He references David Bohm and Karl Pribram in his book many times. I think we need a paradigm shift in thinking before this theory could be accepted by the masses. The holographic theory really explains supernatural phenomenon quite well. I usually don't accept crazy theories like this but current science cannot explain some things that really do happen. Anyway I recommend reading the holographic universe as it is a good book if you are open minded.
[deleted]
Oh God. This movie contained more deliberate inaccuracies than your average presidential address. The fact is that a particle can NOT be in two places at once. Sorry. Quantum uncertainty dictates that you cannot know the absolute position of a particle in spacetime and also know its instantaneous energy state, direction of motion, etc. Prior to measurement, the particle exists in an indeterminate state referred to as a "probability wave", in which the particle can be said to occupy ALL possible locations and energy states in spacetime. The act of measurement "collapses" the wave function and the particle's position resolves into specificity. This gives rise to a bunch of very bizarre phenomena, and even stranger extrapolations, such as the EPR paradox, and of course the infamous Schrodinger's cat thought experiment. But the thing is, to say that a particle can occupy more than one position in spacetime is a deliberate mis-stating of a basic Quantum mechanical principle, which the makers of this movie apparently invoked in order to further their own agenda, which had little to do with real science.
shareYou're stating a lot of facts, but you're not refuting the claim.
Please elaborate a bit, 'cause I've heard of this 'fact' from scientists many times even far before the first movie.
>Oh God. This movie contained more deliberate inaccuracies than your average presidential address.
you're talking about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but there's also something which is called quantum entanglement, read about it first before submitting senseless posts, OK?
Most everyone I've met thinks the water experiment is very unscientific and should not be used as an example. First of all, at the center of every snowflake is a particle of dirt or pollution. Ice crystals don't grow in a vacuum. They grow on something. The slower they grow, the prettier we think they look. Also, whether an ice crystal is pretty or not is subjective. If crystaline lattice structures were all around us, we might think a solid chunk of ice was more beautiful. Since they aren't we lean towards appreciating what we are not accustommed to seeing.
I have no problem with the brain chemistry and what scientists know about quantum physics. I'm not entirely sure that man has a true grasp of what is happening at that level. Things are moving really fast and no "observer" can truly observe anyway. It'd be like trying to scan a document while someone is moving it. On the output you will see text in two places, but was it truly in two places. If it wasn't in two places, what is happening in the meantime? Are the particles floating on waves? Are particles creating waves. Is the force affecting them even recordable or measurable?
New age philosophy or not, this movie will make you think and more people need to be thinking.
defiant1
Half of these debates about quantum physics have already cropped up and fallen apart.
There is _no_ evidence of consciousness affecting quantum states. There are infact experiments proving that it doesnt. Ive already pointed one out!
Even if it could alter quantum states it has absolutely no connection to the macro universe. Quantum effects do _not_ proceed in to our usual level of existence. If they did we would be living in a very chaotic world indeed.
On every level the quantum physics presented by this film falls down. Its not science its not even philosophy, its wild baseless speculation.
and can people stop harping on that there are scientists with Phds backing it up. Qualifications with a piece of science so complex are largely irrelevant, especially as the scientific community are by in large directly opposed to these ideas. Tests and evidence are what will get you to the truth not letters added to names. Every test run on this subject has found nothing to back this film or this belief system. (As ive already mentioned many actually do the complete opposite.)
There is _no_ evidence of consciousness affecting quantum states...Instead of taking your word for it, I would recommend that interested parties read the book Elemental Mind by Nick Herbert. Published in 1993, Elemental Mind provides a fascinating introduction to the real scientific mystery of interactions between human consciousness and matter at the quantum level. share
I did actually post the test that proves it...
As far as I am aware Elemental Mind does not have any papers or experiments backing it. It is, admitedly educated, speculation based on much the same ideas that RSE tries to trawl up.
Nice to ponder but no real substance.
However, I have not read the book in detail so it is quite possible I am mistaken. If anyone is willing to post quotes, sites, papers it refrences that do provide some hard evidence to back it then that will obviously be a different matter.
I'm guessing that you've never read Elemental Mind "in detail" or at all. Anyway, the book references many academic works and articles in an 8-page bibliography. I'm not going to do the legwork and locate the individual papers online.
The author himself has impressive credentials that you may examine at this site:
http://www2.cruzio.com/~quanta/nick.html
I did check the index and bibliography in Elemental Mind for any references to Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. None found. So much for guilt by association.
'Anyway, the book references many academic works and articles in an 8-page bibliography. I'm not going to do the legwork and locate the individual papers online.'
Then how can you possibly know if it has any experimental backing? I can write a long bibliography about creationism doesnt mean there is a single experiment or paper backing it up though. It appears two of us havent been reading in detail 'or at all'. (See I can be condescending to...)
'The author himself has impressive credentials that you may examine at this site'
I dont doubt that fact. It doesnt change the fact that this is way beyond our current understanding. Ask any quantum physicist on this earth how a superposition collapses. Not one of them will be able to tell you. Without an actual experiments it is all speculation. I made it quite clear that it was educated and thus a decent theory to be tested but until that happens it, as I also said, has no substance.
'So much for guilt by association.'
What guilt are you talking about? RSE believes quantum physics allows people control over reality. Elemental Mind believes quantum physics allows people control over reality. Neither as far as I am aware have any proof to support there theories. Im not making anyone guilty I was pointing out a fact.
Now, I said, I could be mistaken. You respond, much like everyone else on these boards, by getting snide. The idea that the world can be manipulated by someones will through quantum physics has no basis and contradicts the solid deterministic rules of the macro universe that everyone here can plainly see. You, RSE and Elemental Mind need evidence to counter what has already gained so much proof. Until you have that much it is a clear case of 'Nice to ponder but no real substance.'
'Anyway, the book references many academic works and articles in an 8-page bibliography. I'm not going to do the legwork and locate the individual papers online.'Then how can you possibly know if it has any experimental backing? I can write a long bibliography about creationism doesnt mean there is a single experiment or paper backing it up though.
'The author himself has impressive credentials that you may examine at this site'I dont doubt that fact. It doesnt change the fact that this is way beyond our current understanding. Ask any quantum physicist on this earth how a superposition collapses. Not one of them will be able to tell you. Without an actual experiments it is all speculation.
'So much for guilt by association.'What guilt are you talking about? RSE believes quantum physics allows people control over reality. Elemental Mind believes quantum physics allows people control over reality. Neither as far as I am aware have any proof to support there theories. Im not making anyone guilty I was pointing out a fact.
Now, I said, I could be mistaken. You respond, much like everyone else on these boards, by getting snide.
The idea that the world can be manipulated by someones will through quantum physics has no basis and contradicts the solid deterministic rules of the macro universe that everyone here can plainly see. You, RSE and Elemental Mind need evidence to counter what has already gained so much proof. Until you have that much it is a clear case of 'Nice to ponder but no real substance.'
'I would know that there is some experimental backing because the author describes the experiments in detail.'
The fact that the author can put any spin he wishes on these things makes this meaningless. All I ask for is one experiment. Why should I read an entire book on the subject when I have no idea if any of it has any real backing? If I was to go through every book suggested to me by every person who had a theory I would have a well stocked library full to read and very few facts among the books that sit on its shelves.
'If you can’t be bothered to read Elemental Mind then all the theory and experimental lab results described therein are irrelevant to you. You've made that clear. '
At what point? Im still here, have been from a long time waiting for something to prove me wrong. I will continue to be here waiting for even longer for something to prove me wrong. These results are only irrelevant to me because so far these results dont exist.
'Lucky for us, the author does not engage in idle speculation.'
How do you know? In your own words 'the author describes the experiments in detail.' how is this impartial evidence? In your next sentence 'Thank goodness that the book is readable enough for those of us who didn’t major in physics.' you seem to be implying you dont even have the scientific backing to judge?
'This head-in-the-sand approach will not serve science in the long run.'
I have not objected to any such questioning. I quote again 'I made it quite clear that it was educated and thus a decent theory to be tested but until that happens it, as I also said, has no substance.' That is not 'head-in-the-sand' thats rational.
'Where did Herbert ever say that "quantum physics allows people control over reality"? '
The book is about, in your own words, 'human consciousness may influence matter and reality' now if you want to get in to an argument about semantics fair enough. human consciousness is only provided by people. influence holds many of the same defnitions as control. People may control matter and reality is a very similar sentance to the one I gave.
I can understand why you do not want to be affiliated with RSE but they are saying much the same thing, whether you like it or not.
'You might remember'...
I might also remember that same person implying I shouldnt be on the board and that I am entirely closed minded without so much as a quote to back it. Much like yourself.
'The "solid deterministic rules of the macro universe" don't prepare us to fully understand the quantum realm. You know that'
Yes I do. I understand that there is a divide between quantum and macro universes and I also understand that there is, to my knowledge, no evidence to support any meaningful conscious influence from us upon the quantum.
'Science can also be served when scientists themselves challenge basic ideas.'
but it is not served by people who simply believe anyone who challenges those ideas. Not without proof.
'To you, these scientists are just subversives to be silenced or discredited by any means necessary. "Pioneers get the most arrows," as the saying goes.'
You are virging on an all out strawman argument. I have _never_ said that _anyone_ even the members of RSE should be 'silenced' or 'discredited' this is purely your fabrication, as you hurl around ideas you no doubt understand very little about, with the authority of an expert, and expect everyone to simply agree with you.
You arnt open to debate, you have no intention of proving anything, you simply tell us what is what and have done. If this wasnt true you would have no need to be so rude and self superior. More importantly you would have provided something more concrete. Some form of paper, experiment or even reviews of the book you appear to worship to prove it is worthwhile for anyone to read. You like to differentiate yourself from RSE but from what you have typed out you are exactly the same.
The difference between Elemental Mind and RSE is the same as between ID and Creationism. Unless, as always, you can prove different.
Why should I read an entire book on the subject when I have no idea if any of it has any real backing? If I was to go through every book suggested to me by every person who had a theory I would have a well stocked library full to read and very few facts among the books that sit on its shelves.
Im still here, have been from a long time waiting for something to prove me wrong. I will continue to be here waiting for even longer for something to prove me wrong. These results are only irrelevant to me because so far these results dont exist.
In your own words 'the author describes the experiments in detail.' how is this impartial evidence? In your next sentence 'Thank goodness that the book is readable enough for those of us who didn’t major in physics.' you seem to be implying you dont even have the scientific backing to judge?
I understand that there is a divide between quantum and macro universes and I also understand that there is, to my knowledge, no evidence to support any meaningful conscious influence from us upon the quantum.
'Suit yourself. You don’t care about further information from a physicist’s perspective. Your mind is already made up.'
As I made very clear in my previous post. I havent read through all of the books written by the more prominent physicists let alone ones with strange ideas. I care about further information if I had any evidence that going through the trouble of reading it will actually be worthwhile. You continue to provide non, instead opting to use asinine reasoning and the constant twisting of my words. As in the following example.
'Your mind is already made up.'
My mind is never made up, never has been made up, never will be made up. I believe anything is possible, anything at all. I will take on board any idea someone wants to say from the top physicists on this planet to a hobo on the street. The only thing through this chaos of ideas that can bring some to the surface is proof. Everything else should be put to one side until it has the evidence to back it.
Loosly quoted from a talk by Richard Dawkins. 'The greatest achievement for any scientist is to be proven wrong.'
'Do you want proof via the medium of the Internet?'
How about a paper? You know the vast quantity of scientific papers that are archived and available online. The huge number of peer reviewed fully documented tests that have been 'condensed and adapted' to prove ideas are not just fantasies. How about one of them. Just one.
'My ego actually allows for that. '
but your ego doesnt allow for you to get it in to your head that there is more than this one physicists work. That the vast majority of physicists do not believe this to be true and that thus far there is not one experiment to prove his grander ideas to have substance. Your ego doesnt allow you to think. 'Hey maybe Im wrong, perhaps I should do some actual research in to this and see if there is some evidence.' I havent found anything. Why not try for yourself so we can actually have a debate.
'To your knowledge, yes. Are you a scientist by training, and if so, why don't you have a scientist's natural curiousity about the unsual findings coming out of quantum physics? '
So your assuming that my knowledge is based purely on what I have accomplished? My knowledge has been taken from books, papers, lecturers, scientists and any other possible source I can find. Curiosity does not mean believe anyone who comes along. It means taking an interest in their theories and most importantly of all waiting for the experimental results that come from them.
'You may criticize posters here, including me, for being “believers.”'
and I shall. Belief can be dangerous, misleading and ignorant. Proof is what science is based on and its what is always necessary to move forward not your uninformed speculation.
'But you also have your own set of precious, dogmatic beliefs.'
I dont 'believe' in anything. Things happen, I want those things explained. Its as simple as that. I dont make do with fantasies, opinions or faith. If that is dogmatic then so be it.
'You just lack the integrity to admit it.'
The only thing I lack is evidence that you and so many others have failed to give.
If not for the repeated "miracles" I've experienced as a Christian, I might agree. At one time I was agnostic. Since then I have come to realize that you must believe in a higher power before that higher power can be tapped. It is like a thirsty man looking at a glass of water. You can analyze it and look at it all day. If you do not pick it up and drink it, you will NEVER have your thirst quenced. That takes faith. That takes believing in what you do not see.
People can analyze the truth out of any situation. Man tends to overanalyze the things which have the greatest potential to help him. I'd bet you are willing to spend countless hours mounting a debate to debunk all the principles in the movie, but do you apply the same scrutiny with equal measure to other things in your life. If I jury rig a chair to fall apart and put it in a room you've never been in, I'd bet you'd walk into that room and sit down fully assuming it would & could support your weight.
The whole point of this movie is not whether the facts are accurate or inaccurate. The title of the movie itself clarifies that. The point of the movie is to accept that the act of making choices and choosing what to think either positively or negatively affects our reality. If you look at a situation with despair, this movie assures you that despair is what you will carry with you. If you look at a situation with hope, it is hope that you will carry with you. This movie is simply a tool to help you think outside of the box you are accustomed to thinking.
When the movie Metropolis came out in the early 1900's, video telephones did not exist. One is used in the movie. Today they do exist. Imagination created reality. Today people can converse on the internet with video. Call it whatever you want, but people like myself seek to know where free thought and imagination come from.
This movie is about looking for God or proving the absence of God. If you are a cultist, you will want to validate your cult. If you are a Christian, as I am.. you might be wanting to see how God's hand affects us at the level of science. This movie is simply information, and opinions. It is nothing more.
I respect your right to feel it has no merits. I disagree.
Perhaps if you'd experienced some of the uncanny events I've experienced in my life, you might have a more humble attitude towards the movie. Perhaps instead you would write them all off and decide to only believe what your mind can imagine instead. I like seeing what other minds imagine whether what they imagine is possible or not. I want the world to change into a better place. The first step in applying a functional change is believing it's possible.
Half the film was describing quantum physics but you dont seem to have understood why.
This was not an exercise in positive thinking. The film (Which is based on and made in connection to RSE.) is quite literally saying that your will manipulates reality. Incidentally it is in direct opposition to your religeon.
Also you dont describe any of the 'uncanny events'. Ive spoken to many who have faith in some super being (Who promises an explanation for all the cruelty in the world and infinite happyness in death... wonder why youd want to believe in that...) They of course provide no evidence, its very likely all made up. Though even their personal experiences are severally lacking. Or to put it another way. The bible describes such miracles as rivers being parted, funny how the people today have been converted by something not only far more feeble than such epic displays of power, but that also can not be proven to anyone else. Your God appears to be quite the prankster...
The only actual explanation you give is the typical circular logic of you have to believe in God in order to believe God exists.
After recently seeing more about how teachings from the bible continues to lead countless thousands of innocent people to there deaths even as we discuss this youll forgive me if I have a hard time believing your faith is anything but a dangerous embrace of a convenient fantasy. (It also, as you may have noticed, put me in a foul mood.)
Of course if you provide some actual evidence that I am wrong then maybe something can come of this. Usually believers are far from interested in proving anything to others, or even themselves.
You said:
This was not an exercise in positive thinking. The film (Which is based on and made in connection to RSE.) is quite literally saying that your will manipulates reality. Incidentally it is in direct opposition to your religeon.
My reply:
I do believe my will affects reality just as a child petitioning his father affects his father's will. I have had prayers answered that defy my ability to explain. I'm talking syncronized events that I did not see in my mind until after they had played out. All were connected to direct and specific prayers.
One involved a prayer to meet the first husband of someone I loved because he still had a place in her heart. I wanted to know what it was about him that she thought was so special. 6 years after the prayer, she died in a traffic accident. Without any knowledge of the event, the man I prayed to meet showed up at her funeral the day her body was to be shown. Her father's jaw dropped and his face went pale. The family had not seen nor heard from him in over 7 years. He had no knowledge of her death and was 3000 miles from home. He took a 500 mile detour to show up on that day.
When her father died, I showed up at the same house not knowing he had passed. Call it syncronicity or whatever you will. I believe that God works through the subatomic level and it is connected to our needs, our prayers and our wills.
As far fetched as it sounds, I cannot discard quantum entaglement or subatomic particles dancing in and out of what we call a here and now "existence". I do not see this as conflicting with God in any way. If anything, it is God... his will, his hand... his heartbeat... whatever you want to call it. If it's not, it's no big deal. The God I believe in has not changed, only my understanding of how he does what he does. If someone is not curious about these things, it is a greater mystery to me how people live that way. I have no desire to think in a vacuum and keep my thoughts in a box.
Most coincidences are not proof. Especially coincidences that happen many years after the event you believe responsible for them. The reason for this is the volume of events that occurs in the meantime and the selective memory we all have.
E.g. A secretary rings his boss and finds there is a lot of background noise and their boss responds with something along the lines of 'How did you know I was here?' The secretary had dialed the wrong number but coincidentally the wrong number happened to be of a phone box and their boss who had taken a break was walking past it at the time. This seems like the odds are stacked countless trillions to one against, yet similar events have occured.
Thing is people forget that there are at any one time of day millions of phone calls going off. That a reasonable percentage are wrong numbers and that we have had telephone communication for quite a few decades. When its all taken in to account what seems like impossibly high odds turns out to be not that fantastic at all.
The selective way we think about these things creates amazement out of the mundane, it is also what is responsible for God doing good acts for people while when a fantastically unlucky event occurs its typically shrugged off as bit of bad luck regardless of what odds there were.
Weve seen this kind of thing before when someone brought up the cards in a field test that RSE does. They were under the belief that the odds were thousands to 1 against them but when you took in to account the number of attempts these drastically dropped and it would take very little in the way of flaws to bring them to match the results of the test. Not only this but should a particularly high percentage of people fail on a certain occaision there was nothing to stop them making a few excuses like the people didnt have the right mind set and such. So once again you have this amazement that is then attributed to powers of the mind. (The attributing of good coincidences to God.) and the failures are dismissed. (Attributing bad coincidences to bad luck.)
In other words, and I touched on this in my previous post, when your prayers cause the oceans to part or an entire nation to recieve fresh food and water from a divine source this would be evidence. An obscure coincidence is likely to be just that, an obscure coincidence.
'I believe that God works through the subatomic level and it is connected to our needs, our prayers and our wills.'
Why would God work at a subatomic level over every other level? Is he being elusive for the sake of it? It is supposedly an infinite being there is no need for it to work on any level that we can ever percieve.
'If it's not, it's no big deal.'
Of course it isnt, it never is, your faith blinds you to reason.
For example the Bible was once considered 100% accurate. Our advancements, our science and our reason have left a sizable chunk of it as just fables. Can you not see that that shakes its credability somewhat? Can you not consider the idea that maybe all of it is just stories? Can you also not understand that if the book that defines your religeon has begun to turn in to fables then the religeon itself may also be simply fabricated?
It is unlikely because you utilise faith which, more or less, means you will believe in a God regardless of any logical or rational thought. Though I hope I am wrong.
'If someone is not curious about these things, it is a greater mystery to me how people live that way. I have no desire to think in a vacuum and keep my thoughts in a box.'
If I didnt know better id say you were implying I am close minded. I am greatly curious about everything in this universe which is why, more than ever, we have to seperate the fantasy from the facts.
You are entitled to believe what you believe.
One of the most interesting instances was when a female friend of mine went forth to join the church. I marked in my Bible what verses had been taught in the sermon. It was a passage from Psalms that had no specific meaning to me.
Years later I was talking to the girl about her joining the church. She said "I don't even remember what the preacher was preaching." I said "I marked it in my Bible, I'll call you up and tell you what passage it was when I get home." I got home, looked it up and called her. It had no particular meaning to her until she woke up the next day. The next day, her alarm went off and the radio station was changed to a different station. She must have bumped it and moved the dial to a Christian station by accident. The sermon she woke up to was on the exact verses I had given her over the phone the day before. She called me and was amazed that of all passages, it would be the ones we had discussed the day before. I hung up, became curious and looked up the verse again. From my Christian experience, there is usually a greater implication to significances like that. I went to the verses we had discussed and read further in the Bible. When I read further it said something to the effect that God will be with you "when you awake in the morning".
Coincidences and events that have a ripple effect through time to synchronize on a single message and theme are not coincidences to me.
If you do not have faith, then you will never unlock the ability to experience things I have experienced. You are essentially a blind person trying to talk about color.
'If you do not have faith, then you will never unlock the ability to experience things I have experienced. You are essentially a blind person trying to talk about color.'
Yes yes ive heard such self superior nonsense from countless of your number not to mention numerous members of every other religeon, RSE, psychics, UFO believers, Ghost experts, conspiracy theorists and every other person who believes in something with precisely no evidence to back it.
You say im the blind person well lets for a second pretend it cant have been just a coincidence, (Which is doubtful.) what if it was caused by another religeons God? What if its caused by aliens? What about spirits fromt he dead? Or even a conspiracy? Did you consider any of them? After all they all have as much basis as your God.
Of course you didnt, you havent considered any other possibility than, God did it. How exactly does that give you superior vision of the world than me? How exactly is that 'no desire to think in a vacuum and keep my thoughts in a box.'
Your religeon blinds you to all other possibilities. Heres a clue, that _isnt_ a good thing.
Which is no doubt why you ignored every single question I posed in my previous post, instead opting to reinforce your delusion rather than confronting the gaping holes in your belief system. My questions were not rhetorical perhaps you could answer them instead of talking down to me. Though even if you ever did youd probably say something akin to 'God works in mysterious ways'. Yes, your faith clearly allows you to see so much more than me...
I have moved this conversation to this board because I would like to reference something from the Rabbit Hole movie to further our debate from "The Secret" board.
-----------------
"Im not saying you should only explore what is already established, of course that would be foolishly close minded. I am saying you shouldnt believe in what hasnt been established."
-----------------
"I said that the observations of one person are meaningless, and they are, but this has not cut off the possibility of it becoming meaningful. As I stressed in my number list. Information can be made more and more relevant through more and more testing."
------------------
So what has not been established scientifically that relates to my original point, that you claim is meaningless and should not be believed in? Well in fact , everything we are talking about! That which is intangible.
when poetfire asked what you believe in, you answered that you believe in nothing. That was a tidy evasive answer. We all have beliefs including you, and you have been defining them for us for many months.
In your number list you illustrated that the experience of one individual is meaningless to the collective but when you have a repeatable experience had by many that this is ultimately what implies the potential for objectivity and warrents further study. So when you have a subjective experience that is shared by many if not by EVERYONE then how can you dismiss it as meaningless simply because science has not yet come up with a universal law to define it.
Have you experienced love? Is it intangible? Do you have a mind? Is it intangible? How would you define mind? How would you define love? And what are your recomendations for science to study these subjective intangible experiences that are universal among all Humans? Are they meaningless? Objectively yes they are, so mabey that is why science has not serously attempted to study them. Subjectively to us as Humans they are quite meaningful. So I ask you again what is outside of your subjectivity that has any meaning to you at all and why?
-------------------
"An apple falling is a meaningless act in and of itself. Its only when you have the theories and the equations of gravity which have been through rigorous testing that you have anything of real substance."
-------------------
It seems that according to your argument of objectivity being the only thing of merit, that the apple falling is the ultimate object of meanigfulnes , but the EXPERIENCE of the apple falling is what is meaningless, and I would assert just the opposite. What does it matter if the apple falls if no one knows it did? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound? NO. it may produce a wave of energy (a signal) but without an observer to receive the wave and convert the information contained in the signal to sound then there is no sound, only raw information. The universe is teeming with information (signals in the form of wave energy) but with no receiver what is it's meaning? We as observers (receivers) are the only thing that give meaning to anything.
Have you seen the interviews in The Rabbit Hole movie? Specifically the interviews with Ramtha regarding the intangibility of the Human Being? And the one with Dean Radin regarding the "stupidity hypothesis"?
-----------------
'As far as I am aware religeon has never explained anything in the history of human existance."
-----------------
I agree, but I would like to save that separate discussion for later. Enough for now. My Son is home and would like to talk about what he learned in his classes today.
'So what has not been established scientifically that relates to my original point, that you claim is meaningless and should not be believed in?'
Um I think you need to clarify this sentance. Im not sure exactly what your asking?
'We all have beliefs including you, and you have been defining them for us for many months.'
Well yes in one sense of the word these are my beliefs, however, the question appeared to be from the perspective of what faith do I follow because otherwise the fact that I was laying out my opinions would have already answered it.
As far as that is concerned I believe in nothing. My beliefs are not of the intangible variety. Though strictly speaking by its definition I can believe in something that is provable. It gets confusing to use the word in this sense because a fluid changing belief in a set of theories is not the same as an irrational belief in that which is not proven. They even come under different definitions of the word.
'So when you have a subjective experience that is shared by many if not by EVERYONE then how can you dismiss it as meaningless simply because science has not yet come up with a universal law to define it'
I have already pointed you to the post where I clarrified this for poetfire. You require a set of clear requirements in order to determine if what everyone is witnessing is the real thing. You also need to be sure that it is not a fabrication. I.e. you need to utilise science. Until you have, it really doesnt matter how many people believe in it. Humanity once thought that the sun was drawn through the sky by a God, humanity once thought that the Earth was the centre of the universe, humanity once thought a lot of things that have since been disproven through science.
'Have you experienced love?'
No
'Is it intangible?'
No, upon investigating it the effects are similar to being on potent drugs. I believe it was closest to cocaine.
'Do you have a mind?'
Yes
'Is it intangible?'
No, its made mostly of water and a sprinkling of chemicals.
'How would you define mind?'
Neurons firing, chemicals responding and other such physical effects you can view if you happen to be a scientist in the area.
'How would you define love?'
A particular type of physical response not really much different from every other emotion only usually much more drastic in its effects.
'And what are your recomendations for science to study these subjective intangible experiences that are universal among all Humans?'
Well seeing as non of them are intangible I suggest they dont. I suggest they continue their research in to the physical makeup of our brain and body and how it can respond to both drugs and therapy.
'Are they meaningless?'
The physical responses in our brain are not, no, because science has gained the evidence and research to show us what is happening. Whats more this research has been used to create effective new treatments.
'Objectively yes they are, so mabey that is why science has not serously attempted to study them.'
You are not talking about physical responses, you are talking about an illusion of your mind. When you feel something it is your brain responding in a manner best suited for your survival. Love is a mechanism to lead you in to raising a child, fear is a mechanism for making you better at fleeing etc. There is nothing deeper to this except in your own personal mind. Though as I have already stressed this is personal to you and as such can not be taught or guided. You cant describe love to someone just as I couldnt describe the colour blue to someone and nor would you ever need to, it is, as I have stressed many many times, meaningless to anyone but yourself.
'Subjectively to us as Humans they are quite meaningful.'
Careful with how you refer to this. They are meaningful on an individual basis they are not meaningful en masse. A belief in something intangible spread amongst multiple people is the foundation of religeon, a belief system without basis in fact and more importantly something that can be very dangerous. As I have also stressed previously there is no difference between religeon, spirituality and even RSE. They all have precisely the same foundation.
'So I ask you again what is outside of your subjectivity that has any meaning to you at all and why?'
Outside of my subjectivity is the only thing that has any real meaning. My subjectivity is open to all sorts of flaws and errors because I have no controls or accurate measure of how right I am. Its only outside of my subjective view that I can pull information together to formulate a more accurate view of the world. Or to put it another way. I want to believe a God exists. I want to believe RSE has some substance. These wants are irrational and flawed and could ultimately lead me in to a life based on a delusion. As soon as you actually take a look at these things objectively they begin to fall apart.
'It seems that according to your argument of objectivity being the only thing of merit, that the apple falling is the ultimate object of meanigfulnes , but the EXPERIENCE of the apple falling is what is meaningless, and I would assert just the opposite.'
No you have misunderstood me again. The experience was an important part. Just not to the world at large until it was substantiated through proper scientific means.
'If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound? NO.'
You realise thats a philisophical question that has no answer, you cant just say NO. For example you can say if your not observing it then you cant tell if its made a sound. If you are then it could be because your observing it that its making a sound. Though like most philosophy its rather pointless and doesnt get you anywhere thinking about it.
What does get you somewhere is stripping the problem of all its subjectivity. Once you do you can simply define what sound is rather than look at a particular humans experience with it. Sound is the propagation of preasure waves through a medium causing oscillation of the particles. This is a verifiable theory and removes any other answers. Does the sound have meaning without someone listening? Who cares. Science is not interested in what people think of a sound. It only concerns itself with what sound is and how it functions, which is exactly how its scientific definition came to pass. No other definition has allowed us to progress or has any particular meaning outside of someones personal thoughts. Just as with everything it is the objective not the subjective that matters.
'I agree'
Well then. When you can differentiate an intangible belief from religeon then perhaps youd be able to convince me that RSE, the secret or any other system not based in science will have any better luck.
No tieburn, you misunderstood my question, so i will ask it again, and this time keep in mind im not talking about religions, im talking about persanol belief.
What is it that you believe about the world in which you live?
'What is it that you believe about the world in which you live?'
Well if you are not asking about my faith then you can get a good idea of some of my views from the posts that I have produced. Its really not possible to sum up my beliefs because I dont have a belief system.
I think the best way of putting it would be to say I believe in whatever is most proven at the time. Though youd have to ask about a particular subject area for that to get any more specific.
[deleted]
You obviously have a very clear understanding of what reality is Tieburn, for if you did not, you would not be here arguing so profusely your knowledge. I wish to understand better what you know. So please, if you could clarify for me, what is real? And what is it that makes something real enough for somebody to believe in? Could you perhaps give me a definition of sorts?
sharewow, im getting posts left right and centre here...
Well one of the dictionary definitions which is pertinent is that reality is 'something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.'
However, what I can be personally more clear on is how I believe reality affects us and what parts of how reality touches us are important.
Reality can be important to an individual but it is personal to them and not to anyone else.
Reality can be important to an individual scientific observation but it is only as a method of formulating a theory that can be tested by others.
Reality can be important to a group but it can be the spread of a personal belief and as such open to being based on nothing but fabrications and delusional faith. It is this that can be dangerous and what I will argue against either for it to apply some science and reason in order to get a proper basis or for it to be disbanded.
Reality can be important to a group making scientific observations and this is the only time it gains greater meaning. It is this objective view of reality that allows us to progress and find answers.
Now this is a simple list I have only come up with in order to make my views clear and its certainly open to change, indeed ive been getting closer and closer to a concise list of my views over the last few posts, so ive not got as clear a view as you imply. However I cant see any obvious flaws with this and hope it clarrifies things.
I do not like the dictionary definition for it contradicts itself. I much more like what you had to say. However, how do you define reality? Perhaps you could give me a model of sorts, such as, if I look at an apple, what could I use to determine that the apple is real? I would very much like to know for I most certainly do not know the answer.
shareTieburn, I do not understand why you do not respond, for surely you know. Only a man with great confidence in what he knows would so vigorously defend his sciences. So I shall ask again, what is reality? you seem to be able to dispute what is true and what is not, so perhaps you could give me a model of sorts to define reality on such a basis?
shareI was having a weekend break. I cant be around all the time...
share'However, how do you define reality?'
Its difficult to impossible to make a definitive definition for reality.
'what could I use to determine that the apple is real?'
This is a good example for me to show why.
As I said previously there are four different ways of looking at the apple. Only one would allow you to determine that the apple is real in a way that has meaning to the world at large. The last, scientific view point. They would see the apple as a functional object, its structure, its seeds, its colour, all serving a particular purpose or existing for a particular reason.
However, you cant apply such extensive scientific research to each apple. So you can safetly make some assumptions and determine that an apple is real from your general knowledge. That can be done in two ways.
Either you can utilise science as an individual and determine the apple is real through your experience that it is fulfills a purpose, has seeds to allow the tree to reproduce, etc.
Or you can simply see the apple as you would many objects, it is a spherical red object that you can eat. More simplistic and ample for your daily life.
Neither of these two are solidly determining if the apple is real outside your own perception. They are based on experience and assumption. Though because the more scientific definition has already found the apple to be a consistent object, it is perfectly safe to do this. If however, you saw the apple as a talking unicorn hanging from a branch it is clear that these two individual definitions fall down and something is very wrong. Once again the group scientific view is the only real definition that has meaning and with the scientific definition discovering that it is not in fact a unicorn you can get help for the person under the impression that it is.
Finally there is the non scientific group definition. This at its best could be a number of people all thinking that the red apple is tasty or looks good. Where it becomes dangerous is when this becomes more than just a fleeting thought, when it becomes a belief unto itself and people begin to worship the apple in one way or another.
It sounds fairly far fetched but actually has a very famous example in the garden of eden. The garden of eden never actually existed, at least not in the form described. Adam and Eve never existed as our genetics clearly tells us. However, the belief that Eve gave Adam the poisoned apple has permeated society and branded women as sinners leading to huge amounts of innocent women being put to death.
A simple small belief, with time, became dangerous and fatal to many. I imagine the people who first read that story could not concieve of the damage it would do and it only lends credence to my views that only through science can we gain a greater and more accurate view of this universe.
Or to summarise, it is only through a collective scientific effort that you determine that the apple is real. It is through personal experience, however, that you can exist without commiting to such extensive science on each and every case, though this has no meaning outside of yourself, and you must always be wary while you are not utilising science that your personal opinions and beliefs do not grow out of control, and indeed, be wary of people trying to sell their own personal opinions and beliefs as scientific fact.
Very well Tieburn, you provided two basic ways that one can determine an apple to be real. The fact that it serves a purpose and therefore has an affect on other things, and the perception of the apple through our senses via. Sight touch taste smell sound. Would you agree? Although you seem wary to take a stand outside of what has already been established, so I looked again at the universally established definition of reality.
Reality –noun
1. The state or quality of being real.
2. Resemblance to what is real.
3. A real thing or a fact.
Ok so this doesn’t really tell us much.
The dictionary also gives a philosophical definition.
A. Something that exists independently of ideas concerning it
B. Something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.
A tell us that reality is objective, and therefore cannot be defined by thought or idea
B tells us that reality exists outside of all influence and yet everything comes from it. This in itself is contradictive and again gets us nowhere.
So lets examine A for a second. This states that reality is objective, meaning that reality exists outside of opinion and personal perception. However, this tells us nothing about what reality is or indeed on how to define it. Because even if I know that reality exists outside of my opinion, that does nobody any good because then I could never personally say that anything is real. I could look at the apple and say, I think you are real, but by definition it is impossible for me as a human being to know. Because all a human being can possibly possess, is his or her own opinion.
So again we are stuck with no universal way to say what is real and what is not real.
So let us examine your idea’s for a second, you said two things, C. that the apple could be real because it has an affect on other things or more specifically, because the thing serves a particular purpose. And D. that we can perceive the apple through our scenes.
Let us first address C. – An apple grows from a tree, and produces seeds which in turn fall to the ground and will hopefully produce another tree. This indeed served a purpose to many things, it provides food for countless animals including people. And plays a vital role in the earths eco cycle, not only providing vital gases, but vitamins for the soil as well. This thing affects so many other things that one must automatically say, this is real. But none of those things exist outside of subjective observation. A group of scientists could get together and establish these things to be fact, even universally excepted fact. But let us look closely at the definition of fact.
1. Something known to exist or to have happened
2. A truth known by actual experience or observation, something known to be true.
3. Something said to be true or supposed to have happened.
All of these definitions fall into the category of subjective observation by a human. So, since, by definition, reality cannot exist based on subjectivity. One thing having an affect upon another does not determine that something is real. To further this section of discussion, let us ask, can one illusionary thing affect another illusionary thing?
Let us now examine D. – This idea is that we can determine something is real through our senses. Now, right off the bat we can determine that this is not so because the senses have to do with our subjective human experience. But I would like to go a bit further. There ARE SOMETHINGS THAT WE AS HUMAN BEINGS CAN DETERMIN TO BE REAL THROUGH OUR OWN PERCEPTION. Example : is your mind real? Is your personality real? The answer is obvious, yes. We has human beings can indeed determine that we have a mind, or an identity, and that it is real. However, this part of us is indeed intangible, we cannot determine that it is real through the scientific method, and a group of scientists can in no way determine this. Because science is based on that which is tangible. But we do know that it is real. So then how do I know that the apple is real? By definition, I cannot. How do I define a tangible thing from a part of me that is intangible. Perhaps this is where the paradox lies?
Do you Agree?
My last point would be to address your apparent fears about belief. You have to believe something Tieburn, even if it’s a fact, its still a belief, because all fact is, is grounds for a belief, Look up the definition. Even if the belief is a widely accepted one, people may or may not die, but who are you to judge whether the belief is a good one or a bad one? Or do you say you can determine what is good and bad? This I challenge you on!
'Very well Tieburn, you provided two basic ways that one can determine an apple to be real. The fact that it serves a purpose and therefore has an affect on other things, and the perception of the apple through our senses via. Sight touch taste smell sound. Would you agree?'
Um not really. There is only one basic way of determining the apple to be real. That is through a group scientific process. I did stress that multiple times.
The apple does serve a purpose but this is not inherantly seperate from the perception of it. You need one to find the other. You always have to percieve something to determine it is real. Its just a matter of how. The A. Definition says independently of ideas concerning it but youd have to observe the apple to see that it exists independently of ideas concerning it. For example you can percieve how an apple functions so you can then predict what will happen with every apple and as such know that apple trees will grow whether you are there to watch it or not. Its this that it is refering to. Not how the reality is defined in the first place.
'B tells us that reality exists outside of all influence and yet everything comes from it. This in itself is contradictive and again gets us nowhere.'
No it isnt. Just because something is independant doesnt mean another thing can not come from it. E.g. 2+2=4 the 2's are independant entities but a sum and the answer 4 has been derived from them. The same can be said of the apple and the ground. They are both seperate real entities, the apple tree is another seperate entitiy that was subsequently derived from it. What it is eliminating is the idea that someone could see that tree which happens to be currently bare of any apples, and imagine one is still on it. That apple is not independant, it is entirely within the mind of the person who has the active imagination. As such no apple tree will ever sprout from its seeds and nothing can be derived from it.
'So let us examine your idea’s for a second, you said two things, C. that the apple could be real because it has an affect on other things or more specifically, because the thing serves a particular purpose. And D. that we can perceive the apple through our scenes.'
This whole section of your post is flawed due to you misunderstanding my points. I was using the functions of an apple as an example of course they have to be percieved to be found true. This in itself is subjective because each individual can only have a subjective view, but my example was not simply a person measuring the functions of an apple. It was a group percieving such things. Thats the whole point of science. No one person can prove anything. It will _never_ happen like that. Newton didnt prove Gravity, Einstein didnt prove relativity. His experiments, his papers, his tests that were all examined and repeated by numerous others proved their theories.
Your two views of what I have said ignore this. They are taken from the individuals point of view and I have already stressed that no individual view has any meaning outside itself.
'There ARE SOMETHINGS THAT WE AS HUMAN BEINGS CAN DETERMIN TO BE REAL THROUGH OUR OWN PERCEPTION.'
Not really no. To get back in to my number lists ill repeat one from earlier on.
0. You have proven your theory to yourself. Meaningless to others.
1. The theory has been proven to others. More meaningful to others.
2. You are looking upon the theory that has been proven by others. Meaningless to others.
Now what people seem to be missing is that your perception of a group of scientists while meaningless to others is not meaningless to yourself. So yes technically it is only your perception of 1 that allows you to determine what is real but at the same time if the group of scientists did not complete the work in the first place 1 would be.
1. The theory has not been proven to others. Meaningless to others.
As my 4 definitions showed. So you can never determine something to be real on your own. You need others in order to get to the truth of the reality you are percieving. Or in otherwords, and as I have said from the very beginning, you _need_ proof.
'Example : is your mind real? Is your personality real? The answer is obvious, yes.'
Yes but only as physical constructs with tangible functions. Thoughts and personality are measurable forces and reactions in your brain nothing more. As I have already said many times you can entirely change the personality of someone by cutting sections out of the brain. Its actually happened in accidents. There are also less damaging ways of demonstrating this e.g. an experiment that involved placing electrodes on to the brain of a conscious person (In case anyone didnt know you ahve no pain receptors in your brain so only a local is required, and indeed preffered, to do such things.) They could make people feel fear, joy, cause them to laugh and cry all simply through the electrical manipulation of the brain. Remarkable and a powerful demonstration of the physical manifistation of all our feelings, and personalities. Your concept of the intangible mind is simply an illusion.
'Perhaps this is where the paradox lies?'
I believe the problem that people get caught up in is that you always have to be percieving something for it to be defineable. People miss the fact that you can collate the perceptions of others and that these together produce an objective view. Now in your eyes that is subjective but just as before that much is meaningless to the world at large. So it doesnt change the objective nature of a lot of people percieving the exact same effect. It only alters how you view it.
'My last point would be to address your apparent fears about belief.'
I dont fear the word belief. I fear the obvious confusion me using the word would cause. I really dont want to get in to conversations using sentances like 'I dont believe in science, I believe in science.' for fairly obvious reasons.
In every meaningful way to the conversation I do not believe in anything. Or to use the main definitions from Dictionary.com
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
This isnt really an opinion or conviction as its based on objective evidence.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
This has to have been through rigorous proof in order to have been proven correct so again doesnt fulfill the definition.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
The idea is simply the most accurate view currently present. There is no undue confidence placed within it. So this one is also not correct.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
Quite the opposite of what I am trying to say so most definatly not this form of belief.
Im sure you could eventually find a sufficiently vague definition of belief that I could use but it simply isnt necessary.
As for what is dangerous belief I have already specified that much. Organised, or group beliefs, these serve no purpose accept to control and manipulate the believers for money, power, or to further a delusion. Non of which is healthy or good. Even cult beliefs in television programs and films are not particularly healthy. They can give someone happyness so like sweets people will indulge in them but also like sweets too much can be a very bad thing and there are numerous people who have developed unhealthy obsessions. If a fictional program can cause such issues imagine the power a belief system that defines your life and world could have if you place your faith in it. As I tried to point out before, even a mundane belief when spread can cause imeasurable harm when it, a fabrication, takes over the reality of things.
“The last, scientific view point. They would see the apple as a functional object, its structure, its seeds, its colour, all serving a particular purpose or existing for a particular reason.”
'”So let us examine your idea’s for a second, you said two things, C. that the apple could be real because it has an affect on other things or more specifically, because the thing serves a particular purpose. And D. that we can perceive the apple through our scenes.' “
”This whole section of your post is flawed due to you misunderstanding my points. I was using the functions of an apple as an example of course they have to be percieved to be found true.”
I apologize if I misunderstood, I asked you to explain how one defines reality, if my interpretation is flawed, its because you did not answer my question.
You can go on and on about how something is only valid when it’s been experienced by the many and put through testing. But then how do you explain the Millions of people all throughout history claiming to have these experiences. Why has science never looked into this? Science has far from proven them wrong, and today there are branches of science who’s main purpose is to look into their truth. Are you to say then that this science is not valid? They use the same tests, processes, scientific modeling and analysis. So then, since you argue as such, you must know, What science is good, and what science is bad? How can you judge this? Can you give me a model of sorts to define the good and the bad?
2+2 can = 4, but the 4 cannot exist without something to build itself out of, i.e, 4 1’s. 2 2’s ect. Just like an atom cannot exist without its electrons, and a molecule, without its atoms.
' I asked you to explain how one defines reality, if my interpretation is flawed, its because you did not answer my question.'
No its because defining reality is not something you can do in a single sentance. I made it clear how science works, it is people with a specific set of requirements, a theory, testing under controlled conditions and all acheiving the same results in a collective effort. That is the only way you can define reality that has importance to the world at large. You can not boil that down any further. You can not take the specifics of how an apple is determined to have the functions it has and apply it to something else. There really isnt a way of defining reality without some serious specifics that can get further in to it than what I have said several times now.
' But then how do you explain the Millions of people all throughout history claiming to have these experiences.'
I have also said previously, these people have no specifics, they have no scientific theory or requirements in order to apply some tests to this. There is no way you can possibly know what these people are experiencing all you know is how they are interpreting it. These interpretations are what are responsible for the belief systems we currently have. Its very likely that exactly the same feelings, occurences, coincidences or what have you lead people in to Islam, Christianity and even RSE. The only thing that is different is how people interpreted what was going on.
'Why has science never looked into this?'
It has, it has done for thousands of years. The religeously inclined have attempted to use science to support there ideas for centuries and continue to to this day. In all that time _nothing_ has been found to support any superior being or super powers.
'Science has far from proven them wrong, and today there are branches of science who’s main purpose is to look into their truth.'
You cant prove it wrong, it will never be proven wrong just as God will never be proven wrong. Everytime one route is closed off you can just move the idea down another one. Even though quantum physics is not to our knowledge how these apparent effects are occuring people will just start believing it is using some other mechanism.
'Are you to say then that this science is not valid? They use the same tests, processes, scientific modeling and analysis. So then, since you argue as such, you must know, What science is good, and what science is bad? How can you judge this?'
Science is neither good nor bad in the way that you are talking about. (Though from a more technical point of view you can usually get a good idea of the _quality_ of the science by how well its peer reviews go.) I have never judged it to be either. Science is only a means to an end. There is nothing invald about researching anything from the most bizzare to the mundane. I thoroughly encourage it.
'Can you give me a model of sorts to define the good and the bad?'
I can not tell tell you what is 'good' and 'bad', but I can tell you what current discoveries have revealed to us. There is _no_ scientific proof to back RSE or The Secret.
I have always said that this is not set in stone, nothing in science is. If you can provide proof, if you can devise and complete a test as a few commendable members of RSE are attempting. This can change. They have so far not been succesful and until they are, these films and the school have no basis.
'2+2 can = 4, but th'...
Im not sure how this has any relevance to the definition.
I walked into my first college chemistry class last week. Expecting to be confronted with the immediate expectation of memorizing the periodic table. And to my surprise the professor Jerry Hood immediately began addressing the very subject to which we have been discussing these past weeks. His first commends were, and I quote.
“There is more to life than the things driven by the scientific perspective. There are aspects of the human experience that do not fall into the scientific definitions of modeling and analysis.”
Later, after I asked him about how quantum mechanics applied to today’s definitions of atoms he said. “Well today we know that atoms are just interactions of energy, so all matter is, is a specialized form of energy. The connection between the energy and matter itself however is rather elusive, and I’m not going to get into that with this class. However, let me tell you, ANY good scientist will know that there are things that science cannot explain because they pertain to the intangible aspects of our scientific world, we know that they exist, we just cannot prove them”
This coming from a very aged scientist. Just thought you should hear Tieburn, since you seem to think you know what scientists are thinking.
My girlfriend went to RSE last year with type 1 diabetes (insulin dependent). After just a few days of being there and partaking in some of the exercises, she found that she could eat a full, normal meal without taking any insulin and having normal blood sugar levels (something that is normally impossible.) After she got home she found that this trend continued for about two more weeks before her blood sugar began to show signs of needing insulin again. She has been back to RSE several times and this trend seems to continue every time, from the moment she gets there, to about two weeks after she gets back. She has visited her doctor, and all her doctor could say was “keep going there, it seems to help.” How can you say that this personal experience that she had is not important? It may not be important, or even real to the world at large, but for a girl who has to take up to 10 shots a day to have a break from that and actually have her pancreases produce real insulin which is an impossible feat in today’s diabetic world, is indeed important for her. Can you honestly tell me, that what she has done, and what she knows, doesn’t mean something?
Keep in mind, I’m NOT talking about religion, I’m ONLY talking about the human experience.
So tell me Tieburn, how DO you “prove” Light to a blind person? Lol, because I’d really like to know.
"There is more to life than the things driven by the scientific perspective. There are aspects of the human experience that do not fall into the scientific definitions of modeling and analysis."
'Reality can be important to an individual but it is personal to them and not to anyone else.' - I dont think you are taking my posts on board.
'However, let me tell you, ANY good scientist will know that there are things that science cannot explain because they pertain to the intangible aspects of our scientific world, we know that they exist, we just cannot prove them'
I do not entirely disagree with this statement. Bar the small point that it can confuse issues to say the intangible is part of the scientific world. It may be as far as the 'scientific world' goes (Theories are always intangible before the experiment to prove them is underway.) but without evidence it isnt science and the intangible by its very design can never have any evidence. (Bare in mind a theory is intangible only when it is not proven.) This also makes the part 'we know that they exist, we just cannot prove them' an oxymoron. If you have no proof you can not know they exist within the bounds of any science. That is some simple logic, if I was wrong string theory wouldnt be considered to be virging on philosophy.
Though ultimately he was probably just trying to make the point that anything is possible, and it is. You just shouldnt believe in it without evidence.
'My girlfriend went to RSE last year with type 1 diabetes (insulin depe'...
Im pretty sure ive heard this before... In fact another member on these forums threw out more or less exactly the same story only it was this year not last that it occured.
This seems somewhat suspect. The number of diabetes type 1 sufferers and the similarities between the stories, means its already a fair coincidence. Not to mention RSE churning out miracle cures would have no doubt gained a little more notoriety than just this board. Something here seems a bit wrong...
Of course what I think is besides the point. If this girl was cured in such a way there will most certainly be some media attention, doctors proof, or otherwise. Seeing as she is apparently your girlfriend, finding some proof shouldnt hold much difficulty. So I will await your evidence.
You see the one thing telling me this story isnt, is proof of anything. E.g. The other day God touched my window and turned it to gold. I took this gold and buried it for safe keeping. 'Can you honestly tell me, that what' I have 'done, and what' I 'knows, doesnt mean something?'
Well yes you could, because its just a story I told to make a point...
'Keep in mind, Im NOT talking about religion, Im ONLY talking about the human experience.'
Ive already repeated how individual human experience has no bearing on the world at large, you said nothing that changes this. Though, you are wrong anyway. Whats more RSE is as much a religeon as any other, it differs only in its size. Non of you have any proof. Unless you can provide some? Or unless you can point out how RSE is somehow different to religeon? Given that every skeptic on the board has been asking for this much for months on end, even going so far as to set up the very tests that would do it, Im afraid to say that I wont hold my breath.
'So tell me Tieburn, how DO you 'prove' Light to a blind person? Lol, because Id really like to know.'
I have already posted a reply to that much, if you take issue with it then please respond to me in detail there.
I apologize if I said last year, I merely meant it was a while ago in my memory. And in all actuality, it was probably the same person, as she is talked about a lot around RSE lately, the happenings of her condition are interesting.
Even if there was more than 1 person Tieburn, there would be NO coincidence. Because this is a thing that does NOT happen in type 1 diabetics, they HAVE to take insulin period. Even her doctor was blown away.
She does not get media attention because she does not want it, and her doctor is required to oblige. But I guess if your going to say that I made it up, whatever, we wont discuss it anymore.
Intangible : Not Tangible, incapable of being perceived by the sence of touch, as incorporeal of immaterial things.
So just because there’s no experiment, does not mean its intangible, And also according to this definition, many things proven by science today are intangible. Light is intangible, we can see its affects, but we cannot touch it, and we cannot see it directly (except in rare cases) So Tieburn, he was right, the intangible CAN and IS a part of the scientific world. Just because its intangible does not mean it has to be some fanciful unicorn flying on a cloud.
Right, but you keep talking about religion as “never having shown anything” I’m just pointing out that I personally am not talking about that, I am talking about human experience, which we all have. Now, I agree with you, the individual human experience has no instant impact on the world at large. I guess what your missing, and what lots of skeptics miss, is that the people who endeavour to experience new things, such as build psychic abilities, are NOT doing it for the world at large. Well, ok, some do, they are the quacks that get disproved on national television. Because these are things that, I personally know what I do to be a truth because I have experienced it to be so, any scientist will say that experience is the basis for all experiment and knowledge. Do I care whether you believe me? Not really, all I’m here for is to hopefully show you that, while science is important to people who that’s all they look to for answers in life. There are also people who look at themselves. Me? I look at myself, then look at science to show me what it means. Even my college professors have backed up this view, from my philosophy classes to my science classes.
So I don’t know anymore, for you to sit here and say you know what science is truly all about seems a bit dull witted when even my Chem Professor who’s been at it for almost 30 years tells me that even he is still unsure about the boundaries between science and science fiction, because that fine line just keeps getting more and more faded. What you say, used to be true, but science, unlike you, has no subjection to what is real, and what is not, it just tries to find the facts.
Light isnt immaterial. It has a physical presence. You or I may be incapable of feeling it in the same way as feeling a brick, in that sense perhaps it is intangible. I dont believe this conversation is about that. We are discussing things that fullfill the definition in its entirety. Light is not incorporeal.
There are two problems with your next paragraph one, RSE is an expanding group. These people are doing it for other people, they are trying to sell this, they are becoming a religeon. Secondly, what they and the secret has preached attempts to utilise science, through twisting poorly understood scientific ideas they are trying to lend some tangible support to their beliefs. This is fundamentally wrong not because they are trying to prove it but because they are not. Instead they have corrupted science, that has actually produced more evidence _against_ their beliefs, in order to support their own agenda.
I have no issue with you personally persuing anything you wish. You can believe what you want and attempt anything. It may have great importance to you and thats fantastic. I made it perfectly clear that these individual experiences _are_ important to each person, just not the world at large. I get it.
My only problem and the only thing I have argued against is the corruption of current science and organised, group, beliefs. Both of which RSE is guilty of.
'seems a bit dull witted'
Cheers...
'when even my Chem Professor who’s been at it for almost 30 years tells me that even he is still unsure about the boundaries between science and science fiction, because that fine line just keeps getting more and more faded.'
Would have relevance if we were talking about science fiction... Science fiction has the benefit of the word 'fiction'.
'What you say, used to be true, but science, unlike you, has no subjection to what is real, and what is not, it just tries to find the facts.'
Oh the irony. What I am saying is, has always been, and will always be true because it is exactly the fact that science has no subjection that I am arguing for, and have been since I got here...
I am not the person trying to pass the intangible and the unproven as science. These are things entirely open to subjection thats precisely why ive argued against them. Ive asked countless times for proof and evidence to get to the 'facts'. Either this is a 'dull witted' attempt to turn what ive been saying against me, or you havent understood a single thing ive said.
My point was that light still falls under the category of intangible by one definition, and by another, it is tangible. But the idea is that it only became so once science was advanced enough to see its true nature.
RSE is not becoming a religion, you may think it is, but that is your belief, and for somebody who has never been there I think that is a stupid judgment. The individuals of RSE still go there for individual purposes, the fact that RSE is growing is only due to a greater number of people attending.
Again Tieburn, all you seem to know about RSE is a very, very, very tiny amount that has been presented in this movie. You know why it doesn’t go into extreme detail about the sciences we have to back all our information up? Because it takes 8 days of lectures for beginning students to even get the most basic understanding. So for you to say that A, you know what is taught, and B, its all wrong, is in itself un-scientific. For a real scientist never opens his mouth in ignorance. And you have.
But if you truly believe you know, and you wish to prove me wrong, please, tell me. What IS RSE all about?
You cannot continue to say that these things “corrupt science” because A, you don’t know what the real science behind it is, and B, you don’t even have a real understanding of the sciences in which you claim it to be corrupting.
I apologize if you took my words “science fiction” that way. I merely used them as a term to show a conflict of two areas, real and unreal. These boundaries from day to day are fading, this is what my chem. Professor said.
But the scientists interpret collective data and create a subjective theory.
'The individuals of RSE still go there for individual purposes'
' Because it takes 8 days of lectures for beginning students to even get the most basic understanding'
So I suppose in those 8 days of lectures they are repeatedly saying. 'Your beliefs are your own.' over and over. Other than saying my view is 'stupid' you still havent given any reason why it isnt a religeon.
You really are missing the whole point of individuality if you have to be involved with a group to be taught it...
' So for you to say that A, you know what is taught,'
I dont know the specifics, I know what is claimed. I also know there is no scientific basis for more or less any of the claims made by the school, the books, or the film.
'and B, its all wrong, is in itself un-scientific.'
Well youll be able to point out where I can get the very scientific papers the school has created on the numerous bizzare powers the school claims its students can accomplish. You do realise that is a requirement of it being a piece of science, backing it up?
To my knowledge there is only one source of science from them, they have not released anything to be peer reviewed and its results were thousands of times smaller than they should have been. So small the effect would be easily explainable by a number of different sources.
'For a real scientist never opens his mouth in ignorance. And you have.'
Nonsense, real scientists are constantly ignorant thats half of the scientific process. Being proven wrong is a large chunk of science and you can hardly be proven wrong if you dont show a degree of ignorance in the first place.
If I am being ignorant, show me with the apropriate evidence why.
'But if you truly believe you know, and you wish to prove me wrong, please, tell me. What IS RSE all about?'
This appears to be another attempt to turn things around on me... let me make this clear for yet another time, and God knows ive said it enough. I do not have to prove anything. We cant fly, this is a recognised fact. A little known force called gravity is fairly restrictive about the whole process. We cant teleport, also a recognised fact. We have no mental super powers, non has ever been found in every properly backed experiment run. I know, ive looked, ive done fairly extensive research in to it. (Rhine institute, P.E.A.R, these things should be ringing a bell if you know what you're talking about.)
You seem to be under the impression that RSE can make these claims and it is everyone elses responsibility to prove it. It is not.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, once again, you continue to provide none.
The example just keeps passing you buy over and over again. There is no more evidence to support the claims that the school has made over the claims the Christians make, the Muslims make, or indeed the many absurd claims I have made involved super powered bottle tops, peanuts and fridge magnets.
I cant change this, even if I visited the school. Perhaps you can, perhaps you will find me some evidence and prove me wrong, until you do, you and RSE have no basis, certainly are not scientific and appear to be a cult attempting to become a religeon.
'A, you don't know what the real science behind it is'
I know the science in the film claimed that you can manipulate reality via your own will power and that the mechanism exists through quantum physics. Are you disputing this?
' B, you don't even have a real understanding of the sciences in which you claim it to be corrupting.'
Really? You see I was under the impression that I do know something about quantum physics, that I know that there is no connection between conscious will power and the way a superstate collapses, that there are papers proving this fact that I have posted on these boards...
'I apologize if you took my words 'science fiction' that way. I merely used them as a term to show a conflict of two areas, real and unreal. These boundaries from day to day are fading, this is what my chem. Professor said.'
You were para phrasing your chemistry professor were you not? So those arnt really your words to be taken. Science fiction is an entirely different thing to what we are talking about and indeed the boundaries between the two are constantly being altered as mobile phones, touch screen computers etc have shown. RSE, however, is not a piece of science fiction.
'But the scientists interpret collective data and create a subjective theory.'
That is then proven through repetition and peers. If you understand this process why can you still not produce anything from RSE that follows it? As far as I am aware you dont even have the objective data to collate in the first place.
Meh, I agree with Gomuncio, you have yet shown any real knowledge of RSE or what goes on there. You base your opinions on rumors and un-proven claims. Your a hypocrite and you really don’t know enough about the institution of RSE itself to make any claims, you say its growing into a religion? You don’t even know what the principles or the point of the school is. Again, I think your just grumpy. Mr. Grumpy Gills!
shareThey openly claim these things. Read their site.
There isnt a single scientific paper from them. You can take a look for yourself.
So lets see, claims that humans can fly, teleport, have super mental powers, and can manipulate reality itself. Oh not to mention that the school teaches a form of creationism.
Not one single scientific paper on the subject. Not _one_.
How exactly is that science? How exactly is that any better than the numerous claims of every other belief system?
This is just the typical last resort, ive heard it before from scientologists claiming. 'Well you havent been their so how can you know.' I havent been to the labs Einstein worked in. I havent been to see the apple that fell for Newton, Or visited Stephen Hawkings study, or even spoken in person to Ed Witten. Yet I know their discoveries have merit. Why? because they provided evidence.
It is ironic that you can consider me a hypocrite when I hold RSE to the same standards as everyone else while the members of RSE seem to think that they are above the usual scientific method.
Incidentally im not particularly grumpy. Currently im bemused.
So you take a look at the front page and automatically you know everything about RSE, what we learn and all of the actual evidence that we have huh? wow your smart. I must admit, I thought i knew something there for a while, but wow, you’ve seen their front page, that’s beyond me. I’m sorry, ill stop talking now.
We have our evidence, but again, we do not care about the world at large, nor do we care about flaunting our philosophy and sciences to the public. You must go there and attend classes if you wish to know what these things are, and you could say, well, that’s a scam and you just want me to pay to see some crap, and all I can say is, yeah, but we don’t care what you think =)
The difference between you and I Tieburn, is you need a crowd to tell you how to think, and I only need myself.
'So you take a look at the front page and automatically you know everything about RSE, what we learn and all of the actual evidence that we have huh? wow your smart. I must admit, I thought i knew something there for a while, but wow, you’ve seen their front page, that’s beyond me. I’m sorry, ill stop talking now.'
I didnt say that, mr strawman. I said that the claims are very open and they are. I said that there is no evidence and there isnt. Seeing as you have no interest in proving any different I fail to see a point in your posts.
'We have our evidence, but again, we do not care about the world at large, nor do we care about flaunting our philosophy and sciences to the public. You must go there and attend classes if you wish to know what these things are, and you could say, well, that’s a scam and you just want me to pay to see some crap, and all I can say is, yeah, but we don’t care what you think =)'
Then why are you here? Why are you posting these constant messages? Why do you persist in reeling off more and more at me on these forums? You are quite clearly fairly concerned about the outside world. So to is RSE the members wouldnt be producing a movie and trying peddle their wares to the world at large if they werent.
Yes I shall call it a scam because you refuse to prove any different. RSE charges considerable sums of money to teach something with no basis! If you dont care what I think youd have never responded to the skeptics and myself pointing this glaring fact out in the first place.
'The difference between you and I Tieburn, is you need a crowd to tell you how to think, and I only need myself.'
Odd because your the one paying money for a crowd to tell you how to think...
You say we have no evidence, we do, you make that assumption because it wasn’t flaunted in front of you, RSE is an institution that encourages individual thought, if you want the information we know, you must find it. I've seen the evidence, I've seen the facts, I've seen Accredited quantum physicists enter the school with their jaw open and say they respect what we do, and respect our scientific pursuit of knowledge. Just because you want someone to show you, doesn’t mean they will, these are things you must find.
Why am I here? I am here to defend my belief's place in reality. It has one by all definitions, I am here to prove nothing to you, I could care less whether or not you believe in what I do. I am here because you have a limited range of thought, do I really care? no, I just find it amusing. And quite honestly, I’ve been showing these talks to my philosophy professor and my chem. professor, they’ve been giving me ideas for a few things to say to you to perhaps get you out of your misconception that reality is so black and white.
I pay small sums of money compared to a lot of institutions that teach people, and we have basis, You only continue to show your ignorance in saying that we don’t. Your like a fourth grader arguing with his teacher about evolution before even looking at the text book. Of course, in this case, there is no text book, but the evidence is all over the place, again its as simple to find as going to RSE for a few days.
Your funny, again you show your ignorance by saying RSE tells people how to think, and even that its a crowd mentality. "sigh" How do I show somebody an apple when that somebody refuses to open his eyes?
' Just because you want someone to show you, doesn’t mean they will, these are things you must find.'
That isnt the way science works.
All of science works on evidence. Proof obtained through countless tests by multiple parties. Not, one school who has produced no papers or even data to be analysed. You cant possibly be in persuit of scientific knowledge because you dont have any experiments out in the world, being reviewed by peers, ensuring that what you have is valid. You have admited this yourself. How many pieces of science have been fully validated by a single institution. NON. Not one, because without independant experiments you cant possibly know if what you have is correct.
You talk about the 'science' at RSE like its some personal quest. That isnt science. Thats a belief system and you should not require a school to teach you a belief system.
'I am here because you have a limited range of thought'
Well im glad I amuse you so much but as far as I am aware Ive shown such limited range. Indeed, it seems far more limited to me that you cant seem to grasp even the most basic problems of trying to defend RSE when you have no evidence. It would be considerably less 'limited' to think, 'Perhaps I can formulate some.' or even 'Maybe I am wrong.' Believe me I consider that every time I come to a debate but youve given me no reason to think I am.
' I’ve been showing these talks to my philosophy professor and my chem. professor, they’ve been giving me ideas for a few things to say to you to'
You cant say anything to me without proof. Why would I believe you over any other person indoctrinated in to a belief system? Why do you expect me to take it on faith that what you are saying is correct? Why cant you see that what you are saying is no more backing RSE than what many other people from all sorts of other belief systems have said?
'get you out of your misconception that reality is so black and white.'
I spent countless posts trying to make my views as succinct as possible and still didnt manage to get it all across. Youve clearly missed much of what ive said, seeing as ive had to repeat myself countless times. At no point have I shown a black and white view of reality.
'I pay small sums of money compared to a lot of institutions that teach people, and we have basis, You only continue to show your ignorance in saying that we don’t.'
Show me it then. As someone who could spend money to come to your institution show me some of this basis. The universities that I have been too had released countless papers in a massive range of sciences. Where is the base for yours?
'Your like a fourth grader arguing with his teacher about evolution before even looking at the text book.'
I agree. Im like a fourth grader who doenst think evolution has any evidence to support it. Through the teacher or my own efforts, however, I would soon find the vast quantities of evidence backing evolution up. For this, there is no evidence for my efforts to find, and you placing yourself in the position of 'teacher' have also shown me non.
'the evidence is all over the place, again its as simple to find as going to RSE for a few days.'
All over the place as long as I go to RSE and pay lots of money? Thats not my idea of all over the place.
'Your funny, again you show your ignorance by saying RSE tells people how to think, and even that its a crowd mentality. "sigh" How do I show somebody an apple when that somebody refuses to open his eyes?'
You are paying to go to a school to be taught your belief system. I.e. how to think! Given this fact does your paragraph not strike you as hypocritical? Did you not get that the first time I said it? You wouldnt require RSE if you had your own mentality. You would make up your own mind. As for showing me an apple. Youve shown me nothing, you have no discernable evidence.
Let me try sum up the whole flaw with your entire argument.
Without proof, you have nothing.
You refuse to provide any proof, therefore, you have nothing.
It is simple enough, and its what everything boils down to. Without evidence there is no more reason to believe you over anyone else. Without evidence there is no more reason to consider RSE above anyone elses random ramblings.
If you can not provide any evidence, and like everyone else who goes to RSE you dont seem interested in the least in doing so, there is no point in you being here. You cant defend something without proof because you have no basis for your defence. You cant change anyones mind because you cant prove them wrong. You cant charge people money for lessons because you have no proof that your teaching anything at all.
Or to put it another way. If someone made a claim to you that broke the laws of physics and made no real sense. Using an old example. A super powered bottle top created the universe. They then point you to a film that describes how the bottle top came to be that you can clearly see is actually wrong. Then at the end of all that they say. 'Well now you are ignorant unless you pay such and such a considerable sum of money to learn more.'
Would you go?
I see your misconception, and its probably the basis of your belief's about RSE. You seem to think that they teach us a belief system, they don’t. Its as simple as that, You have never been there so how could you possible say that we have a belief system, this is a claim you make with no proof. And again hypocrisy reigns, the information you think you know from a movie or a front page of a website is just an example of what is taught, but taken out of context I can see why you may think we all conform to some belief system that’s been laid out for us. You can’t look at a piece of the puzzle and say you know what the picture is, its as simple as that Tieburn.
As far as Evidence? Ehh, I have evidence based upon experience. And yes, this is evidence by definition of what evidence really is. And what we do at RSE proves our personal truth to us every day. And no, this is not important to the world, nor is it sufficient to prove that it is a fact when it comes to papers and reports. But it means something to me, that’s what matters, the fact that I can focus for an hour on manifesting a gold coin and not minutes later I get one means a lot to me. Can you deny that experience? No you cannot, you can say that doesn’t mean anything to the world, and I say, no it doesn’t mean anything. But what we learn at RSE is personal truth, we find what each and every one of us wants to learn and wants to make known. That’s what RSE is about Tieburn, your assumptions to me are useless, because they don’t mean anything to the world at large. The world at large has proven RSE not to be a cult in superior court, and that’s enough to tell me that even when it comes to the world at large, your opinions are meaningless, just as my opinions about what I can do, are meaningless to you. Do I really care? No, I love what I do and what I know to be truth, and that’s one thing you cannot test, that’s one thing, you cannot deny.
I Guarantee you, approach any philosopher, or scientist, and theirs one thing they will both agree on. Personal Experience Is The Basis For All Knowledge And Growth. You are a self delusional ignorant waste of breath if you honestly think that what you believe about reality doesn’t mean anything, what you believe forms your reality based on perception. You do believe things Tieburn, you believe certain things about the way the world works because people have told you that. I weep for your kind, I really do, because when the individuals of the world are no longer individuals of thought and mind, we loose all substance, we loose life. Your type of thought is what kills the world Tieburn, You, kill the world, and I have no sympathy for your pained attempts at grasping, what obviously, you will die trying to understand.
'I see your misconception, and its probably the basis of your belief's about RSE.'
'And again hypocrisy reigns, the information you think you know from a movie or a front page of a website is just an example of what is taught,'
'You can’t look at a piece of the puzzle and say you know what the picture is, its as simple as that Tieburn.'
Yet another time you used the simple, your wrong, argument to back yourself up. Explain something, dont just tell me im wrong and expect me to think 'Oh well I guess I must be.' How on Earth can I be misunderstanding, or taking out of context the claim that people can levitate? RSE Scientists even tried and failed to reproduce the levitation! Explain to me how ive taken that out of context...
' You seem to think that they teach us a belief system, they don’t. Its as simple as that, You have never been there so how could you possible say that we have a belief system, this is a claim you make with no proof.'
Yes I do.
Your school has released no papers to back up claims that could easily be substantiated. Not only this but your scientists failed to duplicate an effect and the film utilises a poor and broken understanding of quantum physics. All of this has evidence to back it. This demonstrates a total lack of science. Yet it charges people to teach what has no evidence for. This is a belief system.
'As far as Evidence? Ehh, I have evidence based upon experience. And yes, this is evidence by definition of what evidence really is. And what we do at RSE proves our personal truth to us every day.'
Well now youve just openly admited its a belief system... personal truth has no relevance to science. Thats belief. Science aims to be true to everyone regardless of who they are. It works on repeatable proven concepts. Personal truth is... personal and it is only proven to an individual.
' nor is it sufficient to prove that it is a fact when it comes to papers and reports.'
Now im just getting confused. Your admiting the school has no proof of any facts... How can you continue to hold RSE up as science with no proof? Evidence is the very basis of science. Without it as I said before, you have nothing. If you can not prove anything with papers and reports you have no science.
' we find what each and every one of us wants to learn and wants to make known'
You get in to a group to search for your individual beliefs. Dont you see how conflicting that is. How can you have lessons in thinking for yourself? By its very description that doesnt work. You cant be taught your own view of the world. You have to find that for yourself.
'Personal Experience Is The Basis For All Knowledge And Growth.'
Personal experience is the basis for all personal knowledge and growth. Nothing personal to you has any real relevance to the world.
'You are a self delusional ignorant waste of breath if you honestly think that what you believe about reality doesn’t mean anything, what you believe forms your reality based on perception.'
I made very clear several times that personal belief can have great meaning to yourself. What I also made clear was that has no bearing on the world and it can not be taught.
' You do believe things Tieburn, you believe certain things about the way the world works because people have told you that.'
No I do not. I look at the evidence that determines the reality around me. That is open to change at any point. The moment someone finds fresh evidence for new ideas.
It is deeply ironic that you can claim I believe anything im told while trying to make me believe in RSE simply because your telling me to...
' I weep for your kind, I really do, because when the individuals of the world are no longer individuals of thought and mind, we loose all substance, we loose life.'
INDIVIDUALS DONT NEED SCHOOLS TO BE TAUGHT HOW TO THINK.
I apologise for using capitals but I want to emphasize that as much as possible. Joining a school to be taught how to think, even if that school preaches having an open mind is the antithesis of individual thought.
'Your type of thought is what kills the world Tieburn, You, kill the world, and I have no sympathy for your pained attempts at grasping, what obviously, you will die trying to understand.'
My type of thought can be summed up as follows.
Anything is possible, anything at all. The only way we can differentiate between fact and fantasy is objective, inpersonal, cold, hard, evidence.
All else is personal to you and you alone.
This method of thinking doesnt and hasnt killed the world. Nor will it ever because it doesnt presume anything, it cant be used as an excuse for attrocities, it cant close off any line of thought, no one is any more superior or inferior to anyone else in its eyes. Things, quite simply, are what they are proven to be.
Well again your biggest misconception is that we care.
You think we don’t have evidence and proof, we do, but its held within the confines of the student body itself and is not flaunted to the public. So I can see where your ignorance lies. So, we do not have a belief system taught, we have belief’s, but it is by no means one system. You keep making ignorant assumptions, no scientist would open his mouth about a place he’s only read about.
These students you talk about, I know one of them personally, and they weren’t trying to levitate, their goal was to augment the ambient, and gravitational fields around them. The results were enough to merit further study, and keep in mind, the loss of even a GRAM of weight on those plates is considered scientifically significant. And I believe some of the students were loosing pounds. These things have been recorded, I’m sorry that you missed out on the real data, and rather chose to make un-scientific assumptions.
I’m tired of you saying theirs no evidence out there. Go read Dean Radins work, he is an accredited physicist, and he HAS published papers.
Again you seem to think that they teach us how to think. Your stupid, you’ve never been there and I don’t see a point in explaining it to you until you have because, well, I’ve been there, and I know that we don’t have a belief system, you haven’t, and you say we do, who’s more credible? I think the scientists would listen to me, way before they listened to you on this matter.
Your ignorance continues to astound me, but even more, your continued spewls about things you’ve been proven, and even admitted, to knowing nothing about.
'Well again your biggest misconception is that we care.'
Yes yes youve said this over and over yet you persist on continuing the debate. Really rather a good indication that you do care. Even if it is only concern about your own amusement. Though frankly you come of less amused more defensive.
'You think we don't have evidence and proof, we do, but its held within the confines of the student body itself and is not flaunted to the public.'
'How many pieces of science have been fully validated by a single institution. NON. Not one, because without independant experiments you cant possibly know if what you have is correct' Even the greatest of institutions have there work verified by outside scientists.
' You keep making ignorant assumptions, no scientist would open his mouth about a place he's only read about.'
Oh I do like the way you keep talking as if you have the definitive view on what a scientist is or isnt. My assumptions are far from ignorant.
The school would benefit from evidence if it was genuine, and suffer if it was not.
The school appears to refuse to provide evidence.
It would be difficult not to see a stark connection there. Every scientist on this Earth has had to prove themselves. Try to get it in to your head that RSE is not above this procedure.
' The results were enough to merit further study'
Indeed they were, I have watched the experiments. That isnt proof of anything more than there may be something going on. The fact that the 'augment the ambient, and gravitational fields' part was very clearly trying to reduce there weight, which pretty much by definition means they were trying to levitate and RSE has quite dramatically claimed and attempted to show, (as backed up by its members even on these boards.) out and out levitation.
'And I believe some of the students were loosing pounds. These things have been recorded, I'm sorry that you missed out on the real data, and rather chose to make un-scientific assumptions.'
If the irony of your posts was water it would exceed even the greatest oceans on Earth in its magnitude. An un-scientific assumption would be to say 'I believe some of the students were loosing pounds' when in fact that total effect was about the weight of your average apple. An un-scientific assumption would be that there was some amazing mind power involved rather than the miniscule swaying and breathing that would be required to alter the weight to that extent, on the very sensitive equipment they were using.
In short your paragraph is basically one big lie. They produced no 'pounds' of weight change as you claim and the only measurement occuring was a measurement of downward force. In laymens terms weight. I.e. no direct measurements of gravitational field strength... Levitation was the only thing that test could possibly cover.
'I'm tired of you saying theirs no evidence out there. Go read Dean Radins work, he is an accredited physicist, and he HAS published papers.'
Good lord! Youve actually attempted to provide some evidence.
To be precise he has qualifications in electrical engineering and psychology. He has no qualifications in quantum physics. Needless to say he has not produced one paper to back his connections to that subject. Odd considering how confidently he presents his knowledge of the subject...
Radins work has been proven sketchy at best numerous times.
http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/radin2002.htm and
http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/radinbook.htm being two excellent examples, his use of meta-analysis and firm support of the Ganzfeld tests, which have been proven to be deeply flawed and open to more than a little file draw effect, being another.
I am also aware of many of his papers though non are conclusive, often by his own admission and according to the results/flaws of the tests. Not to mention that peer reviews are something Dean Radin seems to lack. Id say his most compelling evidence comes from meta-analysis which are by their nature flawed.
However, Dean Radin in 25 years of work has provided some compelling papers, there may be something to this, that is something I have never denied. (Though to be honest there are much better sources for that much, with peer reviewed work and far less opportunity for biass.) As made clear though there is yet to be conclusive evidence and certainly not enough to be utilising this as a teaching aid. As for any quantum connection this is purely speculatory, the man is no more or less qualified to talk on the subject than anyone with even a basic grasp of it.
In summary, he like a few others has provided proof that their _may_ be something going on. Not what that something is. This is far from proof that people can levitate and other such abilities.
Youll have to be more specific about which papers he has done if you want me to go in to further detail and pull up more information. However, I am confident that nothing he has produced backs RSE other than his opinion.
Now we are passed something decent to debate about youll no doubt go back to repeatedly calling me 'ignorant'.
'Your stupid'
Bravo...
' you've never been there and I don't see a point in explaining it to you until you have because, well, I've been there, and I know that we don't have a belief system, you haven't, and you say we do, who's more credible?'
You are actually. Only problem is that in your last post you specified that RSE are about 'personal truth' you stated that multiple times. You also said 'nor is it sufficient to prove that it is a fact when it comes to papers and reports'
You are describing a belief system. Science isnt about the personal. It is about the objective. Belief is about the personal it is nothing to do with the objective. Personal truth, is a belief. It has no real world value it cant be measured or tested. Things that cant be tested are not a part of science.
You even admited as such by pointing out that it can not prove itself as far as papers and reports go. Let me say it again. Personal truth is a belief not a science.
'RSE proves our personal truth to us every day' is therefore no different to saying 'RSE proves our belief to us every day' Which is also no different from any cult or religeous teachers. Go to a church and through its bible and sermons it will attempt to prove its beliefs to its many followers. Go to a mosque and you can do the same, not only every day, 5 times a day! Pay enough money and even scientology will attempt to prove itself as well.
You keep saying im ignorant because of my views, but you, other members of the school and RSE itself are who im getting my information from. You are one of the many reasons I have the views I do about this particular subject.
I treat this as I would anything, whatever has the most evidence takes precedent. Currently there is quite a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest RSE is nothing more than a cult, as I have detailed multiple times. Other than a few anecdotes there is also currently nothing to back any other explanation.
A) Scientifically, even the loss of a gram is significant, our students DID loose that and more. Levitation is something no student in our school can at the moment do on call, their have been reporting, and even pictures taken of students doing it however. This includes pictures of students going invisible. But I’m sure you wont count that, because the pictures haven't been publicly released, and probably could have been photo shopped, although a close friend of mine is a student who actually takes such pictures for the events, and I’ve seen the whole process.
B) Yeah, but you cant go to a SKEPTICS website and call that real information about a person, I've met Dean Radin, he seems like a smart guy, and his credentials do however, put his information AND his opinions to the scientific community, above our own.
C) I say again, we at RSE have Belief's, but they are not all the same, The school does not teach a SYSTEM of Belief, they REQUIER all of us to EXPERIENCE and TEST the ideas taught before taking them as our own. When I said RSE proves these things to us every day, I didn’t mean that they attempt to show us stuff that proves it. I mean when we are there, we do experiments, and we do exercises that show us the physical examples of our belief's, we do them INDIVIDUALLY, and we are in NO way required to BELIEVE ANYTHING. We ONLY believe what WE have EXPERIENCED. But because we have experienced these things, we know them to be true, just as you would only believe that the ocean is cold when somebody told you, but only KNEW it once you’ve jumped in.
I keep saying your ignorant because you know about 5% of what there is to know about RSE and think you know what it is. That is ignorance, its a lack of knowledge.
Rse is NOT a cult, its been proven in superior court, To the WORLD AT LARGE, I might add.
The difference between you and I Tieburn, is you need a crowd to tell you how to think, and I only need myself. And no, RSE does not tell me how to think, no matter what you want to BELIEVE.
' Scientifically, even the loss of a gram is significant, our students DID loose that and more.'
Significant yes, also flawed yes. The weight change was tiny and could be explained by numerous problems. The people reviewing the test give several examples so you dont even need to listen just to me.
'But I’m sure you wont count that'
Well what am I supposed to think, you have released pictures of students levitating. I have had people on these forums say that they have seen students levitating. Yet in the one scientific experiment to try prove it the student didnt only fail to levitate. They failed to produce enough of a change for it yet to be considered more than a simple flaw in the setup.
To put this in perspective that is an effect thousands of times smaller than would be required to levitate. Now your saying you have pictures and have heard of invisibility just as people before said they had pictures and have heard of levitation and you expect me to believe you?
One of the biggest things I find confusing on these forums is why the members of RSE cant see how the skeptics can be skeptical...
' Yeah, but you cant go to a SKEPTICS website and call that real information about a person,'
It is real information. Didnt you read it? It was quite a good critique of his work. If you dont consider any skeptic to be valid you cut away anything at all that could possibly contradict your views. This certainly explains some things.
Dean Radin is quite clearly biassed but then many scientists are. I posted more than just skeptic sites. He has produced papers and I have not done such extensive research as to find evidence of flaws in all of them. However, non have evidence of RSE. They are largely trying to prove that there is an effect in place, not the mechanism of this effect, not how to teach it. By in large his research is still inconclusive. He is convinced he is right and good luck to him but he doesnt have evidence beyond his opinion.
'I've met Dean Radin, he seems like a smart guy, and his credentials do however, put his information AND his opinions to the scientific community, above our own.'
Not if he chooses to talk about quantum physics they dont...
Ill say again, he has no more qualifications in quantum physics than a child. Its likely being a scientist he has done some research but quantum physics is one of the hardest subjects on Earth. He simply doesnt have any authority in the subject to talk on it with such confidence. If you take a look you will find plenty of scientists who do have considerable knowledge that consider his ideas nonsense. Ive already posted links and information from them before. He probably is a nice guy, probably also has some intelligence but these are besides the point. He has shown clear biass, and whats more, no evidence to back you.
'REQUIER all of us to EXPERIENCE and TEST'
This is the belief system. I said a couple of posts ago.
' Joining a school to be taught how to think, even if that school preaches having an open mind is the antithesis of individual thought.'
Science does not presume to know how best to think. It does not tell you one line of thought is any superior to another. If you wish to believe in gnostic concepts you can, if you wish to believe in new age philosophy you can, if you want to believe in super powered bottletops you can. As long as it does not contradict the evidence and has no baring upon your experiments you can believe in anything you want. RSE is not science.
'we know them to be true, just as you would only believe that the ocean is cold when somebody told you, but only KNEW it once you’ve jumped in.'
My thoughts of how cold the ocean is is a belief. I do not know it to be true just because I have jumped in and personally consider it to be cold. Its cold as far as I am concerned, that has no greater relevance outside of me, it is _not_ science. It is a belief.
The only way you can determine if it is actually cold would be set up a theory and an experiment. For example, is it on average cold in comparison to the universe at large. No it isnt, the universe has an average temperature of a few kelvin. A more reasonable test would be to see if it was cold with regards to the systems of homeostasis in my body. That would be difficult to say without more detail from the scenario.
Either way, cold as far as someone jumping in to a pool is just a belief. If that is, as you say, what RSE are teaching, you have for the third or fourth time just described the school teaching you belief. All be it in convoluted ways that seem to be trying to distance it from that fact.
Ive just picked on the easiest part of your paragraph but the whole thing is littered with training in beliefs. The individual nature of your apparent experiments without any external controls is simply another way of saying you are affirming your beliefs. It is no different, for example, to the christian who came to the board and claimed coincidences that had happened were proof of God. They probably were to him. Just as you could no doubt prove to yourself any belief you might come up with. This isnt a scientific process, it is a spiritual, religeous based one.
All science is concerned with is what can be proven. Not to yourself, but to everyone.
'I keep saying your ignorant because you know about 5% of what there is to know about RSE and think you know what it is. That is ignorance, its a lack of knowledge.'
I have been endeavouring to find out more, the only reason I am here is to find out more, and so far it has not looked good. The more I find the worse it gets.
You've said you dont care youve said the school dont care. Your students cared enough to release a film. Ramtha cared enough to be in it.
Doesnt it strike you as odd that while RSE is quite happy to throw out snippets of information that benefit the school to the public. It closes down and tells people they will just have to come and see the moment it is asked to back them up?
'Rse is NOT a cult, its been proven in superior court, To the WORLD AT LARGE, I might add.'
It is a cult. Look in a dictionary. Whether it is a bad one is the question. Incidentally find me evidence of these court actions. The only thing I can draw up is court action against Ramtha/JZ Knight. (Which I mostly dont agree with anyway. Though some are very worrying.) Not against the school.
The issue of it not being a cult is simply not something that you could take to court. Cults arnt inherantly illegal. So no court would be interested in disproving it as such, though there may be cases about the actions of the school. Either way I am quite eager to see these court proceedings.
'RSE does not tell me how to think, no matter what you want to BELIEVE.'
Perhaps I should be more clear. It gives you guidelines on how to think, by extension telling you how to think.
This still isnt my belief, its from what you've told me.
CULT:
1.a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.the object of such devotion.
4.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6.a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7.the members of such a religion or sect.
8.any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
RSE falls under none of these, unless of course you want to get semantic about it, but then even SCIENCE is a form of a cult. My point being, under reasonable definition, RSE is not.
Now, you have certain things that you BELIEVE about RSE, they may have been from what me or another have told you, but its still a belief, and for you to spew out factual statements calling them truth is by no means scientific. You BELIEVE that everything that’s not proven by science is worthless, that IS your BELIEF Tieburn, because even I know some Scientists who would disagree.
We have certain belief's that we procure from the teachings of the school, but in no way is that how their taught. We all get something different. you jump into the ocean and you do KNOW it is cold Tieburn, somebody else may disagree, but to YOU, YOU KNOW that it is cold, because YOUR PERSANOL OPINION IS THE ONLY THING IN LIFE THAT YOU CAN EVER KNOW. You can take a scientific fact, and believe that evolution is true, or believe that the theory has substantial evidence to justify its claims. But science can NEVER tell you that the ocean is cold, because your right, people will always think different things, and people will always have different experiences, So, Since science cannot tell the world that the ocean is cold because indeed to one it might be warm, Can you seriously tell me that YOUR experience of the ocean is meaningless to you? And that its NOT a truth at least to YOU because YOU have experienced it to be so? What if science comes along and tells you that touching a fire wont hurt you, but YOU know that it will based on experience, are you going to cast out your "worthless" opinions for the views of another that you so stoically take as truth?
You tell me that RSE "is" a cult, but that’s your opinion, because a lot of people disagree, and even the courts and state of WA do not recognize it as a cult.
You tell me that RSE teaches belief, but that’s just YOUR belief, and is indeed YOUR perspective of what we are, for a lot of people would disagree, by definition, I disagree, and even un-bias impartial viewers like Robert F. Kennedy who have come and spoken to the RSE student body, disagree with you.
You seem to have more belief's than you think Tieburn, YOUR opinion creates the world and how you view it, even if that view is of science, its still a belief in science and the scientific process. The hardness of proof that you so eloquently cling to like a fish to a hook is purely a way of looking at our universe, is that TRUTH? No, because by DEFENITION, TRUTH is objective, and it is IMPOSSIBLE for we as human beings to make "worldly" definitions objective.
One last thing.
This little piece comes from http://skepdic.com/channel.html
"""Ramtha is a 35,000 year-old spirit-warrior who appeared in J.Z. Knight’s kitchen in Tacoma, Washington in 1977. Knight claims that she is Ramtha’s channel. She also owns the copyright to Ramtha and conducts sessions in which she pretends to go into a trance and speaks Hollywood’s version of Elizabethan English in a guttural, husky voice. She has thousands of followers and has made millions of dollars performing as Ramtha at seminars ($1,000 a crack) and at her Ramtha School of Enlightenment, and from the sales of tapes, books, and accessories (Clark and Gallo 1993). She must have hypnotic powers. Searching for self-fulfillment, otherwise normal people obey her command to spend hours blindfolded in a cold, muddy, doorless maze. In the dark, they seek what Ramtha calls the ‘void at the center.’
Knight says she used to be “spiritually restless,” but not any more. Ramtha from Atlantis via Lemuria has enlightened her. He first appeared to her, she says, while she was in business school having extraordinary experiences with UFOs. She must have a great rapport with her spirit companion, since he shows up whenever she needs him to put on a performance. It is not clear why Ramtha would choose Knight, but it is very clear why Knight would choose Ramtha: fame and fortune, or simple delusion."""
This is a skeptic's website, and a LOT of the information on their is actually, FACTUALLY wrong. You cant be a skeptic, and be ignorant.
[deleted]
'a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.'
and dont tell me science is the same because it holds no veneration for anything.
'You BELIEVE that everything that’s not proven by science is worthless,'
Not entirely. I made very clear what has and hasnt got worth multiple times before.
'that IS your BELIEF Tieburn, because even I know some Scientists who would disagree.'
They could try disagree but they wouldnt be able to prove it.
This isnt a belief its logic. If something has no proof how can it possibly have any greater meaning to the universe at large? It cant. Not because I believe it to be so but by its very nature. It cant be taught, it cant be used, it cant explain anything, in every way it has no real meaning.
' We all get something different. '
From a set of guidelines set by Ramtha that I posted previously.
' Can you seriously tell me that YOUR experience of the ocean is meaningless to you?'
Read my posts please. For about the fifth time. Experiences can have great meaning to you. I have stated that much myself. However, that doesnt change the fact that those personal experiences are beliefs, relevant only to yourself. I may know myself that something is cold but because it has no meaning to anyone else or the universe at large its a meaningless statement outside myself. I.e. it is a belief. It has no factual value. Which means it isnt science. Which means that RSE teaching it is RSE teaching a method of thought, a belief system if you will...
'You tell me that RSE "is" a cult, but that’s your opinion, because a lot of people disagree, and even the courts and state of WA do not recognize it as a cult.'
No it isnt. It is, by definition, a cult. It is your apparent opinion that cult is a bad thing causing the issue here not the word itself.
Still not seeing court information by the way...
'You tell me that RSE teaches belief, but that’s just YOUR belief, and is indeed YOUR perspective of what we are, for a lot of people would disagree, by definition, I disagree, and even un-bias impartial viewers like Robert F. Kennedy who have come and spoken to the RSE student body, disagree with you'
but you have NO proof. If you dont have proof for what is being taught, its a belief, once again pretty much by its definition. I dont really care who has a different opinion of that. If they want to prove themselves right, they require some... proof. The clue is in the word. This isnt my belief, it is, according to all the evidence that the school provides, how it is.
'You seem to have more belief's than you think Tieburn'
No. You just seem determined to pin beliefs on me. I dont believe in any meaningful way in anything. Everything I have said is wide open to change, as soon as there is any evidence to suggest other options.
'even if that view is of science, its still a belief in science and the scientific process.'
No it isnt! Do you even know what the word means. At the horrible risk of getting back in to nothing but semantics...
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
1. Science is not an opinion or conviction it is based only on evidence.
2. It has to have proof for it to be considered. THIS INCLUDES THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
3. It is not confidence faith or trust. It is only as right as the evidence currently suggests.
4. It is quite the opposite of religeous tenet because it has no connection to faith.
Likewise.
1. I have no opinion or conviction in RSE. You are what the evidence available currently suggests you are.
2. I only have the proof the school will allow and non of it backs RSE, infact the broken physics of the films, the fact that the school would benefit from not providing any tests or data if it is all fake, the fact that its demonstrations have been found severly lacking, that its odds were lies, that it hasnt a single paper, that it is not a non profit organisation, that it has had connections to scams, that non of its students at any point have even considered the idea that they are wrong, the fact that students have no interest in proving themselves right or wrong, the fact that the only students who did have interest failed to prove anything. All of it. Absolutely all of the information around RSE points to it having no validity or worse.
3. I have no confidence, faith or trust in my views. They can change at any moment with the correct proof.
4. I am doing nothing religeous here.
'TRUTH is objective, and it is IMPOSSIBLE for we as human beings to make "worldly" definitions objective.'
So according to you, nothing is objective, and seeing as truth is objective, nothing is true... Thats ridiculous, saying such a thing doesnt just lampoon my arguments it lampoons the very point of having any school let alone RSE.
Things arnt true or false except in the simplest of circumstances. Just as things can have proof but never be proven 100%.
However, the closer you come to the truth, to 100% proof the better. I.e. more proof, more likely to be true, the better our understanding becomes.
The only thing that can get us there is science for the reasons I have already been in to in depth. (Or in short, because it is the only way of eliminating subjective views, it is the only way of being objective.)
A school that teaches you to find your personal truth, which you persist on denying is a belief system. Is quite the oposite to this because personal truth is about as far away from the objective that you can possibly be. I.e. it isnt science it is a belief. (and seeing as you seem to keep missing the connection, if personal truth is a belief and the school teaches you to find personal truth. The school is teaching a belief system.)
'This is a skeptic's website, and a LOT of the information on their is actually, FACTUALLY wrong. You cant be a skeptic, and be ignorant.'
You just posted a couple of paragraphs of a skeptic sites view point. Giving them the same treatment you gave me and simply saying. WRONG. Isnt an argument.
Not to mention the rather glaring problem of that not even being the same site (let alone the same writer) as I posted. Which lends credence to the theory that you have blanketed all skeptics as 'ignorant'. I.e. all people who could ever challenge your view.
Detail how these are wrong, and not just this section, which is largely opinion based anyway, the Dean Radin section as well. I think youll find the holes that they pick in his research are logical, well thought out and, backed up with relevant documents and statements.
Yes, yes tieburn, that’s all well and good, but RSE does not teach truth. I never said that...that is your opinion
Well, I can’t find them, I merely remember reading it in a newspaper some time ago. But I think its time for you to show me papers and proof of what you say is truth tieburn. And don’t say all you say is logic, because logic is based upon what you know. You do know things Tieburn. You say (down below) that (most) everything not proven by science is meaningless. Prove it! keep in mind, Meaning is subjective, Meaning pertains to the individual.
_________________________________________________________________________
'Yes, just because something has not yet been proven by science does not make it false.' - Blue
No it just makes it meaningless - Tieburn
You BELIEVE that everything that’s not proven by science is worthless,' -ME
Not entirely. I made very clear what has and hasn’t got worth multiple times before. - Tieburn
ok, so maybe not EVERYTHING. So what does have meaning? keep in mind, MEANING is subjective. and MEANING pertains to the individual.
I have no opinion or conviction in RSE. - Tieburn
It gives you guidelines on how to think - Tieburn
I'd call that an opinion, because you don’t actually know what they teach, or what goes on there. So I’d say that’s an opinion, because its not rooted in SOLID Evidence, Facts, OR "Truth"
You also seem to know what does and does not have worth. Tell me, What is worth? I was not aware of science ever providing papers and evidence on the subjective standpoint of something such as worth, so I believe that is your opinion of worth is it not?
I was never under the impression that RSE taught anything even close to truth, I don’t know Tieburn, this doesn’t seem like a very sound statement to me coming from somebody as logical and sure minded as yourself.
Such things as you want proven are things that, in the form of proof, are in themselves un-important because they are then taken out of their context and out of their beautiful truth and reality that makes them understandable in the first place. Such things that are taught Tieburn are things that can only be understood and known from a level of self that is unreachable by the bounds of science and untouchable by another’s view. I could tell unto you the vastness of my experience and the wonderment of what I know, but I agree with you, to anybody but me it would not mean anything. But that is not what RSE is about; such an institute of learning is about truth on a much deeper level. It is about finding truth about yourself, and when you do find that, you find the truth about the world. I apologize for your confusion on these boards about these films, you seem perplexed and almost astounded about what we know, but worry not, such things can only be understood when you know yourself. It seems as though and throughout your life you have only understood the opinions of others, and although such things seem to be real because they are things the many can agree upon, they mean nothing to the individual. We at RSE, learn to know ourselves, and that is all. You cannot tell me who I am, and I cannot tell you who you are. So this illusionary battle of words and logic is in itself only as good as your perspective makes it. I enjoy, however, listening to your opinions Tieburn, they are well thought out and you are indeed a master of your sciences. But I implore you to keep in mind, what you seek, and what we seek, are two different things. We come from different worlds.
' RSE does not teach truth. I never said that...that is your opinion'
Right... if something isnt coming from the point of view of trying to get closer to the truth. Then it is not science, its a belief. You just dont seem to be getting my point, you certainly havent come close to refuting it yet.
'You say (down below) that (most) everything not proven by science is meaningless. Prove it!'
Something that isnt proven has no worth by its very nature! Its just a clear logical fact. It proves itself, Im somewhat taken a back that you need me to lead you through it... again, but ill give it my best shot.
If something that has no evidence, no proof, has validity to the world at large then you throw all knowledge, absolutely all of it in to chaos. Why? because the super powered bottle top suddenly becomes as valid a theory as gravity. Not only the super powered bottle top though, talking lamp shades, obese paper, depressed spaghetti, laughing stars, jelly tape, planets made entirely of cheese, everything you can ever imagine gains as much validity as gravity...
If you still can not see how that is an untenable view to take then I give up. I just cant get you to understand.
''Yes, just because something has not yet been proven by science does not make it false.' - Blue
No it just makes it meaningless - Tieburn'
For the very reasons I specified above this is very true. Non of those crazy things I suggested can be entirely ruled out non of them are categorically false. No ones done the research. There lack of evidence, however, means you really shouldnt start believing that your spaghetti is depressed or that Mars looks suspiciously like an Edam. I.e. it still has no real meaning.
'I have no opinion or conviction in RSE. - Tieburn
It gives you guidelines on how to think - Tieburn
I'd call that an opinion, because you don’t actually know what they teach, or what goes on there. So I’d say that’s an opinion, because its not rooted in SOLID Evidence, Facts, OR "Truth"'
Ramtha's Teatchings:
The Statement, "You are God"
The mandate to Make Known the Unknown
The concept that Consciousness and Energy Creates the nature of Reality
The challenge to Conquer Yourself
Rather sound like guidelines dont they...
'You BELIEVE that everything that’s not proven by science is worthless,' -ME
Not entirely. I made very clear what has and hasn’t got worth multiple times before. - Tieburn
ok, so maybe not EVERYTHING. So what does have meaning? keep in mind, MEANING is subjective. and MEANING pertains to the individual.'
and seeing as its more or less the same question.
'You also seem to know what does and does not have worth. Tell me, What is worth? I was not aware of science ever providing papers and evidence on the subjective standpoint of something such as worth, so I believe that is your opinion of worth is it not?'
I have on more than one occaision been through this in great depth. (The second time I did so, it was _to you_ on the secret boards.) I am not going to repeat it all again. So I will summarise.
I have already explained that proof is all in science. The scientific method is a group effort though, so there is individual science as well. Without backing from peers and external testing (I.e. the scientific process.) this is barely any better to its flip side individual belief. It differs mainly in its objectives. Individual belief can be important to a person but because it has no evidence so as pointed out in this post it has no worth to everyone else. Finally there is the flip side of collective science which is group beliefs. Cults, religeons etc. These are where things get dangerous because groundless belief begins to get treated as fact, that has led to some of histories greatest attrocities and continues to cause countless deaths to this day.
Science does have a measure of worth, its involved in every experiment, every study, every paper. It is in the form of peer reviews, of double blind experimenting, in the whole scientific process. It is through these methods, which are always open to improvement, that science manages to determine how close something is to being proven, how much truth there is, how much worth the work has.
Yes, but again, RSE does not teach truth, that is your opinion
Tieburn, you missed the point, science cannot tell me what has and does not have worth. Because worth is a completely subjective experience and a completely individualized experience.
The fact that you "believe" that that which is not proven is meaningless does not "mean" anything. Because by your own definitions, that statement is not "proven" it is an "opinion" based upon "logic" and when we deal with logic on this level, it is "subjective" unless you want to get down and dirty and explain the math behind your logic?
My dear poetfire, why do you so persist? He is coming from a world and a perspective where self does not mean anything. He only understands truth on a very base level, and what you are attempting to explain to him is beyond what he knows, for he cannot know it, until he makes an effort to know something greater than what he plainly sees. He believes in his opinions very strongly, and his logical mind can argue that for a long time. But i agree with this last comment of yours, his opinions on the way the world works and functions, and indeed his belief's about science are the very thing he is refuting. But he is one that you would call "red in the rainbow" and so much that he cannot see his ignorance and his hypocrisy in all of this. And the sad part about all of this is that he believes he is arguing against the idea that there are those who see truth outside of his own. But that is not so, indeed, my truth, and your truth, were not given to us by RSE, or by the world, but rather from discovering ourselves, and the world of our mind. He cannot see that, so what he thinks he's arguing against, is not our standpoint at all.
shareQuite the flurry of posts now.
'He is coming from a world and a perspective where self does not mean anything.'
No im not.
Ive typed it down what must be dozens of times now. What matter to the individual can be very very important to the individual, but it has no bearing on anyone else. It is meaningless to the world at large. It cant be taught, you cant learn it.
' his opinions on the way the world works and functions, and indeed his belief's about science are the very thing he is refuting'
No im not.
I dont have beliefs about science. I even went through of the definition of the word demonstrating this!
Science is not a belief. It is not an opinion. It is a collection of evidence that gets you closer and closer to truth. This is just how it works. The evidence of it is in every paper and test that has ever been run.
The fact that you and poetfire dont seem to be able to grasp that science is entirely based on trying to get to the truth while by your admission RSE is entirely based on getting to know yourself, a belief. That these therefore dont mesh in any way or form and RSE is not scientific it is a belief system is pretty much the whole point of all my posts in this thread.
There is no ignorance or hypocrisy in that.
'But that is not so, indeed, my truth, and your truth, were not given to us by RSE, or by the world, but rather from discovering ourselves, and the world of our mind. He cannot see that'
Why do you go to a school when you have made it very clear that what you have learnt can not be taught.
There appears to be a degree of ignorance and hypocrisy in that...
'Yes, but again, RSE does not teach truth, that is your opinion'
It is not opinion, it was what I was led to believe by the use of science that RSE has employed. Science has only one purpose to get closer to the truth. If RSE does no teach truth why is it utilising science and why does it consider itself to be anything but a belief system.
'Tieburn, you missed the point, science cannot tell me what has and does not have worth. Because worth is a completely subjective experience and a completely individualized experience.'
Only when dealing with things personal to you. At which point you cant use science anyway...
'The fact that you "believe" that that which is not proven is meaningless does not "mean" anything.'
I dont believe that... its just a logical fact. It is proven, and I went in to the logic in great detail! Ill post it again.
'If something that has no evidence, no proof, has validity to the world at large then you throw all knowledge, absolutely all of it in to chaos. Why? because the super powered bottle top suddenly becomes as valid a theory as gravity. Not only the super powered bottle top though, talking lamp shades, obese paper, depressed spaghetti, laughing stars, jelly tape, planets made entirely of cheese, everything you can ever imagine gains as much validity as gravity...'
'The fact that you "believe" that that which is not proven is meaningless does not "mean" anything.'
"I dont believe that... its just a logical fact. It is proven, and I went in to the logic in great detail! Ill post it again."
Tieburn, your stupid, "logic" is not "fact" and is not "proven" by "science"...i've seen perfectly logical arguements given to me by advanced logic professors at my college and "prove" to me that god exists through their logistics. But that doesent mean its true.
If you wish to prove to me that your opinion about meaning and worth is true then I expect you to show me evidence and maybe some papers and reports or even an artical that backs this up. Otherwise, it is just your opinion.
'I was never under the impression that RSE taught anything even close to truth, I don’t know Tieburn, this doesn’t seem like a very sound statement to me coming from somebody as logical and sure minded as yourself.'
If it does not aim for the truth it is based in belief, if it is based in belief why does every student seem insistent on the idea that this is a science? Why did the movie try to use quantum physics to back itself up? Why are scientists working on evidence? All of these are methods of getting to a universal truth not just personal ones.
' Such things that are taught Tieburn are things that can only be understood and known from a level of self that is unreachable by the bounds of science and untouchable by another’s view.'
If they are only understood and known from a level unreachable by science and anyone elses view. How can you set up a lesson to teach you how to get there?
How do you even know its there for a person in the first place?
'It is about finding truth about yourself, and when you do find that, you find the truth about the world.'
Someone cant teach you to find personal truth, because they have no idea how you personally could ever arrive at it. Unless you are suggesting all humans think in the same way? They would have to make assumptions and presume to know how you could arrive at your own answers. Otherwise they could teach you nothing at all.
It is those assumptions, those guidelines that I posted previously, that makes RSE a belief system. Open minded perhaps, but a belief system non the less.
'I apologize for your confusion on these boards about these films, you seem perplexed and almost astounded about what we know, but worry not, such things can only be understood when you know yourself.'
I am perplexed but not by the students of RSE's knowledge, more by the often contradictory posts, the claims of evidence where you have both now said truth is not what you are after. The claim by poetfire that he doesnt care then he proceeds to try provide proof and debate for countless more posts. The claims this is science then the repeated posts about how only the subjective matters to you. Most oddly of all, the fact that RSE appears to have the 'white book' a form of creationism and a whole slew of different claims. Yet I am repeatedly told that it teaches nothing as truth. Non of it adds up.
'It seems as though and throughout your life you have only understood the opinions of others, and although such things seem to be real because they are things the many can agree upon, they mean nothing to the individual.'
No. I have understood or attempted to undestand the evidence of others with which to formulate my own views.
'We at RSE, learn to know ourselves, and that is all. You cannot tell me who I am, and I cannot tell you who you are.'
This seems to me to be another contradiction. No one can tell you who you are but you go to RSE to learn who you are. If no one can tell you who you are why do you need to go to RSE to find out? They cant teach you how to find who you are because no one can know but you.
'We come from different worlds.'
That much is clear, however RSE has encroached on science with its use of it in its film and in its tests. Utilising science when you are in persuit of anything but truth has always turned out badly. I still have no idea just how dangerous your world is. I suspect nor does anyone in it.
In reading all three of your posts Tieburn, I see one common question. So I will avoid for now responding to each individually, and address to paradox directly.
You seem to entirely miss the point of our reasons for doing what we do, however, my reason for going to RSE, and Poetfires reason, are probably completely different. As when we go there, they do not show us who we are, they do not teach us a belief of any sorts and indeed the white book is not a form of creationism, perhaps if you read it, you might not make such an assumption. What you have is a small range of data, and evidence that tell you certain things. But such things are not the whole picture, and your assumption is what one in your position might call an inference, or a hypothesis. But, as one who has seen the things about this subject that indeed you have not, I can tell you with all honestly and reason that such assumption are false. I will not endeavour to show you or even try to explain the quandary’s in which your mind so chaotically tries to piece together. I think as Poetfire said once before, what RSE is and what RSE does, is not something that can be readily put into words without grave misunderstandings such as you yourself have come across. And for a whole horizon, you must experience what we speak, before you can know it. For you this thing shall continue to remain an Enigma of sorts. Just as one cannot know the color green before one sees it, and no matter how hard one tries to imagine such a thing, and no matter how much explanation one gets. One will always say such a color does not exist, and does not make sense, and will be confused at those who do see it. Until you see it Tieburn, you will always be confused.
"logic" is not "fact"
It is if its a 'logical fact'...
"proven" by "science"
Yes it is, what do you think science was created for in the first place.
'i've seen perfectly logical arguements given to me by advanced logic professors at my college and "prove" to me that god exists through their logistics'
Id be willing to put money on the idea that you havent. There is no logical argument for God, there is logic that can prove God is a possibility, thats as far as it can go.
Maybe you can prove me wrong and give me the logical argument that does it, but im fairly sure thats just not true.
Anyhow, Ive already gone in to detail how this proves itself.
Follow these steps.
Lets say gravity has an evidence factor of 10. I think we can all agree there is a lot of proof backing it.
Lets say that super powered bottletops has an evidence factor of 0. It is fairly unlikely my bottle of pop is going to cause any miracles any time soon.
We can also say that the super powered bottletops are a good representation of all completely unbacked ideas. (Id rather not make my spaghetti any more depressed due to lack of representation...)
1. Take away all evidence, all proof. This leaves gravity with an evidence factor of 0.
2. Try to do any science.
You will find, after this simple two step process, that gravity keeping us on this Earth is no more or less of an explanation than the super powered bottle tops. All of science is rendered useless. You can no longer accomplish anything. No new technology, no new medicine, no new chemicals or materials, no inventions, nothing at all.
Not my opinion, not my belief, just a logical follow through from removing all proof.
'Until you see it Tieburn, you will always be confused.'
Then why does the film exist. Why does RSE continue to try prove itself. Youve just said its impossible.
Also, why does RSE insist it is a science when for science you need clear tests and papers which you also imply can not exist.
Why have students utilised quantum physics to provide a basis for wild possibilities. This isnt an individual truth it is an attempt at proving a phenomenon for many people.
I wasnt refering to the white book being specifically a form of creationism, I was refering to its very existence. If personal truth is entirely different for everyone how can such a book be of any use. How can any group lecture or experience as has been described by many of the students be of any use?
As for the creationism, I believe it is mentioned on a number of sites. This one best sums it up without biass.
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Ramtha.html
Are you disputing the information on there?
You can make RSE out to be this cryptic impossible to understand until you're there experience. However, it still doesnt answer the contradictions it has already left outside the institution. In particular its use of already present sciences. No convenient answer of, you must go to find out, will change the fact that the quantum physics was just completely misrepresented.
You completely missed the point didn’t you. Let me end our conversations with this Tieburn as it is such that I no longer feel the need to argue with one who obviously has no real ground for what these ideas truly represent to the individual. You tieburn, can believe what you wish about the world. But don’t fool yourself, no matter what you want to think, it is a belief. For a fact is established by the world at large, and you can take it as your own, but if you choose to do so, than you indeed choose to believe in it. My point is, and I believe to be the point of the others on this board arguing your standpoints, as there are more who disagree than agree with you. We as human beings cannot escape our own opinion, as put eloquently by Bluestar. You must understand or you to get anywhere in real life, that your opinion is the only thing that you have. And it is that belief that you hold so strong to because it IS the only thing left of your own thoughts. You fail to see many things about RSE, and probably such things as you will never understand without experiencing them, and no, that’s not a copout, that’s a rule of reality. And perhaps, for a young man such as yourself in comparison to my ending years, you still have time to grasp that which is still unknown to you. I wish you well in your future attempts to understand things, however, next time, I sincerely hope that you try at least to understand your own mind, before you judge another’s.
shareI didnt miss the point. I understand what you are saying, it just has no relevance.
You could consider me taking on the information that the world has to offer a belief, but it doesnt change the underlying fact that you require that evidence in the first place to make any meaningful progress. As I made very clear in my responses to poetfire. I would argue that it is you who has never managed to understand this and not infact the other way around.
The argument that everything is in peoples own minds and therefore nothing is objective and thus nothing or everything matters is self defeating. Neither of us can ever be right or wrong there is no point to the debate, the film or the school.
We can not escape our own opinion, we can not escape subjectivity, we can not prove anything. All true, but you can get as far away from opinion, subjectivity and a total lack of evidence as you possibly can. That is the entire point of science. When you start to look at the fact that even when you are utilising methods of distancing yourself from these things you are still 'yourself', you are looking at a level of abstraction above that which is necessary, you are looking at something that can neither be proven or denied, it can lead to no conclusion no answers, it is meaningless. (It certainly cant help you to control quantum states or levitate.)
I probably have missed much about RSE I still do not understand a school that appears to teach nothing by its own admission. It is largely besides the point, my principle argument is about the film, that much I do know. I know that it is filled with nonsense stories and broken science and I also know that no one from in or out of the school has yet explained why.
I dont judge anyone, never have done, what I do is look for the answers to the glaring problems with both this film and the school. The students claim it runs on science yet you cant learn anything without the personal experience of going there. This is one great big contradiction. Science does not require personal experience, it isnt interested in what you think and feel. It is only interested in what you can prove, not to yourself but to the world and your peers. Yet you appear to be able to prove nothing, whats more, neither you, poetfire or any other member of RSE seems interested in proving anything.
With this line of thinking, RSE can not be a science. Its claims to be, and its abuse of physics are damning indeed. I said the most likely explanation is that its a cult, after these debates not only has that failed to be succesfully disputed but the contradicting claims and total reliance on 'personal truth' only provides further indication that my original theory was correct.
Its as if RSE has buried any answers under abstract philosophies, vague metaphysics and anecdotes. Asking people to go and pay sums of money to find out these answers whether good or bad is far from a good sign.
Its likely this debate has indeed reached an impasse with everything just being repeated, probably happened a few posts before even now, but ive said my piece anyhow.
You are as hopeless as a retarded blind person with no legs trying to climb Mt. Everest.
share[deleted]
My religion does not blind me to anything. Some feel that theories of evolution conflict with Christian theology, I do not. As "WTB:DTRH" says, the Bible is not a history book. There is a lot it does not say and a lot it does not discuss. People who want to endorse it or discredit it as a historical account are missing the point of the message.
I mention evolution, because one belief was that the "eye" is too perfect to have evolved. Science on the other hand proves otherwise and there is a very compelling PBS special about the evolution of the eye. The eye is very flawed. the PBS special was compelling for me because the concept of light existing, but a creature being fully unaware is exactly what 'WTB:DTRH' is about. What other phenomena out there 'might' exist without us knowing? In the PBS show it explored rudimentary visual perception. It showed how early vision might have only consisted of a creature seeing a flicker of dark and light. That flicker meant the difference between nothing being there or a food source being nearby. A brief flicker of light gave creatures like that an advantage for survival.
Imagine if you had never see light and someone was trying to describe it to you. It would seem unimaginable. You would scoff just as you are scoffing now.
When I make my choices in life I always make two assumptions. Either everything I perceive is valid, or it is not. I fine tune my ultimate decision based on repeatability and probabilities. My Christian faith and the presence of 'miracles' has become a repeatable event in my life. Certain elements must be there... emotional investment, prayer, faith (believing in what the mind cannot see), and a closer understanding of the Bible and the 'promises' contain within.
So again, even 'if' atheist are right, my faith still adds value to my life and warrants further exploration. I've found something of value (Christianity) that adds peace and contentment to my life when the typical stresses would be crippling emotionally for other people.
I have empathy for those who do not have something greater to believe in. I used to be that way as an agnostic and I prefer my life as it is now. But regardless, I am not trying to convert you or anyone. I am merely witnessing that my life changed. I do not believe Christian's are called to convert, only witness. there is a big difference.
'Some feel that theories of evolution conflict with Christian theology, I do not.'
Whether you like it or not it does conflict. The bible clearly describes how the universe was created including life. Evolution as far as it is concerned is not true and that is the book that defines your religeon.
You continue to avoid answering my questions so Ill ask them again.
'the Bible was once considered 100% accurate. Our advancements, our science and our reason have left a sizable chunk of it as just fables. Can you not see that that shakes its credability somewhat? Can you not consider the idea that maybe all of it is just stories? Can you also not understand that if the book that defines your religeon has begun to turn in to fables then the religeon itself may also be simply fabricated?'
'Imagine if you had never see light and someone was trying to describe it to you. It would seem unimaginable. You would scoff just as you are scoffing now.'
No, no I wouldnt. They are _entirely_ different. This is just another form of the absurd argument that if you dont believe in something your closeminded. Being openminded is accepting the possibility of things existing not believing in it. If someone tried to describe light to me, id ask them to prove it and given light is a provable phenomenon they very shortly would.
Where is your proof? Where is the proof of RSE? Where is the proof of God?
The Bible discusses these matters in the manner which a man 2000 years ago would understand them. At no point does the Book of Genesis define God's interpretation of time and at no point does it describe how man was made from dust. You are assuming that your definition or that modern man's definition of time is the same as God's. You are assuming that God felt like explaining the adadaptive modification of a life form to an environment. I do not make these assumptions. For that reason, I see no conflict.
The Bible ~may~ just be stories to you. All that I can say is that I have tested what those stories say and teach and applied them to my life. Those stories have made changes in my life that reenforce what those stories teach. I don't care why or how. I don't care who scrutinizes it differently. I only care about results. If nursery rhymes produced the same physical changes in my life, I'd be pointing everyone to them. I am not the only person who feels this way.
You are looking for specific evidence to prove God. God is probably not going to provide it in the form you want. He asks for faith. The Bible specifically says God confounds the wise. Why would he give you what you want when you have no concern or regard for what he wants? Why would he reward disbelief, the one thing that he asks from us? The Bible say man grieves God's heart. Your disbelief is a burden to God.
Let me put it this way. Assume the possibility that God is working in an energy type that you do not have the ability to detect. It's not even physically possible for you to detect it. If that premise were true, would you still assert that God does not exist knowing that you in your present state could never detect him? He might not exist to you, but he sure exists to a lot of other people. I for one ask questions and get answers. I say prayers and physical things are manifest to answer those prayers. That is all I need to know. If God ends up being space men form the future, I'm not really going to care.
'The Bible discusses these matters in the manner which a man 2000 years ago would understand them.'
Ive heard that excuse many times before.
a) Why hasnt he updated the message.
b) Why wasnt an infalible being capable of producing a message that would work to all througough time.
c) What made humanity stupid enough back then that they wouldnt have understood a God saying you evolved. At its most basic, even a child can understand that much.
'The Bible ~may~ just be stories to you.'
Nooo it IS stories. We are not decended from Adam and Eve. Are you going to dispute even that much?
I ask again. If the bible that was once considered absolute fact, is now fables to guide you. How can you possibly know that the whole thing isnt a fable? and if the book that defines your religeon is nothing but a story, how can you know your religeon not just a fabrication?
As for your pointing to various books. You do realise that there are many books that have affected man kind on such huge scales. The other religeons texts for example. I dont see you refering to the Qu'ran though... Why?
because you dont believe in it? Why you then consider the bible, which has no more backing, to be any better?
' Why would he give you what you want when you have no concern or regard for what he wants?'
and now your using the age old argument, used by the members of RSE as well I might add, that unless you believe in him you wont believe in him.
I am not asking for a reward I am asking for evidence. Should he provide it I would endevour to be his greatest follower. According to your religeon his absence of evidence may well be leading me to eternal pain beyond my comprehension. What kind of cruel malevolent being would do such a thing?
As it is youve provided nothing but poor circular logic, the same logic I could use for _anything_. Cant see any goblins around you, its because you dont believe in them. Believe in them strongly enough and youd be online spreading your stories about Goblins. Replace goblins with anything else it all works, but non of it would actually be supported by anything but fanatical belief.
'Assume the possibility that God is working in an energy type that you do not have the ability to detect.'
Why would I assume that, over my headphones working on an energy type I dont have the ability to detect. Or this glass im drinking from working on that energy type. Your God has no more proof than these things. Your assumption is nonsensical.
'If that premise were true, would you still assert that God does not exist knowing that you in your present state could never detect him?'
Well there is no evidence of his existence over countless trillions of other things. If there is no way of detecting it, it is meaningless. He doesnt exist to other people as anything but a figment of their imagination. If they are producing effects based on something then this, they can be measured and a reason their existance can be found but until its proven its nothing but another story.
'If God ends up being space men form the future, I'm not really going to care.'
Really? Your not going to care that your faith turns out to be something completely different? Your not going to care that hundreds of tousands have died in the name of it? Your not going to care that thousands even today are being led to their deaths because of this false faith?
You dont seem to be grasping the fact that your religeon, indeed any baseless belief, is dangerous. If you would simply change your view when you find a better explanation then perhaps you shouldnt be adding to it right now.
---------------------
:"'Imagine if you had never see light and someone was trying to describe it to you. It would seem unimaginable. You would scoff just as you are scoffing now."
---------------------
---------------------'
No, no I wouldnt. They are _entirely_ different. This is just another form of the absurd argument that if you dont believe in something your closeminded. Being openminded is accepting the possibility of things existing not believing in it. If someone tried to describe light to me, id ask them to prove it and given light is a provable phenomenon they very shortly would."
-----------------------
So perhaps you could explain to all of us how you would describe and PROVE the existence of light to a blind person.
Light is not reliant on human perception. A blind person can not percieve what you percieve of light. That doesnt remove there ability to percieve it at all.
For example a blind person can understand, presumably through brail versions of the papers, how an LDR works. Once they do you can give them the exact same papers that discuss light that you or I would read, and prove its existence with a simple circuit that involves a buzzer and an LDR.
This is actually a very good example of how there is an underlying reality. Just because a blind person can not see light doesnt effect the physical properties and underlying nature of light itself. Even if everyone in the universe was blind, light would still exist we just wouldnt describe it in the same way.
Science is independant of aesthetic descriptions though, so it remains constant. There is no difference between light to you and light to a blind person bar the fact you can pick it up with photoreceptors in your eye. (Which is besides the point as far as lights existence goes.)
Though this isnt really important to the previous conversation. I dont scoff at any idea even it has no evidence to back it. I do, however, question people who believe in them with no proof.
I feel as though our discussion has run it's course. You are entitled to believe in yourself or whatever it is that you do believe in. There are far more knowledgeable people than myself who proudly proclaim to be Christians. You are unable to change what I believe, because my faith is based on personal experiences that make a far deeper impression on me than scientific theory and any Scientific method for proving those theories. I do believe the story of Adam and Eve has a sound basis, but again.. I see it as a tale spoken to humans at a childlike level of knowledge so that they'd be able to understand it.
My belief based on the Bible is that there is no wisdom in prolonging a discussion of this nature especially when you have it set in your heart to disbelieve. Proving that you have a deep reservoir of knowledge does not prove you have the wisdom to apply that knowledge.
I'm quite aware that the Bible is a very small representation of a very common writing style from those periods. I have dabbled in reading alternative scriptures. That includes Jewish Psuedepigrapha, Manichaen Creation Myths, Kabbalah, Gnostic Texts, Apochrypha, Infancy Gospels of Christ. Of all the alternative texts I've read, the only one which I find compelling is the Gospel of Thomas. Classically treated as a Gnostic text, it is believed to have had the same origin as the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All are believed to have come from an earlier writing called the "Q" or Quelle. I like the fact it takes the quotes of Jesus from the other scriptures and finishes some of them. There are a few others that are very interesting, but as a believer I still see a common message that strays widly if you get into the alternative texts. Even some of the Catholic old testament inclusions that did not make the Protestant Bibles have small passages that I find inconsistent to the message taught elsewhere in the Bible.
I'm not bringing that up to prolong a debate, I'm merely saying I'm not completely ignorant to the point you are trying to make. I just disagree with it.
Fear not defiant one for Tieburn dosent know what he is talking about and just goes around spewing stuff just to marvel at his own self imagined brilliance. He claims to have the truth in tidy little formula if only the rabble like you and I were smart enough to see it. But there is a guy on another thread that has his balls in a bunson burner and I expect that if his head dosent just explode he will soon just dissapear in a puff of his own smoke.
Euthyphro is goin down all right..............Ha
Oh God I am ROTFL
Life is Good
'Fear not defiant one for Tieburn dosent know what he is talking about'
Point out where im wrong then we can have a debate instead of you acting like a child and insulting me in responses to other people.
'goes around spewing stuff just to marvel at his own self imagined brilliance'
I dont remember claiming I was brilliant, indeed I have done nothing here but ask for answers and proof. You provide me with nothing.
'He claims to have the truth in tidy little formula if only the rabble like you and I were smart enough to see it'
You havent understood a single thing ive said on these forums...
There is no tidy little formula, the truth is not something I can package up for you and deliver. No one can, not me, not JZKnight, not Ramtha.
'But there is a guy on another thread that has his balls in a bunson burner and I expect that if his head dosent just explode he will soon just dissapear in a puff of his own smoke.'
Considering you show so much disdain for me you sure like to keep a track of my posts...
I can assure you Ill be around for a good while yet.
Don't let the believers get you down Tieburn, most of us readers here respect the fact that a critical voice of sanity is holding it's own in between those that would like to validate their particular views by laying claim to the word 'science' whilst rejecting its basic tenets.
Scientific method can only be properly applied to only a minute percentage of affairs. Please let's use it to common advantage whenever possible.
Testing in an objective, repeateable and falsifiable way the claims of RSE seems to be advantageous to everyone and easily possible. What's the problem?
What is it that you don't understand about Schrodinger's cat?
What is it that you don't understand about scientists corrupting the results by merely testing/viewing/measuring? If you fail to understand the premise by which quantum physics are defined, how are you going to logically assert anything to persuade the people who find the movie fascinating. Your brain has not even developed the capacity to think outside the box of a world you've created for itself. the movie is about you. it's about teaching us not to be like you. I praise it for that. By no means does it attempt to tell me what to think, but it sure tells me that your way of thinking is already inadequate.
Defiant1
[deleted]
Amen! :D
share'What is it that you don't understand about Schrodinger's cat? '
What is it that _you_ dont understand about schrodingers cat. It was a thought experiment demonstrating that quantum effects do _not_ pass on to the macro universe.
'What is it that you don't understand about scientists corrupting the results by merely testing/viewing/measuring?'
Observation of results effects the outcome is no evidence to back the absurd idea that you have conscious control over a quantum state. No one is aware of when the state breaks down. It is very likely it happens with the instruments the scientists are using measure it, much like dipping a cold thermometer in to warm water will effect the outcome.
No manipulation with the mind, no willing reality, no truth in what the film has claimed. Indeed for the umpteenth time of saying it. I posted the very experiment that provides proof against consciousness having an effect. Its about the only point in the process that can be eliminated...
'If you fail to understand the premise by which quantum physics are defined, how are you going to logically assert anything to persuade the people who find the movie fascinating.'
Your lecturing us on logic and quantum physics? You dont appear to have the first clue what you're talking about. This isnt logical or working outside the box, you arnt a somehow superior thinker, you appear to have taken something you don't understand and simply believed in what you were told by a film.
That isnt open minded, thats moronic.
Being open minded is being willing to accept any possibility no matter how absurd _if_ it has evidence to back it. Without that proof no progress can ever be made. This is the line of thinking that is the very foundation of good science. Science is the only way we have found to answer all questions about the universe around us. All that lies outside this is belief, faith, religeon and cults. Do some research then come back to me and tell me just how many questions these things outside of science have answered?
'By no means does it attempt to tell me what to think, but it sure tells me that your way of thinking is already inadequate.'
So the film doesnt tell you how to think, unless you think like the skeptics, in which case it tells you not to think like that. Read your sentance back to yourself a few times and when you realise that that is infact telling you how to think then get back to us...
Though to be honest the one fact that you seem to have a horribly twisted grasp of the physics involved and are preaching about it to these forums would indicate that this film has indeed succesfully told you how to think on every level.
You sit here telling us about science you don't seem to understand. You claim that we are some how underdeveloped because we don't think like you. You talk about open mindedness all the while you block out any skeptical view labeling it inferior. You consider all that we have said inadequate as if the science we hold up has somehow failed. You seem far more arrogant than intelligent.
The only reason I am here, and I assume any of the remaining skeptics, is in the vain hope that someone will one day provide the papers, the research and the evidence to make this more than a load of rubbish. In the meantime the skeptics and myself will no doubt have to continue to respond to the constant barrage of insults and self superior garbage from the apparently oh so enlightened.
You know, I would argue that what you say may have a little credibility Tieburn if YOU had any clue what you were talking about, and actually showed it instead of just telling everybody else that they don’t know what you have yet to even show a glimmer of knowledge about. You only seem to have what we have, an opinion, the difference is, we've actually studied more into our opinions about the movie than the just the movie itself.
shareWhich part do you require evidence for?
Schrodingers cat?
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat
http://www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm-3.html
The last one being Schrodingers very own words.
No one is aware of how the quantum state breaks down?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics
Provides a list of the current theories and if you follow them through I think you will find all of them are flawed.
Simply denying the research of Schrodinger, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Bohm, Cramer, etc, etc, instead opting to go with the only explanation on the list that is _unverifiable_ and therefore entirely unscientific is why I think I am quite justified that this goes beyond open mindedness and in to the realm of stupidity. Especially as I have already posted the research that demonstrates any measurable effect from consciousness can not be found.
As I have said previously what must be a dozen times when you take consciousness to such a level of abstraction you render everything pointless. This is not simply my opinion. Non of this is. Its researched science, much of it researched by some of the finest physicists to have ever lived.
Incidentally, saying you've studied something to come up with the conclusion that schrodinger supports macro level control of the universe through a quantum effect, when its actually the complete opposite, may indicate that you should try studying something else...
Yeah well, im not talking about Schrodingers cat...
And the wikipedia "interpretation of quantum mechanics" What it is Is information based on relevant and previously obtained data. Which yes, is important information to look at, but it doesn’t break down just because you say so. Now, if we had a quantum physisist here with us to tell us that that information breaks down, i'd be more than submissive. But you are not an expert in this field therefore your opinion on the matter is somewhat irrelevant, in your own words.
Many worlds
The many-worlds interpretation (or MWI) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that rejects the non-deterministic and irreversible wavefunction collapse associated with measurement in the Copenhagen interpretation in favor of a description in terms of quantum entanglement and reversible time evolution of states. The phenomena associated with measurement are explained by decoherence which occurs when states interact with the environment. As result of the decoherence the world-lines of macroscopic objects repeatedly split into mutally unobservable, branching histories -- distinct universes within a greater multiverse.
That is the many worlds theory explained on the page you gave me. Now, I don’t know enough about this theory to know whether this particular explanation is right or wrong but i do know that the theory exists and that there is most deff evidence to support it or it wouldent be such a widely talked about idea.
Im not going to post the table, I tried, its clutter. But if you scroll down near the end you will find a table. Look at it, conscious collapse it not ruled out entirely.
Philosophy of physics: is the study of the fundamental, philosophical questions underlying modern physics, the study of matter and energy and how they interact. The main questions concern the nature of space and time, atoms and atomism. Also the predictions of cosmology, the interpretation of the results of quantum mechanics, the foundations of statistical mechanics, causality, determinism, and the nature of physical laws. Classically, several of these questions were studied as part of metaphysics (for example, those about causality, determinism, and space and time). Today, the philosophy of physics is very close to the philosophy of science, and is the most active subtopic within it.
Contents
I got this also from wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Physics
Now, to make it clear, im not advocating for anything on this page, mostly because i have not read it all. It is just an example of how philosophy CAN and DOES weave into science, and it is an active field, not some crack pot "anti-science" that you seem to make it out to be.
Tieburn, I know something that may help you a little more to understand where I’m coming from in the end all of this argument, about how subjectivity cannot create objectivity. Before you try and argue, I know somebody who can explain it a hell of a lot better than I can.
Go read Meditations On First Philosophy
By: Rene Descartes
'Which yes, is important information to look at, but it doesn't break down just because you say so. Now, if we had a quantum physisist here with us to tell us that that information breaks down, i'd be more than submissive. But you are not an expert in this field therefore your opinion on the matter is somewhat irrelevant, in your own words.'
First off you can't really judge how expert I am in this field because I have never made it clear just how expert I am. I likely never will. I could say that I was Ed Witten himself and itd make no difference to my arguments. Letters before my name do not add up to evidence of anything but the fact there are acronyms. Thats not even mentioning the fact that I could just make it up. As for wikipedia I hardly expect you to simply look at wikipedia and take its word for it. It can and has been wrong, though it is a pretty solid source the vast majority of times.
It does however, link to a lot of research and as I will cover later it often links to the scientists, who are behind these theories, very own words and papers.
'That is the many worlds theory explained on the page you gave me.'
What is your point? The many world theory is indeed a valid way of thinking but it still doesn't allow for conscious control.
Go to the many worlds wikipage it covers it in great detail. If you don't believe wikipedia it has refrences linking to the work of the physicists who made the theory what it is today.
'Im not going to post the table, I tried, its clutter. But if you scroll down near the end you will find a table. Look at it, conscious collapse it not ruled out entirely.'
Of course it is not ruled out entirely! Nothing in science ever is. It is ruled out as a valid theory unless someone provides the evidence that it is not worthless, which they haven't. To consider it along side the copenhagen interpretation or the many worlds interpretation would be the same as considering creationism as being on par with evolution. There simply is no evidence to back it.
'It is just an example of how philosophy CAN and DOES weave into science, and it is an active field, not some crack pot "anti-science" that you seem to make it out to be.'
I have never made philosophy out to be an anti-science. You are strawmanning, I dont believe for the first time. Philosophy is a starting place, a logical and reasoned line of thinking that can lead you to the theories upon which good science is based.* It is not irrational and illogical belief in a theory with no evidence.
I have not refered to philosophy much, purely because very few people here are practicing any of it.
*Though I must stress that philosophy, to my knowledge, in and of itself has done nothing to aid our understanding of the universe. It is only when its tenents are tried and tested with science that it gains any worth. It remains, however, quite interesting to ponder non the less.
'Go read Meditations On First Philosophy'
I already have, which makes me wonder if you did given the ideas held within it.
Indeed, I have not only read Descartes work I have been echoing some of it on these boards as my argument.
It is a little more complicated than merely, I think therefore I am.
However, it does give me a body of work to use as example for the logic at work and I can go through what it says in more detail. (Though this is going to get long winded.)
----
Meditation 1: An introduction of sorts where he lays out the issues and in order to progress he removes all of existence as that is the only way to also discard all assumptions.
----
Meditation 2: I think therefore I am, perceptions are thought about therefore they are as well.
'In fine, I am the same being who perceives, that is, who apprehends certain objects as by the organs of sense, since, in truth, I see light, hear a noise, and feel heat. But it will be said that these presentations are false, and that I am dreaming. Let it be so. At all events it is certain that I seem to see light, hear a noise, and feel heat; this cannot be false, and this is what in me is properly called perceiving (sentire), which is nothing else than thinking.'
This is much the same as when I tried to explain that going to the level of abstraction where you lock yourself in to your own consciousness is futile. You can never escape your own mind but within this we can still see an underlying reality and realise an objective view.
He then goes on to use a piece of wax to demonstrate how our opinions our sensations are meaningless to the nature of the wax itself because all that made it what it was to these personal experiences can be easily destroyed with some heat, though the wax itself is still wax.
Which he then points out can be formed in to all manner of shapes all of which may also cause us to respond and that to classify the wax in this way would be impossible due to its infinite number of forms. It is therefore leading you to material properties and what it is composed off. I.e. the scientific view. He confirms this when he talks about the fact that through close examination he now knows more about the nature of the wax. (Though is left further confused by what it was that defined the wax to him in the first place.)
He summarises by saying that only through understanding objects can we learn. Our senses and imagination do not percieve any real truth.
'it is now manifest to me that bodies themselves are not properly perceived by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the intellect alone'
----
Meditation 3: Not fond of this part due to the God connection. Ill go in to that later.
'whether I imagine a goat or chimera, it is not less true that I imagine the one than the other.'
'if we but considered the ideas themselves as certain modes of our thought (consciousness), without referring them to anything beyond, they would hardly afford any occasion of error.'
Or in our own imaginings any possibility is as equally true as any other. It is only through referring to things beyond our consciousness that we can get a better idea of reality. (The requirement for proof.)
This following passage is particularly important
'The first of these grounds is that it seems to me I am so taught by nature; and the second that I am conscious that those ideas are not dependent on my will, and therefore not on myself, for they are frequently presented to me against my will, as at present, whether I will or not, I feel heat'
He goes on to reiterate that in your mind alone all ideas are equal, they also far far outnumber the ideas that occur in reality. Yet reality perfectly fits together if it were made from the vast store of ideas this is a staggeringly unlikely, in his words, 'accident'.
Unfortunately he gets in to God at this point and uses some deeply flawed logic to try prove its existence. This is a different argument entirely so I am not going to get very deeply in to it, in short, saying we cant have invented an infinite being because we are not infinite would suggest that we know infinite which isnt true, infinite is just an abstract concept. Though most damning of all, if nothing can come from nothing then his God ideas are in serious trouble.
However, it is interesting to note that he makes a specific argument agains the concept of us being our own Gods. (Rather conflicts with one of a certain schools principle tenets.) Though this too is marred by flawed logic as we have no basis upon which to judge our level of perfection. (Indeed he covers this in detail in the fourth meditation.) Essentially another judgement on an infinite that we certainly do not currently understand, and may never understand.
Meditation 4: This is basically fleshing out the idea of a universe with God and himself within it. Given the flaws with his reasoning with regards to God it is interesting but not particularly relevant. He essentially goes through some of the fundamental errors with haivng a perfect creator and his perfect creations. I.e. why we can still err. This is merely reasoning that shows that God is not disproven by logical thought, it is not evidence of his existence.
Meditation 5: This goes in to detail about the objective nature of the universe.
More relevant passages pertaining to the objective reality around us.
'As, for example, when I imagine a triangle, although there is not perhaps and never was in any place in the universe apart from my thought one such figure, it remains true nevertheless that this figure possesses a certain determinate nature, form, or essence, which is immutable and eternal, and not framed by me, nor in any degree dependent on my thought'
'its three angles are equal to two right, that its greatest side is subtended by its greatest angle, and the like, which, whether I will or not, I now clearly discern to belong to it, although before I did not at all think of them, when, for the first time, I imagined a triangle, and which accordingly cannot be said to have been invented by me.'
He finishes this meditation refering to the fact that through clear knowledge of something (objective scientific knowledge outside of personal sensations and feelings.) you can avoid being decieved. That the deception brought on previously by the wax in his example was because he didnt have a clear knowledge, only his opinions and senses. He finally once again goes in to the point that you can never get away from the fact that this is all within his conscious, he points out that it is irrelevant because 'all which is clearly presented to my intellect is indisputably true.'
Meditation 6: This is about material things and their existence.
He first goes in to the objective and the subjective view of these objects. The actual knowledge of a triangle is clear enough but to differentiate between that knowledge and imagination he uses a 100 sided shape to show the different mechanism by which imagination functions.
'Thus I observe that a special effort of mind is necessary to the act of imagination, which is not required to conceiving or understanding (ad intelligendum); and this special exertion of mind clearly shows the difference between imagination and pure intellection'
Most importantly, he comes to a conclusion I myself have stated on these boards countless times.
'I remark, besides, that this power of imagination which I possess, in as far as it differs from the power of conceiving, is in no way necessary to my [nature or] essence'
Imagination, or your opinions and feelings on an object are of no real meaning. It is only the science (or in his example the mathematics), their properties etc, that gain that much.
He continues in to further explaining why reality is not simply in our minds.
'I was conscious that the ideas were presented to me without my consent being required, so that I could not perceive any object, however desirous I might be, unless it were present to the organ of sense; and it was wholly out of my power not to perceive it when it was thus present.'
I.e. we have reality placed upon us through our senses without our consent or will.
He does demonstrate that this is flawed because our perspective on an object can alter what it appears to be. However, he begins to eliminate this flaw by first determing that things can exist. (In his case he uses God. Agnostics and Atheists would refer to the big bang, or whatever theory brought us to be.) Then showing that we have mechanisms to percieve things passively, ideas that occur without our forethought and knowledge etc. If we have come to be with these mechanisms in place and there is no reason why we would be being decieved. (Again in his case God would never be a deciever, in the agnostic and atheist view there is simply no cause for any deception.) Then the only real explanation is that the objects are indeed in existence as objective seperate entities outside ourselves. Though our perceptions of them may vary.
Or to sum it all up.
'But there is nothing which that nature teaches me more expressly [ or more sensibly ] than that I have a body which is ill affected when I feel pain, and stands in need of food and drink when I experience the sensations of hunger and thirst, etc. And therefore I ought not to doubt but that there is some truth in these informations.'
Much of his final point is about the seperation of mind and body which is again off topic. It is unfortunately also flawed as its root lies in the idea that he has proven Gods existence. As such he justifies the existence of a seperate consciousness or soul by pointing out that God as an infinite being can create it. (Without God, however, you have to rely on good ol brain matter.) He then proves this is how it is primarily through the indivisable nature of the brain compared to the body. E.g. you can slice a foot off the body but nothing is lost from the mind. However, while the mind is a complex thing and there is no clear cut way of dividing it you can remove or effect parts and alter the consciousness just as you could alter the body through amputation. I.e. there is nothing to indicate that your mind is anything more than the electrical and chemical signals within your brain.
He finishes by saying that all the doubt about the objective nature of reality can now be laid to rest.
'I ought to reject all the doubts of those bygone days, as hyperbolical and ridiculous'
Especially noting the confusion over sleep as a form of reality no less than our own. He now sees large differences as it becomes apparent that dreams do not have all of the structure that reality has. They are infact an indication of the underlying objective universe as they clearly show a world that is made only within our minds and it has no rules, no progression, non of the passive feelings such as pain, hunger, thirst. Non of the things that indicate the objects around us have a distinct objective existence.
There is no reason why reality would be decieving us, so it is likely we are not being decieved.
Descartes was, to my knowledge, always against the concept of a purely subjective universe. His love of science, his near worship of mathematics was all rooted in it being the purest tool for getting to the objective nature of what lies around us. His philosophy was an attempt at finally getting us to the point where we can determine what is objectively real rather than just a figment of our imaginations.
That all said I must, of course, heed his words. 'I earnestly entreat my readers not to come to any judgment on the questions raised in the Meditations until they have taken care to read the whole of the Objections, with the relative Replies.'
I'm glad you've read it, and I agree his logic becomes off when it comes to the nature of god. My point in bringing him up, is he indeed does follow the thought of an objective universe. But i must sincerely contest that other brilliant philosophers have gone through the same logic, but for a subjective argument. Socrates argues and quite proves that objectivity cannot possibly exist in the context that men cannot have real knowledge of a thing. Have you read Plato’s Euthyphro? Or The Apology?
share'Socrates argues and quite proves that objectivity cannot possibly exist in the context that men cannot have real knowledge of a thing'
Lacking knowledge of something does not remove its objective nature. Infact it enhances it. (As descartes points out with the universal properties of the simple triangle shape. After all something that is objective exists independant of your thoughts or knowledge. While a subjective object would be reliant on you and could not really be unknown to yourself.)
Neither of those works are particularly relevant because they don't deal with subjective and objective views specifically. Euthyphro largely falls apart as a dilemma when you remove God from the problem. The apology goes in to this once more but amongst other things, also includes the idea that we can not know anything absolutely. (Although that in itself is a bit of a paradox.) This can be different to saying we can not have real knowledge of a thing. He didnt argue that we can have no knowledge, but no certainties. (Of course if you consider certainty to be real knowledge then it still works.)
I have never disputed Socrates views, Science can not prove anything 100%. Anyone who believes that this is wrong are like the wise men Socrates tries to find after the oracle claims he is wisest.
However, he does not comment on what can be done with knowledge that is not an absolute truth. Nor does he discuss the impact of not having an absolute truth to work upon with regards to the world around us. For that much you need to look to Descartes.
Socrates invented a powerful tool for philosophy and he instills a sense of humility but he doesnt define what is around us as purely subjective. Indeed the idea that we know so little about the world around us yet it continues to function in perfect harmony would strongly suggest a very solid reality. It is merely the idea of proclaiming anything about that reality as 100% proven that socrates disagrees with and this is not something that good science utilises. That is something the religeons hold on to and both Descartes and Euthyphro begin to fall down when they attempt to prove, as a total fact, matters of God.
It's clear - none of this bickering or drawn out typing sessions will get us anywhere on this website.
It seems with more knowledge (more stuff to learn) on the part of humanity and it's apparent cognitive benefits, confusion and controversy will inevitably spawn from both. Or maybe, on a collective level, the deeper we dig, the more we will only confuse ourselves in the future.
OR MAYBE - If we find a doctrine that suits us with uniformity now, 10,000 years later, any conclusions reached may contradict the original thought process that created it. Maybe science itself? The systemic failure or collapse of all knowledge ever learned?
I'm probably not conscious enough know what I'm even asking.
Sorry for not typing so excessively.