Like
Haha
Sad
Hug
Wow
Hmmm
Grrr/Dislike
Send SmileNavigation
Fascinating
America is falling out if love with billionaires, and it's about time.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 4, 2019:
@greyeyed123 I’ll look into “Money Ball”.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 4, 2019:
@greyeyed123 I’ll look into “Money Ball”.
Fascinating
America is falling out if love with billionaires, and it's about time.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 4, 2019:
@greyeyed123
Business profits are not all that high:
http://www.aei.org/publication/the-public-thinks-the-average-company-makes-a-36-profit-margin-which-is-about-5x-too-high-part-ii/
Profits have ranged from 5% to 14% since 1947. We are currently in an era of moderately high profits but that level can not be sustained as wages rise:
https://www.epi.org/publication/ib364-corporate-tax-rates-and-economic-growth/
CEOs have a huge effect on the profitability of a company:
https://hbr.org/2016/11/are-ceos-overhyped-and-overpaid
However, in reading various articles I have become convinced that executive pay is indeed out of kilter for larger corporations:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/shelliekarabell/2018/02/14/executive-compensation-is-out-of-control-what-now/amp/
Companies that vastly overpay their executives will eventually go into decline and be overtaken by those with more sensible policies IMO. Tax policy might be used to discourage extremely high executive pay. It is important to keep in mind though that money is not wealth and that high executive pay in general does not affect the availability of goods and services.
The fact that real wages have remained flat since 1950 I see as a good thing. Why should real wages increase?
Our opinions are shaped by our strongest experiences. My earliest memories are of many poor people living in shacks with outdoor toilets and open wells, whose only income was from seasonal farm labor. I know that there were people in industrial areas up north with union jobs who were living well. After the advent of mechanized agriculture many of our poor people moved to such areas. People in my area seem to be living very well today—much better than before. Free market evolution trumps leftist revolution.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 4, 2019:
@greyeyed123
Business profits are not all that high:
http://www.aei.org/publication/the-public-thinks-the-average-company-makes-a-36-profit-margin-which-is-about-5x-too-high-part-ii/
Profits have ranged from 5% to 14% since 1947. We are currently in an era of moderately high profits but that level can not be sustained as wages rise:
https://www.epi.org/publication/ib364-corporate-tax-rates-and-economic-growth/
CEOs have a huge effect on the profitability of a company:
https://hbr.org/2016/11/are-ceos-overhyped-and-overpaid
However, in reading various articles I have become convinced that executive pay is indeed out of kilter for larger corporations:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/shelliekarabell/2018/02/14/executive-compensation-is-out-of-control-what-now/amp/
Companies that vastly overpay their executives will eventually go into decline and be overtaken by those with more sensible policies IMO. Tax policy might be used to discourage extremely high executive pay. It is important to keep in mind though that money is not wealth and that high executive pay in general does not affect the availability of goods and services.
The fact that real wages have remained flat since 1950 I see as a good thing. Why should real wages increase?
Our opinions are shaped by our strongest experiences. My earliest memories are of many poor people living in shacks with outdoor toilets and open wells, whose only income was from seasonal farm labor. I know that there were people in industrial areas up north with union jobs who were living well. After the advent of mechanized agriculture many of our poor people moved to such areas. People in my area seem to be living very well today—much better than before. Free market evolution trumps leftist revolution.
Fascinating
America is falling out if love with billionaires, and it's about time.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 4, 2019:
@greyeyed123 No thanks. I am open only to the discussion of substance. Both of us have clearly stated our opinions and there it’ll stand unless you want to add something.
BTW, quoting something from a book proves nothing. I could give quotes supporting what I wrote if I wanted to.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 4, 2019:
@greyeyed123 No thanks. I am open only to the discussion of substance. Both of us have clearly stated our opinions and there it’ll stand unless you want to add something.
BTW, quoting something from a book proves nothing. I could give quotes supporting what I wrote if I wanted to.
Fascinating
America is falling out if love with billionaires, and it's about time.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 3, 2019:
@greyeyed123 Baloney! I understand everything you wrote in minute detail. You simply disagree with my opinions and because they are different than your opinions you are diverting—claiming that I don’t understand what you are saying.
Is it possible that all of your opinions are not 100% correct? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean that they lack the ability to understand what you are saying. It might just be that you are at least partly wrong.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 3, 2019:
@greyeyed123 Baloney! I understand everything you wrote in minute detail. You simply disagree with my opinions and because they are different than your opinions you are diverting—claiming that I don’t understand what you are saying.
Is it possible that all of your opinions are not 100% correct? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean that they lack the ability to understand what you are saying. It might just be that you are at least partly wrong.
Fascinating
America is falling out if love with billionaires, and it's about time.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 3, 2019:
@greyeyed123 What you are saying is plainly displayed above. What good would it do for me to take time to repeat your words?
It is ok for different people to have different opinions. It doesn’t mean that one person is correct and the other wrong, and it doesn’t mean that one of the people is weak in comprehension.
Our opinions are usually based on past experiences and they are deeply ingrained in our subconscious minds. We do not change our opinions based on someone else’s logic or experiences. It is a fun little game to needle each other but I doubt that needling ever changes anything.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 3, 2019:
@greyeyed123 What you are saying is plainly displayed above. What good would it do for me to take time to repeat your words?
It is ok for different people to have different opinions. It doesn’t mean that one person is correct and the other wrong, and it doesn’t mean that one of the people is weak in comprehension.
Our opinions are usually based on past experiences and they are deeply ingrained in our subconscious minds. We do not change our opinions based on someone else’s logic or experiences. It is a fun little game to needle each other but I doubt that needling ever changes anything.
Fascinating
America is falling out if love with billionaires, and it's about time.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 3, 2019:
@greyeyed123 I do understand what you are saying—we disagree, that’s all.
No big deal.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 3, 2019:
@greyeyed123 I do understand what you are saying—we disagree, that’s all.
No big deal.
Fascinating
America is falling out if love with billionaires, and it's about time.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 3, 2019:
@greyeyed123 Nothing is ever misvalued. Value is an emotion. Whatever people think something is worth will always be what it’s worth, period.
Of course they might evaluate differently at other times.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 3, 2019:
@greyeyed123 Nothing is ever misvalued. Value is an emotion. Whatever people think something is worth will always be what it’s worth, period.
Of course they might evaluate differently at other times.
Fascinating
America is falling out if love with billionaires, and it's about time.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 2, 2019:
@greyeyed123 if the market has misjudged the value of something the effect will be felt immediately and the market will correct itself automatically unless foolish politicians and bureaucrats step in. If manufacturing wages are too low people will quit working and wages will rise. If unions force wages to rise artificially the result might be off-shoring or it might be general inflation. Either way, nothing is gained for the workers. If managers are being overpaid, then new prospective managers will come forth and offer their expertise at a cheaper rate. If that doesn’t happen it is because managers were not overpaid in the first place. I would think that a truly good manager is a rare animal, hard to find.
From an overall perspective having to do work is a liability, not an asset. Creation of work should never be the object. Creation of wealth in the form of goods and services, yes, and if labor is needed for that endeavor, jobs will emerge. At one time, to have a job was a special thing, but it has gotten to the point that people think they are entitled to jobs, and high-paying jobs at that.
All that said, I favor social programs if they are well managed and modest. State Capitalism as done by Norway seems like the best option to me. With automation there is simply less work that needs doing.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 2, 2019:
@greyeyed123 if the market has misjudged the value of something the effect will be felt immediately and the market will correct itself automatically unless foolish politicians and bureaucrats step in. If manufacturing wages are too low people will quit working and wages will rise. If unions force wages to rise artificially the result might be off-shoring or it might be general inflation. Either way, nothing is gained for the workers. If managers are being overpaid, then new prospective managers will come forth and offer their expertise at a cheaper rate. If that doesn’t happen it is because managers were not overpaid in the first place. I would think that a truly good manager is a rare animal, hard to find.
From an overall perspective having to do work is a liability, not an asset. Creation of work should never be the object. Creation of wealth in the form of goods and services, yes, and if labor is needed for that endeavor, jobs will emerge. At one time, to have a job was a special thing, but it has gotten to the point that people think they are entitled to jobs, and high-paying jobs at that.
All that said, I favor social programs if they are well managed and modest. State Capitalism as done by Norway seems like the best option to me. With automation there is simply less work that needs doing.
Fascinating
America is falling out if love with billionaires, and it's about time.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 2, 2019:
@greyeyed123 There are reasons why a Wall Street speculator might earn more than a retail clerk. It is society that determines the value of an individual’s contribution, based on supply and demand.
As an example, my first job was picking cotton. There is no longer demand for that kind of labor. Should I throw a fit and demand that “my” job be somehow resurrected—that I am entitled to a job?Pout that I want my way, the hell with what’s needed? Society doesn’t owe us anything.
I remember living conditions of 1950, and let me tell you that people live better today than then. And people of 1950 lived much, much better than those of 1900. Modern technology along with free trade has brought great bounty but it is not appreciated. We have become a nation of greedy spoiled brats.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 2, 2019:
@greyeyed123 There are reasons why a Wall Street speculator might earn more than a retail clerk. It is society that determines the value of an individual’s contribution, based on supply and demand.
As an example, my first job was picking cotton. There is no longer demand for that kind of labor. Should I throw a fit and demand that “my” job be somehow resurrected—that I am entitled to a job?Pout that I want my way, the hell with what’s needed? Society doesn’t owe us anything.
I remember living conditions of 1950, and let me tell you that people live better today than then. And people of 1950 lived much, much better than those of 1900. Modern technology along with free trade has brought great bounty but it is not appreciated. We have become a nation of greedy spoiled brats.
Fascinating
America is falling out if love with billionaires, and it's about time.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 2, 2019:
@dokala Do you honestly think that without such people as Bill Gates we’d all be better off? Think again. Wealth is not money. Wealth has to be constantly created. Create something and you’ll have.
I doubt Gates actually consumes much more than I do. His well-earned money gives him certain power, within limits—that is all.
Sure, some people win the lottery. Their having money is not causing anyone to be poor.
WilliamFleming comments on Feb 2, 2019:
IMO the reason some people are poor is not because other people are wealthy. Money is not wealth, rather it is an accounting system whereby contributions to society are repaid in kind.
If a person wants more they ought to think of ways to contribute more. Sitting there in envy will get you ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 2, 2019:
@dokala Do you honestly think that without such people as Bill Gates we’d all be better off? Think again. Wealth is not money. Wealth has to be constantly created. Create something and you’ll have.
I doubt Gates actually consumes much more than I do. His well-earned money gives him certain power, within limits—that is all.
Sure, some people win the lottery. Their having money is not causing anyone to be poor.
Do you feel depressed because there is no afterlife?
brentan comments on Feb 2, 2019:
I felt it as a huge loss. After all, it's the loss of everlasting life. I'm comforted a little by the new animist thinkers who feel consciousness is not dependent on the brain and continues after death. How that consciousness might fit into universal consciousness is still unknown, I think. I would ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 2, 2019:
Universal Consciousness
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-universal/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-universe-may-be-conscious-prominent-scientists-state.amp
http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/565
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/600900
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna772956
brentan comments on Feb 2, 2019:
I felt it as a huge loss. After all, it's the loss of everlasting life. I'm comforted a little by the new animist thinkers who feel consciousness is not dependent on the brain and continues after death. How that consciousness might fit into universal consciousness is still unknown, I think. I would ...
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 2, 2019:
Universal Consciousness
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-universal/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-universe-may-be-conscious-prominent-scientists-state.amp
http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/565
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/600900
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna772956
Harry Dresden wisdom:
"If you can’t stop the bad thoughts from coming to visit, at least you can...
KissedbySun comments on Feb 1, 2019:
My sister went to the polka festival in Chicago a few weeks ago!
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 1, 2019:
Ha, I dearly love accordion music. Reminds me of an old Gary Larson cartoon. A guy shows up at the gates of heaven and St. Peter comes out, shakes hands and says, “Welcome to heaven. Here’s your harp”. A different guy reports to the gates of Hell. The devil comes out, shakes hands and says, “Welcome to hell. Here’s your accordion “.
KissedbySun comments on Feb 1, 2019:
My sister went to the polka festival in Chicago a few weeks ago!
WilliamFleming replies on Feb 1, 2019:
Ha, I dearly love accordion music. Reminds me of an old Gary Larson cartoon. A guy shows up at the gates of heaven and St. Peter comes out, shakes hands and says, “Welcome to heaven. Here’s your harp”. A different guy reports to the gates of Hell. The devil comes out, shakes hands and says, “Welcome to hell. Here’s your accordion “.
Magical thinking: the belief that one's ideas, thoughts, actions, words, or use of symbols can ...
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 30, 2019:
Did you really mean to say that actions can not influence the course of events in the world? Please explain. And remember that thoughts often precede actions.
You remark on the schizophrenic end of the spectrum of magical thinking, but the article goes on to say that the skeptical end of the ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 30, 2019:
@AwarenessNow Thanks for clearing it up. I can see that some actions might reflect magical thinking, such as praying for your team to win, or wearing a rabbit’s foot for good luck.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 30, 2019:
Did you really mean to say that actions can not influence the course of events in the world? Please explain. And remember that thoughts often precede actions.
You remark on the schizophrenic end of the spectrum of magical thinking, but the article goes on to say that the skeptical end of the ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 30, 2019:
@AwarenessNow Thanks for clearing it up. I can see that some actions might reflect magical thinking, such as praying for your team to win, or wearing a rabbit’s foot for good luck.
Please comment on this idea about the PFC and consciousness
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 30, 2019:
Try as I might, I can’t see how the firing of neurons could possibly cause conscious awareness as we experience it. I lean toward thinking that our bodies are nothing but robots, without conscious awareness or free will. Perhaps consciousness is primary, existing in ultimate reality, and it ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 30, 2019:
@kauva Here’s this by Stuart Ritchie in The Spectator:
“Of course, most educated people nowadays accept Darwin’s great insight. But, Dennett argues in his typical avuncular style, they only do so up to a point: the point at which anyone applies it to the human mind. Even the most rational among us feel the pull of ‘Cartesian Gravity’, the force
that warps our scientific intuitions
whenever we get close to thinking about our own minds, drawing us towards dualism and other philosophically naive notions. Surely, so the faulty reasoning goes, there must be something special about our intellects that doesn’t admit of a purely Darwinian analysis?”
I had to google to learn about this “Cartesian Gravity”. I am putting it here for anyone who, like me, is unfamiliar with the term.
I am bothered that Dennet (and Ritchie) seem totally unaware of epigenetics, There really is something special about our consciousness that doesn’t admit of a purely Darwinian analysis.
That’s my Cartesian Gravity anyway. :-)
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 30, 2019:
Try as I might, I can’t see how the firing of neurons could possibly cause conscious awareness as we experience it. I lean toward thinking that our bodies are nothing but robots, without conscious awareness or free will. Perhaps consciousness is primary, existing in ultimate reality, and it ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 30, 2019:
@kauva Here’s this by Stuart Ritchie in The Spectator:
“Of course, most educated people nowadays accept Darwin’s great insight. But, Dennett argues in his typical avuncular style, they only do so up to a point: the point at which anyone applies it to the human mind. Even the most rational among us feel the pull of ‘Cartesian Gravity’, the force
that warps our scientific intuitions
whenever we get close to thinking about our own minds, drawing us towards dualism and other philosophically naive notions. Surely, so the faulty reasoning goes, there must be something special about our intellects that doesn’t admit of a purely Darwinian analysis?”
I had to google to learn about this “Cartesian Gravity”. I am putting it here for anyone who, like me, is unfamiliar with the term.
I am bothered that Dennet (and Ritchie) seem totally unaware of epigenetics, There really is something special about our consciousness that doesn’t admit of a purely Darwinian analysis.
That’s my Cartesian Gravity anyway. :-)
Please comment on this idea about the PFC and consciousness
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 30, 2019:
Try as I might, I can’t see how the firing of neurons could possibly cause conscious awareness as we experience it. I lean toward thinking that our bodies are nothing but robots, without conscious awareness or free will. Perhaps consciousness is primary, existing in ultimate reality, and it ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 30, 2019:
@kauva Certainly deep conscious awareness of the beauty and grandeur of nature lends the keenest of motivation to survive and live well, so from an evolutionary perspective consciousness would be valuable.
So you think that in its role of sorting out and categorizing myriad constellations of nerve impulses the pfc somehow creates a sense of self? Well, I can see the value in dividing the experiences into self/non-self classes, and I also see the self as sort of arbitrary and artificial—an illusion.
I lean toward thinking though that what is watching and tending the body—what has consciousness and free will—that is the real Self, shared by all, and it exists on a higher level of reality.
It’s just intuition.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 30, 2019:
Try as I might, I can’t see how the firing of neurons could possibly cause conscious awareness as we experience it. I lean toward thinking that our bodies are nothing but robots, without conscious awareness or free will. Perhaps consciousness is primary, existing in ultimate reality, and it ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 30, 2019:
@kauva Certainly deep conscious awareness of the beauty and grandeur of nature lends the keenest of motivation to survive and live well, so from an evolutionary perspective consciousness would be valuable.
So you think that in its role of sorting out and categorizing myriad constellations of nerve impulses the pfc somehow creates a sense of self? Well, I can see the value in dividing the experiences into self/non-self classes, and I also see the self as sort of arbitrary and artificial—an illusion.
I lean toward thinking though that what is watching and tending the body—what has consciousness and free will—that is the real Self, shared by all, and it exists on a higher level of reality.
It’s just intuition.
What are your thoughts on Donald Hoffman's theory of conscious agents?
Dietl comments on Jan 29, 2019:
I watched a 5 minute video of him talking about it, so now I basically know everything about it. There are things I like and things I find a bit dubious. I like that he aims for precision and built a mathematical structure to support his views. What I don't like is that he makes some heavy ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 29, 2019:
Actually Hoffman claims to be a realist in the link I gave above.
Dietl comments on Jan 29, 2019:
I watched a 5 minute video of him talking about it, so now I basically know everything about it. There are things I like and things I find a bit dubious. I like that he aims for precision and built a mathematical structure to support his views. What I don't like is that he makes some heavy ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 29, 2019:
Actually Hoffman claims to be a realist in the link I gave above.
The Evolutionary Advantages of an Addictive Personality - Scientific American Blog Network
AnneWimsey comments on Jan 29, 2019:
To basically equate drug-taking/drinking addicts to people who climb Everest, zip-line, bungee jump etc. is just ridiculous! One group actually Does things...has fun, gets excited, finds a new temple complex, or a beneficial microbe, the other sits in a stupor, when not knocking off liquor stores, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 29, 2019:
Good point. Do you think the author was trying to put her own addiction into a more favorable light by casting it as a risk-taking activity?
AnneWimsey comments on Jan 29, 2019:
To basically equate drug-taking/drinking addicts to people who climb Everest, zip-line, bungee jump etc. is just ridiculous! One group actually Does things...has fun, gets excited, finds a new temple complex, or a beneficial microbe, the other sits in a stupor, when not knocking off liquor stores, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 29, 2019:
Good point. Do you think the author was trying to put her own addiction into a more favorable light by casting it as a risk-taking activity?
Wow ... so much hate
genessa comments on Jan 28, 2019:
no, it didn't trigger insecurity or anger. it was just silly.
g
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 28, 2019:
@AnneWimsey Not really. By replying to various people they will all be notified. If I only respond to one person only that person will get notification and come back to the discussion.
It’s only fringe to you because you don’t like the idea. The likes of Planck, Weigner, Bohr, Schrödinger, Eddington, Heisenberg, Pauli, Wheeler, and Penrose have all been open to discussing the concept, and most of them have leaned heavily toward the idea.
genessa comments on Jan 28, 2019:
no, it didn't trigger insecurity or anger. it was just silly.
g
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 28, 2019:
@AnneWimsey Not really. By replying to various people they will all be notified. If I only respond to one person only that person will get notification and come back to the discussion.
It’s only fringe to you because you don’t like the idea. The likes of Planck, Weigner, Bohr, Schrödinger, Eddington, Heisenberg, Pauli, Wheeler, and Penrose have all been open to discussing the concept, and most of them have leaned heavily toward the idea.
Wow ... so much hate
genessa comments on Jan 28, 2019:
no, it didn't trigger insecurity or anger. it was just silly.
g
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 28, 2019:
@OpposingOpposum
https://www.ecstadelic.net/top-stories/the-unified-field-and-the-quantum-nature-of-consciousness
genessa comments on Jan 28, 2019:
no, it didn't trigger insecurity or anger. it was just silly.
g
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 28, 2019:
@OpposingOpposum
https://www.ecstadelic.net/top-stories/the-unified-field-and-the-quantum-nature-of-consciousness
Wow ... so much hate
genessa comments on Jan 28, 2019:
no, it didn't trigger insecurity or anger. it was just silly.
g
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 28, 2019:
https://www.ecstadelic.net/top-stories/the-unified-field-and-the-quantum-nature-of-consciousness
genessa comments on Jan 28, 2019:
no, it didn't trigger insecurity or anger. it was just silly.
g
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 28, 2019:
https://www.ecstadelic.net/top-stories/the-unified-field-and-the-quantum-nature-of-consciousness
Wow ... so much hate
MsDemeanour comments on Jan 28, 2019:
how do you have universal consciousness without being mind readers?
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 28, 2019:
https://www.ecstadelic.net/top-stories/the-unified-field-and-the-quantum-nature-of-consciousness
MsDemeanour comments on Jan 28, 2019:
how do you have universal consciousness without being mind readers?
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 28, 2019:
https://www.ecstadelic.net/top-stories/the-unified-field-and-the-quantum-nature-of-consciousness
Wow ... so much hate
powder comments on Jan 28, 2019:
I think mate you're on the wrong site if you wish to spread ideology. We are a cynical mob of bastards us agnostics/ atheists when it comes to that kind of caper. Nothing personal, but if you offer up a position, be prepared to defend it on this site. Your sentiment is admirable, but debate without ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 28, 2019:
https://www.ecstadelic.net/top-stories/the-unified-field-and-the-quantum-nature-of-consciousness
powder comments on Jan 28, 2019:
I think mate you're on the wrong site if you wish to spread ideology. We are a cynical mob of bastards us agnostics/ atheists when it comes to that kind of caper. Nothing personal, but if you offer up a position, be prepared to defend it on this site. Your sentiment is admirable, but debate without ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 28, 2019:
https://www.ecstadelic.net/top-stories/the-unified-field-and-the-quantum-nature-of-consciousness
Wow ... so much hate
wordywalt comments on Jan 28, 2019:
The problem you face is that most people equate the idea of universal consciousness with belief in a supreme being. I tend to agree with them. To me, an existential point of view is more realistic.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 28, 2019:
https://www.ecstadelic.net/top-stories/the-unified-field-and-the-quantum-nature-of-consciousness
wordywalt comments on Jan 28, 2019:
The problem you face is that most people equate the idea of universal consciousness with belief in a supreme being. I tend to agree with them. To me, an existential point of view is more realistic.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 28, 2019:
https://www.ecstadelic.net/top-stories/the-unified-field-and-the-quantum-nature-of-consciousness
Wow ... so much hate
Stephanie99 comments on Jan 28, 2019:
A significant number of us have come to atheism through evidence based thinking. There is no evidence for universal consciousness, nor any mechanism for it known to science. That's why you got the response that you did.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 28, 2019:
No evidence? There’s all kind of evidence. You are not persuaded by the evidence—that is all.
https://www.ecstadelic.net/top-stories/the-unified-field-and-the-quantum-nature-of-consciousness
Stephanie99 comments on Jan 28, 2019:
A significant number of us have come to atheism through evidence based thinking. There is no evidence for universal consciousness, nor any mechanism for it known to science. That's why you got the response that you did.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 28, 2019:
No evidence? There’s all kind of evidence. You are not persuaded by the evidence—that is all.
https://www.ecstadelic.net/top-stories/the-unified-field-and-the-quantum-nature-of-consciousness
"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 26, 2019:
Nobody understands the world except in a superficial way.
The true dichotomy is not between religion and science. It is between arrogant self-delusion under the name of science or religion, and the perception of fundamental human ignorance concerning reality.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 26, 2019:
@Sayetsu I much appreciate the scientific method, and I am grateful for the knowledge and technology that science has brought. However, all human knowledge is superficial. Science does not even address, let alone answer the deep questions of existence.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 26, 2019:
Nobody understands the world except in a superficial way.
The true dichotomy is not between religion and science. It is between arrogant self-delusion under the name of science or religion, and the perception of fundamental human ignorance concerning reality.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 26, 2019:
@Sayetsu I much appreciate the scientific method, and I am grateful for the knowledge and technology that science has brought. However, all human knowledge is superficial. Science does not even address, let alone answer the deep questions of existence.
The brilliant science that has creationists and the Christian right terrified
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 20, 2019:
I am extremely skeptical of the theory described, but let’s say it’s true. What then do we understand?
Nothing really. Nature in its ultimate form is just as bewildering as ever. You see, those carbon atoms that just HAVE to form themselves into life forms—they are not “things”—they ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 26, 2019:
@Paul4747 A very good and inspiring quote. Thanks.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 20, 2019:
I am extremely skeptical of the theory described, but let’s say it’s true. What then do we understand?
Nothing really. Nature in its ultimate form is just as bewildering as ever. You see, those carbon atoms that just HAVE to form themselves into life forms—they are not “things”—they ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 26, 2019:
@Paul4747 A very good and inspiring quote. Thanks.
The brilliant science that has creationists and the Christian right terrified
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 20, 2019:
I am extremely skeptical of the theory described, but let’s say it’s true. What then do we understand?
Nothing really. Nature in its ultimate form is just as bewildering as ever. You see, those carbon atoms that just HAVE to form themselves into life forms—they are not “things”—they ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 26, 2019:
@Paul4747 “To ascribe that origin to a God figure is quite another.” I agree, and I do not ascribe anything to a god figure. We are in almost total ignorance of ultimate reality—whatever label we give it will not change that fact, nor does giving something a label constitute such ascribing.
With your second paragraph I am in total agreement. According to quantum gravity theory there’s no such thing as time and particles of matter are not things. Space consists of a finite number of granules. The upshot is that our perception of reality is nothing but illusion. Any question about creation has no meaning from a cosmic perspective. If we don’t know the meaning of “to exist” and there is no such thing as time I think we’d better stop flaunting our grand scientific knowledge.
I agree with your assertion that there’s nothing to fear. As you say awe is wonder OR fear. So a person can feel awe without being fearful. What I revere and respect is nature herself, label it how you please. If you decline to see the beauty, grandeur and mystery of reality, then that is your loss.
I am in total disagreement with your last paragraph. It has been almost universally acknowledged by physicists since the time of Faraday and Maxwell that the world of our perception is not real but is merely symbolic of an underlying realm or ultimate reality. We can not detect or understand ultimate reality with our human based model of matter moving through space and time. Your description of ultimate reality is superficial in the extreme. These “things” that survive and strive to reproduce—we have no idea of how they arose or what they are. We have little understanding of the environment in which they are said to exist.Valuable as they are, the insights provided by science are superficial.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." Albert Einstein
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 20, 2019:
I am extremely skeptical of the theory described, but let’s say it’s true. What then do we understand?
Nothing really. Nature in its ultimate form is just as bewildering as ever. You see, those carbon atoms that just HAVE to form themselves into life forms—they are not “things”—they ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 26, 2019:
@Paul4747 “To ascribe that origin to a God figure is quite another.” I agree, and I do not ascribe anything to a god figure. We are in almost total ignorance of ultimate reality—whatever label we give it will not change that fact, nor does giving something a label constitute such ascribing.
With your second paragraph I am in total agreement. According to quantum gravity theory there’s no such thing as time and particles of matter are not things. Space consists of a finite number of granules. The upshot is that our perception of reality is nothing but illusion. Any question about creation has no meaning from a cosmic perspective. If we don’t know the meaning of “to exist” and there is no such thing as time I think we’d better stop flaunting our grand scientific knowledge.
I agree with your assertion that there’s nothing to fear. As you say awe is wonder OR fear. So a person can feel awe without being fearful. What I revere and respect is nature herself, label it how you please. If you decline to see the beauty, grandeur and mystery of reality, then that is your loss.
I am in total disagreement with your last paragraph. It has been almost universally acknowledged by physicists since the time of Faraday and Maxwell that the world of our perception is not real but is merely symbolic of an underlying realm or ultimate reality. We can not detect or understand ultimate reality with our human based model of matter moving through space and time. Your description of ultimate reality is superficial in the extreme. These “things” that survive and strive to reproduce—we have no idea of how they arose or what they are. We have little understanding of the environment in which they are said to exist.Valuable as they are, the insights provided by science are superficial.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." Albert Einstein
Does free will exist for 'you'?
ToakReon comments on Jan 24, 2019:
Free will is inconsistent with cause and effect. If free will exists, it means there must be effects for which there is no cause.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 25, 2019:
@ToakReon I am in total agreement down to your last paragraph. At the quantum level so called effects can happen before the causes. Also it is demonstrated that consciousness can affect the outcome of a quantum experiment.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145454.htm
Besides that, according to quantum gravity theory there’s no such thing as time, and particles of matter are not things but interactions between fields. It’s looking like our everyday human concept of cause and effect is meaningless at the level of ultimate reality.
I lean toward the idea that conscious awareness is primary and underlies reality in a fundamental way. Many eminent physicists have suggested as much.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna772956
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/spiritual-living-is-techn_b_600900
ToakReon comments on Jan 24, 2019:
Free will is inconsistent with cause and effect. If free will exists, it means there must be effects for which there is no cause.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 25, 2019:
@ToakReon I am in total agreement down to your last paragraph. At the quantum level so called effects can happen before the causes. Also it is demonstrated that consciousness can affect the outcome of a quantum experiment.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145454.htm
Besides that, according to quantum gravity theory there’s no such thing as time, and particles of matter are not things but interactions between fields. It’s looking like our everyday human concept of cause and effect is meaningless at the level of ultimate reality.
I lean toward the idea that conscious awareness is primary and underlies reality in a fundamental way. Many eminent physicists have suggested as much.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna772956
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/spiritual-living-is-techn_b_600900
Does free will exist for 'you'?
ToakReon comments on Jan 24, 2019:
Free will is inconsistent with cause and effect. If free will exists, it means there must be effects for which there is no cause.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 24, 2019:
IMO you have made a valid conclusion.
There are events for which there are no causes.
ToakReon comments on Jan 24, 2019:
Free will is inconsistent with cause and effect. If free will exists, it means there must be effects for which there is no cause.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 24, 2019:
IMO you have made a valid conclusion.
There are events for which there are no causes.
Does free will exist for 'you'?
sambathkumaar comments on Jan 24, 2019:
Let me talk about an experiment that I remember watching in a series called the 'Brain Games' on Netflix. Here the heads of two subjects are hooked on to electrodes that are sensitive enough to measure brain activity. The task of the experiment is for the subjects to choose either a switch that ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 24, 2019:
That time lag is easily understood with conscious awareness and free will. The test subject did indeed make a conscious, free-will decision to press a button. The subject (conscious awareness) assigned to the body the task of pressing a button. Once that assignment was made the body was on its own to figure out which button to press and when. Our bodies are only robots. When I want my computer to accomplish a task, I have to trigger it into action indirectly. Once the computer has been set into its operation I have limited control. Same with my body.
As an analogy think of an infantry division. Suppose the division commander receives orders to occupy a certain area. The commander is consciously aware of his orders and has desire and intention to carry out those orders. (free will) But he clearly can not have total control over all the details of the move. He turns over the problem to his staff. He personally wouldn’t even know what all the various subunits are going to do, or when they are going to act.
Our bodies are an incredibly complex system of cells, and each cell is as complex as a city. We are not our bodies. We are conscious awareness.
sambathkumaar comments on Jan 24, 2019:
Let me talk about an experiment that I remember watching in a series called the 'Brain Games' on Netflix. Here the heads of two subjects are hooked on to electrodes that are sensitive enough to measure brain activity. The task of the experiment is for the subjects to choose either a switch that ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 24, 2019:
That time lag is easily understood with conscious awareness and free will. The test subject did indeed make a conscious, free-will decision to press a button. The subject (conscious awareness) assigned to the body the task of pressing a button. Once that assignment was made the body was on its own to figure out which button to press and when. Our bodies are only robots. When I want my computer to accomplish a task, I have to trigger it into action indirectly. Once the computer has been set into its operation I have limited control. Same with my body.
As an analogy think of an infantry division. Suppose the division commander receives orders to occupy a certain area. The commander is consciously aware of his orders and has desire and intention to carry out those orders. (free will) But he clearly can not have total control over all the details of the move. He turns over the problem to his staff. He personally wouldn’t even know what all the various subunits are going to do, or when they are going to act.
Our bodies are an incredibly complex system of cells, and each cell is as complex as a city. We are not our bodies. We are conscious awareness.
Does free will exist for 'you'?
ChuckInSuburbia comments on Jan 24, 2019:
There is no such thing as free will; the universe is deterministic and we are no exception. What happens in our brains is dictated by chemistry and physics. At the moment, the reactions are too complex to be able to calculate in advance, so there is every appearance that we do have free will and ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 24, 2019:
Maybe the universe is not deterministic. Doesn’t quantum physics suggest otherwise? How do you know that the universe is deterministic?
ChuckInSuburbia comments on Jan 24, 2019:
There is no such thing as free will; the universe is deterministic and we are no exception. What happens in our brains is dictated by chemistry and physics. At the moment, the reactions are too complex to be able to calculate in advance, so there is every appearance that we do have free will and ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 24, 2019:
Maybe the universe is not deterministic. Doesn’t quantum physics suggest otherwise? How do you know that the universe is deterministic?
Should Reality Make Us Glad or Sad? - Scientific American Blog Network
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 24, 2019:
IMO gladness and sadness are not opposites. A lake, normally placid, might be temporarily whipped into turmoil by wind, but it’s natural state is placidity.
Truth or reality does not cause anyone to become sad. It’s THINKING untrue things ABOUT that truth or reality that leads to sadness. ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 24, 2019:
@stinkeye_a Ha, Ha. So far as erudition I can sound a lot smarter’n I really am. But thanks.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 24, 2019:
IMO gladness and sadness are not opposites. A lake, normally placid, might be temporarily whipped into turmoil by wind, but it’s natural state is placidity.
Truth or reality does not cause anyone to become sad. It’s THINKING untrue things ABOUT that truth or reality that leads to sadness. ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 24, 2019:
@stinkeye_a Ha, Ha. So far as erudition I can sound a lot smarter’n I really am. But thanks.
Share your happiness... ?
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 24, 2019:
It’s an interesting analogy. Little flames of awareness and joy are sparked here and there in different times and places, and those flames are forever dying, but viewed from a higher perspective, there is only one eternal fire.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 24, 2019:
@BeeHappy Call it Universal Consciousness, Love, oneness, ultimate reality, you name it. In some settings I would call it God but I don’t dare say that on this forum lest I be given a verbal flogging. :-(
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 24, 2019:
It’s an interesting analogy. Little flames of awareness and joy are sparked here and there in different times and places, and those flames are forever dying, but viewed from a higher perspective, there is only one eternal fire.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 24, 2019:
@BeeHappy Call it Universal Consciousness, Love, oneness, ultimate reality, you name it. In some settings I would call it God but I don’t dare say that on this forum lest I be given a verbal flogging. :-(
"Science Baby".
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 22, 2019:
It doesn’t gall me. Doctors and nurses are not omniscient, omnipotent beings. They are our fellow human beings, fraught with error.
Science has benefited mankind in many ways, and I am grateful for science. However, there is a startling aspect of reality beyond our immediate sensory world that...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 23, 2019:
@mzbehavin “any amazing or wonderful occurrence” is a definition given by my Advanced English Dictionary. And the derivation is the Latin “miraculum” which just means “object of wonder”. Before that was a proto-Indo-European word “smei”, smile or be astonished.
Words do have meanings, and those meanings are diverse, variable, and changing. We do not live in a tightly controlled world of precise meaning and truth. We live in an astonishing world of profound mystery.
Reality is a miracle. The emergence of life is a miracle. Every second of conscious awareness is a profound miracle. Whether or not a person labels ultimate reality as “God” or “nature” Is totally beside the point and is a trivial distinction not worth even thinking about.
When faced with a marvelous, astounding reality, why would anyone shirk away and replace awe with a quibbling argument? “Don’t be astonished or in awe” you imply. “It’s nothing but nature. Get back to your mindless television indoctrination into materialistic scientism”.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 22, 2019:
It doesn’t gall me. Doctors and nurses are not omniscient, omnipotent beings. They are our fellow human beings, fraught with error.
Science has benefited mankind in many ways, and I am grateful for science. However, there is a startling aspect of reality beyond our immediate sensory world that...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 23, 2019:
@mzbehavin “any amazing or wonderful occurrence” is a definition given by my Advanced English Dictionary. And the derivation is the Latin “miraculum” which just means “object of wonder”. Before that was a proto-Indo-European word “smei”, smile or be astonished.
Words do have meanings, and those meanings are diverse, variable, and changing. We do not live in a tightly controlled world of precise meaning and truth. We live in an astonishing world of profound mystery.
Reality is a miracle. The emergence of life is a miracle. Every second of conscious awareness is a profound miracle. Whether or not a person labels ultimate reality as “God” or “nature” Is totally beside the point and is a trivial distinction not worth even thinking about.
When faced with a marvelous, astounding reality, why would anyone shirk away and replace awe with a quibbling argument? “Don’t be astonished or in awe” you imply. “It’s nothing but nature. Get back to your mindless television indoctrination into materialistic scientism”.
"How on earth can religious people believe in so much arbitrary, clearly invented balderdash?
Matias comments on Jan 22, 2019:
So what is the fuss about?
Given that loneliness is bad (even bad for your health, as many studies confirm), and given that being a respected member of a group, be it religious or not, what should be wrong in becoming a religious person in order to have some nice company, if this is the main ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 22, 2019:
@LenHazell53 That’s not a good comparison. Most churches are based on benevolent principles. And not all religious groups are the same.
Matias comments on Jan 22, 2019:
So what is the fuss about?
Given that loneliness is bad (even bad for your health, as many studies confirm), and given that being a respected member of a group, be it religious or not, what should be wrong in becoming a religious person in order to have some nice company, if this is the main ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 22, 2019:
@LenHazell53 That’s not a good comparison. Most churches are based on benevolent principles. And not all religious groups are the same.
Is anyone else really disturbed by the popularity of the flat earth nonsense?
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 18, 2019:
I prefer not to be disturbed or frightened if possible. It’s not worth giving much thought to those attention seekers.
Actually, the earth really is relatively flat in a lot of places, from a local perspective. The flat-earth model works well for local navigation and surveying. Earth as a ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 18, 2019:
@fourthaveriots Here’s what you wrote in your bio that rang my bell:
“I try not to allow beliefs to cloud how I experience reality, or at least my perception of it. In fact, I'm somewhat uncertain reality is what we think it is...”
You have nailed it sir!
BTW, I put about 0.1% confidence in the truth of the first paragraph of your bio. :-)
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 18, 2019:
I prefer not to be disturbed or frightened if possible. It’s not worth giving much thought to those attention seekers.
Actually, the earth really is relatively flat in a lot of places, from a local perspective. The flat-earth model works well for local navigation and surveying. Earth as a ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 18, 2019:
@fourthaveriots Here’s what you wrote in your bio that rang my bell:
“I try not to allow beliefs to cloud how I experience reality, or at least my perception of it. In fact, I'm somewhat uncertain reality is what we think it is...”
You have nailed it sir!
BTW, I put about 0.1% confidence in the truth of the first paragraph of your bio. :-)
Is anyone else really disturbed by the popularity of the flat earth nonsense?
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 18, 2019:
I prefer not to be disturbed or frightened if possible. It’s not worth giving much thought to those attention seekers.
Actually, the earth really is relatively flat in a lot of places, from a local perspective. The flat-earth model works well for local navigation and surveying. Earth as a ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 18, 2019:
@fourthaveriots IMO it’s the best kind of work there is. It was a career that met my fondest dreams. I still think about the jobs we did. I dream about surveying, but they are stressful dreams because it’s hard to make progress when you are asleep. :-(
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 18, 2019:
I prefer not to be disturbed or frightened if possible. It’s not worth giving much thought to those attention seekers.
Actually, the earth really is relatively flat in a lot of places, from a local perspective. The flat-earth model works well for local navigation and surveying. Earth as a ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 18, 2019:
@fourthaveriots IMO it’s the best kind of work there is. It was a career that met my fondest dreams. I still think about the jobs we did. I dream about surveying, but they are stressful dreams because it’s hard to make progress when you are asleep. :-(
Is anyone else really disturbed by the popularity of the flat earth nonsense?
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 18, 2019:
I prefer not to be disturbed or frightened if possible. It’s not worth giving much thought to those attention seekers.
Actually, the earth really is relatively flat in a lot of places, from a local perspective. The flat-earth model works well for local navigation and surveying. Earth as a ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 18, 2019:
@fourthaveriots I am a retired one.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 18, 2019:
I prefer not to be disturbed or frightened if possible. It’s not worth giving much thought to those attention seekers.
Actually, the earth really is relatively flat in a lot of places, from a local perspective. The flat-earth model works well for local navigation and surveying. Earth as a ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 18, 2019:
@fourthaveriots I am a retired one.
Buddhists run me off because I believe in collective consciousness and Hindus run me off because I ...
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 17, 2019:
I am especially open to the idea of “reconciling religious beliefs with science and history and quantum physics and sociology and psychology and biology and archaeology”. When you do that you are searching deeply within for understanding and truth, even if it is currently only intuitive truth. ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 17, 2019:
@kauva I try not to get too much in lock step with any of the “isms” and I don’t much care what they advocate or denounce. They don’t have to boot me out since I was never in or wanted to be in.
Funny thing though. Just yesterday I watched a YouTube about Taoism and whether a person is a Taoist. Hey, wow! Turns out I am a Taoist! And when I read the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads I get all excited—wow, I’m a Hindu! Even the Quran has some very perceptive passages in the beginning, and I think, wow, the Prophet had some very deep insights. No Christian Church catches my fancy but some of the teachings of Jesus seem very profound. I think that Jesus must have been a very advanced spiritual entity.
I really appreciate your thoughts on karma, and the way you attempt to put the concept on a rational footing without resorting to magic or the supernatural. The traces or tracks left on reality by our actions and intentions might be like switches or transistors in a computer. Every conscious decision sets a switch, which holds its setting until a new routine resets it. The idea sound sort of wooish but actually we live with karma every day. I am living with decisions I made when I was four years old. I am living with decisions my parents made before I was born. I have made deep tracks on reality by my actions, and many people are affected, now and in the future.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 17, 2019:
I am especially open to the idea of “reconciling religious beliefs with science and history and quantum physics and sociology and psychology and biology and archaeology”. When you do that you are searching deeply within for understanding and truth, even if it is currently only intuitive truth. ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 17, 2019:
@kauva I try not to get too much in lock step with any of the “isms” and I don’t much care what they advocate or denounce. They don’t have to boot me out since I was never in or wanted to be in.
Funny thing though. Just yesterday I watched a YouTube about Taoism and whether a person is a Taoist. Hey, wow! Turns out I am a Taoist! And when I read the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads I get all excited—wow, I’m a Hindu! Even the Quran has some very perceptive passages in the beginning, and I think, wow, the Prophet had some very deep insights. No Christian Church catches my fancy but some of the teachings of Jesus seem very profound. I think that Jesus must have been a very advanced spiritual entity.
I really appreciate your thoughts on karma, and the way you attempt to put the concept on a rational footing without resorting to magic or the supernatural. The traces or tracks left on reality by our actions and intentions might be like switches or transistors in a computer. Every conscious decision sets a switch, which holds its setting until a new routine resets it. The idea sound sort of wooish but actually we live with karma every day. I am living with decisions I made when I was four years old. I am living with decisions my parents made before I was born. I have made deep tracks on reality by my actions, and many people are affected, now and in the future.
What do you believe in?
jlynn37 comments on Jan 11, 2019:
Whatever I believe in MUST be supported by evidence, facts and data.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 15, 2019:
@genessa That’s a beautiful story about JFK and I’m sure it’s a special memory for you.
So far as old DT, I hardly know what to think of that guy. I keep telling myself that after all, he was elected and as a citizen, even though I didn’t vote for him he is still our president and just maybe all those voters who elected him knew what they were doing. It’s all subjective.
I was appalled at the way Republicans in Congress treated Obama. Obama was my man and still is. But two wrongs don’t make a right. Now the mainstream media seem to have lost their minds. I can’t bear to read the news anymore.
Anyway, that’s just my opinion.
jlynn37 comments on Jan 11, 2019:
Whatever I believe in MUST be supported by evidence, facts and data.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 15, 2019:
@genessa That’s a beautiful story about JFK and I’m sure it’s a special memory for you.
So far as old DT, I hardly know what to think of that guy. I keep telling myself that after all, he was elected and as a citizen, even though I didn’t vote for him he is still our president and just maybe all those voters who elected him knew what they were doing. It’s all subjective.
I was appalled at the way Republicans in Congress treated Obama. Obama was my man and still is. But two wrongs don’t make a right. Now the mainstream media seem to have lost their minds. I can’t bear to read the news anymore.
Anyway, that’s just my opinion.
What do you believe in?
jlynn37 comments on Jan 11, 2019:
Whatever I believe in MUST be supported by evidence, facts and data.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 15, 2019:
@genessa Well of course from your perspective all of your “facts” are totally true.and your opinion is the correct one. Why else would you have such a firm belief?
No one person has the complete picture however, and all opinions are shallow in an ultimate sense because of human limitations. Otherwise we’d all be in agreement all the time.
Which of your opinions are you talking about? From my perspective your opinion might be right on the mark.
jlynn37 comments on Jan 11, 2019:
Whatever I believe in MUST be supported by evidence, facts and data.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 15, 2019:
@genessa Well of course from your perspective all of your “facts” are totally true.and your opinion is the correct one. Why else would you have such a firm belief?
No one person has the complete picture however, and all opinions are shallow in an ultimate sense because of human limitations. Otherwise we’d all be in agreement all the time.
Which of your opinions are you talking about? From my perspective your opinion might be right on the mark.
What if, unbeknownst to us, we are already in Hell?
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 13, 2019:
If life feels like hell to you it is because you are filling your subconscious mind with untrue thoughts.
We are actually in heaven in the here and now!
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 14, 2019:
@DAMOVOXY I am basing what I wrote on personal experience, along with the book “Help Yourself to Happiness” by Dr. Maxie Maultsby, founder of Rational Behavior Therapy, a very successful psychological counseling method.
Those impressions in the subconscious might not be thoughts per se but they can be created by conscious thoughts and they can be modified by conscious thoughts. After reading the book and doing the exercises, my unhappiness dissolved in a flash. My outlook improved immediately, and over a period of weeks I became downright joyful, despite having just weathered a painful divorce.
Even today, if I become angry, disturbed, or depressed, I know just what to do. I consciously analyze the untrue thoughts that led to my unhappiness. By writing it all out longhand, all levels of the psyche are informed of truth and those panicky emotional responses disappear.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 13, 2019:
If life feels like hell to you it is because you are filling your subconscious mind with untrue thoughts.
We are actually in heaven in the here and now!
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 14, 2019:
@DAMOVOXY I am basing what I wrote on personal experience, along with the book “Help Yourself to Happiness” by Dr. Maxie Maultsby, founder of Rational Behavior Therapy, a very successful psychological counseling method.
Those impressions in the subconscious might not be thoughts per se but they can be created by conscious thoughts and they can be modified by conscious thoughts. After reading the book and doing the exercises, my unhappiness dissolved in a flash. My outlook improved immediately, and over a period of weeks I became downright joyful, despite having just weathered a painful divorce.
Even today, if I become angry, disturbed, or depressed, I know just what to do. I consciously analyze the untrue thoughts that led to my unhappiness. By writing it all out longhand, all levels of the psyche are informed of truth and those panicky emotional responses disappear.
Religion gives people spiritual and emotional fulfillment, nothing more.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 13, 2019:
Others use a belief in scientism and materialism.
The only void is that we cannot understand Ultimate Reality with our limited human perspective. But just moment by moment awareness of the staggering implications of reality must inevitably impart a sense of great value to life.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 13, 2019:
@maturin1919 We can not understand what is before us. It is a dazzling darkness of momentous proportions. Conscious awareness brings us to the edge of what can be apprehended using our limited human methods. Beyond our bubble of awareness is ultimate reality, or underlying nature which is the basis for all that there is.
Though we can not detect ultimate reality with our senses, it undoubtedly is there, and the implications for the value of life as conscious beings are enormous. It means that we are infinitely precious, worthy of joy, love and freedom.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 13, 2019:
Others use a belief in scientism and materialism.
The only void is that we cannot understand Ultimate Reality with our limited human perspective. But just moment by moment awareness of the staggering implications of reality must inevitably impart a sense of great value to life.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 13, 2019:
@maturin1919 We can not understand what is before us. It is a dazzling darkness of momentous proportions. Conscious awareness brings us to the edge of what can be apprehended using our limited human methods. Beyond our bubble of awareness is ultimate reality, or underlying nature which is the basis for all that there is.
Though we can not detect ultimate reality with our senses, it undoubtedly is there, and the implications for the value of life as conscious beings are enormous. It means that we are infinitely precious, worthy of joy, love and freedom.
What do you believe in?
jlynn37 comments on Jan 11, 2019:
Whatever I believe in MUST be supported by evidence, facts and data.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 11, 2019:
Trouble is that two people can believe that their opinions are supported by evidence, facts and data, but yet be in complete disagreement.
jlynn37 comments on Jan 11, 2019:
Whatever I believe in MUST be supported by evidence, facts and data.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 11, 2019:
Trouble is that two people can believe that their opinions are supported by evidence, facts and data, but yet be in complete disagreement.
Religions vs Cult
WilliamFleming comments on Oct 30, 2018:
The word “cult” has come to mean a very bad group that will brainwash you and control you and take your money.
Just about every religious organization has people who go around labeling other religions as cults. I was leafing through a book written by a Baptist in Texas. He described Hinduism,...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 11, 2019:
@OwlInASack I don’t know much about the Catholic Church but I am told there is a lot of variation, not only among churches, but there are various schools of thought concerning doctrine as well.
That book I saw had the entire Catholic Church from top to bottom labeled as a cult, which I thought stretched the meaning of the word.
On the other hand, I think that all churches have some cultish characteristics. It would be fun to list those characteristics and give a cult rating to various religions.
WilliamFleming comments on Oct 30, 2018:
The word “cult” has come to mean a very bad group that will brainwash you and control you and take your money.
Just about every religious organization has people who go around labeling other religions as cults. I was leafing through a book written by a Baptist in Texas. He described Hinduism,...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 11, 2019:
@OwlInASack I don’t know much about the Catholic Church but I am told there is a lot of variation, not only among churches, but there are various schools of thought concerning doctrine as well.
That book I saw had the entire Catholic Church from top to bottom labeled as a cult, which I thought stretched the meaning of the word.
On the other hand, I think that all churches have some cultish characteristics. It would be fun to list those characteristics and give a cult rating to various religions.
Has Evangelical Christianity Become Sociopathic?
TheMiddleWay comments on Jan 6, 2019:
Piss poor article.
Being sociopathic isn't about having one or two of those characteristics but several or all. In all the stories presented, the story centers on how an INDIVIDUAL person showcased ONE of those characteristics and then, based on a piece-meal analysis, extends that "diagnosis" to...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 7, 2019:
@TheMiddleWay Please note that the author didn’t mention Hilary Clinton, an evangelical Methodist, as an example.
It’s stereotyping of the worst sort IMO.
TheMiddleWay comments on Jan 6, 2019:
Piss poor article.
Being sociopathic isn't about having one or two of those characteristics but several or all. In all the stories presented, the story centers on how an INDIVIDUAL person showcased ONE of those characteristics and then, based on a piece-meal analysis, extends that "diagnosis" to...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 7, 2019:
@TheMiddleWay Please note that the author didn’t mention Hilary Clinton, an evangelical Methodist, as an example.
It’s stereotyping of the worst sort IMO.
Rowan Atkinson on Free Speech vs. The New Intolerance - YouTube
ASTRALMAX comments on Jan 6, 2019:
Excellent video! I concur with your statement. Those who seek to get members banned simply because they disagree with their viewpoints, are in my view the enemies of free speech and the unwitting contributors to a totalitarian state of affairs.
Voltaire said: "I may not agree with what you say ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 7, 2019:
@BufftonBeotch
I’ve often wondered why it is that saying certain Germanic-based words in public might get you arrested, but you can say exactly the same thing using French or Latin based words and it will hardly be noticed. You will be thought of as refined and intelligent.
Maybe it has to do with the Norman invasion.
ASTRALMAX comments on Jan 6, 2019:
Excellent video! I concur with your statement. Those who seek to get members banned simply because they disagree with their viewpoints, are in my view the enemies of free speech and the unwitting contributors to a totalitarian state of affairs.
Voltaire said: "I may not agree with what you say ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 7, 2019:
@BufftonBeotch
I’ve often wondered why it is that saying certain Germanic-based words in public might get you arrested, but you can say exactly the same thing using French or Latin based words and it will hardly be noticed. You will be thought of as refined and intelligent.
Maybe it has to do with the Norman invasion.
Is anyone else mildly excited about the CRISPR/Cas9, Gene Editing Tool?
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 6, 2019:
Ha, I didn’t realize that there’s a gene for red-neckness.
Maybe there’s something I don’t know about it but I really don’t understand how you are going to get rid of all those genes, because every cell in your body has those DNA strands. You might prepare a sperm cell to be free from ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 7, 2019:
@Mortal
EPIGENETICS
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090126203207.htm
https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_4_natur/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/1736-greatest-mysteries-drives-evolution.html
https://epigenie.com/epigenetics-at-the-intersection-of-environment-and-selection/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/aeon.co/amp/essays/on-epigenetics-we-need-both-darwin-s-and-lamarck-s-theories
The last link is the most comprehensive. There’s no pseudoscience involved here. Also that link nautilus.us (The End Of Genes as we Know Them) cites professional scientific studies.
Evolution as we learned it in school is being revised. There is nothing scientific about clinging to old dogmatic ideas in the face of new evidence.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 6, 2019:
Ha, I didn’t realize that there’s a gene for red-neckness.
Maybe there’s something I don’t know about it but I really don’t understand how you are going to get rid of all those genes, because every cell in your body has those DNA strands. You might prepare a sperm cell to be free from ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 7, 2019:
@Mortal
EPIGENETICS
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090126203207.htm
https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_4_natur/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/1736-greatest-mysteries-drives-evolution.html
https://epigenie.com/epigenetics-at-the-intersection-of-environment-and-selection/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/aeon.co/amp/essays/on-epigenetics-we-need-both-darwin-s-and-lamarck-s-theories
The last link is the most comprehensive. There’s no pseudoscience involved here. Also that link nautilus.us (The End Of Genes as we Know Them) cites professional scientific studies.
Evolution as we learned it in school is being revised. There is nothing scientific about clinging to old dogmatic ideas in the face of new evidence.
Next time a Christian claims that you can't prove their god doesn't exist, don't fall for it, point ...
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 5, 2019:
Smart guy. I liked the first part. Negatives are easily proven. Yes, you have to define the thing you are going to prove or disprove. That brought us to the second part of the video, and I am not persuaded. The definitions of God offered are not valid IMO. The ensuing “proof” is only a proof ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 6, 2019:
@maturin1919 I was taking a climbing class. A group of us would sit around in a tent at night and joints would be passed around. I mistakenly thought that to fit in I’d have to take part so I pretended to be smoking. I have fear and aversion to sucking smoke into my lungs. I observed that a very popular woman always said “no thanks” so I started saying that too. Much better to be courageous enough to be yourself IMO.
I grew up in a very rural place and had never heard of pot until I was in my twenties. Also I was raised by strict Baptists who didn’t smoke or drink. As a result I’m sort of a proper person. The penalty for even possession of pot in AL is dire!
I take it that you are not so prim & proper. Do weed, LSD, etc Help you? Can you describe your experiences in that regard? I’ve read a little about it but am way too fearful to try.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 5, 2019:
Smart guy. I liked the first part. Negatives are easily proven. Yes, you have to define the thing you are going to prove or disprove. That brought us to the second part of the video, and I am not persuaded. The definitions of God offered are not valid IMO. The ensuing “proof” is only a proof ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 6, 2019:
@maturin1919 I was taking a climbing class. A group of us would sit around in a tent at night and joints would be passed around. I mistakenly thought that to fit in I’d have to take part so I pretended to be smoking. I have fear and aversion to sucking smoke into my lungs. I observed that a very popular woman always said “no thanks” so I started saying that too. Much better to be courageous enough to be yourself IMO.
I grew up in a very rural place and had never heard of pot until I was in my twenties. Also I was raised by strict Baptists who didn’t smoke or drink. As a result I’m sort of a proper person. The penalty for even possession of pot in AL is dire!
I take it that you are not so prim & proper. Do weed, LSD, etc Help you? Can you describe your experiences in that regard? I’ve read a little about it but am way too fearful to try.
Next time a Christian claims that you can't prove their god doesn't exist, don't fall for it, point ...
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 5, 2019:
Smart guy. I liked the first part. Negatives are easily proven. Yes, you have to define the thing you are going to prove or disprove. That brought us to the second part of the video, and I am not persuaded. The definitions of God offered are not valid IMO. The ensuing “proof” is only a proof ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 6, 2019:
@maturin1919
I don’t do that.
Never have except a few joints long ago, and I only inhaled on one occasion. It was legal at the time under state law.
Why do you ask? Do you disagree with what I wrote?
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 5, 2019:
Smart guy. I liked the first part. Negatives are easily proven. Yes, you have to define the thing you are going to prove or disprove. That brought us to the second part of the video, and I am not persuaded. The definitions of God offered are not valid IMO. The ensuing “proof” is only a proof ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 6, 2019:
@maturin1919
I don’t do that.
Never have except a few joints long ago, and I only inhaled on one occasion. It was legal at the time under state law.
Why do you ask? Do you disagree with what I wrote?
Next time a Christian claims that you can't prove their god doesn't exist, don't fall for it, point ...
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 5, 2019:
Smart guy. I liked the first part. Negatives are easily proven. Yes, you have to define the thing you are going to prove or disprove. That brought us to the second part of the video, and I am not persuaded. The definitions of God offered are not valid IMO. The ensuing “proof” is only a proof ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 6, 2019:
@maturin1919 Corn. Bread. And. Turnip.
Greens.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 5, 2019:
Smart guy. I liked the first part. Negatives are easily proven. Yes, you have to define the thing you are going to prove or disprove. That brought us to the second part of the video, and I am not persuaded. The definitions of God offered are not valid IMO. The ensuing “proof” is only a proof ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 6, 2019:
@maturin1919 Corn. Bread. And. Turnip.
Greens.
You cannot prove God exists.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 4, 2019:
A proof is nothing but a persuasion. You can easily persuade open-minded people that God, as depicted in the Old Testament, does not exist. However...
That is not necessarily the end of the discussion. If someone tells you the moon is made out of cheese you might easily disprove their assertion, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 4, 2019:
@skado By all means. :-)
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 4, 2019:
A proof is nothing but a persuasion. You can easily persuade open-minded people that God, as depicted in the Old Testament, does not exist. However...
That is not necessarily the end of the discussion. If someone tells you the moon is made out of cheese you might easily disprove their assertion, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 4, 2019:
@skado By all means. :-)
Time - the most misunderstood concept in science.
Trajan61 comments on Jan 4, 2019:
The religous idiots don’t have a clue. They just can’t accept evolution or the Big Bang as it’s just to complicated.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 4, 2019:
@Trajan61 I’m guessing there’s something more to their religion than belief in dogmas. Ask them.
Trajan61 comments on Jan 4, 2019:
The religous idiots don’t have a clue. They just can’t accept evolution or the Big Bang as it’s just to complicated.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 4, 2019:
@Trajan61 I’m guessing there’s something more to their religion than belief in dogmas. Ask them.
You cannot prove God exists.
mordant comments on Jan 4, 2019:
God exists or not, regardless of cultural constructs. Either there's evidence to support that, or there isnt.
Aaaaand ... there isn't.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 4, 2019:
The trouble is that the concept of “existence” is confused and nebulous. Ultimate Reality is way over our heads. Things aren’t so simple.
mordant comments on Jan 4, 2019:
God exists or not, regardless of cultural constructs. Either there's evidence to support that, or there isnt.
Aaaaand ... there isn't.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 4, 2019:
The trouble is that the concept of “existence” is confused and nebulous. Ultimate Reality is way over our heads. Things aren’t so simple.
Time - the most misunderstood concept in science.
Trajan61 comments on Jan 4, 2019:
The religous idiots don’t have a clue. They just can’t accept evolution or the Big Bang as it’s just to complicated.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 4, 2019:
Some of ‘em must understand.
The concepts behind the big bang were first developed by Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest.
Trajan61 comments on Jan 4, 2019:
The religous idiots don’t have a clue. They just can’t accept evolution or the Big Bang as it’s just to complicated.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 4, 2019:
Some of ‘em must understand.
The concepts behind the big bang were first developed by Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest.
What is the Evidence for Evolution? - YouTube
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 2, 2019:
It’s a great video so far as it goes but I expect it’s preaching to the choir around here. Not mentioned at all is the traditional idea that evolution is driven strictly by mutations and natural selection, random and mechanistic events without conscious input.
Studies in epigenetics show ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 3, 2019:
@Triphid Alright, but what can you tell me about epigenetics? How does that work?
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 2, 2019:
It’s a great video so far as it goes but I expect it’s preaching to the choir around here. Not mentioned at all is the traditional idea that evolution is driven strictly by mutations and natural selection, random and mechanistic events without conscious input.
Studies in epigenetics show ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 3, 2019:
@Triphid Alright, but what can you tell me about epigenetics? How does that work?
What is the Evidence for Evolution? - YouTube
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 2, 2019:
It’s a great video so far as it goes but I expect it’s preaching to the choir around here. Not mentioned at all is the traditional idea that evolution is driven strictly by mutations and natural selection, random and mechanistic events without conscious input.
Studies in epigenetics show ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 3, 2019:
@Triphid If I consciously choose a particular lifestyle which causes certain genetic traits to be passed to my children epigenetically, then it would seem that the course of evolution can be affected by consciousness.
Besides that, everyone knows that evolution can be consciously directed. Breeders do it all the time.
Until the nature of conscious awareness is known such questions will remain deeply mysterious IMO.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 2, 2019:
It’s a great video so far as it goes but I expect it’s preaching to the choir around here. Not mentioned at all is the traditional idea that evolution is driven strictly by mutations and natural selection, random and mechanistic events without conscious input.
Studies in epigenetics show ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 3, 2019:
@Triphid If I consciously choose a particular lifestyle which causes certain genetic traits to be passed to my children epigenetically, then it would seem that the course of evolution can be affected by consciousness.
Besides that, everyone knows that evolution can be consciously directed. Breeders do it all the time.
Until the nature of conscious awareness is known such questions will remain deeply mysterious IMO.
An interesting essay, although now a couple of years old.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 2, 2019:
There are a lot of unfounded assertions in there. I’m not convinced it’s any more than a foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe.
“It is time for this weapon to be dismantled to stop this madness.”
Really, and who is to do the dismantling? Zealots have attempted just that many times and religion...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 2, 2019:
@mordant You summed up what I meant by the religious impulse. It’s also a glimmer of awareness that brings deep awe and wonder, and a desire to understand nature.
I agree with your response. Yes, I think gradual changes are in store—changes for the better.
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 2, 2019:
There are a lot of unfounded assertions in there. I’m not convinced it’s any more than a foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe.
“It is time for this weapon to be dismantled to stop this madness.”
Really, and who is to do the dismantling? Zealots have attempted just that many times and religion...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 2, 2019:
@mordant You summed up what I meant by the religious impulse. It’s also a glimmer of awareness that brings deep awe and wonder, and a desire to understand nature.
I agree with your response. Yes, I think gradual changes are in store—changes for the better.
Everything is connected
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 31, 2018:
Not only are we connected. Our true and real essence is one single thing IMO. Identity as a body is only an illusion.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 2, 2019:
@maturin1919 “You” are not thinking anything. Thinking is a bodily activity. You/We are in blissful repose, enjoying conscious awareness and playing with our multitude of state-of-the-art robotic organisms. :-)
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 31, 2018:
Not only are we connected. Our true and real essence is one single thing IMO. Identity as a body is only an illusion.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 2, 2019:
@maturin1919 “You” are not thinking anything. Thinking is a bodily activity. You/We are in blissful repose, enjoying conscious awareness and playing with our multitude of state-of-the-art robotic organisms. :-)
One of the things I've always noticed about the bible belt is they have a grudge against "book ...
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 1, 2019:
The South is a vast, diverse region which contains over a third of the US population. Studies show that religion is slightly more important in the South than in the other regions, but I don’t think that justifies the “Bible Belt” label.
You can find whatever you want in the South.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 1, 2019:
@Elganned
Religion in the "Bible Belt"
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/region/south/
According to this PEW study the Midwest is right up there with us in religiosity..
WilliamFleming comments on Jan 1, 2019:
The South is a vast, diverse region which contains over a third of the US population. Studies show that religion is slightly more important in the South than in the other regions, but I don’t think that justifies the “Bible Belt” label.
You can find whatever you want in the South.
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 1, 2019:
@Elganned
Religion in the "Bible Belt"
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/region/south/
According to this PEW study the Midwest is right up there with us in religiosity..
Most of us on this site are sceptics (or skeptics, in the case of non-Brits), but many sceptics ...
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 31, 2018:
You are lumping together a whole bunch of things that you don’t like, but some of those concepts might have validity.
What is new physics and what is wrong with it? I thought physics was physics. If by free energy you are talking about cold fusion aka LENR, I think the world is going to be in ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 1, 2019:
@MsDemeanour
But anecdotes ARE data. Anecdotes can be investigated and confirmed by corroborating evidence. Read the article. There are a lot of other articles also about the work of Dr. Stevenson.
How can you pronounce Dr. Stevenson’s work to be bogus when you haven’t even looked at the studies? The notion of reincarnation certainly challenges the materialistic world view held by so many skeptics, However the spirit of science is to be open to new ideas and to be willing to examine all evidence.
Reincarnation need not be thought of as supernatural. IMO there’s no such thing as the supernatural. Just because we don’t understand phenomena doesn’t mean they are supernatural. What it means is that we need to broaden our world views.
I am not a fan of the soul concept. Who or what is it that is supposed to have a soul? It makes more sense to say that our true self is associated with a variety of organisms, providing conscious oversight.If you are mired in the mud of materialism and think you are only your body, then reincarnation makes no sense, but if you are open to the concept of Universal Consciousness then reincarnation fits handily, along with a lot of other unexplained phenomena.
Just because someone shares memories with a dead person does not mean that they ARE that person. IMO both selves are illusions. Maybe it’s something like remote viewing.
I consider myself to be a skeptic also. There’s more to skepticism than going around debunking everything that is in conflict with your cherished world view.
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 31, 2018:
You are lumping together a whole bunch of things that you don’t like, but some of those concepts might have validity.
What is new physics and what is wrong with it? I thought physics was physics. If by free energy you are talking about cold fusion aka LENR, I think the world is going to be in ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 1, 2019:
@MsDemeanour
But anecdotes ARE data. Anecdotes can be investigated and confirmed by corroborating evidence. Read the article. There are a lot of other articles also about the work of Dr. Stevenson.
How can you pronounce Dr. Stevenson’s work to be bogus when you haven’t even looked at the studies? The notion of reincarnation certainly challenges the materialistic world view held by so many skeptics, However the spirit of science is to be open to new ideas and to be willing to examine all evidence.
Reincarnation need not be thought of as supernatural. IMO there’s no such thing as the supernatural. Just because we don’t understand phenomena doesn’t mean they are supernatural. What it means is that we need to broaden our world views.
I am not a fan of the soul concept. Who or what is it that is supposed to have a soul? It makes more sense to say that our true self is associated with a variety of organisms, providing conscious oversight.If you are mired in the mud of materialism and think you are only your body, then reincarnation makes no sense, but if you are open to the concept of Universal Consciousness then reincarnation fits handily, along with a lot of other unexplained phenomena.
Just because someone shares memories with a dead person does not mean that they ARE that person. IMO both selves are illusions. Maybe it’s something like remote viewing.
I consider myself to be a skeptic also. There’s more to skepticism than going around debunking everything that is in conflict with your cherished world view.
Do Science & Religion Conflict Over Morality?
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Both religion and science exist only as idea stuff, and there is absolutely no conflict between them in any way. There are people who seize upon either science or religion in a dogmatic way to use as a shield against the stark, overpowering implications of existence. There might be arguments and ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 1, 2019:
@johnprytz
“Okay, here's the bottom line. Scientists are way, way, way more likely NOT to believe in a God, god, higher power, universal spirit, etc. relative to the general population. There is definitely a correlation between education levels and religious beliefs. Just deal with it.”
Okay, I’m dealing with it, and I already knew that, so there’s nothing to deal with anyway.However, you don’t learn truth by taking an opinion poll. That said, your belief that there is a basic conflict between science and religion would certainly be better supported if 100% of scientists rejected the concept of a higher power.
As I keep saying, the conflict is only conducted by those carrying the flags of religion or science. Those with the true spirit of religion and science are not in conflict—they are the same people in fact.
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Both religion and science exist only as idea stuff, and there is absolutely no conflict between them in any way. There are people who seize upon either science or religion in a dogmatic way to use as a shield against the stark, overpowering implications of existence. There might be arguments and ...
WilliamFleming replies on Jan 1, 2019:
@johnprytz
“Okay, here's the bottom line. Scientists are way, way, way more likely NOT to believe in a God, god, higher power, universal spirit, etc. relative to the general population. There is definitely a correlation between education levels and religious beliefs. Just deal with it.”
Okay, I’m dealing with it, and I already knew that, so there’s nothing to deal with anyway.However, you don’t learn truth by taking an opinion poll. That said, your belief that there is a basic conflict between science and religion would certainly be better supported if 100% of scientists rejected the concept of a higher power.
As I keep saying, the conflict is only conducted by those carrying the flags of religion or science. Those with the true spirit of religion and science are not in conflict—they are the same people in fact.
Most of us on this site are sceptics (or skeptics, in the case of non-Brits), but many sceptics ...
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 31, 2018:
You are lumping together a whole bunch of things that you don’t like, but some of those concepts might have validity.
What is new physics and what is wrong with it? I thought physics was physics. If by free energy you are talking about cold fusion aka LENR, I think the world is going to be in ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@Jnei This is from the Scientific American article:
“ Towards the end of her own storied life, the physicist Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf—whose groundbreaking theories on surface physics earned her the prestigious Heyn Medal from the German Society for Material Sciences, surmised that Stevenson’s work had established that “the statistical probability that reincarnation does in fact occur is so overwhelming … that cumulatively the evidence is not inferior to that for most if not all branches of science.”
She is talking about the work of psychiatrist Ian Stevenson who conducted a program at the University of Virginia for the investigation of reincarnation.
Dr. Stevenson was meticulous in his research. From time to time parents would report a child who was talking about a previous life. Someone would go and interview the child, using strict protocols. In many cases it was possible to learn who the previous person had been, who the family was, and where they had lived. A team would go with the child to that location and in many many cases airtight corroborating information would be uncovered. Every statement by the child would be carefully recorded and compared with on site findings. This is from the Scientific American article: “Importantly, their statements are, in principle at least, empirically falsifiable. If adults don’t automatically dismiss young children’s utterances as gibberish, any spontaneous comments suggestive of a past life can be carefully recorded, so researchers like Stevenson might later confirm or disconfirm their accounts.”
Thousands of cases were carefully documented and referenced, and Stevenson has published several books which document those cases. Arch-skeptics of course attack the books, but I haven’t read of a skeptic who traveled to various locations and interviewed the people involved. The skeptics just brand the books as “anecdotal”, and without further ado they dismiss decades of work by Dr. Stevenson and his staff, remaining securely zipped up in their cocoons of ignorance and bigotry.
Yet here’s a quote from one of the skeptical articles:
“An unlikely advocate of Stevenson’s research was the great sceptic regarding otherworldly things, Carl Sagan. In his popular science classic, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Sagan observed that this new field of study into children who “sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation”, deserved “serious study” (Sagan, 1995, p. 285).
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 31, 2018:
You are lumping together a whole bunch of things that you don’t like, but some of those concepts might have validity.
What is new physics and what is wrong with it? I thought physics was physics. If by free energy you are talking about cold fusion aka LENR, I think the world is going to be in ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@Jnei This is from the Scientific American article:
“ Towards the end of her own storied life, the physicist Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf—whose groundbreaking theories on surface physics earned her the prestigious Heyn Medal from the German Society for Material Sciences, surmised that Stevenson’s work had established that “the statistical probability that reincarnation does in fact occur is so overwhelming … that cumulatively the evidence is not inferior to that for most if not all branches of science.”
She is talking about the work of psychiatrist Ian Stevenson who conducted a program at the University of Virginia for the investigation of reincarnation.
Dr. Stevenson was meticulous in his research. From time to time parents would report a child who was talking about a previous life. Someone would go and interview the child, using strict protocols. In many cases it was possible to learn who the previous person had been, who the family was, and where they had lived. A team would go with the child to that location and in many many cases airtight corroborating information would be uncovered. Every statement by the child would be carefully recorded and compared with on site findings. This is from the Scientific American article: “Importantly, their statements are, in principle at least, empirically falsifiable. If adults don’t automatically dismiss young children’s utterances as gibberish, any spontaneous comments suggestive of a past life can be carefully recorded, so researchers like Stevenson might later confirm or disconfirm their accounts.”
Thousands of cases were carefully documented and referenced, and Stevenson has published several books which document those cases. Arch-skeptics of course attack the books, but I haven’t read of a skeptic who traveled to various locations and interviewed the people involved. The skeptics just brand the books as “anecdotal”, and without further ado they dismiss decades of work by Dr. Stevenson and his staff, remaining securely zipped up in their cocoons of ignorance and bigotry.
Yet here’s a quote from one of the skeptical articles:
“An unlikely advocate of Stevenson’s research was the great sceptic regarding otherworldly things, Carl Sagan. In his popular science classic, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Sagan observed that this new field of study into children who “sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation”, deserved “serious study” (Sagan, 1995, p. 285).
What would a highly functional society without religion look like?
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@ToakReon We are in total agreement.
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@ToakReon We are in total agreement.
What would a highly functional society without religion look like?
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@ToakReon you are probably right. But some people like to read old writings to get a feel for life in those old days.
Why do you have such strong feelings? Would you have the Bible outlawed? Things written down can’t hurt you unless you think untrue thoughts about what is written.
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@ToakReon you are probably right. But some people like to read old writings to get a feel for life in those old days.
Why do you have such strong feelings? Would you have the Bible outlawed? Things written down can’t hurt you unless you think untrue thoughts about what is written.
What would a highly functional society without religion look like?
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@ToakReon Except that it has historical and literary significance if read from a critical and detached perspective. And some of Jesus’s teachings are of value.
Well hell, that’s just my opinion. Who said you have to read the damn thing?
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@ToakReon Except that it has historical and literary significance if read from a critical and detached perspective. And some of Jesus’s teachings are of value.
Well hell, that’s just my opinion. Who said you have to read the damn thing?
Most of us on this site are sceptics (or skeptics, in the case of non-Brits), but many sceptics ...
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 31, 2018:
You are lumping together a whole bunch of things that you don’t like, but some of those concepts might have validity.
What is new physics and what is wrong with it? I thought physics was physics. If by free energy you are talking about cold fusion aka LENR, I think the world is going to be in ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@Jnei OK, you have persuaded me, but I’m a woo sort of guy and I don’t want to join a sceptic’s forum. I’d about as soon rejoin the Baptist Church.
There are all kinds of books that describe ESP research. Dean Radin has written some good ones.
I just had a great interchange on this forum about reincarnation. Here’s an article in Scientific American that is very convincing IMO.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/ian-stevensone28099s-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-e28098skepticse28099-really-just-cynics/
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 31, 2018:
You are lumping together a whole bunch of things that you don’t like, but some of those concepts might have validity.
What is new physics and what is wrong with it? I thought physics was physics. If by free energy you are talking about cold fusion aka LENR, I think the world is going to be in ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@Jnei OK, you have persuaded me, but I’m a woo sort of guy and I don’t want to join a sceptic’s forum. I’d about as soon rejoin the Baptist Church.
There are all kinds of books that describe ESP research. Dean Radin has written some good ones.
I just had a great interchange on this forum about reincarnation. Here’s an article in Scientific American that is very convincing IMO.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/ian-stevensone28099s-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-e28098skepticse28099-really-just-cynics/
I know this may be pushing the boundaries here a tiny bit, but I have cried every time I have ...
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 31, 2018:
It’s touching.
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@BufftonBeotch I’m sorry. I know you feel a great loss.
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 31, 2018:
It’s touching.
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@BufftonBeotch I’m sorry. I know you feel a great loss.
What would a highly functional society without religion look like?
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@ToakReon I’m not saying it’s the word of God. A bunch of bishops got together a collection of old writings and decreed their selection to be the work of God. Their making false claims in no way invalidates any of the writings.
And I am not saying that certain parts of the Bible are to be “followed”. I just read a book about some new physics theories. It’s not a book to be followed. It’s something to study and ponder and think about. A person should read the Bible just as he would any book. Parts might resonate and be meaningful if read as history, allegory, mythology, or even as enlightened teaching in some cases.
I haven’t looked at a bible in years.
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@ToakReon I’m not saying it’s the word of God. A bunch of bishops got together a collection of old writings and decreed their selection to be the work of God. Their making false claims in no way invalidates any of the writings.
And I am not saying that certain parts of the Bible are to be “followed”. I just read a book about some new physics theories. It’s not a book to be followed. It’s something to study and ponder and think about. A person should read the Bible just as he would any book. Parts might resonate and be meaningful if read as history, allegory, mythology, or even as enlightened teaching in some cases.
I haven’t looked at a bible in years.
What would a highly functional society without religion look like?
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@ToakReon, @greyeyed123 Wow, Cloud Atlas is definitely for me. I caught that it’s by the same people who produced the Matrix series, which I somehow managed to miss, and they produced ”Run Lola Run” which is one of my favorite films ever. I’ll definitely get my hands on the book.
I myself have written a sort of book or story called “The Staggering Implications of the Mystery of Existence” which is available on Kindle. Though just a novel, it explores the idea of rebirth to an extent.
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@ToakReon, @greyeyed123 Wow, Cloud Atlas is definitely for me. I caught that it’s by the same people who produced the Matrix series, which I somehow managed to miss, and they produced ”Run Lola Run” which is one of my favorite films ever. I’ll definitely get my hands on the book.
I myself have written a sort of book or story called “The Staggering Implications of the Mystery of Existence” which is available on Kindle. Though just a novel, it explores the idea of rebirth to an extent.
What would a highly functional society without religion look like?
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@ToakReon Some of the teachings of Jesus are inspiring and meaningful for me. Also I like the story of Job, which I take as allegory.
Skado is right IMO. Some things from the grocery store might make me sick, but other things are good for me. Some books from the library are sickening—Mein Kamf for example, but that’s no reason to burn down the library.
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@ToakReon Some of the teachings of Jesus are inspiring and meaningful for me. Also I like the story of Job, which I take as allegory.
Skado is right IMO. Some things from the grocery store might make me sick, but other things are good for me. Some books from the library are sickening—Mein Kamf for example, but that’s no reason to burn down the library.
It invokes visions of rebellion when you wake up one morning and realize you are but slaves to the ...
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 31, 2018:
Since my modest retirement fund is invested in stocks and bonds, I am those evil corporations of which you speak.
You can not escape my clutches. Suffer. :-)
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@Dietl It’s true that I am not a corporation. However, corporations are owned by the shareholders and that makes me part owner.
Corporations are formed to accomplish tasks too large for individuals. There’s nothing sinister about business organizations in general.
And I also wish for you a great New Year! :-)
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 31, 2018:
Since my modest retirement fund is invested in stocks and bonds, I am those evil corporations of which you speak.
You can not escape my clutches. Suffer. :-)
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@Dietl It’s true that I am not a corporation. However, corporations are owned by the shareholders and that makes me part owner.
Corporations are formed to accomplish tasks too large for individuals. There’s nothing sinister about business organizations in general.
And I also wish for you a great New Year! :-)
I have decided to block all "believers" just to save myself time and headaches.
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 31, 2018:
I can sympathize with blocking those who are caught up in church dogma and are on an ego-fueled mission to convert all of us to their opinions.
But what about those with spiritual leanings? I lean toward the idea of Universal Consciousness. I don’t call that “God”, but there are those who ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@helionoftroy Whew! I’m breathin’ easier. Thanks.
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 31, 2018:
I can sympathize with blocking those who are caught up in church dogma and are on an ego-fueled mission to convert all of us to their opinions.
But what about those with spiritual leanings? I lean toward the idea of Universal Consciousness. I don’t call that “God”, but there are those who ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@helionoftroy Whew! I’m breathin’ easier. Thanks.
Do Science & Religion Conflict Over Morality?
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Both religion and science exist only as idea stuff, and there is absolutely no conflict between them in any way. There are people who seize upon either science or religion in a dogmatic way to use as a shield against the stark, overpowering implications of existence. There might be arguments and ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@johnprytz I was referring to the US study, If a person says they believe in a universal spirit or higher power how is that any different than saying they believe in God? It’s quibbling IMO. The figure is 33% BTW. Don’t trim it down. Whether a third or a half of US scientists believe in God depends on how you define the undefinable, but either way the conclusion is the same. A significant percentage of scientists say they believe in a higher power, and that confirms my statement that science and religion are not in conflict. The only conflict is between those with a blind and dogmatic childlike faith in materialism and scientism and those with a blind and dogmatic childlike faith in church doctrines. Apparently, since you seem to be in conflict you belong to the former group. Am I right?
For high level, deeply aware and intelligent people there is no conflict.
KIP THORNE:
"There are large numbers of my finest colleagues who are quite devout and believe in God [...] There is no fundamental incompatibility between science and religion. I happen to not believe in God."[13]
(Wikipedia)
ALBERT EINSTEIN:
“Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.”
WERNER KARL HEISENBERG:
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
“The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
Finally, there are many faces to Hinduism . In the Hindu tradition there are various gods and goddesses. Over all that is Brahman or Ultimate Reality, which encompasses everything there is. No one is expected to “believe” in Ultimate Reality in order to worm their way into heaven. The idea is ludicrous. The goal in both Hinduism and Buddhism is, through contemplation and meditation, to become enlightened or aware of the tenuous nature of the world of perception and of the magnificence and grandeur of the profoundly mysterious reality beyond of which we are an extension. My opinion only.
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Both religion and science exist only as idea stuff, and there is absolutely no conflict between them in any way. There are people who seize upon either science or religion in a dogmatic way to use as a shield against the stark, overpowering implications of existence. There might be arguments and ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 31, 2018:
@johnprytz I was referring to the US study, If a person says they believe in a universal spirit or higher power how is that any different than saying they believe in God? It’s quibbling IMO. The figure is 33% BTW. Don’t trim it down. Whether a third or a half of US scientists believe in God depends on how you define the undefinable, but either way the conclusion is the same. A significant percentage of scientists say they believe in a higher power, and that confirms my statement that science and religion are not in conflict. The only conflict is between those with a blind and dogmatic childlike faith in materialism and scientism and those with a blind and dogmatic childlike faith in church doctrines. Apparently, since you seem to be in conflict you belong to the former group. Am I right?
For high level, deeply aware and intelligent people there is no conflict.
KIP THORNE:
"There are large numbers of my finest colleagues who are quite devout and believe in God [...] There is no fundamental incompatibility between science and religion. I happen to not believe in God."[13]
(Wikipedia)
ALBERT EINSTEIN:
“Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.”
WERNER KARL HEISENBERG:
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
“The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
Finally, there are many faces to Hinduism . In the Hindu tradition there are various gods and goddesses. Over all that is Brahman or Ultimate Reality, which encompasses everything there is. No one is expected to “believe” in Ultimate Reality in order to worm their way into heaven. The idea is ludicrous. The goal in both Hinduism and Buddhism is, through contemplation and meditation, to become enlightened or aware of the tenuous nature of the world of perception and of the magnificence and grandeur of the profoundly mysterious reality beyond of which we are an extension. My opinion only.
Do Science & Religion Conflict Over Morality?
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Both religion and science exist only as idea stuff, and there is absolutely no conflict between them in any way. There are people who seize upon either science or religion in a dogmatic way to use as a shield against the stark, overpowering implications of existence. There might be arguments and ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 30, 2018:
@johnprytz I should have said “half of US scientists. IIRC the question was “Do you believe in God?”
Here’s a worldwide study. Both studies are somewhat out of date.
http://news.rice.edu/2015/12/03/first-worldwide-survey-of-religion-and-science-no-not-all-scientists-are-atheists/
I don’t mind getting flak from both sides. IMO there ought not be any sides to begin with. Neither side knows anything. I myself don’t know but one thing and that thing is that I don’t know but one thing. The warring parties don’t even know that.
IMO spirituality is not about holding beliefs. If you asked a spiritually aware person if she believed in God she’d probably want to qualify her response.
It’s like asking someone if they believe in art, or in the universe or something like that. It’s not a subject for belief.
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Both religion and science exist only as idea stuff, and there is absolutely no conflict between them in any way. There are people who seize upon either science or religion in a dogmatic way to use as a shield against the stark, overpowering implications of existence. There might be arguments and ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 30, 2018:
@johnprytz I should have said “half of US scientists. IIRC the question was “Do you believe in God?”
Here’s a worldwide study. Both studies are somewhat out of date.
http://news.rice.edu/2015/12/03/first-worldwide-survey-of-religion-and-science-no-not-all-scientists-are-atheists/
I don’t mind getting flak from both sides. IMO there ought not be any sides to begin with. Neither side knows anything. I myself don’t know but one thing and that thing is that I don’t know but one thing. The warring parties don’t even know that.
IMO spirituality is not about holding beliefs. If you asked a spiritually aware person if she believed in God she’d probably want to qualify her response.
It’s like asking someone if they believe in art, or in the universe or something like that. It’s not a subject for belief.
What would a highly functional society without religion look like?
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 29, 2018:
@greyeyed123 Thanks for the Cloud Atlas link. I’ll check into it later.
I would think Bering would be a side player in this story. Lots of writers have commented on Dr. Stevenson’s work, some skeptical but open-minded. I find Wikipedia to be generally hostile to subjects considered on the fringes of science. I haven’t read their article and haven’t mentioned it.
I would think that to read some of Stevenson’s books might be enlightening, however, I understand they consist mainly of data. It would become very boring after reading of a few cases. I myself have accepted the concept long since, and don’t need to read about it over and over.
I can certainly understand why anyone would be very skeptical of reincarnation studies because the idea challenges standard scientific models that we learned in school. I myself am open to the concept because I lean toward the idea of universal consciousness. Though only metaphysics at this point the concept is very enticing and has been embraced by many eminent physicists.
That of course doesn’t mean anyone really understands what is happening. My personal opinion is that personal identity as a body is a tenuous and insubstantial thing. The new person might share memories with the dead person but that doesn’t mean they are that person. Both selves are illusions. It might be something like remote viewing.
Anyway, Alabama beats Oklahoma and it’s my bedtime. Thanks for a stimulating interchange.
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 29, 2018:
@greyeyed123 Thanks for the Cloud Atlas link. I’ll check into it later.
I would think Bering would be a side player in this story. Lots of writers have commented on Dr. Stevenson’s work, some skeptical but open-minded. I find Wikipedia to be generally hostile to subjects considered on the fringes of science. I haven’t read their article and haven’t mentioned it.
I would think that to read some of Stevenson’s books might be enlightening, however, I understand they consist mainly of data. It would become very boring after reading of a few cases. I myself have accepted the concept long since, and don’t need to read about it over and over.
I can certainly understand why anyone would be very skeptical of reincarnation studies because the idea challenges standard scientific models that we learned in school. I myself am open to the concept because I lean toward the idea of universal consciousness. Though only metaphysics at this point the concept is very enticing and has been embraced by many eminent physicists.
That of course doesn’t mean anyone really understands what is happening. My personal opinion is that personal identity as a body is a tenuous and insubstantial thing. The new person might share memories with the dead person but that doesn’t mean they are that person. Both selves are illusions. It might be something like remote viewing.
Anyway, Alabama beats Oklahoma and it’s my bedtime. Thanks for a stimulating interchange.
What would a highly functional society without religion look like?
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 29, 2018:
@greyeyed123 They are not unverifiable stories. If you had read any of the articles you would know that. This is from the Scientific American article:
“ Towards the end of her own storied life, the physicist Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf—whose groundbreaking theories on surface physics earned her the prestigious Heyn Medal from the German Society for Material Sciences, surmised that Stevenson’s work had established that “the statistical probability that reincarnation does in fact occur is so overwhelming … that cumulatively the evidence is not inferior to that for most if not all branches of science.”
She is talking about the work of psychiatrist Ian Stevenson who conducted a program at the University of Virginia for the investigation of reincarnation.
Dr. Stevenson was meticulous in his research. From time to time parents would report a child who was talking about a previous life. Someone would go and interview the child, using strict protocols. In many cases it was possible to learn who the previous person had been, who the family was, and where they had lived. A team would go with the child to that location and in many many cases airtight corroborating information would be uncovered. Every statement by the child would be carefully recorded and compared with on site findings. This is from the Scientific American article: “Importantly, their statements are, in principle at least, empirically falsifiable. If adults don’t automatically dismiss young children’s utterances as gibberish, any spontaneous comments suggestive of a past life can be carefully recorded, so researchers like Stevenson might later confirm or disconfirm their accounts.”
Thousands of cases were carefully documented and referenced, and Stevenson has published several books which document those cases. Arch-skeptics of course attack the books, but I haven’t read of a skeptic who traveled to various locations and interviewed the people involved. Like you, the skeptics just brand the books as “anecdotal”, and without further ado they dismiss decades of work by Dr. Stevenson and his staff, remaining securely zipped up in their cocoons of ignorance and bigotry.
Yet here’s a quote from one of the skeptical articles:
“An unlikely advocate of Stevenson’s research was the great sceptic regarding otherworldly things, Carl Sagan. In his popular science classic, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Sagan observed that this new field of study into children who “sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation”, deserved “serious study” (Sagan, 1995, p. 285).
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 29, 2018:
@greyeyed123 They are not unverifiable stories. If you had read any of the articles you would know that. This is from the Scientific American article:
“ Towards the end of her own storied life, the physicist Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf—whose groundbreaking theories on surface physics earned her the prestigious Heyn Medal from the German Society for Material Sciences, surmised that Stevenson’s work had established that “the statistical probability that reincarnation does in fact occur is so overwhelming … that cumulatively the evidence is not inferior to that for most if not all branches of science.”
She is talking about the work of psychiatrist Ian Stevenson who conducted a program at the University of Virginia for the investigation of reincarnation.
Dr. Stevenson was meticulous in his research. From time to time parents would report a child who was talking about a previous life. Someone would go and interview the child, using strict protocols. In many cases it was possible to learn who the previous person had been, who the family was, and where they had lived. A team would go with the child to that location and in many many cases airtight corroborating information would be uncovered. Every statement by the child would be carefully recorded and compared with on site findings. This is from the Scientific American article: “Importantly, their statements are, in principle at least, empirically falsifiable. If adults don’t automatically dismiss young children’s utterances as gibberish, any spontaneous comments suggestive of a past life can be carefully recorded, so researchers like Stevenson might later confirm or disconfirm their accounts.”
Thousands of cases were carefully documented and referenced, and Stevenson has published several books which document those cases. Arch-skeptics of course attack the books, but I haven’t read of a skeptic who traveled to various locations and interviewed the people involved. Like you, the skeptics just brand the books as “anecdotal”, and without further ado they dismiss decades of work by Dr. Stevenson and his staff, remaining securely zipped up in their cocoons of ignorance and bigotry.
Yet here’s a quote from one of the skeptical articles:
“An unlikely advocate of Stevenson’s research was the great sceptic regarding otherworldly things, Carl Sagan. In his popular science classic, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Sagan observed that this new field of study into children who “sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation”, deserved “serious study” (Sagan, 1995, p. 285).
What would a highly functional society without religion look like?
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 29, 2018:
@greyeyed123 In other words, your mind is made up and you refuse to to read anything that might challenge your prejudice. I would think that if you are going to declare all those studies by reputable researchers to be bogus that you would at least provide evidence for your claim. Or is that only a requirement for your opponents? You yourself can freely make any kind of condescending, slurring claim without backing that claim up. You can just say that the evidence is no good and that if it were valid evidence it would be known. What kind of logic is that? Known by whom? Which study is bad? Which evidence is faulty and why?
According to that Wikipedia article you referred me to, in that you decline to give evidence for your shaky claims I can safely ignore anything you have to say on the subject.
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 29, 2018:
@greyeyed123 In other words, your mind is made up and you refuse to to read anything that might challenge your prejudice. I would think that if you are going to declare all those studies by reputable researchers to be bogus that you would at least provide evidence for your claim. Or is that only a requirement for your opponents? You yourself can freely make any kind of condescending, slurring claim without backing that claim up. You can just say that the evidence is no good and that if it were valid evidence it would be known. What kind of logic is that? Known by whom? Which study is bad? Which evidence is faulty and why?
According to that Wikipedia article you referred me to, in that you decline to give evidence for your shaky claims I can safely ignore anything you have to say on the subject.
What would a highly functional society without religion look like?
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 29, 2018:
@greyeyed123 I can see what you are saying, and you have given a valid example. But you don’t actually tell the doctor that he has a burden of proof. In fact he has no burden of proof. You have to find out for yourself what is true.
I lean toward several metaphysical concepts that are considered “woo” by many on this forum, and they say that there is ZERO evidence and that the burden of proof is on me. There is always at least some evidence and there is NO burden of proof. It is not my burden to persuade anyone of anything. I tried a few times before I caught on to the game. Whatever evidence I present is ALWAYS ruled inadmissible by them, who see themselves as judges. In other words, their minds are firmly set in stone, probably because they are protecting a cherished world view that gives them comfort. They would sit on their thrones till doomsday awaiting that certain admissible evidence.
If anyone wanted to investigate the subject of reincarnation there is lots of evidence out there:
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+there+verifiable+evidence+for+reincarnation&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us=safari
It is certainly not my burden to make anyone examine that evidence. I frankly don’t give a damn what anyone does in that regard.
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 29, 2018:
@greyeyed123 I can see what you are saying, and you have given a valid example. But you don’t actually tell the doctor that he has a burden of proof. In fact he has no burden of proof. You have to find out for yourself what is true.
I lean toward several metaphysical concepts that are considered “woo” by many on this forum, and they say that there is ZERO evidence and that the burden of proof is on me. There is always at least some evidence and there is NO burden of proof. It is not my burden to persuade anyone of anything. I tried a few times before I caught on to the game. Whatever evidence I present is ALWAYS ruled inadmissible by them, who see themselves as judges. In other words, their minds are firmly set in stone, probably because they are protecting a cherished world view that gives them comfort. They would sit on their thrones till doomsday awaiting that certain admissible evidence.
If anyone wanted to investigate the subject of reincarnation there is lots of evidence out there:
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+there+verifiable+evidence+for+reincarnation&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us=safari
It is certainly not my burden to make anyone examine that evidence. I frankly don’t give a damn what anyone does in that regard.
What would a highly functional society without religion look like?
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 29, 2018:
@greyeyed123 Sounds like to mention “burden of proof” is just a way to intimidate your debate opponent and overwhelm them with your intellectual superiority, especially if no real proof is to be involved and you are just being argumentative. It’s a catty way of telling them to shut up.
Have you ever told someone that they had a burden of proof, and had them subsequently present such a proof that convinced you of their position? Not likely I’m thinking.
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 29, 2018:
@greyeyed123 Sounds like to mention “burden of proof” is just a way to intimidate your debate opponent and overwhelm them with your intellectual superiority, especially if no real proof is to be involved and you are just being argumentative. It’s a catty way of telling them to shut up.
Have you ever told someone that they had a burden of proof, and had them subsequently present such a proof that convinced you of their position? Not likely I’m thinking.
What would a highly functional society without religion look like?
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 29, 2018:
@greyeyed123 “Burden of Proof” is a pseudo-legal term having no real application except in a court of law. No one can prove anything to another person. The only burden, if there is a burden, is for each person to examine the available evidence with an open mind. Some degree of belief might follow spontaneously.
In a courtroom various kinds of evidence are acceptable:
Analogical Evidence. ...
Anecdotal Evidence. ...
Character Evidence. ...
Circumstantial Evidence. ...
Demonstrative Evidence. ...
Digital Evidence. ...
Direct Evidence. ...
Documentary Evidence.
To say that there is NO evidence for reincarnation is obviously just bias.
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 29, 2018:
@greyeyed123 “Burden of Proof” is a pseudo-legal term having no real application except in a court of law. No one can prove anything to another person. The only burden, if there is a burden, is for each person to examine the available evidence with an open mind. Some degree of belief might follow spontaneously.
In a courtroom various kinds of evidence are acceptable:
Analogical Evidence. ...
Anecdotal Evidence. ...
Character Evidence. ...
Circumstantial Evidence. ...
Demonstrative Evidence. ...
Digital Evidence. ...
Direct Evidence. ...
Documentary Evidence.
To say that there is NO evidence for reincarnation is obviously just bias.
What would a highly functional society without religion look like?
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 29, 2018:
@greyeyed123
There’s lots of evidence for reincarnation. For you the evidence might not be persuasive—for others it is. There is no absolute standard for deciding what is true. Each person must decide for herself.
And BTW, there’s no such thing as a burden of proof except in a courtroom.
skado comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Through the broader lens of history, your question looks like "What would a highly functional society without high functionality look like?" Morality doesn't *come* from religion - morality comes from evolution, and its expression ends up being called religion.
When questioned in this clip, ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 29, 2018:
@greyeyed123
There’s lots of evidence for reincarnation. For you the evidence might not be persuasive—for others it is. There is no absolute standard for deciding what is true. Each person must decide for herself.
And BTW, there’s no such thing as a burden of proof except in a courtroom.
"If you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, he will spend it's entire life believing it is...
doug6352 comments on Dec 29, 2018:
"Here Are 6 Things Albert Einstein Never Said"
https://www.history.com/news/here-are-6-things-albert-einstein-never-said
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 29, 2018:
I’m relieved.
doug6352 comments on Dec 29, 2018:
"Here Are 6 Things Albert Einstein Never Said"
https://www.history.com/news/here-are-6-things-albert-einstein-never-said
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 29, 2018:
I’m relieved.
Do Science & Religion Conflict Over Morality?
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Both religion and science exist only as idea stuff, and there is absolutely no conflict between them in any way. There are people who seize upon either science or religion in a dogmatic way to use as a shield against the stark, overpowering implications of existence. There might be arguments and ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 29, 2018:
@johnprytz
And there’s a host of others who would agree with me totally. In fact, studies show that about half of all scientists believe in God.
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 28, 2018:
Both religion and science exist only as idea stuff, and there is absolutely no conflict between them in any way. There are people who seize upon either science or religion in a dogmatic way to use as a shield against the stark, overpowering implications of existence. There might be arguments and ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 29, 2018:
@johnprytz
And there’s a host of others who would agree with me totally. In fact, studies show that about half of all scientists believe in God.
Using your own definition of "miracle", do you believe one or more ever happened?
mordant comments on Dec 26, 2018:
Miracles, other than sloppy hyperbolic usages of the term, are incidents violating physical laws. Raising the dead, instantly healing the sick, things like that. And no, I've never seen a single substantiated instance of that. In fact I've seldom seen a substantiat*able* example.
I regard ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 26, 2018:
@mordant
To say that things can’t be other than they are might be a satisfactory explanation for you, but I am not satisfied. Things are as they are and it is s profound inexplicable miracle.
mordant comments on Dec 26, 2018:
Miracles, other than sloppy hyperbolic usages of the term, are incidents violating physical laws. Raising the dead, instantly healing the sick, things like that. And no, I've never seen a single substantiated instance of that. In fact I've seldom seen a substantiat*able* example.
I regard ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 26, 2018:
@mordant
To say that things can’t be other than they are might be a satisfactory explanation for you, but I am not satisfied. Things are as they are and it is s profound inexplicable miracle.
Using your own definition of "miracle", do you believe one or more ever happened?
mordant comments on Dec 26, 2018:
Miracles, other than sloppy hyperbolic usages of the term, are incidents violating physical laws. Raising the dead, instantly healing the sick, things like that. And no, I've never seen a single substantiated instance of that. In fact I've seldom seen a substantiat*able* example.
I regard ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 26, 2018:
Can you explain why there are physical laws in the first place? It’s a miracle don’t you think?
mordant comments on Dec 26, 2018:
Miracles, other than sloppy hyperbolic usages of the term, are incidents violating physical laws. Raising the dead, instantly healing the sick, things like that. And no, I've never seen a single substantiated instance of that. In fact I've seldom seen a substantiat*able* example.
I regard ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 26, 2018:
Can you explain why there are physical laws in the first place? It’s a miracle don’t you think?
Using your own definition of "miracle", do you believe one or more ever happened?
Beowulfsfriend comments on Dec 26, 2018:
Statistics and statistical anomalies is all. The odds of drawing a strait flush in poker is miraculous, but no one thinks so because it happens.
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 26, 2018:
I was in an informal poker game once many years ago, when for a deal every hand was a royal flush. The dealer was known for being a tricky guy—the other players threw down their hands and ordered the dealer to redeal. This time every hand was four of a kind. The players stalked off in disgust, muttering. To them there was no miracle, just trickery.
But what about me? The memory of that event has followed me down through the eerie corridors of life, sneaking up on me late at night, eliciting a sense of disbelief at times and awe and wonder at other times. I can not so easily shrug the thing off as trickery.
You see, I was the dealer.
Beowulfsfriend comments on Dec 26, 2018:
Statistics and statistical anomalies is all. The odds of drawing a strait flush in poker is miraculous, but no one thinks so because it happens.
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 26, 2018:
I was in an informal poker game once many years ago, when for a deal every hand was a royal flush. The dealer was known for being a tricky guy—the other players threw down their hands and ordered the dealer to redeal. This time every hand was four of a kind. The players stalked off in disgust, muttering. To them there was no miracle, just trickery.
But what about me? The memory of that event has followed me down through the eerie corridors of life, sneaking up on me late at night, eliciting a sense of disbelief at times and awe and wonder at other times. I can not so easily shrug the thing off as trickery.
You see, I was the dealer.
Exploitation and Expropriation, or Why Capitalism Must be Attacked with Equal Force on Every Front
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 25, 2018:
There’s no such thing as capitalism. There is only production and trading. Capital is just the resources needed for production. All types of economic systems need and utilize capital.
In a free market economy people join forces as needed to accomplish tasks too large for individuals. The size ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 25, 2018:
@sfvpool
Maybe it comes down to semantics. The word “capitalism” has come to be synonymous with the free market, and especially big business. Part of my point is that the label is misleading and irrational because production under any system has to have capital. For production you generally need labor but we don’t speak of laborism. We never say “managementism”. If everyone defines capitalism as the free market then we have to use that word but IMO it is a very poor label.
Specifically, a free market economy is not the opposite of socialism. Even though socialist policies might sometimes infringe on free trade they need not.
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 25, 2018:
There’s no such thing as capitalism. There is only production and trading. Capital is just the resources needed for production. All types of economic systems need and utilize capital.
In a free market economy people join forces as needed to accomplish tasks too large for individuals. The size ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 25, 2018:
@sfvpool
Maybe it comes down to semantics. The word “capitalism” has come to be synonymous with the free market, and especially big business. Part of my point is that the label is misleading and irrational because production under any system has to have capital. For production you generally need labor but we don’t speak of laborism. We never say “managementism”. If everyone defines capitalism as the free market then we have to use that word but IMO it is a very poor label.
Specifically, a free market economy is not the opposite of socialism. Even though socialist policies might sometimes infringe on free trade they need not.
Karma, real or imagined?
freeofgod comments on Dec 25, 2018:
Imagined. We don't always get what we deserve and we don't always deserve what we get.
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 25, 2018:
@genessa
That sounds like a very astute response. Thanks for saving it and reposting.
freeofgod comments on Dec 25, 2018:
Imagined. We don't always get what we deserve and we don't always deserve what we get.
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 25, 2018:
@genessa
That sounds like a very astute response. Thanks for saving it and reposting.
Exploitation and Expropriation, or Why Capitalism Must be Attacked with Equal Force on Every Front
Markss76118 comments on Dec 25, 2018:
One of the reasons I don't trust AGW alarmism is that in my opinion it is often politics masquerading as science (ex.: IPCC Summaries for Policymakers). I think the posting above should be lost in the Politics category. Being "important" doesn't make it science. @WilliamFlemming I like a lot of what...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 25, 2018:
Thanks, I’m honored.
Markss76118 comments on Dec 25, 2018:
One of the reasons I don't trust AGW alarmism is that in my opinion it is often politics masquerading as science (ex.: IPCC Summaries for Policymakers). I think the posting above should be lost in the Politics category. Being "important" doesn't make it science. @WilliamFlemming I like a lot of what...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 25, 2018:
Thanks, I’m honored.
Karma, real or imagined?
freeofgod comments on Dec 25, 2018:
Imagined. We don't always get what we deserve and we don't always deserve what we get.
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 25, 2018:
@genessa
Can’t find Wurlitzer. What did he/she say?
freeofgod comments on Dec 25, 2018:
Imagined. We don't always get what we deserve and we don't always deserve what we get.
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 25, 2018:
@genessa
Can’t find Wurlitzer. What did he/she say?
Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist explains why there is something rather than nothing.
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 23, 2018:
In other words, nobody knows and we can not understand the scope of the question in human terms.
It’s eerie. There is this Nature that created itself and decreed immutable laws, brought life into existence, and seems to be awash in intelligent, conscious awareness. For God’s sake, for all the...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 24, 2018:
@Matthew2474
The most overriding conclusion of the podcast IMO is that the answer to the question about why there is anything rather than nothing: No one knows. I listened to about half of the podcast until it became obvious that no answer would be forthcoming.
And you are right: I absolutely do not understand the universe as “we” understand it scientifically, and I posit that no one else understands the universe, yourself included. You are not thinking of the overall picture, saying that everything fell into existence by chance accident. There is no basis for such a belief and no way to test your assertion, and even if the assertion were true you would have explained nothing. By what means were the laws of probability established? There had to be some sort of existing framework of reality to accommodate your accidental “falling into existence”. Where does that reality come from? Besides that, our very concept of existence is by no means clear. In the book “Reality is not What it Seems” by Carlo Rovelli, we learn that the universe is not made out of matter. “Matter” is a human interpretation of the interactions between covariant quantum fields. And time does not exist. How can we have an intelligent discussion about the origins of the universe when we don’t know the meaning of existence and don’t know what conscious awareness is and thus don’t even understand what we ourselves are.
So far as there being conscious awareness in the universe, we ourselves provide ample evidence for that. What is the source for that awareness? Again, no one knows—it is a deep mystery, but some very astute people have advocated for the concept of Universal Consciousness, including most of the founders of modern physics along with John Wheeler, and now even Roger Penrose is talking about it.
Universal Consciousness
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-universal/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-universe-may-be-conscious-prominent-scientists-state.amp
http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/565
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/600900
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna772956 (The best)
I know only one thing, and that thing is that the deep questions about reality are profoundly mysterious and beyond human intellect. Science provides some glimmers of insight but those glimmers are inherently superficial. Ultimate Reality is overwhelming in its implications no matter what silly label you slap on it.
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 23, 2018:
In other words, nobody knows and we can not understand the scope of the question in human terms.
It’s eerie. There is this Nature that created itself and decreed immutable laws, brought life into existence, and seems to be awash in intelligent, conscious awareness. For God’s sake, for all the...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 24, 2018:
@Matthew2474
The most overriding conclusion of the podcast IMO is that the answer to the question about why there is anything rather than nothing: No one knows. I listened to about half of the podcast until it became obvious that no answer would be forthcoming.
And you are right: I absolutely do not understand the universe as “we” understand it scientifically, and I posit that no one else understands the universe, yourself included. You are not thinking of the overall picture, saying that everything fell into existence by chance accident. There is no basis for such a belief and no way to test your assertion, and even if the assertion were true you would have explained nothing. By what means were the laws of probability established? There had to be some sort of existing framework of reality to accommodate your accidental “falling into existence”. Where does that reality come from? Besides that, our very concept of existence is by no means clear. In the book “Reality is not What it Seems” by Carlo Rovelli, we learn that the universe is not made out of matter. “Matter” is a human interpretation of the interactions between covariant quantum fields. And time does not exist. How can we have an intelligent discussion about the origins of the universe when we don’t know the meaning of existence and don’t know what conscious awareness is and thus don’t even understand what we ourselves are.
So far as there being conscious awareness in the universe, we ourselves provide ample evidence for that. What is the source for that awareness? Again, no one knows—it is a deep mystery, but some very astute people have advocated for the concept of Universal Consciousness, including most of the founders of modern physics along with John Wheeler, and now even Roger Penrose is talking about it.
Universal Consciousness
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-universal/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-universe-may-be-conscious-prominent-scientists-state.amp
http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/565
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/600900
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna772956 (The best)
I know only one thing, and that thing is that the deep questions about reality are profoundly mysterious and beyond human intellect. Science provides some glimmers of insight but those glimmers are inherently superficial. Ultimate Reality is overwhelming in its implications no matter what silly label you slap on it.
Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist explains why there is something rather than nothing.
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 23, 2018:
In other words, nobody knows and we can not understand the scope of the question in human terms.
It’s eerie. There is this Nature that created itself and decreed immutable laws, brought life into existence, and seems to be awash in intelligent, conscious awareness. For God’s sake, for all the...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 23, 2018:
@jerry99
Ascribing anything to God is just to say you don’t have the least idea of what it is or what it means IMO. It is an admission of absolute ignorance, which is the most honest assessment. What does it mean to say “God did it” when you don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about?
I’ve been doing it all my life and I ain’t mad yet—oh wait, maybe I am. That would explain a lot, aye?
:-)
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 23, 2018:
In other words, nobody knows and we can not understand the scope of the question in human terms.
It’s eerie. There is this Nature that created itself and decreed immutable laws, brought life into existence, and seems to be awash in intelligent, conscious awareness. For God’s sake, for all the...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 23, 2018:
@jerry99
Ascribing anything to God is just to say you don’t have the least idea of what it is or what it means IMO. It is an admission of absolute ignorance, which is the most honest assessment. What does it mean to say “God did it” when you don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about?
I’ve been doing it all my life and I ain’t mad yet—oh wait, maybe I am. That would explain a lot, aye?
:-)
Yes, there is a war between science and religion
Seeker3CO comments on Dec 22, 2018:
In the long run, seeking truth/reality/fact cannot reasonably coexist within a person with facts-be-damned faith. The internal contradictions are too great. Something has to give. Since it is that way within people (except the truly deluded who think they are pulling it off) I don't see how it can ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 23, 2018:
@Seeker3CO
You continue to define all religion as “a belief in gods” which is not a valid definition IMO.
Believe it or not, there are many deeply aware people who are profoundly overwhelmed by the startling ramifications of existence as consciously aware beings and who have not the slightest interest in arguing about gods.
Seeker3CO comments on Dec 22, 2018:
In the long run, seeking truth/reality/fact cannot reasonably coexist within a person with facts-be-damned faith. The internal contradictions are too great. Something has to give. Since it is that way within people (except the truly deluded who think they are pulling it off) I don't see how it can ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 23, 2018:
@Seeker3CO
You continue to define all religion as “a belief in gods” which is not a valid definition IMO.
Believe it or not, there are many deeply aware people who are profoundly overwhelmed by the startling ramifications of existence as consciously aware beings and who have not the slightest interest in arguing about gods.
Yes, there is a war between science and religion
Seeker3CO comments on Dec 22, 2018:
In the long run, seeking truth/reality/fact cannot reasonably coexist within a person with facts-be-damned faith. The internal contradictions are too great. Something has to give. Since it is that way within people (except the truly deluded who think they are pulling it off) I don't see how it can ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 22, 2018:
@Seeker3CO
Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean they are delusional. Maybe you are the one who is delusional.
KIP THORNE:
"There are large numbers of my finest colleagues who are quite devout and believe in God [...] There is no fundamental incompatibility between science and religion. I happen to not believe in God."[13]
(Wikipedia)
Seeker3CO comments on Dec 22, 2018:
In the long run, seeking truth/reality/fact cannot reasonably coexist within a person with facts-be-damned faith. The internal contradictions are too great. Something has to give. Since it is that way within people (except the truly deluded who think they are pulling it off) I don't see how it can ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 22, 2018:
@Seeker3CO
Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean they are delusional. Maybe you are the one who is delusional.
KIP THORNE:
"There are large numbers of my finest colleagues who are quite devout and believe in God [...] There is no fundamental incompatibility between science and religion. I happen to not believe in God."[13]
(Wikipedia)
What quality(ies) of the opposite sex do you appreciate the most?
KissedbySun comments on Dec 20, 2018:
Dick, body hair, the way they sound and smell, big hands
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 20, 2018:
Wow, somebody honest and gutsy!
I wish I warn’t so old. SC ain’t that far away.
KissedbySun comments on Dec 20, 2018:
Dick, body hair, the way they sound and smell, big hands
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 20, 2018:
Wow, somebody honest and gutsy!
I wish I warn’t so old. SC ain’t that far away.
What quality(ies) of the opposite sex do you appreciate the most?
GipsyOfNewSpain comments on Dec 20, 2018:
The Hardware... 'Long is Original from Factory... No Transformers.
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 20, 2018:
Ha Ha, here’s an honest guy not afraid to say he likes the hardware!
It’s hard to type when you’re laughing.
GipsyOfNewSpain comments on Dec 20, 2018:
The Hardware... 'Long is Original from Factory... No Transformers.
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 20, 2018:
Ha Ha, here’s an honest guy not afraid to say he likes the hardware!
It’s hard to type when you’re laughing.
What are your thoughts/ideas on prophesy?
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 17, 2018:
As a person who leans toward the concept of Universal Consciousness I do not reject prophecy out of hand. However, if it is a valid phenomenon it must be seen as simply a part of nature rather than something supernatural or magical.
The concept of dimensions is a human-mind thing, tied to our ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 18, 2018:
@Dazeypanda
According to my source, the planck length is about a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter.(10^-33 cm) nothing smaller can exist.
“Reality is not What it Seems” by Carlo Rovelli is a fascinating look at quantum gravity theory, and it explains the idea that space is granular. Also chapter 7 is called “Time Does not Exist”.
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 17, 2018:
As a person who leans toward the concept of Universal Consciousness I do not reject prophecy out of hand. However, if it is a valid phenomenon it must be seen as simply a part of nature rather than something supernatural or magical.
The concept of dimensions is a human-mind thing, tied to our ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 18, 2018:
@Dazeypanda
According to my source, the planck length is about a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter.(10^-33 cm) nothing smaller can exist.
“Reality is not What it Seems” by Carlo Rovelli is a fascinating look at quantum gravity theory, and it explains the idea that space is granular. Also chapter 7 is called “Time Does not Exist”.
Gender Pay Gap?
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 17, 2018:
I don’t want women doing those jobs. Girls are born with about two million human eggs in their bodies. For the future of humanity a few of those eggs need to be protected, nourished, and possibly fertilized by a lucky male.
Females are biologically more valuable. We guys are a dime a dozen. We...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 18, 2018:
@Jnei
You are talking about what women CAN do today while I’m just trying to understand what all of us ACTUALLY do and why. It’s true that women have the right to work in any field they choose, but the fact is, if the article in question is true, few women choose dangerous careers such as commercial fishing, construction, etc. Only a few women in each generation buck the trend.
Also, you are talking about social trends of the last thirty or forty years. I am trying to understand society from the perspective of human evolution over hundreds of thousands of years, or even millions.
There are natural reasons why things are as they are, and it behooves us to understand those reasons before making radical changes.
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 17, 2018:
I don’t want women doing those jobs. Girls are born with about two million human eggs in their bodies. For the future of humanity a few of those eggs need to be protected, nourished, and possibly fertilized by a lucky male.
Females are biologically more valuable. We guys are a dime a dozen. We...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 18, 2018:
@Jnei
You are talking about what women CAN do today while I’m just trying to understand what all of us ACTUALLY do and why. It’s true that women have the right to work in any field they choose, but the fact is, if the article in question is true, few women choose dangerous careers such as commercial fishing, construction, etc. Only a few women in each generation buck the trend.
Also, you are talking about social trends of the last thirty or forty years. I am trying to understand society from the perspective of human evolution over hundreds of thousands of years, or even millions.
There are natural reasons why things are as they are, and it behooves us to understand those reasons before making radical changes.
What are your thoughts/ideas on prophesy?
skado comments on Dec 17, 2018:
I don't believe anything is magical or supernatural. There are things we understand and things we don't.
When I was around the age of twenty, I had an unusually vivid dream. I saw a small, white house on the side of a hill. As I approached the house I saw that the door was below grade, and ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 17, 2018:
@BryanLV
I recently had an interesting experience, and I see no way for it to be explained away as heuristic. I woke up one morning and as I was making the bed I suddenly started wondering if the comforter needed washing. I inspected it closely and decided it was ok.
I went downstairs and greeted my partner who was just waking up. She told me that she had been dreaming about the white comforter and wondering if it needed washing.
This was obviously not coincidence, and as far as mind tricks, I simply don’t see how that could be.
skado comments on Dec 17, 2018:
I don't believe anything is magical or supernatural. There are things we understand and things we don't.
When I was around the age of twenty, I had an unusually vivid dream. I saw a small, white house on the side of a hill. As I approached the house I saw that the door was below grade, and ...
WilliamFleming replies on Dec 17, 2018:
@BryanLV
I recently had an interesting experience, and I see no way for it to be explained away as heuristic. I woke up one morning and as I was making the bed I suddenly started wondering if the comforter needed washing. I inspected it closely and decided it was ok.
I went downstairs and greeted my partner who was just waking up. She told me that she had been dreaming about the white comforter and wondering if it needed washing.
This was obviously not coincidence, and as far as mind tricks, I simply don’t see how that could be.
Photos
Details
Skeptic, Freethinker, Spiritual
Here for community - BirthdayMarch 2
- EnjoysMusic, Science, Books, Outdoors, Love, Games
- EducationCollege
- Top tags#religion #religious #god #world #existence #belief #church #atheism #fear #truth #Atheist #reason #Awe #evidence #humans #religions #laws #government #book #scientific
- Level8 (88,015pts)
- Followers 22
- Fans 0
- Following 18
- Fav. Posts 2
- Joined Apr 18th, 2018
-
Last Visit
Over a year ago
Not in search results