Debate about Gun Control

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-07-2017, 06:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: IF there really is "mind," which you refer to, then it can't be explained as matter.

Or matter / space / time / energy...

I'm afraid I'm crossed over to a place where science is the dominant perspective to understand the world, even paranormal phenomena. A mind altering drug or physical damage to a brain effect minds in a way to suppose the physical structure drives the thoughts. Seeing no evidence otherwise, or of consciousness existing outside of brains, I assume minds will in time be fully explained as matter / space / time / energy.

(06-07-2017, 06:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The universal mind or cosmic consciousness did occur to a few mystic esoteric initiates and philosophers in the agricultural age, but they were hardly the dominant paradigm or attitude shaping the culture. Still, it lies at the heart of all the religions. Traditional religion in The West remained authoritarian; roughly the idea that a personal god created the world; the Big Daddy in the sky. In the Orient, though, mystical or at least organic views of the cosmos were more prevalent, and so they remain. Modernists adopted materialism; but it's outdated, and post-modern and new age views embrace consciousness again, in an updated way.

The part of this I'd watch is an assumption of your own perspective's superiority. You seem to know which perspective has been 'updated', which is outdated, and which is more evolved with considerable certainty and smugness. Well, this is common enough. Cynic Hero can also be certain and smug that his is the world view that is correct, true, and will achieve nigh on inevitable triumph. Color me dubious. To me, you are both just values locked partisans, ever so sure of yourselves, not ready to reevaluate established thought patterns. Not all world views are as wonderful as their believers perceive. I find the lack of willingness to understand and respect other views as problematic, not to mention a grave cause of unnecessary violence and conflict.

(06-07-2017, 06:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Uncertain or probable does not mean random, as I understand the term. I view probability as more a statement of the limits of knowledge, rather than a definite proclamation that the world happens all by chance. But yes, I am all for minds. I don't use the term supernatural, because there's no division between consciousness and nature; everything is conscious. Pan psychism. Right now, I can't prove it's compatible with quantum theory; maybe another time    

Einstein got caught up wishing for much the same thing. He famously said, "God does not play dice with the universe." He too tried to cling for a time to a clockwork one solution view of quantum effects. He tried to maintain the certainty of the Newtonian style of equations. The difference is that he came to understand that the new equations were different. Instead of breaking the uncertainty, he came to improve the understanding of the uncertainty.

As I see it, you are using the words 'quantum physics' to justify your magical thinking, without understanding quantum physics. It gives me a headache.

[Eric the Green]

(06-07-2017, 08:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-07-2017, 06:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: IF there really is "mind," which you refer to, then it can't be explained as matter.

Or matter / space / time / energy...

I'm afraid I'm crossed over to a place where science is the dominant perspective to understand the world, even paranormal phenomena. A mind altering drug or physical damage to a brain effect minds in a way to suppose the physical structure drives the thoughts. Seeing no evidence otherwise, or of consciousness existing outside of brains, I assume minds will in time be fully explained as matter / space / time / energy.

You've crossed over from Medieval to Renaissance times. Congratulations! You are only about 500 years out of date.

Quote:

(06-07-2017, 06:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Then minds don't exist, and they aren't a factor in explaining psi, or anything else, Bob. As I thought; you're not ready to reintroduce mind into your theory of psi. So be it.


The universal mind or cosmic consciousness did occur to a few mystic esoteric initiates and philosophers in the agricultural age, but they were hardly the dominant paradigm or attitude shaping the culture. Still, it lies at the heart of all the religions. Traditional religion in The West remained authoritarian; roughly the idea that a personal god created the world; the Big Daddy in the sky. In the Orient, though, mystical or at least organic views of the cosmos were more prevalent, and so they remain. Modernists adopted materialism; but it's outdated, and post-modern and new age views embrace consciousness again, in an updated way.

The part of this I'd watch is an assumption of your own perspective's superiority. You seem to know which perspective has been 'updated', which is outdated, and which is more evolved with considerable certainty and smugness. Well, this is common enough. Cynic Hero can also be certain and smug that his is the world view that is correct, true, and will achieve nigh on inevitable triumph. Color me dubious. To me, you are both just values locked partisans, ever so sure of yourselves, not ready to reevaluate established thought patterns. Not all world views are as wonderful as their believers perceive. I find the lack of willingness to understand and respect other views as problematic, not to mention a grave cause of unnecessary violence and conflict.

So you're willing to admit that your view may well be outdated? If someone disagrees with you about what is outdated, that means they are "unwilling to listen" and are a cause of violence? Color me dubious. I color you Orange, and Brown.

Quote:

(06-07-2017, 06:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Uncertain or probable does not mean random, as I understand the term. I view probability as more a statement of the limits of knowledge, rather than a definite proclamation that the world happens all by chance. But yes, I am all for minds. I don't use the term supernatural, because there's no division between consciousness and nature; everything is conscious. Pan psychism. Right now, I can't prove it's compatible with quantum theory; maybe another time    

Einstein got caught up wishing for much the same thing. He famously said, "God does not play dice with the universe." He too tried to cling for a time to a clockwork one solution view of quantum effects. He tried to maintain the certainty of the Newtonian style of equations. The difference is that he came to understand that the new equations were different. Instead of breaking the uncertainty, he came to improve the understanding of the uncertainty.

As I see it, you are using the words 'quantum physics' to justify your magical thinking, without understanding quantum physics. It gives me a headache.

Einstein is less quantum than Bohr and Heisenberg, and more Newtonian than they, not realizing the uncertainty of knowledge, and the effect of observation on anyone doing science. You are, also, clinging as you do to the clockwork universe of matter, energy, space and time. Just quoting you. There you are, stuck at Saturn. I don't have a headache. I am not imposing my view on you; you have your own journey.

But beyond Saturn, yes, magic returns! Thank God. We go beyond the visible. The materialist view is so lifeless. In reality, everything is a miracle, and at bottom, cannot be explained at all. But, science tries. And, on the whole, we are not worse off for the attempts-- if we survive the impact of our own use of the technology it spawns.

As Bohr said, "don't tell God what to do, Mr. Einstein"

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-07-2017, 11:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Then minds don't exist, and they aren't a factor in explaining psi, or anything else, Bob. As I thought; you're not ready to reintroduce mind into your theory of psi. So be it.

Again, you are not listening.  Minds are part of my system.  They can control the metabolism, which increases the number of alternate many world realities, which effects the probability of what is observed.  It is just that under my system, it is the number of alternate realities that alters the probabilities, rather than a mystical observer selecting realities through some unknown unspecified scheme.

It's just that I associate minds with brains, and do not widely hypothesize the existence of minds where there is no evidence that they exist at all.

(06-07-2017, 11:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: So you're willing to admit that your view may well be outdated? If someone disagrees with you about what is outdated, that means they are "unwilling to listen" and are a cause of violence? Color me dubious. I color you Orange, and Brown.

Well, my world view relating to the paranormal can't be said to be outdated if it never had a time in the sun, anyway.  I'd label it weird rather than dated.  Yes, I use labels like crisis, agricultural age and Islamic civilization, so I suppose you can invent your own labels.  I just have no real need for your color codes and the implied judgement on how evolved each color is.

But I find your willingness to disparage world views you disagree with questionable.  You are ready to dismiss what you disagree with without listening or respecting.

(06-07-2017, 11:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Einstein is less quantum than Bohr and Heisenberg, and more Newtonian than they, not realizing the uncertainty of knowledge, and the effect of observation on anyone doing science. You are, also, clinging as you do to the clockwork universe of matter, energy, space and time. Just quoting you. There you are, stuck at Saturn. I don't have a headache. I am not imposing my view on you; you have your own journey.

Crudely correct.  While Einstein wanted to maintain the dice less certainty, at least he understood the new ideas well enough that his attempts to maintain the old causality helped to refine the new understanding.  Still, I agree that people like Heisenberg and Bohr got a sense for the new understanding early and were stronger champions of it early on.

(06-07-2017, 11:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: But beyond Saturn, yes, magic returns! Thank God. We go beyond the visible. The materialist view is so lifeless. In reality, everything is a miracle, and at bottom, cannot be explained at all. But, science tries. And, on the whole, we are not worse off for the attempts-- if we survive the impact of our own use of the technology it spawns.

To my mind, the closest we have to magicians is cheerleaders.  They have trained, when something good happens, to take large numbers of humans, help them scream, cheer, stomp, and otherwise increase metabolisms, to thus increase counts of quantum events, and thus effect probability.  I did design and build a reality splitter once, a device designed to spin off alternate universes.  Alas, it never produced statistically significant results.

How can such an approach be considered outdated when no one ever took the idea seriously in the first place?  Just because it explains the evidence...

In short, we have highly different methods of looking at the occult.  I find your habit of imagining minds that exist apart from brains a quaint remnant of the past.  Very traditional.  No evidence.  In my perspective, evidence counts for something.  It counts for everything.''

I don't see the main line scientific perspective as lifeless.  There are wonders enough there is evidence for, from dark matter to quantum mechanics, that I don't need to hypothesize minds without brains.

[Eric the Green]

(06-08-2017, 03:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-07-2017, 11:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Then minds don't exist, and they aren't a factor in explaining psi, or anything else, Bob. As I thought; you're not ready to reintroduce mind into your theory of psi. So be it.

Again, you are not listening.  Minds are part of my system.  They can control the metabolism, which increases the number of alternate many world realities, which effects the probability of what is observed.  It is just that under my system, it is the number of alternate realities that alters the probabilities, rather than a mystical observer selecting realities through some unknown unspecified scheme.

It's just that I associate minds with brains, and do not widely hypothesize the existence of minds where there is no evidence that they exist at all.

I'm not listening? I've discussed and debated your point of view for 50 years. I graduated from it myself. There's nothing new here. You're not listening. You are a materialist, and I am not. So what? I know I can't get you to agree with my view. You just confirm that you remain in the traditional Newtonian materialist camp. There's a place for you in my view of the world; that's not the point. You are claiming you have invented something new, and maybe you have, but it does not diverge from materialism, so it's not part of the new paradigm. As I said, my only point is that the Many Worlds view is just a scheme to stay in materialism, in which it's claimed "that there's no evidence for minds without brains" etc. And your view of emotion will just turn out to be another instance of matter, energy, space and time; IOW the same old delusion, as I see it.

There is nothing but death in your outdated view. That's not disparagement; that's an honest statement of my view about materialism. There's no life in it; there can't be.

Quote:

(06-07-2017, 11:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: So you're willing to admit that your view may well be outdated? If someone disagrees with you about what is outdated, that means they are "unwilling to listen" and are a cause of violence? Color me dubious. I color you Orange, and Brown.

Well, my world view relating to the paranormal can't be said to be outdated if it never had a time in the sun, anyway.  I'd label it weird rather than dated.  Yes, I use labels like crisis, agricultural age and Islamic civilization, so I suppose you can invent your own labels.  I just have no real need for your color codes and the implied judgement on how evolved each color is.

But I find your willingness to disparage world views you disagree with questionable.  You are ready to dismiss what you disagree with without listening or respecting.

You just did that. You have no business calling kettles black, Mr. Pot. You do that with everyone. If I disagree with your view of what's outdated, then I am a cause of violence. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Saying the agricultural age is more evolved than the hunter-gatherer age, the industrial age more evolved than the agricultural age, the information age more evolved than the industrial age, is exactly the same thing as "my" color scheme, or my planet symbol scheme. The colors and their meanings were not invented by me. You just choose not to listen.

Quote:

(06-07-2017, 11:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Einstein is less quantum than Bohr and Heisenberg, and more Newtonian than they, not realizing the uncertainty of knowledge, and the effect of observation on anyone doing science. You are, also, clinging as you do to the clockwork universe of matter, energy, space and time. Just quoting you. There you are, stuck at Saturn. I don't have a headache. I am not imposing my view on you; you have your own journey.

Crudely correct.  While Einstein wanted to maintain the dice less certainty, at least he understood the new ideas well enough that his attempts to maintain the old causality helped to refine the new understanding.  Still, I agree that people like Heisenberg and Bohr got a sense for the new understanding early and were stronger champions of it early on.

(06-07-2017, 11:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: But beyond Saturn, yes, magic returns! Thank God. We go beyond the visible. The materialist view is so lifeless. In reality, everything is a miracle, and at bottom, cannot be explained at all. But, science tries. And, on the whole, we are not worse off for the attempts-- if we survive the impact of our own use of the technology it spawns.

To my mind, the closest we have to magicians is cheerleaders.  They have trained, when something good happens, to take large numbers of humans, help them scream, cheer, stomp, and otherwise increase metabolisms, to thus increase counts of quantum events, and thus effect probability.  I did design and build a reality splitter once, a device designed to spin off alternate universes.  Alas, it never produced statistically significant results.

How can such an approach be considered outdated when no one ever took the idea seriously in the first place?  Just because it explains the evidence...

In short, we have highly different methods of looking at the occult.  I find your habit of imagining minds that exist apart from brains a quaint remnant of the past.  Very traditional.  No evidence.  In my perspective, evidence counts for something.  It counts for everything.''

I don't see the main line scientific perspective as lifeless.  There are wonders enough there is evidence for, from dark matter to quantum mechanics, that I don't need to hypothesize minds without brains.

Your view is to me outdated and traditional, as traditional materialism is. Your view is very dogmatic and narrow, specifying as you do that something "counts for everything."

That's called fundamentalism.

I see "many worlds" in the realm of thought. You see only one.

(of course there's lots of evidence; you just don't look at it, apparently)

Your statement above that you "crossed over" into a science view is amusing. I had to add above, congratulations! You have crossed over from Medieval times to the Renaissance. But, that's about 300-500 years ago!

[Ragnarök_62]

(06-08-2017, 07:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-08-2017, 03:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-07-2017, 11:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Then minds don't exist, and they aren't a factor in explaining psi, or anything else, Bob. As I thought; you're not ready to reintroduce mind into your theory of psi. So be it.

Again, you are not listening.  Minds are part of my system.  They can control the metabolism, which increases the number of alternate many world realities, which effects the probability of what is observed.  It is just that under my system, it is the number of alternate realities that alters the probabilities, rather than a mystical observer selecting realities through some unknown unspecified scheme.

It's just that I associate minds with brains, and do not widely hypothesize the existence of minds where there is no evidence that they exist at all.

I'm not listening? I've discussed and debated your point of view for 50 years. I graduated from it myself. There's nothing new here. You're not listening. You are a materialist, and I am not. So what? I know I can't get you to agree with my view. You just confirm that you remain in the traditional Newtonian materialist camp. There's a place for you in my view of the world; that's not the point. You are claiming you have invented something new, and maybe you have, but it does not diverge from materialism, so it's not part of the new paradigm. As I said, my only point is that the Many Worlds view is just a scheme to stay in materialism, in which it's claimed "that there's no evidence for minds without brains" etc. And your view of emotion will just turn out to be another instance of matter, energy, space and time; IOW the same old delusion, as I see it.

There is nothing but death in your outdated view. That's not disparagement; that's an honest statement of my view about materialism. There's no life in it; there can't be.

Quote:

(06-07-2017, 11:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: So you're willing to admit that your view may well be outdated? If someone disagrees with you about what is outdated, that means they are "unwilling to listen" and are a cause of violence? Color me dubious. I color you Orange, and Brown.

Well, my world view relating to the paranormal can't be said to be outdated if it never had a time in the sun, anyway.  I'd label it weird rather than dated.  Yes, I use labels like crisis, agricultural age and Islamic civilization, so I suppose you can invent your own labels.  I just have no real need for your color codes and the implied judgement on how evolved each color is.

But I find your willingness to disparage world views you disagree with questionable.  You are ready to dismiss what you disagree with without listening or respecting.

You just did that. You have no business calling kettles black, Mr. Pot. You do that with everyone. If I disagree with your view of what's outdated, then I am a cause of violence. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Saying the agricultural age is more evolved than the hunter-gatherer age, the industrial age more evolved than the agricultural age, the information age more evolved than the industrial age, is exactly the same thing as "my" color scheme, or my planet symbol scheme. The colors and their meanings were not invented by me. You just choose not to listen.

Quote:

(06-07-2017, 11:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Einstein is less quantum than Bohr and Heisenberg, and more Newtonian than they, not realizing the uncertainty of knowledge, and the effect of observation on anyone doing science. You are, also, clinging as you do to the clockwork universe of matter, energy, space and time. Just quoting you. There you are, stuck at Saturn. I don't have a headache. I am not imposing my view on you; you have your own journey.

Crudely correct.  While Einstein wanted to maintain the dice less certainty, at least he understood the new ideas well enough that his attempts to maintain the old causality helped to refine the new understanding.  Still, I agree that people like Heisenberg and Bohr got a sense for the new understanding early and were stronger champions of it early on.

(06-07-2017, 11:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: But beyond Saturn, yes, magic returns! Thank God. We go beyond the visible. The materialist view is so lifeless. In reality, everything is a miracle, and at bottom, cannot be explained at all. But, science tries. And, on the whole, we are not worse off for the attempts-- if we survive the impact of our own use of the technology it spawns.

To my mind, the closest we have to magicians is cheerleaders.  They have trained, when something good happens, to take large numbers of humans, help them scream, cheer, stomp, and otherwise increase metabolisms, to thus increase counts of quantum events, and thus effect probability.  I did design and build a reality splitter once, a device designed to spin off alternate universes.  Alas, it never produced statistically significant results.

How can such an approach be considered outdated when no one ever took the idea seriously in the first place?  Just because it explains the evidence...

In short, we have highly different methods of looking at the occult.  I find your habit of imagining minds that exist apart from brains a quaint remnant of the past.  Very traditional.  No evidence.  In my perspective, evidence counts for something.  It counts for everything.''

I don't see the main line scientific perspective as lifeless.  There are wonders enough there is evidence for, from dark matter to quantum mechanics, that I don't need to hypothesize minds without brains.

Your view is to me outdated and traditional, as traditional materialism is. Your view is very dogmatic and narrow, specifying as you do that something "counts for everything."

That's called fundamentalism.

I see "many worlds" in the realm of thought. You see only one.

(of course there's lots of evidence; you just don't look at it, apparently)

Your statement above that you "crossed over" into a science view is amusing. I had to add above, congratulations! You have crossed over from Medieval times to the Renaissance. But, that's about 300-500 years ago!

Hmmm... Thead = "Debate about Gun Control"

Gun control?,  nothing to see here, move along.

And...

XY_MOD_4AD has a message for you 2 ne'er do wells.

http://generational-theory.com/forum/thread-815.html

[Odin]

(06-09-2017, 05:25 AM)taramarie Wrote: I see why people call you a troll. And no it was not me who said it. But I see now why they called you it. I will not name the people either.

"Old Man Yells At Cloud"  

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-08-2017, 07:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Your view is to me outdated and traditional, as traditional materialism is. Your view is very dogmatic and narrow, specifying as you do that something "counts for everything."

That's called fundamentalism.

Dogma?  Fundamentalism?  That mode of thought to me means following the writings of a book, the teachings of a bureaucracy, or some combination of the above.  I'm doing neither.  What makes you think 'dogma'?  What text or hierarchy to you believe I am beholden to?  How could you swing an miss so badly?

(06-08-2017, 07:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I see "many worlds" in the realm of thought. You see only one.

(of course there's lots of evidence; you just don't look at it, apparently)

there is lots of evidence for thought.  There is much less so for thought without brains.  That comes from old agricultural age thinking, or perhaps before.  I quite believe there are ancient traditions that embrace such things, but I don't see science as able to bite into that problem.  There is no Journal of Gods, Demons and Spirits being published.

(06-08-2017, 07:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Your statement above that you "crossed over" into a science view is amusing. I had to add above, congratulations! You have crossed over from Medieval times to the Renaissance. But, that's about 300-500 years ago!

In my youth, I abandoned a split and confused double scientific - religious world view for pure science.  I did this based on evidence, even if it was obscure and often disregarded evidence.  

On the other hand, movement in the direction of religion or the occult might have been based on faith, old books, or the teachings of some religious or mystic order.  Depending on the rigidity of the teaching methods, a religious or occult order might be described as practicing fundamentalism, its teachings could be dogmatic.  As far as I know, you have always been an independent free spirit, though, not tightly rigidly bound to a single outside influence.  'Fundamentalist' and 'dogmatic' would not describe you well.

What is one's prime tool for looking at the world?  One's world view is certain to feature that tool.  I just found the conflict between evidence, dogma and faith too strong to disregard.  There are many technical and religious people who can shift between these thought modes easily.  I couldn't.  Still can't.

Lots of people have struggled with this issue, and have been doing so, perhaps since Newton, when the scientific world view was first clearly defined.  There were snippets of science before then, of course.  I'm hardly the only one to get obsessed with the question.  To my mind, religion once dominated, but that mode of thought has been diminishing with time.

Many worlds against Copenhagen is a much newer question, of course, first asked relatively recently.  It is still up in the air, and may continue to be in the air indefinitely unless reverse time causality starts being taken seriously.  It's really only then that the question becomes significant.  In the meantime, acknowledging and respecting the origins and the perceived validity of many points of view is quite different from being an advocate of the many worlds perspective on quantum.  You give lip service to many worlds quantum, as far as I can figure without understanding it.  You also give lip service to respecting other points of view, but in practice you present those who disagree with you as evil, not to be tolerated, to be defeated.

Thus, you are an extreme partisan extremely ready to demonize opposing flavors of extreme partisan.  Truly listening to and comprehending a point of view opposed to your own is rare.  Your pride in your supposed ability to do so seems misplaced.  Your trumpian attacks when thwarted just reinforce the point.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-09-2017, 05:25 AM)taramarie Wrote: I see why people call you a troll. And no it was not me who said it. But I see now why they called you it. I will not name the people either.

I wouldn't say troll. I just think he is committed highly to one perspective on things.

Haven't seen you around so much lately. Good to hear from you again.

[Eric the Green]

(06-09-2017, 08:13 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-09-2017, 05:25 AM)taramarie Wrote: I see why people call you a troll. And no it was not me who said it. But I see now why they called you it. I will not name the people either.

I wouldn't say troll.  I just think he is committed highly to one perspective on things.

Haven't seen you around so much lately.  Good to hear from you again.

Not glad to see her, of course.

I am just one among everyone here who is more or less highly committed to that.

[Eric the Green]

(06-09-2017, 08:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-08-2017, 07:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Your view is to me outdated and traditional, as traditional materialism is. Your view is very dogmatic and narrow, specifying as you do that something "counts for everything."

That's called fundamentalism.

Dogma?  Fundamentalism?  That mode of thought to me means following the writings of a book, the teachings of a bureaucracy, or some combination of the above.  I'm doing neither.  What makes you think 'dogma'?  What text or hierarchy to you believe I am beholden to?  How could you swing an miss so badly?

Many people speak of science fundamentalism. I did not need to quote a book. I just quoted you.

Quote:

(06-08-2017, 07:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I see "many worlds" in the realm of thought. You see only one.

(of course there's lots of evidence; you just don't look at it, apparently)

there is lots of evidence for thought.  There is much less so for thought without brains.  That comes from old agricultural age thinking, or perhaps before.  I quite believe there are ancient traditions that embrace such things, but I don't see science as able to bite into that problem.  There is no Journal of Gods, Demons and Spirits being published.

You don't see it. That's your choice, and you're welcome to it bro.

Quote:

(06-08-2017, 07:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Your statement above that you "crossed over" into a science view is amusing. I had to add above, congratulations! You have crossed over from Medieval times to the Renaissance. But, that's about 300-500 years ago!

In my youth, I abandoned a split and confused double scientific - religious world view for pure science.  I did this based on evidence, even if it was obscure and often disregarded evidence.  

On the other hand, movement in the direction of religion or the occult might have been based on faith, old books, or the teachings of some religious or mystic order.  Depending on the rigidity of the teaching methods, a religious or occult order might be described as practicing fundamentalism, its teachings could be dogmatic.  As far as I know, you have always been an independent free spirit, though, not tightly rigidly bound to a single outside influence.  'Fundamentalist' and 'dogmatic' would not describe you well.

What is one's prime tool for looking at the world?  One's world view is certain to feature that tool.  I just found the conflict between evidence, dogma and faith too strong to disregard.  There are many technical and religious people who can shift between these thought modes easily.  I couldn't.  Still can't.

Lots of people have struggled with this issue, and have been doing so, perhaps since Newton, when the scientific world view was first clearly defined.  There were snippets of science before then, of course.  I'm hardly the only one to get obsessed with the question.  To my mind, religion once dominated, but that mode of thought has been diminishing with time.

Many worlds against Copenhagen is a much newer question, of course, first asked relatively recently.  It is still up in the air, and may continue to be in the air indefinitely unless reverse time causality starts being taken seriously.  It's really only then that the question becomes significant.  In the meantime, acknowledging and respecting the origins and the perceived validity of many points of view is quite different from being an advocate of the many worlds perspective on quantum.  You give lip service to many worlds quantum, as far as I can figure without understanding it.  You also give lip service to respecting other points of view, but in practice you present those who disagree with you as evil, not to be tolerated, to be defeated.

Thus, you are an extreme partisan extremely ready to demonize opposing flavors of extreme partisan.  Truly listening to and comprehending a point of view opposed to your own is rare.  Your pride in your supposed ability to do so seems misplaced.  Your trumpian attacks when thwarted just reinforce the point.

It's you who resort to personal attacks, as in the above. I don't do that, very often. You have specifically stated that you won't consider what I offer, so I think maybe a trip to the mirror is in order? Well, not the first time for that suggestion for you....

One thing you mentioned above is that Many Worlds "took a leap." I don't know any science reporter who said that Many Worlds is based on "evidence." As I see it, what quantum theory per se (the Copenhagen version) says, is that there are limits to empirical knowledge. That's the uncertainty principle. So anyone who says science is the only way to truth or knowledge, is outdated.

You have found your way to your point of view, and I to mine. In my view, someone who has awakened from materialism is not likely ever to return to it. That is not the case the other way around, although people of course go from traditional religion (BLUE/Jupiter) to scientism (or awaken to science from exoteric religion, you could say). I see that as part of the natural spiral dynamics progression. Unless I have reverted to magical thinking of the tribal hunter-gatherer age (PURPLE/Mercury), then I see myself at a higher step up the spiral from you.

[Eric the Green]

(06-09-2017, 02:34 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(06-08-2017, 07:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-08-2017, 03:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-07-2017, 11:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Then minds don't exist, and they aren't a factor in explaining psi, or anything else, Bob. As I thought; you're not ready to reintroduce mind into your theory of psi. So be it.

Again, you are not listening.  Minds are part of my system.  They can control the metabolism, which increases the number of alternate many world realities, which effects the probability of what is observed.  It is just that under my system, it is the number of alternate realities that alters the probabilities, rather than a mystical observer selecting realities through some unknown unspecified scheme.

It's just that I associate minds with brains, and do not widely hypothesize the existence of minds where there is no evidence that they exist at all.

I'm not listening? I've discussed and debated your point of view for 50 years. I graduated from it myself. There's nothing new here. You're not listening. You are a materialist, and I am not. So what? I know I can't get you to agree with my view. You just confirm that you remain in the traditional Newtonian materialist camp. There's a place for you in my view of the world; that's not the point. You are claiming you have invented something new, and maybe you have, but it does not diverge from materialism, so it's not part of the new paradigm. As I said, my only point is that the Many Worlds view is just a scheme to stay in materialism, in which it's claimed "that there's no evidence for minds without brains" etc. And your view of emotion will just turn out to be another instance of matter, energy, space and time; IOW the same old delusion, as I see it.

There is nothing but death in your outdated view. That's not disparagement; that's an honest statement of my view about materialism. There's no life in it; there can't be.

Quote:

(06-07-2017, 11:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: So you're willing to admit that your view may well be outdated? If someone disagrees with you about what is outdated, that means they are "unwilling to listen" and are a cause of violence? Color me dubious. I color you Orange, and Brown.

Well, my world view relating to the paranormal can't be said to be outdated if it never had a time in the sun, anyway.  I'd label it weird rather than dated.  Yes, I use labels like crisis, agricultural age and Islamic civilization, so I suppose you can invent your own labels.  I just have no real need for your color codes and the implied judgement on how evolved each color is.

But I find your willingness to disparage world views you disagree with questionable.  You are ready to dismiss what you disagree with without listening or respecting.

You just did that. You have no business calling kettles black, Mr. Pot. You do that with everyone. If I disagree with your view of what's outdated, then I am a cause of violence. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Saying the agricultural age is more evolved than the hunter-gatherer age, the industrial age more evolved than the agricultural age, the information age more evolved than the industrial age, is exactly the same thing as "my" color scheme, or my planet symbol scheme. The colors and their meanings were not invented by me. You just choose not to listen.

Quote:

(06-07-2017, 11:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Einstein is less quantum than Bohr and Heisenberg, and more Newtonian than they, not realizing the uncertainty of knowledge, and the effect of observation on anyone doing science. You are, also, clinging as you do to the clockwork universe of matter, energy, space and time. Just quoting you. There you are, stuck at Saturn. I don't have a headache. I am not imposing my view on you; you have your own journey.

Crudely correct.  While Einstein wanted to maintain the dice less certainty, at least he understood the new ideas well enough that his attempts to maintain the old causality helped to refine the new understanding.  Still, I agree that people like Heisenberg and Bohr got a sense for the new understanding early and were stronger champions of it early on.

(06-07-2017, 11:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: But beyond Saturn, yes, magic returns! Thank God. We go beyond the visible. The materialist view is so lifeless. In reality, everything is a miracle, and at bottom, cannot be explained at all. But, science tries. And, on the whole, we are not worse off for the attempts-- if we survive the impact of our own use of the technology it spawns.

To my mind, the closest we have to magicians is cheerleaders.  They have trained, when something good happens, to take large numbers of humans, help them scream, cheer, stomp, and otherwise increase metabolisms, to thus increase counts of quantum events, and thus effect probability.  I did design and build a reality splitter once, a device designed to spin off alternate universes.  Alas, it never produced statistically significant results.

How can such an approach be considered outdated when no one ever took the idea seriously in the first place?  Just because it explains the evidence...

In short, we have highly different methods of looking at the occult.  I find your habit of imagining minds that exist apart from brains a quaint remnant of the past.  Very traditional.  No evidence.  In my perspective, evidence counts for something.  It counts for everything.''

I don't see the main line scientific perspective as lifeless.  There are wonders enough there is evidence for, from dark matter to quantum mechanics, that I don't need to hypothesize minds without brains.

Your view is to me outdated and traditional, as traditional materialism is. Your view is very dogmatic and narrow, specifying as you do that something "counts for everything."

That's called fundamentalism.

I see "many worlds" in the realm of thought. You see only one.

(of course there's lots of evidence; you just don't look at it, apparently)

Your statement above that you "crossed over" into a science view is amusing. I had to add above, congratulations! You have crossed over from Medieval times to the Renaissance. But, that's about 300-500 years ago!

Hmmm... Thead = "Debate about Gun Control"

Gun control?,  nothing to see here, move along.

And...

XY_MOD_4AD has a message for you 2 ne'er do wells.

http://generational-theory.com/forum/thread-815.html

I tried to move this discussion, without luck so far.

[Bob Butler 54]

I've been considering starting a 'Spiral of Violence' thread.  This thread is beginning to share many of the themes.

We have had another incident.  A gunman opened up on a Republican congressional baseball team.  There were enough capitol cops present to prevent significant casualties.

In watching the spiral of violence, there are two extreme possible reactions.  If the bulk of the people say there was a lone nut, emotionally unstable, acting deplorably, the incident can be diminished in coverage and impact by main street and perhaps both partisan institutions and press.  The establishment has no great desire for a true spiral of violence.  Sure, you will even hear call for arms prohibition.

If one sees the Republican Congress as champions of the Reagan unraveling memes as deplorable enemies of the country and the world, the baseball team becomes an ideal target for a true patriot willing to sacrifice himself for a critical cause.

Thus far, the 'lone nut' concept continues to dominate over the 'patriot' concept in most media and official outlets.  The spiral of violence might not escalate and go ballistic so long as that mode of coverage dominates.

For me, though, I don't doubt that many of the shooters are thinking of the themselves as patriots.  Of course, at this point in the turnings, at this level of the spiral of violence, the line between 'lone nut' and 'patriot' might seem very contentious and unclear.

I don't delve too deeply in the extreme partisan media outlets.  Is anyone pushing for violence?  Is anyone bypassing the lone nut style of covering violence in favor of pushing it?   "Here is a patriot.  Let us follow his lead.  Let us not ignore our duty."

Thomas Jefferson Wrote:The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

[Eric the Green]

So far, no patriots per se; but Dylann Roof conceived of his attack as an attempt to start a race war. The Orlando shooting was justified by allegiance to the Islamic State.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-14-2017, 09:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: So far, no patriots per se; but Dylann Roof conceived of his attack as an attempt to start a race war. The Orlando shooting was justified by allegiance to the Islamic State.

That might not be a bad example.  If one sees flaws in a western or Marxist government, how greedy evil individuals can come to dominate a culture or government, and one sees Islam and/or ISIS as the comparatively pure will of Allah alternative, you can see how those impoverished and dominated could see such young men as heroes and patriots.

Now, I see Orlando as counterproductive to foolhardy.  I'd easily throw around a label like 'lone nut' in Roof's case.  If one shifts focus, though, one can easily find a member of an oppressed culture trying to fight back using the only means available.  Overt conventional warfare is no way to take on the West.  Conflict becomes a contest in escalating terror.  Being very good at conventional warfare is apt to build opposing cultures favoring terror tactics.  That's part of why the Middle East is falling apart, part of why we are seeing terror used as a tactic against the West.

A lot of the time, it seems like something must be done, so one has to do what has to be done.  Flip the coin, though, and you see lone nuts abandoning morality for futile gestures.

Yes, I'm contradicting myself again.  I find it too easy to find reasons behind cultures developing as they have.

[pbrower2a]

It looks as if a lone nut took a pot-shot at Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA).

[The Wonkette]

(06-14-2017, 10:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: It looks as if a lone nut took a pot-shot at Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA).

I'm reading from the WaPo that the shooter was a "Bernie Bro" who wanted to kill Republicans. It is frightening to think what the response over time may be -- heightened security to the point where we're living in a police state?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/201...9ea54b4681

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/201...9ea54b4681

[pbrower2a]

Here's an indication of what the shooter believed about Representative Steve Scalise:



This would be enough to suggest a charge of Attempted First-Degree Murder, as it shows a motive. I've said some nasty things about my district's elected stooge of every imaginable corporate lobbyist. (He is exactly that, and I want to see him defeated in 2018). Even if Rep. Scalise were a KKK fascist he would not deserve to be shot.

Here's hoping for a recovery of Representative Scalise from his wounds, no matter how much I hold his politics in contempt. .

[Eric the Green]

(06-14-2017, 01:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Here's an indication of what the shooter believed about Representative Steve Scalise:



This would be enough to suggest a charge of Attempted First-Degree Murder, as it shows a motive. I've said some nasty things about my district's elected stooge of every imaginable corporate lobbyist. (He is exactly that, and I want to see him defeated in 2018). Even if Rep. Scalise were a KKK fascist he would not deserve to be shot.

Here's hoping for a recovery of Representative Scalise from his wounds, no matter how much I hold his politics in contempt. .

Yes, political violence is dangerous to both sides, and to our republic. Sorry to see Rep. Scalise injured.

[pbrower2a]

James T. Hodgkinson died of his wounds from being shot by the police, so there won't be any case against him.

[Galen]

(06-14-2017, 04:22 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(06-14-2017, 01:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Here's an indication of what the shooter believed about Representative Steve Scalise:

This would be enough to suggest a charge of Attempted First-Degree Murder, as it shows a motive. I've said some nasty things about my district's elected stooge of every imaginable corporate lobbyist. (He is exactly that, and I want to see him defeated in 2018). Even if Rep. Scalise were a KKK fascist he would not deserve to be shot.

Here's hoping for a recovery of Representative Scalise from his wounds, no matter how much I hold his politics in contempt. .

 
I have to lay some blame on Trump and his Duginists. They are such assholes, they are really riling people up, especially the Far Left. They are giving all Republicans and even Independent Conservatives a bad name. And guess what. It's all completely according to plan. A house divided will fall, and the Anti Western fiends want our house to fall.

We had a Bernie bot go off the rails with a knife.  I have always found the left on the whole to be more ready to use violence.  Other than the KKK, which probably has more FBI informants than actual members, and some other fringe groups that are very small.  The conservatives really don't have anything that corresponds to Antifa.