Debate about Gun Control

[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There is nothing but death in your outdated view.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(06-07-2017, 11:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: So you're willing to admit that your view may well be outdated? If someone disagrees with you about what is outdated, that means they are "unwilling to listen" and are a cause of violence?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Well, my world view relating to the paranormal can't be said to be outdated if it never had a time in the sun, anyway.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