On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Darryl and Natalia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
First of all, I would greatly appreciate if you would set your text
to wrap at about 70 characters. That is standard for viewing in
terminal windows, and would make your text much easier to read, thankyou.
(Quoted text reformatted for legibility.)
> When I said, leave it to the scientific mind to ask & then try to prove
>the obvious, I simply meant that I'm amazed that the scientific mind
>demands proof of existence of what is obvious, and will waste valuable
>time pursuing what cannot be realized in terms of a physical or objective
>validation. Scientists are primarily focusing on finding the mind within
>the brain, and I'm saying that it is mind that controls brain, so the
>work would have to somehow overcome the limitations of linear thought,
>which the foundation of science does not allow for.
First of all, you are conflating "scientist" with "reductionist".
This is the sort of error of superficial analysis which immediately
alerts serious students of the philosophy of science that sloppy
thinking is coming.
You cannot measure or
>seek out an energy whose force is eternal. It requires no physical
>confirmation from science; it simply is.
You completely undermine your argument with this sort of sad abuse
of terminology. "Energy" and "force" are two completely distinct
and well defined terms in physics which have no business being
hijacked to serve as synonyms in a fuzzy sentence that breezily
ignores their proper meaning. There is a huge gulf between those
who actually know science (and incidentally, scientists can be
as metaphysical and philosophical as anyone; moreso, as they are
trained to use language with the requisite precision) and the
scientifically illiterate commentators whose discussions are
replete with these foggy terms, which appear all the more pathetic
as they are clearly borrowed from science in order to attempt
to claim a little of the legitimacy that science enjoys. You
would do far better, and avoid alienating those literate in
science with whom you wish to communicate, were you to take the
time to learn a vocabulary more appropriate to your topic. To
this end, I would advise reading some philosophy in metaphysics,
phenomenology, philosophy of mind; even the eastern traditions
whose terms are at least recognized by those who study the mind
body problem as having been developed to achieve a certain degree
of precision, ie the Upanishads, the Dhammapada etc.
> Further to that part, I'm saying that mind is behind creativity. Brain
>is the machine which carries out the needs of actual physical operations
>and physical communication Music, art, design, literature, dance,
>laughter, love and compassion are not measurable and your capacity for
>these will never be found in a physical mechanism.
Stated without proof. That is not at all clear. Nor is such an association
necessarily incompatible with a transcendent nature of mind.
>Your brain is incapable of becoming one with creativity, as was suggested
>by Ray in talking about art and the artist becoming indistinguishable
>once involved in a piece.
> The soul is what is alive, the brain is but a puppet. You just have to
>look at the face of a loved one who has just died to know that that's
>just not who you knew.
> I knew a kitten called Stuey, who stayed at the side of his ailing dog
>companion day and night, until the moment his buddy died. He got up and
>left the dog's side at once, recognizing, it seemed that what was his
>companion was no longer there. He never returned to the body. I'm not
>certain whether the kitten was raised in a religious household, or
>whether or not his "genes" had the programming or capacity for sensing
>soul energy.
> Love energy is that which is the sole force of what is real. What is
>real is eternal. Nothing exists that can overcome its extensions. Love is
>the only force that creates, and is at peace forever in this knowledge.
Not energy, not force. What you are trying to express here is
essence of being, subjective consciousness, atman as brahman;
"Only love is real, everything else is illusion" - Carole King, 1976.
Lucid, economical, and to the point.
>Love is the condition for true creativity. Power-over is not genuine
>power, and its self-serving directions always stray into the avenues of
>destruction--of self-esteem, society, or environment. Arriving at the
>"end game" of the industrial era, we can see the price. The mind that has
>been taught badly can mis-create, but miscreations do not last, their
>basis being founded on illusions of fear. Fear and its derivatives appear
>to be real, but are always overcome by love, just as peace is the only
>answer to war. Peace is recognized as truth once it is experienced. Mind
>weighs love against fear throughout our physical existence, but only
>experiences a fruitful life by the laws of love. Again, love cannot be
>measured; your capacity is eternal.
> I realize that what I'm saying is not being expressed in scientific
>language and that it is in opposition to it.
You realize wrong. What you are talking about does not intersect
with science whatsoever. It is philosophy.
>Science's inability to consider what they cannot see or measure accounts
>for its inability to make requisite progress. It has to open up to
>evolve.
Sciences are progressing just fine thankyou. They are certainly making
much better headway than "new age" pop metaphysics, which seems to be
permanently mired in such fuzzy linguistic imprecision and medieval
folk notions that it wallows about making no headway whatsoever,
and drawing the contempt of pragmatic mainstream culture as being
the domain of ineffectual "flakes".
> Unfortunately, where money is involved, creativity is stifled by
>the need to produce publishable work--which depends on supportable data
>that other scientists deem to be traditionally acceptable. This does not
>mean that science is generating an accurate representation of all data,
>and I will use the pharmaceutical industry as a relevant example.
> In an interview about her controversial book, "The Medical Mafia: How
>to Get out of it Alive and Take Back Our Health and Wealth" Guylaine
>Lanctot, M.D., discusses her experiences with the medical system.
[...]snip discussion of pharmaceutical industry
> From the above, you can deduce that scientists and researchers are at
>best nothing more than human; some responsible and innovative, others
>once employed mostly not--just like most other professions...
Your quoted discussion was not about science, but biochemical engineering,
and corporate funding.
> I never said that there were separate pathways for the different types
>of memories. I was merely trying to account for the activity you
>described prior to response in the experiment cited. Why are you
>surprised that the response seems to be almost immediate? Thought is the
>fastest energy possible, but being magnetically attracted (for lack of a
>better analogy) to the brain's electrical energy, it gets a bit filtered
>in time by our memory data.
I trust you realize that last sentence is just painfully content free.
-Pete Vincent
> As to, How do you know you are free to "take" decisions?--barring mind
>control, you are free to think what ever thoughts you wish, just as you
>are free to absorb and process new information in order to reformulate
>what you once believed or hypothesized. Freedom will, I must say, be a
>condition that may be difficult to arrive at under certain economic and
>social restrictions. A child born to a war-torn starving country may
>never have the opportunities of middle-class America, yet within its
>sphere of existence, will still have the ability to feel one way or
>another about its own experiences. I'm free to change my mind about all
>of the above, but reason and logic have led me to this place, and it had
>nothing to do with publishable science.
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
