Re: The evolution of good and evil
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/2/2013 4:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes we all have in common. These brain processes make us pursue the best interest of society instead of our own self-interest. I believe they have two main sources: 1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin-selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or group-selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling evidence to support this theory. Social insects are extremely altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with goodness and different races with evil. 2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the prisoner's dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse. All attempts to define good and evil as a fundamental property of the universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: good is what good people do, good people are the ones who do good things. Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings that is not supported by evidence. Isn't it supported by, In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. Maybe, if you're willing to wait a couple million years for biological evolution to catch up with modern society. I think it's useful to distinguish good for society or ethics from what individuals take to be good. Altruism is good for society but for individuals it's only good relative to those near and dear to them. The great problem of cultures is to resolve tensions between what individuals intuitively take to be good and what works well for nation states orders of magnitude larger than the tribal societies in which evolution developed our intuitions. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil
Hi Roger, That's a bit surprising! On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Then we pretty much agree. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] rclo...@verizon.net] 1/2/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-02, 07:08:41 *Subject:* Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes we all have in common. These brain processes make us pursue the best interest of society instead of our own self-interest. I believe they have two main sources: 1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin-selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or group-selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling evidence to support this theory. Social insects are extremely altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with goodness and different races with evil.� 2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the prisoner's dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse. All attempts to define good and evil as a fundamental property of the universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: good is what good people do, good people are the ones who do good things. Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings that is not supported by evidence. On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ROGER: There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call Evil. CRAIG: I can't relate to cut and dried ideas of Good and Evil or enhancing or diminishing of life. It seems completely disconnected from reality to me. If it was that obvious, why wouldn't everyone just do the Good things and avoid Evil things? Obviously our experiences have many layers and qualities which change dynamically. Anything can be interpreted as enhancing or diminishing life. Chemotherapy Good or Evil? 牋 ROGER: Good people tend to do good things, evil people to do evil things. Chemotherapy is thought to do more good than evil. SNIP [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net +rcl...@verizon.net] 1/1/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ePt2Uf7MeNsJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.+everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+ unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. +unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Jan 2013, at 13:08, Telmo Menezes wrote: In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes we all have in common. These brain processes make us pursue the best interest of society instead of our own self-interest. I believe they have two main sources: 1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin-selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or group-selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling evidence to support this theory. Social insects are extremely altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with goodness and different races with evil. 2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the prisoner's dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse. And a bad one, especially as a ruse. Everyone know what good is and bad is, for them. So it is better to do the good for the sake of the good than from anything coming from any authority. I expect a person liking me to do the good to me by selfishness, and not because she or he fears some punishment or because they would feel guilty or something. I remember an extreme case where I was in a long flight sitting next to a representative of a given religion. At some point he asked for a blanket and covered me with it when I was half-asleep, but he wouldn't talk and seemed repulsed by me. The ruse is a diabolical trap. All attempts to define good and evil as a fundamental property of the universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: good is what good people do, good people are the ones who do good things. Good and evil cannot be defined but there are many examples. Basically the good start when constraints are satisfied. If you are hungry and can eat, that's the good. Wandering on a field of mines might not be that good, for you, but (perhaps) good for your children and grandchildren. You don't seem to have a lot of faith in the quality of my genetic material! :) It seems to me that nature illustrates that selfishness and altruism are natural complement of each other. I would oppose it to egocentrism, where a special kind of extreme selfishness develop as it rules out the selfishness of others in non reasonable proportions. Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings that is not supported by evidence. I am not so sure about that. Most humans would be more happier just knowing than more humans can be happier (if it is not their neighbors). I agree. But will they pay the cost? Will they chose giving to charity or buying the BMW? I think that some problem comes from too much altruistic dreams, and few awkward real practice, but they keep growing. Presently alas the 'natural altruism is confronted to the usual fear sellers, and all this is aggravated by dilution of responsibility, motivated by will of control, motivated by the fear of the unknown, manipulated by minorities (not always aware of this, but I think some are). I agree with all you say here. Fear is the mind-killer. My point is just that we should not try to live in a system that assumes a level of altruism that isn't there. For example, when people ask for more government regulation, they don't consider that the legislators will likely design that legislation with selfish goals in mind. Bruno *Man has the Good,* *He searches for the Best,* *He finds the Bad,* *And He stays with the Bad by Fear of* *finding the Worst.* (A french poet) On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ROGER: There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call Evil. CRAIG: I can't relate to cut and dried ideas of Good and Evil or enhancing or diminishing of life. It seems completely disconnected from reality to me. If it was that obvious, why wouldn't everyone just do the Good things and avoid Evil things? Obviously our experiences have many layers and qualities which change dynamically. Anything can be interpreted as enhancing or diminishing life. Chemotherapy Good or Evil? ROGER: Good people tend to
Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil
Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO Good is no more arbitrary than life is. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 14:55:31 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On 02 Jan 2013, at 13:08, Telmo Menezes wrote: In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes we all have in common. These brain processes make us pursue the best interest of society instead of our own self-interest. I believe they have two main sources: 1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin-selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or group-selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling evidence to support this theory. Social insects are extremely altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with goodness and different races with evil. 2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the prisoner's dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse. And a bad one, especially as a ruse. Everyone know what good is and bad is, for them. So it is better to do the good for the sake of the good than from anything coming from any authority. I expect a person liking me to do the good to me by selfishness, and not because she or he fears some punishment or because they would feel guilty or something. The ruse is a diabolical trap. All attempts to define good and evil as a fundamental property of the universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: good is what good people do, good people are the ones who do good things. Good and evil cannot be defined but there are many examples. Basically the good start when constraints are satisfied. If you are hungry and can eat, that's the good. Wandering on a field of mines might not be that good, for you, but (perhaps) good for your children and grandchildren. It seems to me that nature illustrates that selfishness and altruism are natural complement of each other. I would oppose it to egocentrism, where a special kind of extreme selfishness develop as it rules out the selfishness of others in non reasonable proportions. Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings that is not supported by evidence. I am not so sure about that. Most humans would be more happier just knowing than more humans can be happier (if it is not their neighbors). I think that some problem comes from too much altruistic dreams, and few awkward real practice, but they keep growing. Presently alas the 'natural altruism is confronted to the usual fear sellers, and all this is aggravated by dilution of responsibility, motivated by will of control, motivated by the fear of the unknown, manipulated by minorities (not always aware of this, but I think some are). Bruno Man has the Good, He searches for the Best, He finds the Bad, And He stays with the Bad by Fear of finding the Worst. (A french poet) On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ROGER: There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call Evil. CRAIG: I can't relate to cut and dried ideas of Good and Evil or enhancing or diminishing of life. It seems completely disconnected from reality to me. If it was that obvious, why wouldn't everyone just do the Good things and avoid Evil things? Obviously our experiences have many layers and qualities which change dynamically. Anything can be interpreted as enhancing or diminishing life. Chemotherapy Good or Evil? ROGER: Good people tend to do good things, evil people to do evil things. Chemotherapy is thought to do more good than evil. SNIP [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/1/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ePt2Uf7MeNsJ. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Re: Re: Re: The two basic theologies
Hi Craig Weinberg Enhancing Life is not a very arbitrary value, but of course interpreting what that means can differ from person to person. That's why we have laws, either religious or legal ones. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 12:07:03 Subject: Re: Re: Re: The two basic theologies On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:29:55 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So what's good for one may be evil for another. No surprise there. That's why an overriding referee or judge (God) is necessary. Why would the relativity of value necessitate some kind of referee? Any physical change robs one system of energy by increasing the energy of another. Why should there be an independent judge watching over these transactions? With sense instead of God, the weight of consequence is within the experience itself, subjectively implicit rather than an objectively explicit independent entity. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/2/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-01, 17:42:20 Subject: Re: Re: The two basic theologies On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 4:14:18 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg CRAIG: Enhance whose life though? ROGER: Anybody's life. Disinfectants destroy microbiotic life. CRAIG: Would slavery Good or Evil? ROGER: The masters diminish the life of the slaves. The slaves have their lives diminished. So there's no good in it at all. The slaves enhance the lives of their masters. Their masters have their lives enhanced. So there's as much good in it as not. CRAIG: What about promiscuity or dessert or yeast? ROGER: Promiscuity diminishes the value of love and commitment, hence of life. I have no opinions on dessert or yeast. Promiscuity without contraception enhances the number of pregnancies. If you have no opinion on the others, does that mean that they don't fit into the good/evil dichotomy? CRAIG: Is cell division good or evil? I would say that growth of healthy cells is goog because they enhance life. And growth of cancer cells is evil or bad because they can cause death. Cancer cells enhance their own life. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/1/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-01, 15:03:10 Subject: Re: The two basic theologies On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:08:36 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: A Theology for Atheists There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call Evil. Enhance whose life though? Would slavery Good or Evil? What about promiscuity or dessert or yeast? Is cell division good or evil? Who determines what 'enhanced' or 'diminished' means? As evidenced, these can be present in both happenings and in people. We have the freedom to support either cause or not support one. Don't we support both at all times, just by being alive? -- A Theology for Theists The same holds as above, with the addition that there is some overriding intelligence which causes the happenings, good or evil, either preferably or acceptably. It can also read and/or inform our hearts. -- [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/1/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/vlrEDOoV6-oJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/fnlB3WkwxW8J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit
Re: Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil
Hi Craig Weinberg Do you know anything about jurisprudence ? It doesn't care if your motivations were good or evil, it only cares if you broke the law or not. Serial killers are generally thought to be sociopaths, but they don't usually have much success cooking up an insanity defense. They are the mindless, heartless purveyors of cruelty and evil, evil as defined by laws. Jurors and judges under the legal system determine if you break laws or not, not whether your motivation was good or evil, although that could have some influence on the type of punishment. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 12:13:04 Subject: Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:39:17 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: ROGER: There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call Evil. CRAIG: I can't relate to cut and dried ideas of Good and Evil or enhancing or diminishing of life. It seems completely disconnected from reality to me. If it was that obvious, why wouldn't everyone just do the Good things and avoid Evil things? Obviously our experiences have many layers and qualities which change dynamically. Anything can be interpreted as enhancing or diminishing life. Chemotherapy Good or Evil? ROGER: Good people tend to do good things, evil people to do evil things. The Stanford Prison Experiment proves that this is not true. There may be people who are born sociopaths and born humanitarians but overwhelmingly people's actions are reactions to their circumstances. Chemotherapy is thought to do more good than evil. By doctors trying to cure patients of cancer, not by the cells of the body being poisoned. It sounds like when you say that good enhances life, you are talking about the lives of human beings and not any other species. If pressed, I suspect that good is further defined as that which enhances the lives of human beings which you consider to be good, which will, I suspect, turn out to be those people with whom you personally relate or admire. SNIP [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/1/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ePt2Uf7MeNsJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/eo-BouQWicEJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil
Chemotherapy is generally thought to be evil to the cancer (it tries to kill it) and good to the patient (it tries ultimately to cure him through killing the cancer). While chemotherapy works against the cancer, on the other hand, Christian believers such as me believe that the holy spirit, if so requested, can fill you with life and so defeat a cancer by that means. Cedrtainly the psychology of a patient can affect the course of a disease, as wevidenced by the placebo effect. Along those lines, Jesus said Your faith has made you whole. Prayer helps the good, chemotheraphy hurts the bad. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 14:13:35 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:57:34 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jan 2013, at 02:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: Chemotherapy Good or Evil? Better than nothing for most people having some disease. Worst than THC injection, plausibly for the same group of people. Here the Evil is only in the fact that minorities hides information from the majority, and this for the minority's interests. This leads to harmful consequences for the majority. Bruno I was thinking more of how chemotherapy is ambiguous as far as it being something which can enhance life by inevitably diminishing it, but sure, the politics of it is an issue also. If I had to get into a definition of good and evil I would go more toward a political direction - senseless inequality of power tends to lead to corruption and crime. Crime and corruption tends to lead to scapegoating or a misuse of sense. The combination of corrupt actions and distortion of truth to cover them up is probably as close to evil as I can think of. Evil = Abusive social contact. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/YpNqEUlQwb8J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil
Hi Craig Weinberg Tsunamis and other forces of nature are themselves amoral*, but their effects can be good (enhance life) or evil (diminish life). *Since God causes everything to happen, he also, although reluctantly (the theological term is God's permissive will) mustl cause evil to happen as well. I cause the rain to fall on just as well as the unjust says the Bible. Crap happens. At the same time, the Bible teaches us to appeal to God to deliver us from evil. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 16:06:10 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 3:58:45 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/2/2013 12:46 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 3:05:10 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/2/2013 11:13 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:57:34 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jan 2013, at 02:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: Chemotherapy Good or Evil? Better than nothing for most people having some disease. Worst than THC injection, plausibly for the same group of people. Here the Evil is only in the fact that minorities hides information from the majority, and this for the minority's interests. This leads to harmful consequences for the majority. Bruno I was thinking more of how chemotherapy is ambiguous as far as it being something which can enhance life by inevitably diminishing it, but sure, the politics of it is an issue also. If I had to get into a definition of good and evil I would go more toward a political direction - senseless inequality of power tends to lead to corruption and crime. Crime and corruption tends to lead to scapegoating or a misuse of sense. The combination of corrupt actions and distortion of truth to cover them up is probably as close to evil as I can think of. Anything that causes great net suffering of people can be considered evil: cancer, small pox, AIDS, tsunamis,... I see no reason to limit it to social/political causes. Do you think that viruses and tsunamis are well served by the label 'Evil'? ?? I'm not interested in serving them. Obviously. I meant 'Do you think that it serves us to label natural phenomena outside of our control as Evil'? Values are human values and each person has his own - although there is a lot of consistency. I think society and individuals are well served by labeling some viruses and tsunamis as 'evil' because that means we should cooperate to mitigate them. And in fact we have: We eliminated small pox. We created a tsunami warning system. Actions I count as good. The action of mitigating damage is good, just as the intentional neglect of such actions are evil, but the non-human cause of the damage is neither good nor evil. If you get an electric shock, it does not mean that voltage is evil. Craig Brent Unfortunately it is the prerogative of evil that to seem so is to be so. --- Bertrand Russell -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/SzjN6yHj9NsJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
What Hell is like
Hi Craig Weinberg It doesn't matter whether you have good or bad intentions. The law and God judge us by what we do. You do the crime, you do the time. You sin, you go to Hell. Personally, I believe that the eternal torture of Hell is not to be able to feel God's love and forgiveness. That would be Hell to a Jesus. He refers to being tossed out and undergoing a weeping and gnashing of teeth. Hindus and Buddhists believe in reincarnation, which from what we observe, is not always a pleasant life. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 20:24:14 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:21:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm. First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are ultimately personal values. Speaking of sloppy. I'm not sure what that was intended to say. Without some explanation of why you say that evil is other than intentional social harm, it sounds like you are just saying that you disagree. Second, it implies that as soon as we find a physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a behavior it's not longer evil. It implies that only to those who think that personal intention is not a physical cause in its own right. Just because someone was drunk when they commit an evil act doesn't mean that it wasn't an evil act. But all behavior has a physical cause. All physics is an experiential effect. So I'm ok with just dropping the term 'evil' and just referring to good/bad for individuals and good/bad for society as derivative. But I think it's a hangover from theodicy to refer to human actions as evil but not natural events - it's part of the idea that humans are apart from nature. I agree that dropping the term 'evil' as a formal term is the more enlightened way to go. I don't have a problem with it as an informal hyperbole that is reserved for intentionally cruel behavior though. I think that we can separate intentional human cruelty as a class of attitudes and effects unlike any other, though I would not apply any supernatural significance. I would say that there is a hidden hypocrisy in allowing no expectation of self control on the part of individuals while taking it for granted that exactly that kind of moral control is to be expected from a law enforcing society composed of those same individuals. If it's not evil for an axe murderer to execute people at random, how can it be evil for a society to call that person evil and seek to execute them? If we want to be humane toward outlaws that's fine, but I don't think that we should do it out of the assumption that human behaviors are under no more human control than storms and earthquakes. Craig Brent Ethics is, at bottom, the art of recommending to others the self-sacrifice necessary to cooperate with ourselves. --- Bertrand Russell -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/-RFrHbTbweoJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Why bad things happen to good people--Leibniz's Theodicy
Hi Craig Weinberg If you jump off of a building, gravity will kill you. Is that God's fault ? IMHO since God created nature, he also created the natural forces, which cause tsunamis. God is lawful, so He follows his own natural laws. Crap happens down here. We aren't yet in Heaven. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 17:31:16 Subject: Re: Why bad things happen to good people--Leibniz's Theodicy On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 8:13:20 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Why bad things happen to good people--Leibniz's Theodicy This is because things can't be good everywhere at the same time. Thus evil and catastrophes are probabilistic. Why not? If evil and catastrophes are probabilistic, what it the point of God? I thought your view was that this probabilistic indifference of nature was countered by the presence of a divine referee? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/0D4yauElsE0J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:35:00 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Do you know anything about jurisprudence ? Only as much as you do. It doesn't care if your motivations were good or evil, it only cares if you broke the law or not. Did I contradict that somewhere? Serial killers are generally thought to be sociopaths, but they don't usually have much success cooking up an insanity defense. That's why I said There may be people who are born sociopaths. They are the mindless, heartless purveyors of cruelty and evil, evil as defined by laws. Is evil defined by law? First you say that jurisprudence is all about establishing whether you broke the law, and not whether someone has evil motives, but now you are saying that evil is defined by laws. Jurors and judges under the legal system determine if you break laws or not, not whether your motivation was good or evil, although that could have some influence on the type of punishment. Yes, so? [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-02, 12:13:04 *Subject:* Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:39:17 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: ROGER: There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call Evil. CRAIG: I can't relate to cut and dried ideas of Good and Evil or enhancing or diminishing of life. It seems completely disconnected from reality to me. If it was that obvious, why wouldn't everyone just do the Good things and avoid Evil things? Obviously our experiences have many layers and qualities which change dynamically. Anything can be interpreted as enhancing or diminishing life. Chemotherapy Good or Evil? ROGER: Good people tend to do good things, evil people to do evil things. The Stanford Prison Experiment proves that this is not true. There may be people who are born sociopaths and born humanitarians but overwhelmingly people's actions are reactions to their circumstances. Chemotherapy is thought to do more good than evil. By doctors trying to cure patients of cancer, not by the cells of the body being poisoned. It sounds like when you say that good enhances life, you are talking about the lives of human beings and not any other species. If pressed, I suspect that good is further defined as that which enhances the lives of human beings which you consider to be good, which will, I suspect, turn out to be those people with whom you personally relate or admire. SNIP [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/1/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ePt2Uf7MeNsJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+ unsub...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/eo-BouQWicEJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/1goybItgwaEJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: What Hell is like
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:06:42 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg It doesn't matter whether you have good or bad intentions. The law and God judge us by what we do. You do the crime, you do the time. I'll let the Bible speak for itself, if that is the God you are talking about: Timothy 1:5http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+1%3A5version=ESV The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Timothy 6:10http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+6%3A10version=ESV For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. Hebrews 12:14http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+12%3A14version=ESV Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Timothy 3:13http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A13version=ESV While evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. Philippians 4:8http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+4%3A8version=ESV Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Philippians 1:15-18http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+1%3A15-18version=ESV Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, Ephesians 2:8-9http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A8-9version=ESV For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Romans 2:5http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2%3A5version=ESV But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. You sin, you go to Hell. If you repent, you go to Heaven. Personally, I believe that the eternal torture of Hell is not to be able to feel God's love and forgiveness. That would be Hell to a Jesus. He refers to being tossed out and undergoing a weeping and gnashing of teeth. Hindus and Buddhists believe in reincarnation, which from what we observe, is not always a pleasant life. Personally I believe that Hell and Heaven are metaphors which extrapolate the ordinary high and low moods of human consciousness to a super-significance. God is a metaphor in the exact same way - an algebraic concept of X = Infinite proprietary superlatives. If you are in a world of competing polytheistic deities, each the representation of a personal superlative or sphere of influence (God of war, Goddess of beauty, etc), then the invention of a supreme ultimate deity who trumps all others in all categories is an excellent political strategy. It's a convenient way to consolidate allegiance and direct everyone's personal insecurities to a mass psychology solution. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 20:24:14 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:21:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm. First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are ultimately personal values. Speaking of sloppy. I'm not sure what that was intended to say. Without some explanation of why you say that evil is other than intentional social harm, it sounds like you are just saying that you disagree. Second, it implies that as soon as we find a physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a behavior it's not longer evil. It implies that only to those who think that personal intention is not a physical cause in its own right. Just because someone was drunk when they commit an evil act doesn't mean that it
Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:53:56 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Tsunamis and other forces of nature are themselves amoral*, but their effects can be good (enhance life) or evil (diminish life). Are you saying that God is powerless to change nature? *Since God causes everything to happen, he also, although reluctantly (the theological term is God's permissive will) mustl cause evil to happen as well. I cause the rain to fall on just as well as the unjust says the Bible. Crap happens. At the same time, the Bible teaches us to appeal to God to deliver us from evil. If appealing to God doesn't deliver you from tsunamis, why bother? [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-02, 16:06:10 *Subject:* Re: The evolution of good and evil On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 3:58:45 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/2/2013 12:46 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 3:05:10 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/2/2013 11:13 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:57:34 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jan 2013, at 02:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: Chemotherapy Good or Evil? Better than nothing for most people having some disease. Worst than THC injection, plausibly for the same group of people. Here the Evil is only in the fact that minorities hides information from the majority, and this for the minority's interests. This leads to harmful consequences for the majority. Bruno I was thinking more of how chemotherapy is ambiguous as far as it being something which can enhance life by inevitably diminishing it, but sure, the politics of it is an issue also. If I had to get into a definition of good and evil I would go more toward a political direction - senseless inequality of power tends to lead to corruption and crime. Crime and corruption tends to lead to scapegoating or a misuse of sense. The combination of corrupt actions and distortion of truth to cover them up is probably as close to evil as I can think of. Anything that causes great net suffering of people can be considered evil: cancer, small pox, AIDS, tsunamis,... I see no reason to limit it to social/political causes. Do you think that viruses and tsunamis are well served by the label 'Evil'? ?? I'm not interested in serving them. Obviously. I meant 'Do you think that it serves us to label natural phenomena outside of our control as Evil'? Values are human values and each person has his own - although there is a lot of consistency. I think society and individuals are well served by labeling some viruses and tsunamis as 'evil' because that means we should cooperate to mitigate them. And in fact we have: We eliminated small pox. We created a tsunami warning system. Actions I count as good. The action of mitigating damage is good, just as the intentional neglect of such actions are evil, but the non-human cause of the damage is neither good nor evil. If you get an electric shock, it does not mean that voltage is evil. Craig Brent Unfortunately it is the prerogative of evil that to seem so is to be so. --- Bertrand Russell -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/SzjN6yHj9NsJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/CVi-z-eL6skJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
A simple explanation of Sheldrake's morphic resonance observations
Hi Sheldrake's morphic resonance is based on observations such as this: repeated operations by people doing the same times crossword puzzle cause subsequent solving of the puzzle later in the day easier. This is ridiculed by scientists. But IMHO morphic resonance could be understood as modification of random behavior (on a platonic or Leibnizian shared mental plane) subjected to a lawful universe, such as is found in natural selection through evolution As an explanation, consider this analogy. They've put hidden optical speed detectors on my neighborhood streets to slow down traffic. If you don't see the detectors and speed through, the detectors will flash photo your license plate and electronically issue you a speed ticket. Gradually everybody tends to slow down to meet the legal speed limit. A wild speculation is perhaps quantum mechanics behavior gradually adapts to einstein behavior in such a way. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil
Hi Craig Weinberg Evil is not defined by law, but crime is. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 08:12:58 Subject: Re: Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil On Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:35:00 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Do you know anything about jurisprudence ? Only as much as you do. It doesn't care if your motivations were good or evil, it only cares if you broke the law or not. Did I contradict that somewhere? Serial killers are generally thought to be sociopaths, but they don't usually have much success cooking up an insanity defense. That's why I said There may be people who are born sociopaths. They are the mindless, heartless purveyors of cruelty and evil, evil as defined by laws. Is evil defined by law? First you say that jurisprudence is all about establishing whether you broke the law, and not whether someone has evil motives, but now you are saying that evil is defined by laws. Jurors and judges under the legal system determine if you break laws or not, not whether your motivation was good or evil, although that could have some influence on the type of punishment. Yes, so? [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 12:13:04 Subject: Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:39:17 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: ROGER: There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call Evil. CRAIG: I can't relate to cut and dried ideas of Good and Evil or enhancing or diminishing of life. It seems completely disconnected from reality to me. If it was that obvious, why wouldn't everyone just do the Good things and avoid Evil things? Obviously our experiences have many layers and qualities which change dynamically. Anything can be interpreted as enhancing or diminishing life. Chemotherapy Good or Evil? ROGER: Good people tend to do good things, evil people to do evil things. The Stanford Prison Experiment proves that this is not true. There may be people who are born sociopaths and born humanitarians but overwhelmingly people's actions are reactions to their circumstances. Chemotherapy is thought to do more good than evil. By doctors trying to cure patients of cancer, not by the cells of the body being poisoned. It sounds like when you say that good enhances life, you are talking about the lives of human beings and not any other species. If pressed, I suspect that good is further defined as that which enhances the lives of human beings which you consider to be good, which will, I suspect, turn out to be those people with whom you personally relate or admire. SNIP [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/1/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ePt2Uf7MeNsJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/eo-BouQWicEJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/1goybItgwaEJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: What Hell is like
Hi Craig Weinberg All of your quotes are very good advice. What's your point ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 08:47:13 Subject: Re: What Hell is like On Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:06:42 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg It doesn't matter whether you have good or bad intentions. The law and God judge us by what we do. You do the crime, you do the time. I'll let the Bible speak for itself, if that is the God you are talking about: Timothy 1:5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. Hebrews 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Timothy 3:13 While evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. Philippians 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Philippians 1:15-18 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Romans 2:5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. You sin, you go to Hell. If you repent, you go to Heaven. Personally, I believe that the eternal torture of Hell is not to be able to feel God's love and forgiveness. That would be Hell to a Jesus. He refers to being tossed out and undergoing a weeping and gnashing of teeth. Hindus and Buddhists believe in reincarnation, which from what we observe, is not always a pleasant life. Personally I believe that Hell and Heaven are metaphors which extrapolate the ordinary high and low moods of human consciousness to a super-significance. God is a metaphor in the exact same way - an algebraic concept of X = Infinite proprietary superlatives. If you are in a world of competing polytheistic deities, each the representation of a personal superlative or sphere of influence (God of war, Goddess of beauty, etc), then the invention of a supreme ultimate deity who trumps all others in all categories is an excellent political strategy. It's a convenient way to consolidate allegiance and direct everyone's personal insecurities to a mass psychology solution. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 20:24:14 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:21:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm. First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are ultimately personal values. Speaking of sloppy. I'm not sure what that was intended to say. Without some explanation of why you say that evil is other than intentional social harm, it sounds like you are just saying that you disagree. Second, it implies that as soon as we find a physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a behavior it's not longer evil. It implies that only to those who think that personal intention is not a physical cause in its own right. Just because someone was drunk when they commit an evil act doesn't mean that it wasn't an evil act. But all behavior has a physical cause. All physics is an experiential effect. So I'm ok with just dropping the term 'evil' and just referring to good/bad for individuals and good/bad for society as derivative. But I think it's a hangover from theodicy to refer to
Re: Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil
Hi Craig Weinberg Whatever the Bible says. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 08:55:02 Subject: Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil On Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:53:56 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Tsunamis and other forces of nature are themselves amoral*, but their effects can be good (enhance life) or evil (diminish life). Are you saying that God is powerless to change nature? *Since God causes everything to happen, he also, although reluctantly (the theological term is God's permissive will) mustl cause evil to happen as well. I cause the rain to fall on just as well as the unjust says the Bible. Crap happens. At the same time, the Bible teaches us to appeal to God to deliver us from evil. If appealing to God doesn't deliver you from tsunamis, why bother? [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 16:06:10 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 3:58:45 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/2/2013 12:46 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 3:05:10 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/2/2013 11:13 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:57:34 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jan 2013, at 02:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: Chemotherapy Good or Evil? Better than nothing for most people having some disease. Worst than THC injection, plausibly for the same group of people. Here the Evil is only in the fact that minorities hides information from the majority, and this for the minority's interests. This leads to harmful consequences for the majority. Bruno I was thinking more of how chemotherapy is ambiguous as far as it being something which can enhance life by inevitably diminishing it, but sure, the politics of it is an issue also. If I had to get into a definition of good and evil I would go more toward a political direction - senseless inequality of power tends to lead to corruption and crime. Crime and corruption tends to lead to scapegoating or a misuse of sense. The combination of corrupt actions and distortion of truth to cover them up is probably as close to evil as I can think of. Anything that causes great net suffering of people can be considered evil: cancer, small pox, AIDS, tsunamis,... I see no reason to limit it to social/political causes. Do you think that viruses and tsunamis are well served by the label 'Evil'? ?? I'm not interested in serving them. Obviously. I meant 'Do you think that it serves us to label natural phenomena outside of our control as Evil'? Values are human values and each person has his own - although there is a lot of consistency. I think society and individuals are well served by labeling some viruses and tsunamis as 'evil' because that means we should cooperate to mitigate them. And in fact we have: We eliminated small pox. We created a tsunami warning system. Actions I count as good. The action of mitigating damage is good, just as the intentional neglect of such actions are evil, but the non-human cause of the damage is neither good nor evil. If you get an electric shock, it does not mean that voltage is evil. Craig Brent Unfortunately it is the prerogative of evil that to seem so is to be so. --- Bertrand Russell -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/SzjN6yHj9NsJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/CVi-z-eL6skJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The best of all possible Worlds.
Hi Stephen P. King 1) I dobn't know what you mean by subjective. Things happen. Crap happens. 2). You seem to have some incorrect ideas about Leibniz. Leibniz in no way pretended that he created a perfect system. The world is far from perfect. All L did suggest is that God did the best job he could, considering the constraints of contingency. Consider volcanoes and the tectonic plates, the sometimes evil tendencies of man. And our perceptions, for excample, are distorted. Our hearts are distorted. And bad things can happen, there's nothing to prevent in a contingent world . [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 13:37:05 Subject: Re: The best of all possible Worlds. On 1/2/2013 8:21 AM, Roger Clough wrote: I forgot add that that's why Leibniz called this The best of all possible Worlds. Why bad things happen to good people--Leibniz's Theodicy As to tornadoes, there are various views, usually part of Theodicies. Here's the view I prefer, that of my mentor, Leibniz, explained in his Theodicy, which Voltaire took up in his unfair and totally misinformed criticism, the novel Candide. According to Leibniz, there are two forms of being, that belonging to perfect, timeless, necessary reason, assigned to Heaven or Platonia, and that of contingent, time-dependent and therefore undependable reason and perfection (that down here, on earth). Scientific theory deals with the former, where time is reversible, and scientific experimentation, with the latter, done down here, in the world, where time is not reversible. Leibniz's view, in his theodicy , which I hold to also, is that the world down here, that God created, is necessarily imperfect, so, as they say crap happens. This is because things can't be good everywhere at the same time. Thus evil and catastrophes are probabilistic. Leibniz's theodicy ior justification for God is that God, being good, does the best that he can with the imperfect, partly evuil world he has to work with. That is why pray for God to deliver us from evil in the Lord's prayer. But we also say thy will be done. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/2/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- Dear Roger, Ultimately, all such measures are subjective, being the result of some arbitrary cut off here and boundary condition there. Most of all, the effects of the finiteness of our condition cannot ever be underestimated. One thing that Leibniz failed to comprehend is the cost of the perfect system that he attempted to construct. Voltair saw it but only as a weakness to lampoon Leibniz' with and not to correct, as he and the rest of the classicists where loath to give up the Assumption of the voyeuristic observer that can somehow see and measure all things. Hidden in their thinking was a need to morally justify the inequality between men that their system supported. We live in a world of costs and scarcity. There is no such thing as a free lunch, but if we work hard we can make a cheaper lunch. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The best of all possible Worlds.
On 1/3/2013 9:30 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King 1) I dobn't know what you mean by subjective. Things happen. Crap happens. 2). You seem to have some incorrect ideas about Leibniz. Leibniz in no way pretended that he created a perfect system. The world is far from perfect. All L did suggest is that God did the best job he could, considering the constraints of contingency. Consider volcanoes and the tectonic plates, the sometimes evil tendencies of man. And our perceptions, for excample, are distorted. Our hearts are distorted. And bad things can happen, there's nothing to prevent in a contingent world . Hi Roger, The entire idea that our lives are in the hands of some ultimate conscious and controlling agent is a relic of the days of monarchies. The ability to think for ourselves, make choices and learn form consequences is better, IMHO. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] mailto:rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-02, 13:37:05 *Subject:* Re: The best of all possible Worlds. On 1/2/2013 8:21 AM, Roger Clough wrote: I forgot add that that's why Leibniz called this The best of all possible Worlds. Why bad things happen to good people--Leibniz's Theodicy As to tornadoes, there are various views, usually part of Theodicies. Here's the view I prefer, that of my mentor, Leibniz, explained in his Theodicy, which Voltaire took up in his unfair and totally misinformed criticism, the novel Candide. According to Leibniz, there are two forms of being, that belonging to perfect, timeless, necessary reason, assigned to Heaven or Platonia, and that of contingent, time-dependent and therefore undependable reason and perfection (that down here, on earth). Scientific theory deals with the former, where time is reversible, and scientific experimentation, with the latter, done down here, in the world, where time is not reversible. Leibniz's view, in his theodicy , which I hold to also, is that the world down here, that God created, is necessarily imperfect, so, as they say crap happens. This is because things can't be good everywhere at the same time. Thus evil and catastrophes are probabilistic. Leibniz's theodicy ior justification for God is that God, being good, does the best that he can with the imperfect, partly evuil world he has to work with. That is why pray for God to deliver us from evil in the Lord's prayer. But we also say thy will be done. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net mailto:%20rclo...@verizon.net] 1/2/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- Dear Roger, Ultimately, all such measures are subjective, being the result of some arbitrary cut off here and boundary condition there. Most of all, the effects of the finiteness of our condition cannot ever be underestimated. One thing that Leibniz failed to comprehend is the cost of the perfect system that he attempted to construct. Voltair saw it but only as a weakness to lampoon Leibniz' with and not to correct, as he and the rest of the classicists where loath to give up the Assumption of the voyeuristic observer that can somehow see and measure all things. Hidden in their thinking was a need to morally justify the inequality between men that their system supported. We live in a world of costs and scarcity. There is no such thing as a free lunch, but if we work hard we can make a cheaper lunch. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen - -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The best of all possible Worlds.
Hi Stephen P. King I suppose that you're referring to the cpre-established perfect harmony, which makes it seem as if everything we do is determined (by God). IMHO that only means that God knows what we will do, not make the decision for us. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 09:49:53 Subject: Re: The best of all possible Worlds. On 1/3/2013 9:30 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King 1) I dobn't know what you mean by subjective. Things happen. Crap happens. 2). You seem to have some incorrect ideas about Leibniz. Leibniz in no way pretended that he created a perfect system. The world is far from perfect. All L did suggest is that God did the best job he could, considering the constraints of contingency. Consider volcanoes and the tectonic plates, the sometimes evil tendencies of man. And our perceptions, for excample, are distorted. Our hearts are distorted. And bad things can happen, there's nothing to prevent in a contingent world . Hi Roger, The entire idea that our lives are in the hands of some ultimate conscious and controlling agent is a relic of the days of monarchies. The ability to think for ourselves, make choices and learn form consequences is better, IMHO. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 13:37:05 Subject: Re: The best of all possible Worlds. On 1/2/2013 8:21 AM, Roger Clough wrote: I forgot add that that's why Leibniz called this The best of all possible Worlds. Why bad things happen to good people--Leibniz's Theodicy As to tornadoes, there are various views, usually part of Theodicies. Here's the view I prefer, that of my mentor, Leibniz, explained in his Theodicy, which Voltaire took up in his unfair and totally misinformed criticism, the novel Candide. According to Leibniz, there are two forms of being, that belonging to perfect, timeless, necessary reason, assigned to Heaven or Platonia, and that of contingent, time-dependent and therefore undependable reason and perfection (that down here, on earth). Scientific theory deals with the former, where time is reversible, and scientific experimentation, with the latter, done down here, in the world, where time is not reversible. Leibniz's view, in his theodicy , which I hold to also, is that the world down here, that God created, is necessarily imperfect, so, as they say crap happens. This is because things can't be good everywhere at the same time. Thus evil and catastrophes are probabilistic. Leibniz's theodicy ior justification for God is that God, being good, does the best that he can with the imperfect, partly evuil world he has to work with. That is why pray for God to deliver us from evil in the Lord's prayer. But we also say thy will be done. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/2/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- Dear Roger, Ultimately, all such measures are subjective, being the result of some arbitrary cut off here and boundary condition there. Most of all, the effects of the finiteness of our condition cannot ever be underestimated. One thing that Leibniz failed to comprehend is the cost of the perfect system that he attempted to construct. Voltair saw it but only as a weakness to lampoon Leibniz' with and not to correct, as he and the rest of the classicists where loath to give up the Assumption of the voyeuristic observer that can somehow see and measure all things. Hidden in their thinking was a need to morally justify the inequality between men that their system supported. We live in a world of costs and scarcity. There is no such thing as a free lunch, but if we work hard we can make a cheaper lunch. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen - -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A simple explanation of Sheldrake's morphic resonance observations
I have a even simpler explanation of Sheldrake's morphic resonance observations, Rupert Sheldrake is a simpleton and a crappy scientist. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The best of all possible Worlds.
Hi meekerdb The world down here isn't heaven, yes, but there still is a Heaven for the afterlife, IMHO. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 14:31:51 Subject: Re: The best of all possible Worlds. On 1/2/2013 5:21 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Leibniz's view, in his theodicy , which I hold to also, is that the world down here, that God created, is necessarily imperfect, so, as they say crap happens. This is because things can't be good everywhere at the same time. So there is no heaven. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil
Hi meekerdb Although a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt a communist and so anti-christian). His diatribe against Christianity is a prime example. It's totally misinformed and mistaken. Ethics is, at bottom, loving your neighbor as your self. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 18:21:27 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm. First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are ultimately personal values. Second, it implies that as soon as we find a physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a behavior it's not longer evil. But all behavior has a physical cause. So I'm ok with just dropping the term 'evil' and just referring to good/bad for individuals and good/bad for society as derivative. But I think it's a hangover from theodicy to refer to human actions as evil but not natural events - it's part of the idea that humans are apart from nature. Brent Ethics is, at bottom, the art of recommending to others the self-sacrifice necessary to cooperate with ourselves. --- Bertrand Russell -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb Although a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt a communist and so anti-christian). His diatribe against Christianity is a prime example. It's totally misinformed and mistaken. Ethics is, at bottom, loving your neighbor as your self. Well that's easy. I don't love or even particularly like myself. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-02, 18:21:27 *Subject:* Re: The evolution of good and evil On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm. First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are ultimately personal values. Second, it implies that as soon as we find a physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a behavior it's not longer evil. But all behavior has a physical cause. So I'm ok with just dropping the term 'evil' and just referring to good/bad for individuals and good/bad for society as derivative. But I think it's a hangover from theodicy to refer to human actions as evil but not natural events - it's part of the idea that humans are apart from nature. Brent Ethics is, at bottom, the art of recommending to others the self-sacrifice necessary to cooperate with ourselves. --- Bertrand Russell -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A simple explanation of Sheldrake's morphic resonance observations
Hi Roger, I'm curious about the experimental setup. Could it be that he's just misinterpreting a probabilistic distribution? Suppose the amount of time it takes people to solve a puzzle follows a normal distribution. As time passes and we ride the slope to the mean, we can get the mistaken impression that people solving the puzzle are causing more people to solve it. I hope I'm wrong by the way! I love weird experimental results. On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Sheldrake's morphic resonance is based on observations such as this: repeated operations by people doing the same times crossword puzzle cause subsequent solving of the puzzle later in the day easier. This is ridiculed by scientists. But IMHO morphic resonance could be understood as modification of random behavior (on a platonic or Leibnizian shared mental plane) subjected to a lawful universe, such as is found in natural selection through evolution As an explanation, consider this analogy. They've put hidden optical speed detectors on my neighborhood streets to slow down traffic. If you don't see the detectors and speed through, the detectors will flash photo your license plate and electronically issue you a speed ticket. Gradually everybody tends to slow down to meet the legal speed limit. A wild speculation is perhaps quantum mechanics behavior gradually adapts to einstein behavior in such a way. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
a Sheldrake computer:: the universe as a random + mechanism--- habit computer
Hi Richard Ruquist My understanding of Sheldrake's results suggests to me that the universe is not like a deterministic great computer, or if it is, the deterministic or mechanical part acts like a filter to incline random motions to more regular ones which Sheldrake calls habits or morphic resonances. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 19:25:06 Subject: Re: Conputer Code In String Theory Supersimetric Equations Here is a lay description: http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/is-the-universe-a-computer-new-evidence-emerges Is the Universe a Computer? New Evidence Emerges. March 22nd, 2012 Share on twitterShare on google_plusoneShare on tumblrShare on emailMore Sharing Services I haven? posted in a while, but this is blog-worthy material. I?e recently become familiar with the thinking of University of Maryland physicist, James Gates Jr. Dr. Gates is working on a branch of physics called supersymmetry. In the process of his work he? discovered the presence of what appear to resemble a form of computer code, called error correcting codes, embedded within, or resulting from, the equations of supersymmetry that describe fundamental particles. You can read a non-technical description of what Dr. Gates has discovered in this article, which I highly recommend. In the article, Gates asks, ?ow could we discover whether we live inside a Matrix? One answer might be ?ry to detect the presence of codes in the laws that describe physics.? And this is precisely what he has done. Specifically, within the equations of supersymmetry he has found, quite unexpectedly, what are called ?oubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block codes.? That? a long-winded label for codes that are commonly used to remove errors in computer transmissions, for example to correct errors in a sequence of bits representing text that has been sent across a wire. Gates explains, ?his unsuspected connection suggests that these codes may be ubiquitous in nature, and could even be embedded in the essence of reality. If this is the case, we might have something in common with the Matrix science-fiction films, which depict a world where everything human being? experience is the product of a virtual-reality-generating computer network.? Why are these codes hidden in the laws of fundamental particles? ?ould it be that codes, in some deep and fundamental way, control the structure of our reality?,? he asks. It? a good question. If you want to explore further, here is a Youtube video by someone who is interested in popularizing Dr. Gates? work, containing an audio interview that is worth hearing. Here, you can hear Gates describe the potential significance of his discovery in layman? terms. The video then goes on to explain how all of this might be further evidence for Bostrom? Simulation Hypothesis (in which it is suggested that the universe is a computer simulation). (NOTE: The video is a bit annoying ? in particular the melodramatic soundtrack, but it? still worth watching in order to get a quick high level overview of what this is all about, and some of the wild implications). Now why does this discovery matter? Well it is more than strange and intriguing that fundamental physics equations that describe the universe would contain these error correcting codes. Could it mean that the universe itself is built with error correcting codes in it, codes that that are just like those used in computers and computer networks? Did they emerge naturally, or are they artifacts of some kind of intelligent design? Or do they indicate the universe literally IS a computer? For example maybe the universe is a cellular automata machine, or perhaps a loop quantum gravity computer. Digital Physics ? A New Kind of Science The view that the universe is some kind of computer is called digital physics ? it? a relatively new niche field within physics that may be destined for major importance in the future. But these are still early days. I?e been fascinated by the possibility that the universe is a computer since college, when I first found out about the work of Ed Fredkin on his theory that the universe is a cellular automaton ? for, example, like John Conway? Game of Life algorithm (particularly this article, excerpted from the book Three Scientists and their Gods). Following this interest, I ended up interning in a supercomputing lab that was working on testing these possibilites, at MIT, with the authors of this book on ?ellular Automata Machines.? Later I had the opportunity to become friends with Stephen Wolfram, whose magnum opus, ? New Kind of Science? is the ultimate, and also heaviest, book on this topic. I asked Stephen about what he thinks about this idea and he
Re: Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil
Hi Telmo Menezes I suffer from chronic depression, and so have the same problem, in which case I try to act according to principles. My main belief is that whoever comes to me is my neighbor. So I keep a few dollars in my wallet to give to beggars in the street. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 10:13:43 Subject: Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb ? Although a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt a communist and so anti-christian). ?is diatribe against Christianity is a prime example. It's totally misinformed and mistaken. ? Ethics is, at bottom, loving your neighbor as your self. Well that's easy. I don't love or even particularly like myself. ? ? ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 18:21:27 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm.? First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are ultimately personal values.? Second, it implies that as soon as we find a physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a behavior it's not longer evil.? But all behavior has a physical cause.? So I'm ok with just dropping the term 'evil' and just referring to good/bad for individuals and good/bad for society as derivative.? But I think it's a hangover from theodicy to refer to human actions as evil but not natural events - it's part of the idea that humans are apart from nature. Brent Ethics is, at bottom, the art of recommending to others the self-sacrifice necessary to cooperate with ourselves. ??? --- Bertrand Russell -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: a Sheldrake computer:: the universe as a random + mechanism--- habit computer
Hi Roger Clough, Nova Spivack has two linked blogs following the one I copied below in which he argues that since consciousness is not computable, something he takes for granted, then consciousness must be even more fundamental than spacetime. You might find it of interest to read all three linked articles as to me it sounded a bit like what you and even Sheldrake have been saying. In the end Nova recommends mindless meditation to experience pure consciousness. BTW my stichk is that consciousness comes from discrete compactified space that is arithmetic, in both the megaverse and in each universe. Richard On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist My understanding of Sheldrake's results suggests to me that the universe is not like a deterministic great computer, or if it is, the deterministic or mechanical part acts like a filter to incline random motions to more regular ones which Sheldrake calls habits or morphic resonances. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 19:25:06 Subject: Re: Conputer Code In String Theory Supersimetric Equations Here is a lay description: http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/is-the-universe-a-computer-new-evidence-emerges Is the Universe a Computer? New Evidence Emerges. March 22nd, 2012 Share on twitterShare on google_plusoneShare on tumblrShare on emailMore Sharing Services I haven? posted in a while, but this is blog-worthy material. I?e recently become familiar with the thinking of University of Maryland physicist, James Gates Jr. Dr. Gates is working on a branch of physics called supersymmetry. In the process of his work he? discovered the presence of what appear to resemble a form of computer code, called error correcting codes, embedded within, or resulting from, the equations of supersymmetry that describe fundamental particles. You can read a non-technical description of what Dr. Gates has discovered in this article, which I highly recommend. In the article, Gates asks, ?ow could we discover whether we live inside a Matrix? One answer might be ?ry to detect the presence of codes in the laws that describe physics.? And this is precisely what he has done. Specifically, within the equations of supersymmetry he has found, quite unexpectedly, what are called ?oubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block codes.? That? a long-winded label for codes that are commonly used to remove errors in computer transmissions, for example to correct errors in a sequence of bits representing text that has been sent across a wire. Gates explains, ?his unsuspected connection suggests that these codes may be ubiquitous in nature, and could even be embedded in the essence of reality. If this is the case, we might have something in common with the Matrix science-fiction films, which depict a world where everything human being? experience is the product of a virtual-reality-generating computer network.? Why are these codes hidden in the laws of fundamental particles? ?ould it be that codes, in some deep and fundamental way, control the structure of our reality?,? he asks. It? a good question. If you want to explore further, here is a Youtube video by someone who is interested in popularizing Dr. Gates? work, containing an audio interview that is worth hearing. Here, you can hear Gates describe the potential significance of his discovery in layman? terms. The video then goes on to explain how all of this might be further evidence for Bostrom? Simulation Hypothesis (in which it is suggested that the universe is a computer simulation). (NOTE: The video is a bit annoying ? in particular the melodramatic soundtrack, but it? still worth watching in order to get a quick high level overview of what this is all about, and some of the wild implications). Now why does this discovery matter? Well it is more than strange and intriguing that fundamental physics equations that describe the universe would contain these error correcting codes. Could it mean that the universe itself is built with error correcting codes in it, codes that that are just like those used in computers and computer networks? Did they emerge naturally, or are they artifacts of some kind of intelligent design? Or do they indicate the universe literally IS a computer? For example maybe the universe is a cellular automata machine, or perhaps a loop quantum gravity computer. Digital Physics ? A New Kind of Science The view that the universe is some kind of computer is called digital physics ? it? a relatively new niche field within physics that may be destined for major importance in the future. But these are still early days. I?e been fascinated by the possibility that the universe is a computer since
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Roger, How are morphic fields related to monads? Richard On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results (there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things. Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. You might try lookking at his results: Contempt prior to investigation will keep you forever in ignorance. - Herbert Spencer . 1. ** 2. [image: Thumbnail]1:25:27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix2PX7KKSG4 Dr Rupert *Sheldrake* - The Science Delusion (May 2012)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix2PX7KKSG4 by Alan Roberts http://www.youtube.com/user/alangroberts•6 months ago •10,803 views In May of 2012, Dr Alan Roberts, in association with the Wilmslow Guild, located near Manchester, UK, invited Dr *Sheldrake* to *...* 3. [image: Thumbnail]1:20:28 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dm8-OpO9oQ Rupert *Sheldrake* - The Morphogenetic Universehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dm8-OpO9oQ by BroadcastBC http://www.youtube.com/user/BroadcastBC•8 months ago•6,707 views In 1981 Rupert *Sheldrake* outraged the scientific establishment with his hypothesis of morphic resonance. A morphogenetic field *...* 4. [image: Thumbnail]1:37:42 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidencehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY by GoogleTechTalks http://www.youtube.com/user/GoogleTechTalks•4 years ago•250,577 views enabling widespread participation. Speaker: Rupert *Sheldrake* Rupert * Sheldrake*, Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than *...* - CC 5. [image: Thumbnail]1:02:24 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqaATPAnTZQ Rupert *Sheldrake* - The Science Delusion | London Realhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqaATPAnTZQ by LondonRealTV http://www.youtube.com/user/LondonRealTV•1 month ago•10,264 views London Real talks to Biologist Writer Dr. Rupert *Sheldrake* TWEET this video clicktotweet.com VISIT us @ www.LondonReal.tv *...* 6. [image: Thumbnail]9:38 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxskGBDbZh8 Rupert *Sheldrake* 1 - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxskGBDbZh8 by conscioustv http://www.youtube.com/user/conscioustv•3 years ago•10,340 views Rupert *Sheldrake* - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay Rupert *Sheldrake* is a biologist and author of more than *...* 7. [image: Thumbnail]7:10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JydjryhEl5o Rupert *Sheldrake* on Morphic Fields and Systemic Family Constellations http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JydjryhEl5o by Dan Booth Cohen http://www.youtube.com/user/USConstellations•4 months ago•2,601 views Biologist Rupert *Sheldrake* speaks about morphic fields and Systemic Family Constellations. He explains how all social animals *...* 8. [image: Thumbnail]31:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py5YtTSDUSI Rupert *Sheldrake* - Distant Mental Influencehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py5YtTSDUSI by metaRising http://www.youtube.com/user/metaRising•1 year ago•4,889 views Rupert *Sheldrake* is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the *...* 9. [image: Thumbnail]1:14:36 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYOC_IFmWzE Terence McKenna, Rupert *Sheldrake*, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYOC_IFmWzE by loadedshaman http://www.youtube.com/user/loadedshaman•1 year ago•15,768 views Terence McKenna, Rupert *Sheldrake*, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis (1995) 10. [image: Thumbnail]1:05:49 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MOzlSF0a8M Rupert *Sheldrake*: the Evolution of Telepathyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MOzlSF0a8M by Brian Josephson http://www.youtube.com/user/cogito2•1 year ago•10,918 views The Perrott-Warrick Lecture by Dr. Rupert *Sheldrake* (February 9th. 2011), in which were described phenomena indicative of the *...* 11. [image: Thumbnail]4:38 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD2qScZlvYE Science Set Free -- Rupert *Sheldrake*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD2qScZlvYE by Bill Weaver http://www.youtube.com/user/AcrossBordersMedia•4 months ago•11,200 views - HD 12. [image: Thumbnail]5:45 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdOi3s-tBzk Rupert *Sheldrake*: Telephone Telepathyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdOi3s-tBzk by Matthew Clapp http://www.youtube.com/user/nautis•5 years ago•86,152 views The renowned biologist Rupert *Sheldrake* presents his recent findings, powerfully suggesting that part
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Thanks Roger! I'm intrigued and will investigate further when time permits. Another more mundane explanation might be related to the effect of knowing that something is possible. I believe there is some research on this effect. In sports, for example, when someone breaks a psychological barrier (e.g. running a mile under 4 minutes), it's not unusual for other athletes to replicate the record soon enough. But I'm talking out of my ass, as you Americans say. I'll read for myself. I agree with you that too much skepticism can be counterproductive. As Carl Sagan put it, there's an ideal mix of skepticism and wonder. On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results (there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things. Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. You might try lookking at his results: Contempt prior to investigation will keep you forever in ignorance. - Herbert Spencer . 1. ** 2. [image: Thumbnail]1:25:27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix2PX7KKSG4 Dr Rupert *Sheldrake* - The Science Delusion (May 2012)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix2PX7KKSG4 by Alan Roberts http://www.youtube.com/user/alangroberts•6 months ago •10,803 views In May of 2012, Dr Alan Roberts, in association with the Wilmslow Guild, located near Manchester, UK, invited Dr *Sheldrake* to *...* 3. [image: Thumbnail]1:20:28 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dm8-OpO9oQ Rupert *Sheldrake* - The Morphogenetic Universehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dm8-OpO9oQ by BroadcastBC http://www.youtube.com/user/BroadcastBC•8 months ago•6,707 views In 1981 Rupert *Sheldrake* outraged the scientific establishment with his hypothesis of morphic resonance. A morphogenetic field *...* 4. [image: Thumbnail]1:37:42 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidencehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY by GoogleTechTalks http://www.youtube.com/user/GoogleTechTalks•4 years ago•250,577 views enabling widespread participation. Speaker: Rupert *Sheldrake* Rupert * Sheldrake*, Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than *...* - CC 5. [image: Thumbnail]1:02:24 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqaATPAnTZQ Rupert *Sheldrake* - The Science Delusion | London Realhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqaATPAnTZQ by LondonRealTV http://www.youtube.com/user/LondonRealTV•1 month ago•10,264 views London Real talks to Biologist Writer Dr. Rupert *Sheldrake* TWEET this video clicktotweet.com VISIT us @ www.LondonReal.tv *...* 6. [image: Thumbnail]9:38 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxskGBDbZh8 Rupert *Sheldrake* 1 - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxskGBDbZh8 by conscioustv http://www.youtube.com/user/conscioustv•3 years ago•10,340 views Rupert *Sheldrake* - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay Rupert *Sheldrake* is a biologist and author of more than *...* 7. [image: Thumbnail]7:10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JydjryhEl5o Rupert *Sheldrake* on Morphic Fields and Systemic Family Constellations http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JydjryhEl5o by Dan Booth Cohen http://www.youtube.com/user/USConstellations•4 months ago•2,601 views Biologist Rupert *Sheldrake* speaks about morphic fields and Systemic Family Constellations. He explains how all social animals *...* 8. [image: Thumbnail]31:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py5YtTSDUSI Rupert *Sheldrake* - Distant Mental Influencehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py5YtTSDUSI by metaRising http://www.youtube.com/user/metaRising•1 year ago•4,889 views Rupert *Sheldrake* is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the *...* 9. [image: Thumbnail]1:14:36 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYOC_IFmWzE Terence McKenna, Rupert *Sheldrake*, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYOC_IFmWzE by loadedshaman http://www.youtube.com/user/loadedshaman•1 year ago•15,768 views Terence McKenna, Rupert *Sheldrake*, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis (1995) 10. [image: Thumbnail]1:05:49 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MOzlSF0a8M Rupert *Sheldrake*: the Evolution of Telepathyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MOzlSF0a8M by Brian Josephson http://www.youtube.com/user/cogito2•1 year ago•10,918 views The Perrott-Warrick Lecture by Dr. Rupert *Sheldrake* (February 9th. 2011), in which were described phenomena indicative of the *...* 11. [image: Thumbnail]4:38
Monads and Sheldrake
Hi Richard Ruquist Sheldrake says that, if I remember properly, monads are a combination of mind and body, so are mindbrains. The perceptions of these in turn reflect all of the perceptions of all of the other monads in the universe, so the universe is a giant mindbrain. Then there is a universal memory. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 10:47:59 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Roger, How are morphic fields related to monads? Richard On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results (there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things. Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. You might try lookking at his results: Contempt prior to investigation will keep you forever in ignorance. - Herbert Spencer . 1:25:27 Dr Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion (May 2012) by Alan Roberts 6 months ago 10,803 views In May of 2012, Dr Alan Roberts, in association with the Wilmslow Guild, located near Manchester, UK, invited Dr Sheldrake to ... 1:20:28 Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe by BroadcastBC 8 months ago 6,707 views In 1981 Rupert Sheldrake outraged the scientific establishment with his hypothesis of morphic resonance. A morphogenetic field ... 1:37:42 The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence by GoogleTechTalks 4 years ago 250,577 views enabling widespread participation. Speaker: Rupert Sheldrake Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than ... CC 1:02:24 Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion | London Real by LondonRealTV 1 month ago 10,264 views London Real talks to Biologist Writer Dr. Rupert Sheldrake TWEET this video clicktotweet.com VISIT us @ www.LondonReal.tv ... 9:38 Rupert Sheldrake 1 - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay by conscioustv 3 years ago 10,340 views Rupert Sheldrake - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than ... 7:10 Rupert Sheldrake on Morphic Fields and Systemic Family Constellations by Dan Booth Cohen 4 months ago 2,601 views Biologist Rupert Sheldrake speaks about morphic fields and Systemic Family Constellations. He explains how all social animals ... 31:00 Rupert Sheldrake - Distant Mental Influence by metaRising 1 year ago 4,889 views Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the ... 1:14:36 Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis by loadedshaman 1 year ago 15,768 views Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis (1995) 1:05:49 Rupert Sheldrake: the Evolution of Telepathy by Brian Josephson 1 year ago 10,918 views The Perrott-Warrick Lecture by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (February 9th. 2011), in which were described phenomena indicative of the ... 4:38 Science Set Free -- Rupert Sheldrake by Bill Weaver 4 months ago 11,200 views HD 5:45 Rupert Sheldrake: Telephone Telepathy by Matthew Clapp 5 years ago 86,152 views The renowned biologist Rupert Sheldrake presents his recent findings, powerfully suggesting that part of us extends beyond our ... 10:24 Rupert Sheldrake - The Extended Mind - Telepathy. Pt 1/3 by xcite83 3 years ago 89,453 views Rupert Sheldrake is a British former biochemist and plant physiologist who now researches and writes on parapsychology and ... 9:48 Rupert Sheldrake - Genie oder Scharlatan? 1/4 by quantumsciencetv 1 year ago 9,105 views Die ?liche Biologie f?rt in eine Sackgasse. (RS) ?er die Thesen des umstrittenen Wissenschaftlers, den Bezug zur ... 3:24 The Morphogenic Field Part 1 by Dyule 4 years ago 9,922 views Rupert Sheldrake on morphogenic fields. www.sheldrake.org ... dyule ... physical science biology consciousness ... 5:57 Rupert Sheldrake - The Rise of Shamanism by heartofthehealer 3 years ago 25,632 views Rupert Sheldrake, one of the worlds most innovative biologists, is best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic ... 1:37:11 Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton A Quest Beyond the Limits of the Ordinary by bangonitdave 1 year ago 17,053 views 2:47 Interview With Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. by abetterworldtvshow 4 years ago 5,154 views A clip from A Better World, Mitchell J. Rabin interviews Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. For More Information Please Visit Our Website ... 1:51 Rupert Sheldrake Stabbed in Santa Fe by Matthew Clapp 4 years ago 37,782 views An Englishman speaking on thought
Re: Monads and Sheldrake
Roger, But how do morphic fields fit in with this scheme of things? Richard On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Sheldrake says that, if I remember properly, monads are a combination of mind and body, so are mindbrains. The perceptions of these in turn reflect all of the perceptions of all of the other monads in the universe, so the universe is a giant mindbrain. Then there is a universal memory. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 10:47:59 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Roger, How are morphic fields related to monads? Richard On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results (there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things. Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. You might try lookking at his results: Contempt prior to investigation will keep you forever in ignorance. - Herbert Spencer . 1:25:27 Dr Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion (May 2012) by Alan Roberts 6 months ago 10,803 views In May of 2012, Dr Alan Roberts, in association with the Wilmslow Guild, located near Manchester, UK, invited Dr Sheldrake to ... 1:20:28 Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe by BroadcastBC 8 months ago 6,707 views In 1981 Rupert Sheldrake outraged the scientific establishment with his hypothesis of morphic resonance. A morphogenetic field ... 1:37:42 The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence by GoogleTechTalks 4 years ago 250,577 views enabling widespread participation. Speaker: Rupert Sheldrake Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than ... CC 1:02:24 Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion | London Real by LondonRealTV 1 month ago 10,264 views London Real talks to Biologist Writer Dr. Rupert Sheldrake TWEET this video clicktotweet.com VISIT us @ www.LondonReal.tv ... 9:38 Rupert Sheldrake 1 - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay by conscioustv 3 years ago 10,340 views Rupert Sheldrake - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than ... 7:10 Rupert Sheldrake on Morphic Fields and Systemic Family Constellations by Dan Booth Cohen 4 months ago 2,601 views Biologist Rupert Sheldrake speaks about morphic fields and Systemic Family Constellations. He explains how all social animals ... 31:00 Rupert Sheldrake - Distant Mental Influence by metaRising 1 year ago 4,889 views Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the ... 1:14:36 Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis by loadedshaman 1 year ago 15,768 views Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis (1995) 1:05:49 Rupert Sheldrake: the Evolution of Telepathy by Brian Josephson 1 year ago 10,918 views The Perrott-Warrick Lecture by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (February 9th. 2011), in which were described phenomena indicative of the ... 4:38 Science Set Free -- Rupert Sheldrake by Bill Weaver 4 months ago 11,200 views HD 5:45 Rupert Sheldrake: Telephone Telepathy by Matthew Clapp 5 years ago 86,152 views The renowned biologist Rupert Sheldrake presents his recent findings, powerfully suggesting that part of us extends beyond our ... 10:24 Rupert Sheldrake - The Extended Mind - Telepathy. Pt 1/3 by xcite83 3 years ago 89,453 views Rupert Sheldrake is a British former biochemist and plant physiologist who now researches and writes on parapsychology and ... 9:48 Rupert Sheldrake - Genie oder Scharlatan? 1/4 by quantumsciencetv 1 year ago 9,105 views Die ?liche Biologie f?rt in eine Sackgasse. (RS) ?er die Thesen des umstrittenen Wissenschaftlers, den Bezug zur ... 3:24 The Morphogenic Field Part 1 by Dyule 4 years ago 9,922 views Rupert Sheldrake on morphogenic fields. www.sheldrake.org ... dyule ... physical science biology consciousness ... 5:57 Rupert Sheldrake - The Rise of Shamanism by heartofthehealer 3 years ago 25,632 views Rupert Sheldrake, one of the worlds most innovative biologists, is best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic ... 1:37:11 Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton A Quest Beyond the Limits of the Ordinary by bangonitdave 1 year ago 17,053 views 2:47 Interview With Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. by abetterworldtvshow 4 years ago 5,154 views A clip from A Better World, Mitchell J. Rabin interviews Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. For More Information Please Visit Our Website ... 1:51
Re: Re: a Sheldrake computer:: the universe as a random + mechanism---habit computer
Hi Richard Ruquist Sheldrake and leibniz would offer a more shocking picture, namely that strings, like all matter, are alive. But Gates is to be congratulated for excaping from the cult of materialism. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 10:45:01 Subject: Re: a Sheldrake computer:: the universe as a random + mechanism---habit computer Hi Roger Clough, Nova Spivack has two linked blogs following the one I copied below in which he argues that since consciousness is not computable, something he takes for granted, then consciousness must be even more fundamental than spacetime. You might find it of interest to read all three linked articles as to me it sounded a bit like what you and even Sheldrake have been saying. In the end Nova recommends mindless meditation to experience pure consciousness. BTW my stichk is that consciousness comes from discrete compactified space that is arithmetic, in both the megaverse and in each universe. Richard On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist My understanding of Sheldrake's results suggests to me that the universe is not like a deterministic great computer, or if it is, the deterministic or mechanical part acts like a filter to incline random motions to more regular ones which Sheldrake calls habits or morphic resonances. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 19:25:06 Subject: Re: Conputer Code In String Theory Supersimetric Equations Here is a lay description: http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/is-the-universe-a-computer-new-evidence-emerges Is the Universe a Computer? New Evidence Emerges. March 22nd, 2012 Share on twitterShare on google_plusoneShare on tumblrShare on emailMore Sharing Services I haven? posted in a while, but this is blog-worthy material. I?e recently become familiar with the thinking of University of Maryland physicist, James Gates Jr. Dr. Gates is working on a branch of physics called supersymmetry. In the process of his work he? discovered the presence of what appear to resemble a form of computer code, called error correcting codes, embedded within, or resulting from, the equations of supersymmetry that describe fundamental particles. You can read a non-technical description of what Dr. Gates has discovered in this article, which I highly recommend. In the article, Gates asks, ?ow could we discover whether we live inside a Matrix? One answer might be ?ry to detect the presence of codes in the laws that describe physics.? And this is precisely what he has done. Specifically, within the equations of supersymmetry he has found, quite unexpectedly, what are called ?oubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block codes.? That? a long-winded label for codes that are commonly used to remove errors in computer transmissions, for example to correct errors in a sequence of bits representing text that has been sent across a wire. Gates explains, ?his unsuspected connection suggests that these codes may be ubiquitous in nature, and could even be embedded in the essence of reality. If this is the case, we might have something in common with the Matrix science-fiction films, which depict a world where everything human being? experience is the product of a virtual-reality-generating computer network.? Why are these codes hidden in the laws of fundamental particles? ?ould it be that codes, in some deep and fundamental way, control the structure of our reality?,? he asks. It? a good question. If you want to explore further, here is a Youtube video by someone who is interested in popularizing Dr. Gates? work, containing an audio interview that is worth hearing. Here, you can hear Gates describe the potential significance of his discovery in layman? terms. The video then goes on to explain how all of this might be further evidence for Bostrom? Simulation Hypothesis (in which it is suggested that the universe is a computer simulation). (NOTE: The video is a bit annoying ? in particular the melodramatic soundtrack, but it? still worth watching in order to get a quick high level overview of what this is all about, and some of the wild implications). Now why does this discovery matter? Well it is more than strange and intriguing that fundamental physics equations that describe the universe would contain these error correcting codes. Could it mean that the universe itself is built with error correcting codes in it, codes that that are just like those used in computers and computer networks? Did they emerge naturally, or are they artifacts of some kind of
Re: Re: Monads and Sheldrake
Hi Richard Ruquist They rule everything. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 11:48:05 Subject: Re: Monads and Sheldrake Roger, But how do morphic fields fit in with this scheme of things? Richard On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Sheldrake says that, if I remember properly, monads are a combination of mind and body, so are mindbrains. The perceptions of these in turn reflect all of the perceptions of all of the other monads in the universe, so the universe is a giant mindbrain. Then there is a universal memory. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 10:47:59 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Roger, How are morphic fields related to monads? Richard On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results (there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things. Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. You might try lookking at his results: Contempt prior to investigation will keep you forever in ignorance. - Herbert Spencer . 1:25:27 Dr Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion (May 2012) by Alan Roberts 6 months ago 10,803 views In May of 2012, Dr Alan Roberts, in association with the Wilmslow Guild, located near Manchester, UK, invited Dr Sheldrake to ... 1:20:28 Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe by BroadcastBC 8 months ago 6,707 views In 1981 Rupert Sheldrake outraged the scientific establishment with his hypothesis of morphic resonance. A morphogenetic field ... 1:37:42 The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence by GoogleTechTalks 4 years ago 250,577 views enabling widespread participation. Speaker: Rupert Sheldrake Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than ... CC 1:02:24 Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion | London Real by LondonRealTV 1 month ago 10,264 views London Real talks to Biologist Writer Dr. Rupert Sheldrake TWEET this video clicktotweet.com VISIT us @ www.LondonReal.tv ... 9:38 Rupert Sheldrake 1 - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay by conscioustv 3 years ago 10,340 views Rupert Sheldrake - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than ... 7:10 Rupert Sheldrake on Morphic Fields and Systemic Family Constellations by Dan Booth Cohen 4 months ago 2,601 views Biologist Rupert Sheldrake speaks about morphic fields and Systemic Family Constellations. He explains how all social animals ... 31:00 Rupert Sheldrake - Distant Mental Influence by metaRising 1 year ago 4,889 views Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the ... 1:14:36 Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis by loadedshaman 1 year ago 15,768 views Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis (1995) 1:05:49 Rupert Sheldrake: the Evolution of Telepathy by Brian Josephson 1 year ago 10,918 views The Perrott-Warrick Lecture by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (February 9th. 2011), in which were described phenomena indicative of the ... 4:38 Science Set Free -- Rupert Sheldrake by Bill Weaver 4 months ago 11,200 views HD 5:45 Rupert Sheldrake: Telephone Telepathy by Matthew Clapp 5 years ago 86,152 views The renowned biologist Rupert Sheldrake presents his recent findings, powerfully suggesting that part of us extends beyond our ... 10:24 Rupert Sheldrake - The Extended Mind - Telepathy. Pt 1/3 by xcite83 3 years ago 89,453 views Rupert Sheldrake is a British former biochemist and plant physiologist who now researches and writes on parapsychology and ... 9:48 Rupert Sheldrake - Genie oder Scharlatan? 1/4 by quantumsciencetv 1 year ago 9,105 views Die ?liche Biologie f?rt in eine Sackgasse. (RS) ?er die Thesen des umstrittenen Wissenschaftlers, den Bezug zur ... 3:24 The Morphogenic Field Part 1 by Dyule 4 years ago 9,922 views Rupert Sheldrake on morphogenic fields. www.sheldrake.org ... dyule ... physical science biology consciousness ... 5:57 Rupert Sheldrake - The Rise of Shamanism by heartofthehealer 3 years ago 25,632 views Rupert Sheldrake, one of the worlds most innovative biologists, is best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic ... 1:37:11 Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton A Quest
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:44:17 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results (there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things. Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. I agree, I think that Sheldrake is obviously sincere and while his efforts may fall short of the expectations of some as far as scientific rigor goes, it is clear to me that the general topic of his research is valid. There does seem to be much more to the content of experience and the sharing of awareness than our current science has accounted for. The fact that this is such a polarizing subject, turning those who claim to be scientifically minded into witch-hunting bigots makes me suspect that this is indeed an important direction for science to investigate fully. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ZD0DoE04VB0J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 9:04:39 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Evil is not defined by law, but crime is. I ask again, Did I contradict that somewhere? [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-03, 08:12:58 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil On Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:35:00 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Do you know anything about jurisprudence ? Only as much as you do. It doesn't care if your motivations were good or evil, it only cares if you broke the law or not. Did I contradict that somewhere? Serial killers are generally thought to be sociopaths, but they don't usually have much success cooking up an insanity defense. That's why I said There may be people who are born sociopaths. They are the mindless, heartless purveyors of cruelty and evil, evil as defined by laws. Is evil defined by law? First you say that jurisprudence is all about establishing whether you broke the law, and not whether someone has evil motives, but now you are saying that evil is defined by laws. Jurors and judges under the legal system determine if you break laws or not, not whether your motivation was good or evil, although that could have some influence on the type of punishment. Yes, so? [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-02, 12:13:04 *Subject:* Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:39:17 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: ROGER: There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call Evil. CRAIG: I can't relate to cut and dried ideas of Good and Evil or enhancing or diminishing of life. It seems completely disconnected from reality to me. If it was that obvious, why wouldn't everyone just do the Good things and avoid Evil things? Obviously our experiences have many layers and qualities which change dynamically. Anything can be interpreted as enhancing or diminishing life. Chemotherapy Good or Evil? ROGER: Good people tend to do good things, evil people to do evil things. The Stanford Prison Experiment proves that this is not true. There may be people who are born sociopaths and born humanitarians but overwhelmingly people's actions are reactions to their circumstances. Chemotherapy is thought to do more good than evil. By doctors trying to cure patients of cancer, not by the cells of the body being poisoned. It sounds like when you say that good enhances life, you are talking about the lives of human beings and not any other species. If pressed, I suspect that good is further defined as that which enhances the lives of human beings which you consider to be good, which will, I suspect, turn out to be those people with whom you personally relate or admire. SNIP [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/1/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ePt2Uf7MeNsJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+ unsub...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/eo-BouQWicEJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/1goybItgwaEJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To
Re: Re: What Hell is like
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 9:11:29 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg All of your quotes are very good advice. What's your point ? My point is that any worthwhile religion is very much concerned with intentions and the content of your 'heart', at least as much as whether you violate the letter of any particular religious law. You were saying that all that matters is whether you sinned or not, whether you break the law or not, and that your good or evil intentions don't matter. I am saying that intention is a defining aspect of any honest conception of good and evil. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-03, 08:47:13 *Subject:* Re: What Hell is like On Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:06:42 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg It doesn't matter whether you have good or bad intentions. The law and God judge us by what we do. You do the crime, you do the time. I'll let the Bible speak for itself, if that is the God you are talking about: Timothy 1:5http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+1%3A5version=ESV The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Timothy 6:10http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+6%3A10version=ESV For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. Hebrews 12:14http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+12%3A14version=ESV Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Timothy 3:13http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A13version=ESV While evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. Philippians 4:8http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+4%3A8version=ESV Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Philippians 1:15-18http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+1%3A15-18version=ESV Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, Ephesians 2:8-9http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A8-9version=ESV For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Romans 2:5http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2%3A5version=ESV But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. You sin, you go to Hell. If you repent, you go to Heaven. Personally, I believe that the eternal torture of Hell is not to be able to feel God's love and forgiveness. That would be Hell to a Jesus. He refers to being tossed out and undergoing a weeping and gnashing of teeth. Hindus and Buddhists believe in reincarnation, which from what we observe, is not always a pleasant life. Personally I believe that Hell and Heaven are metaphors which extrapolate the ordinary high and low moods of human consciousness to a super-significance. God is a metaphor in the exact same way - an algebraic concept of X = Infinite proprietary superlatives. If you are in a world of competing polytheistic deities, each the representation of a personal superlative or sphere of influence (God of war, Goddess of beauty, etc), then the invention of a supreme ultimate deity who trumps all others in all categories is an excellent political strategy. It's a convenient way to consolidate allegiance and direct everyone's personal insecurities to a mass psychology solution. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 20:24:14 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:21:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: That really has nothing to do with
Re: Re: Why bad things happen to good people--Leibniz's Theodicy
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:14:41 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg If you jump off of a building, gravity will kill you. Is that God's fault ? IMHO since God created nature, he also created the natural forces, which cause tsunamis. God is lawful, so He follows his own natural laws. Crap happens down here. We aren't yet in Heaven. Maybe it makes more sense to wait until (just before) we get to Heaven to start believing in God...since he is of no help to us down here in the crap...(his crap?) [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-02, 17:31:16 *Subject:* Re: Why bad things happen to good people--Leibniz's Theodicy On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 8:13:20 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Why bad things happen to good people--Leibniz's Theodicy This is because things can't be good everywhere at the same time. Thus evil and catastrophes are probabilistic. Why not? If evil and catastrophes are probabilistic, what it the point of God? I thought your view was that this probabilistic indifference of nature was countered by the presence of a divine referee? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/0D4yauElsE0J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/k6Ym00qKQoIJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: a Sheldrake computer:: the universe as a random + mechanism--- habit computer
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:45:01 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: BTW my stichk is that consciousness comes from discrete compactified space that is arithmetic, in both the megaverse and in each universe. Richard Why would consciousness come from discrete compactified space? To me, all that this kind of explanation does is shift the mystery of consciousness from a person to a space. It ascribes the power of feeling and thinking to an arithmetic idea rather than a person, leaving us right back where we started - asking why does an arithmetic idea have thoughts and feelings. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Eq5Ru03zbcEJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 02 Jan 2013, at 20:13, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:57:34 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jan 2013, at 02:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: Chemotherapy Good or Evil? Better than nothing for most people having some disease. Worst than THC injection, plausibly for the same group of people. Here the Evil is only in the fact that minorities hides information from the majority, and this for the minority's interests. This leads to harmful consequences for the majority. Bruno I was thinking more of how chemotherapy is ambiguous as far as it being something which can enhance life by inevitably diminishing it, but sure, the politics of it is an issue also. If I had to get into a definition of good and evil I would go more toward a political direction - senseless inequality of power tends to lead to corruption and crime. I think it is in the other way. Corruption and crimes, above some threshold of tolerance, leads to senseless inequality of power. Crime and corruption tends to lead to scapegoating or a misuse of sense. OK. The combination of corrupt actions and distortion of truth to cover them up is probably as close to evil as I can think of. Evil = Abusive social contact. Evil is Bf. The communication of the false. When used without moderation. It is not a human invention. Nature does it all the time, I think, sometimes. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 02 Jan 2013, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote: On 1/2/2013 4:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes we all have in common. These brain processes make us pursue the best interest of society instead of our own self- interest. I believe they have two main sources: 1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin- selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or group- selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling evidence to support this theory. Social insects are extremely altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with goodness and different races with evil. 2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the prisoner's dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse. All attempts to define good and evil as a fundamental property of the universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: good is what good people do, good people are the ones who do good things. Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings that is not supported by evidence. Isn't it supported by, In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. I think it's useful to distinguish good for society or ethics from what individuals take to be good. Altruism is good for society but for individuals it's only good relative to those near and dear to them. The great problem of cultures is to resolve tensions between what individuals intuitively take to be good and what works well for nation states orders of magnitude larger than the tribal societies in which evolution developed our intuitions. It is not so much different for different individuals and the same individual at different time in his/her life. Like with smoking tobacco, which is good in the short time, but (statistically) bad in the long run. The problem is that the good can lead to the bad, and vice-versa, so nothing is really simple, especially at the theoretical level. In the short run we have to trust our own nature or bigger. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The two basic theologies
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:22:24 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Enhancing Life is not a very arbitrary value,
I don't know about arbitrary, but it is a very nebulous value. What does
the enhancement of life consist of? The growth of bacteria? The improvement
of the standard of living of one species or group over another? Population
growth or maximization of ecological niche coverage on Earth? Anything can
be seen as enhancing life. We stockpile nerve gas and nuclear weapons
because we feel that it enhances our lives. People keep loaded guns under
their pillow because it enhances their lives.
It is apparent that people have very different ideas of what enhances life
- in many cases opposite ideas. To me, linking good and evil to such a
subjective definition is asking for trouble. Equating good with socially
benevolent qualities seems more accurate and useful.
Craig
but of course interpreting what that means
can differ from person to person. That's why we have
laws, either religious or legal ones.
[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript:
1/3/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Craig Weinberg javascript:
*Receiver:* everything-list javascript:
*Time:* 2013-01-02, 12:07:03
*Subject:* Re: Re: Re: The two basic theologies
On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:29:55 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
So what's good for one may be evil for another.
No surprise there. That's why an overriding
referee or judge (God) is necessary.
Why would the relativity of value necessitate some kind of referee? Any
physical change robs one system of energy by increasing the energy of
another. Why should there be an independent judge watching over these
transactions? With sense instead of God, the weight of consequence is
within the experience itself, subjectively implicit rather than an
objectively explicit independent entity.
[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/2/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-01, 17:42:20
Subject: Re: Re: The two basic theologies
On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 4:14:18 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
CRAIG: Enhance whose life though?
ROGER: Anybody's life.
Disinfectants destroy microbiotic life.
CRAIG: Would slavery Good or Evil?
ROGER: The masters diminish the life of the slaves.
The slaves have their lives diminished. So there's
no good in it at all.
The slaves enhance the lives of their masters. Their masters have their
lives enhanced. So there's as much good in it as not.
CRAIG: What about promiscuity or dessert or yeast?
ROGER: Promiscuity diminishes the value of love and commitment,
hence of life. I have no opinions on dessert or yeast.
Promiscuity without contraception enhances the number of pregnancies. If
you have no opinion on the others, does that mean that they don't fit into
the good/evil dichotomy?
CRAIG: Is cell division good or evil?
I would say that growth of healthy cells is goog because they enhance
life.
And growth of cancer cells is evil or bad because they can cause death.
Cancer cells enhance their own life.
[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/1/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-01, 15:03:10
Subject: Re: The two basic theologies
On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:08:36 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
A Theology for Atheists
There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance
life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call
Evil.
Enhance whose life though? Would slavery Good or Evil? What about
promiscuity or dessert or yeast? Is cell division good or evil?
Who determines what 'enhanced' or 'diminished' means?
As evidenced, these can be present in both happenings and in people.
We have the freedom to support either cause or not support one.
Don't we support both at all times, just by being alive?
--
A Theology for Theists
The same holds as above, with the addition that there is some
overriding intelligence which causes the happenings, good or
evil, either preferably or acceptably. It can also read and/or inform
our hearts.
--
[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/1/2013
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything
Re: The best of all possible Worlds.
On 02 Jan 2013, at 20:31, meekerdb wrote: On 1/2/2013 5:21 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Leibniz's view, in his theodicy , which I hold to also, is that the world down here, that God created, is necessarily imperfect, so, as they say crap happens. This is because things can't be good everywhere at the same time. So there is no heaven. There might be a heaven, but the price is that there might be a hell too, and a complex Mandelbrot like boundary between. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 12:16:36 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jan 2013, at 20:13, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:57:34 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jan 2013, at 02:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: Chemotherapy Good or Evil? Better than nothing for most people having some disease. Worst than THC injection, plausibly for the same group of people. Here the Evil is only in the fact that minorities hides information from the majority, and this for the minority's interests. This leads to harmful consequences for the majority. Bruno I was thinking more of how chemotherapy is ambiguous as far as it being something which can enhance life by inevitably diminishing it, but sure, the politics of it is an issue also. If I had to get into a definition of good and evil I would go more toward a political direction - senseless inequality of power tends to lead to corruption and crime. I think it is in the other way. Corruption and crimes, above some threshold of tolerance, leads to senseless inequality of power. That's true too. Maybe it's more of a vicious circle. Generally for crimes to be tolerated implies that there already is an inequality of power. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/xhYMxitgmIEJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Galileo, Inchofer, and Popper
On 02 Jan 2013, at 21:01, meekerdb wrote: On 1/2/2013 10:34 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: A nice quote from Galileo by John L. Heilbron that shows: 1) One could trace the falsifiability to Jesuits of Galileo's time. 2) It could be a link between falsifiability and theology. p. 318 ‘However, false is not useless. The motion supposed by Copernicus can be employed in calculations, The Copernican model was less accurate than the Ptolemaic one. It wasn't until Kepler and elliptical orbits that the heliocentric model became superior for celestial predictions. Interesting. and might even be useful to the faith if mathematicians emphasized their falsity along with their utility. Here Inchofer had in mind the minor truth later rediscovered by Karl Popper: “mathematicians [should] … work more and more toward trying to falsify theories rather than to defend them“. This seems confused. Mathematicians prove theorems from axioms - they don't have theories that can be falsified. That's not true. Most first theories of set, lambda term, combinator have been falsified. It took time for some. The NF theory of set might still be. The falsification is a proof of a contradiction in the theory. A different example are the fertile conjecture. many results in number theory are proved from assuming the Riemann hypothesis, which might be falsified, even empirically (by finding a zero of the zeta function out of the critical line). Likewise, many result in theoretical computer science remains on the assumption P = NP, and might be all falsified in the case someone prove P = NP. Etc. Bruno At worst they may think a proof is valid when it's not. He must have been using mathematician carelessly to mean scientist. Brent I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He did not. --- Jules Renard To this anticipation of modern epistemology Inchofer added a pinch of ancient wisdom, Urban’s Simple in the words of the Preacher: “no man can find out the work that God maketh from beginning to end.”‘ Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 1/3/2013 12:57 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Isn't it supported by, In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. Maybe, if you're willing to wait a couple million years for biological evolution to catch up with modern society. But some degree of altruism was useful from the beginning, even before the beginning as in pre-human social hominids. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 1/3/2013 2:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote: While chemotherapy works against the cancer, on the other hand, Christian believers such as me believe that the holy spirit, if so requested, can fill you with life and so defeat a cancer by that means. Hmmm. I guess my friend Dan, who is a devout Catholic, just didn't get the right words into the thousand or so prayers in which he asked that his young daughter be cured of the leukemia that caused her to die in agony at age 11. Brent For moral reasons I am an atheist - for moral reasons. I am of the opinion that you would recognize a creator by his creation, and the world appears to me to be put together in such a painful way that I prefer to believe that it was not created by anyone than to think that somebody created this intentionally. --- Stanislaw Lem -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:44:32 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Chemotherapy is generally thought to be evil to the cancer (it tries to kill it) and good to the patient (it tries ultimately to cure him through killing the cancer). While chemotherapy works against the cancer, on the other hand, Christian believers such as me believe that the holy spirit, if so requested, can fill you with life and so defeat a cancer by that means. Yet being filled with the holy spirit cannot reverse an amputated limb, or protect against a tsunami? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/FcCI3rAYC1kJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 02 Jan 2013, at 21:46, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 3:05:10 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/2/2013 11:13 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:57:34 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jan 2013, at 02:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: Chemotherapy Good or Evil? Better than nothing for most people having some disease. Worst than THC injection, plausibly for the same group of people. Here the Evil is only in the fact that minorities hides information from the majority, and this for the minority's interests. This leads to harmful consequences for the majority. Bruno I was thinking more of how chemotherapy is ambiguous as far as it being something which can enhance life by inevitably diminishing it, but sure, the politics of it is an issue also. If I had to get into a definition of good and evil I would go more toward a political direction - senseless inequality of power tends to lead to corruption and crime. Crime and corruption tends to lead to scapegoating or a misuse of sense. The combination of corrupt actions and distortion of truth to cover them up is probably as close to evil as I can think of. Anything that causes great net suffering of people can be considered evil: cancer, small pox, AIDS, tsunamis,... I see no reason to limit it to social/political causes. Do you think that viruses and tsunamis are well served by the label 'Evil'? I agree. tsunamis, cancer, aids are not evil. It becomes evil when you have cancer and don't get the right medication because some people lie, or when there is a tsunami and you get no help because some people lie. Evil is not the bad per se, but an augmentation of harm (inverse harm reduction) due to other dishonest strategy to improve their wealth. Evil is moral bad. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/LCCxe6VeaN8J . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: What Hell is like
On 1/3/2013 5:47 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Personally, I believe that the eternal torture of Hell is not to be able to feel God's love and forgiveness. That would be Hell to a Jesus. He refers to being tossed out and undergoing a weeping and gnashing of teeth. Heaven and Hell were invented so that injustice, so obviously missing on Earth, could be redressed in an afterlife. I think it has a lake of fire because people didn't think 'not feeling God's love' was enough punishment for say Hitler. Of course then they got carried away by superlatives, Believe in my god or he'll punish you worse than your god. Hindus and Buddhists believe in reincarnation, which from what we observe, is not always a pleasant life. Personally I believe that Hell and Heaven are metaphors which extrapolate the ordinary high and low moods of human consciousness to a super-significance. God is a metaphor in the exact same way - an algebraic concept of X = Infinite proprietary superlatives. If you are in a world of competing polytheistic deities, each the representation of a personal superlative or sphere of influence (God of war, Goddess of beauty, etc), then the invention of a supreme ultimate deity who trumps all others in all categories is an excellent political strategy. It's a convenient way to consolidate allegiance and direct everyone's personal insecurities to a mass psychology solution. Right. See Craig A. James book, The Religion Virus for a nice explication of this. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: What Hell is like
Or But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. --- Jesus, Luke 19:27 On 1/3/2013 6:11 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg All of your quotes are very good advice. What's your point ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] mailto:rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-03, 08:47:13 *Subject:* Re: What Hell is like On Thursday, January 3, 2013 6:06:42 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg It doesn't matter whether you have good or bad intentions. The law and God judge us by what we do. You do the crime, you do the time. I'll let the Bible speak for itself, if that is the God you are talking about: Timothy 1:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+1%3A5version=ESV The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Timothy 6:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+6%3A10version=ESV For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. Hebrews 12:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+12%3A14version=ESV Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Timothy 3:13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A13version=ESV While evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. Philippians 4:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+4%3A8version=ESV Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Philippians 1:15-18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+1%3A15-18version=ESV Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, Ephesians 2:8-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A8-9version=ESV For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Romans 2:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2%3A5version=ESV But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. You sin, you go to Hell. If you repent, you go to Heaven. Personally, I believe that the eternal torture of Hell is not to be able to feel God's love and forgiveness. That would be Hell to a Jesus. He refers to being tossed out and undergoing a weeping and gnashing of teeth. Hindus and Buddhists believe in reincarnation, which from what we observe, is not always a pleasant life. Personally I believe that Hell and Heaven are metaphors which extrapolate the ordinary high and low moods of human consciousness to a super-significance. God is a metaphor in the exact same way - an algebraic concept of X = Infinite proprietary superlatives. If you are in a world of competing polytheistic deities, each the representation of a personal superlative or sphere of influence (God of war, Goddess of beauty, etc), then the invention of a supreme ultimate deity who trumps all others in all categories is an excellent political strategy. It's a convenient way to consolidate allegiance and direct everyone's personal insecurities to a mass psychology solution. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 20:24:14 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:21:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 1/3/2013 7:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Although a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt a communist and so anti-christian). He was anti-communist too. His diatribe against Christianity is a prime example. It's certainly a prime example of his brilliance and logic. It's totally misinformed and mistaken. Ethics is, at bottom, loving your neighbor as your self. And your evidence for this is...? Brent Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. --- Mark Twain [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] mailto:rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-02, 18:21:27 *Subject:* Re: The evolution of good and evil On 1/2/2013 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: That really has nothing to do with Evil though, except in sloppy reasoning. True Evil is about intentionally initiating social harm. Getting smallpox is not evil, it is just unfortunate. Giving someone blankets known to be infected with smallp On the contrary it is sloppy ethics to confine 'evil' to intentional social harm. First, it implies that socially bad is bad simpliciter, but values are ultimately personal values. Second, it implies that as soon as we find a physical cause (he was drunk, he had YY chromosmes, his father beat him) for a behavior it's not longer evil. But all behavior has a physical cause. So I'm ok with just dropping the term 'evil' and just referring to good/bad for individuals and good/bad for society as derivative. But I think it's a hangover from theodicy to refer to human actions as evil but not natural events - it's part of the idea that humans are apart from nature. Brent Ethics is, at bottom, the art of recommending to others the self-sacrifice necessary to cooperate with ourselves. --- Bertrand Russell No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6005 - Release Date: 01/02/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe
Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe What is space ? There is no such thing as space, there are only fields, which are mathematical structures. What is matter ? There is no such thing as matter, because it is only a field. There is no such thing as mass, which is why there is no such thing needed as a Higgs field to form what we call mass. Hence we haven't found a Higgs or field. What causes a foetus to grow into a baby ? Is it DNA ? Biologists agree DNA does not do that. If these questions puzzle or intrigue you, you might want to watch Rupert Sheldrake's The Morphogenetic Universe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dm8-OpO9oQ [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: What Hell is like
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg All of your quotes are very good advice. Do you also think that God gave good advice 1 Samuel 15:2-3? Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. How about Numbers 25:4? Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the Lord against the sun. Or Isaiah 14:21? Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers. Or 1 Samuel 15:2-3 Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. Or Leviticus 26:22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children. Or Jeremiah 19:9? And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend. Or Exodus 13:15 The LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast. You sin, you go to Hell. Personally, I believe that the eternal torture of Hell is not to be able to feel God's love and forgiveness. Hmm, that doesn't sound bad at all! The last thing in the world I'd want is love and forgiveness from a moral monster like Jehovah. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The best of all possible Worlds.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Jan 2013, at 20:31, meekerdb wrote: On 1/2/2013 5:21 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Leibniz's view, in his theodicy , which I hold to also, is that the world down here, that God created, is necessarily imperfect, so, as they say crap happens. This is because things can't be good everywhere at the same time. So there is no heaven. There might be a heaven, but the price is that there might be a hell too, and a complex Mandelbrot like boundary between. Bruno Looking at the plight of the average person on earth, I conclude that hell is on earth. Therefore by your thinking there might just be a heaven. Richard Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Monads and Sheldrake
Morphic fields are your god??? On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist They rule everything. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 11:48:05 Subject: Re: Monads and Sheldrake Roger, But how do morphic fields fit in with this scheme of things? Richard On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Sheldrake says that, if I remember properly, monads are a combination of mind and body, so are mindbrains. The perceptions of these in turn reflect all of the perceptions of all of the other monads in the universe, so the universe is a giant mindbrain. Then there is a universal memory. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 10:47:59 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Roger, How are morphic fields related to monads? Richard On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results (there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things. Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. You might try lookking at his results: Contempt prior to investigation will keep you forever in ignorance. - Herbert Spencer . 1:25:27 Dr Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion (May 2012) by Alan Roberts 6 months ago 10,803 views In May of 2012, Dr Alan Roberts, in association with the Wilmslow Guild, located near Manchester, UK, invited Dr Sheldrake to ... 1:20:28 Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe by BroadcastBC 8 months ago 6,707 views In 1981 Rupert Sheldrake outraged the scientific establishment with his hypothesis of morphic resonance. A morphogenetic field ... 1:37:42 The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence by GoogleTechTalks 4 years ago 250,577 views enabling widespread participation. Speaker: Rupert Sheldrake Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than ... CC 1:02:24 Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion | London Real by LondonRealTV 1 month ago 10,264 views London Real talks to Biologist Writer Dr. Rupert Sheldrake TWEET this video clicktotweet.com VISIT us @ www.LondonReal.tv ... 9:38 Rupert Sheldrake 1 - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay by conscioustv 3 years ago 10,340 views Rupert Sheldrake - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than ... 7:10 Rupert Sheldrake on Morphic Fields and Systemic Family Constellations by Dan Booth Cohen 4 months ago 2,601 views Biologist Rupert Sheldrake speaks about morphic fields and Systemic Family Constellations. He explains how all social animals ... 31:00 Rupert Sheldrake - Distant Mental Influence by metaRising 1 year ago 4,889 views Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the ... 1:14:36 Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis by loadedshaman 1 year ago 15,768 views Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis (1995) 1:05:49 Rupert Sheldrake: the Evolution of Telepathy by Brian Josephson 1 year ago 10,918 views The Perrott-Warrick Lecture by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (February 9th. 2011), in which were described phenomena indicative of the ... 4:38 Science Set Free -- Rupert Sheldrake by Bill Weaver 4 months ago 11,200 views HD 5:45 Rupert Sheldrake: Telephone Telepathy by Matthew Clapp 5 years ago 86,152 views The renowned biologist Rupert Sheldrake presents his recent findings, powerfully suggesting that part of us extends beyond our ... 10:24 Rupert Sheldrake - The Extended Mind - Telepathy. Pt 1/3 by xcite83 3 years ago 89,453 views Rupert Sheldrake is a British former biochemist and plant physiologist who now researches and writes on parapsychology and ... 9:48 Rupert Sheldrake - Genie oder Scharlatan? 1/4 by quantumsciencetv 1 year ago 9,105 views Die ?liche Biologie f?rt in eine Sackgasse. (RS) ?er die Thesen des umstrittenen Wissenschaftlers, den Bezug zur ... 3:24 The Morphogenic Field Part 1 by Dyule 4 years ago 9,922 views Rupert Sheldrake on morphogenic fields. www.sheldrake.org ... dyule ... physical science biology consciousness ... 5:57 Rupert Sheldrake - The Rise of Shamanism by heartofthehealer 3 years ago 25,632 views Rupert Sheldrake, one of the worlds most innovative biologists, is best known
Re: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe
On Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:14:15 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe What is space ? Space is the experience of gaps between public presences, or alternatively the distance which can be measured of one object against another. There is no such thing as space, there are only fields, which are mathematical structures. What's a mathematical structure? What is it made of? Fields too... aren't they really complete abstractions? What is matter ? Matter is the direct experience or indirect inference of public presences. It could be described also as an experience of an obstacle or obstructive invariance within a given range of sensory detection. There is no such thing as matter, because it is only a field. There is no such thing as mass, which is why there is no such thing needed as a Higgs field to form what we call mass. Hence we haven't found a Higgs or field. What causes a foetus to grow into a baby ? Is it DNA ? Biologists agree DNA does not do that. Yes, this is the important question. A foetus, baby, and adult can be thought of as one continuous presence with different qualities.There are thousands of causes; physical, biological, zoological, anthropological... If these questions puzzle or intrigue you, you might want to watch Rupert Sheldrake's The Morphogenetic Universe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dm8-OpO9oQ [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/JKsseFY3WtQJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:44:17 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results (there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things. Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. I agree, I think that Sheldrake is obviously sincere and while his efforts may fall short of the expectations of some as far as scientific rigor goes, it is clear to me that the general topic of his research is valid. There does seem to be much more to the content of experience and the sharing of awareness than our current science has accounted for. The fact that this is such a polarizing subject, turning those who claim to be scientifically minded into witch-hunting bigots makes me suspect that this is indeed an important direction for science to investigate fully. While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012. Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ZD0DoE04VB0J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Galileo, Inchofer, and Popper
On 02.01.2013 21:01 meekerdb said the following: On 1/2/2013 10:34 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: A nice quote from Galileo by John L. Heilbron that shows: 1) One could trace the falsifiability to Jesuits of Galileo's time. 2) It could be a link between falsifiability and theology. p. 318 ‘However, false is not useless. The motion supposed by Copernicus can be employed in calculations, The Copernican model was less accurate than the Ptolemaic one. It wasn't until Kepler and elliptical orbits that the heliocentric model became superior for celestial predictions. I guess, the advantage of the Copernican system was not the accuracy but rather relative simplicity. In my understanding it was easier to use the Copernican model for practical needs. By the way, Galileo did not like elliptical orbits. First, it did not fit his world view: according to Galileo, an orbit of a planet must be circular. Second, Kepler was a Protestant and a good Catholic at Galileo's time was sure that Protestants were always wrong. and might even be useful to the faith if mathematicians emphasized their falsity along with their utility. Here Inchofer had in mind the minor truth later rediscovered by Karl Popper: “mathematicians [should] … work more and more toward trying to falsify theories rather than to defend them“. This seems confused. Mathematicians prove theorems from axioms - they don't have theories that can be falsified. At worst they may think a proof is valid when it's not. He must have been using mathematician carelessly to mean scientist. At Galileo's time, there were philosophers and mathematicians. A philosopher was simultaneously a physicist (physicists as such did not exist). Mathematicians have been paid much less as philosophers. Galileo at the end of his career was rather an exception. One of the main results of Galileo was bringing mathematics and physics together (as according to Galileo, The Lord has created the world according to the laws of mathematics). By the way, according to Prof Peterson, mathematical physics has started with Galileo's paper about the Inferno Two Lectures to the Florentine Academy On the Shape, Location and Size of Dante’s Inferno by Galileo Galilei, 1588 https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/mpeterso/galileo/inferno.html Evgenii Brent I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He did not. --- Jules Renard To this anticipation of modern epistemology Inchofer added a pinch of ancient wisdom, Urban’s Simple in the words of the Preacher: “no man can find out the work that God maketh from beginning to end.”‘ Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The best of all possible Worlds.
On 1/3/2013 9:59 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King I suppose that you're referring to the cpre-established perfect harmony, which makes it seem as if everything we do is determined (by God). IMHO that only means that God knows what we will do, not make the decision for us. Hi Roger, The days that we can believe the Laplacean version of determinism are over. I believe in an immanent and continuously creative God. No event or observer is special, it is just that we cannot escape from the 1p of our experience, other than with our imaginations. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Monads and Sheldrake
Don't be so narrow-minded. You must also incorporate Orgone, Feng Shui, Qi, ectoplasma, the astral plane, and NDE's. Nevermind those piddling rational, mechanistic, material problems like global warming, overpopulation, lack of water, depletion of oil... Brent There are those who claim that magic is like the tide; that it swells and fades over the surface of the earth, collecting in concentrated pools here and there, almost disappearing from other spots, leaving them parched for wonder. There are also those who believe that if you stick your fingers up your nose and blow, it will increase your intelligence. -- The Teachings of Ebenezum, Volume VII On 1/3/2013 10:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Morphic fields are your god??? On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist They rule everything. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 11:48:05 Subject: Re: Monads and Sheldrake Roger, But how do morphic fields fit in with this scheme of things? Richard On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Sheldrake says that, if I remember properly, monads are a combination of mind and body, so are mindbrains. The perceptions of these in turn reflect all of the perceptions of all of the other monads in the universe, so the universe is a giant mindbrain. Then there is a universal memory. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 10:47:59 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Roger, How are morphic fields related to monads? Richard On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Sheldrake's been criticized in such a fashion for many of his results (there are a huge number of other types of observations) but I simply trust that he's not deceiving us. My reason is that materialists are untrustworthy themselves because they hate such things. Penrose gets similar flack for his remarks on intuition. You might try lookking at his results: Contempt prior to investigation will keep you forever in ignorance. - Herbert Spencer . 1:25:27 Dr Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion (May 2012) by Alan Roberts 6 months ago 10,803 views In May of 2012, Dr Alan Roberts, in association with the Wilmslow Guild, located near Manchester, UK, invited Dr Sheldrake to ... 1:20:28 Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe by BroadcastBC 8 months ago 6,707 views In 1981 Rupert Sheldrake outraged the scientific establishment with his hypothesis of morphic resonance. A morphogenetic field ... 1:37:42 The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence by GoogleTechTalks 4 years ago 250,577 views enabling widespread participation. Speaker: Rupert Sheldrake Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. is a biologist and author of more than ... CC 1:02:24 Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion | London Real by LondonRealTV 1 month ago 10,264 views London Real talks to Biologist Writer Dr. Rupert Sheldrake TWEET this video clicktotweet.com VISIT us @ www.LondonReal.tv ... 9:38 Rupert Sheldrake 1 - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay by conscioustv 3 years ago 10,340 views Rupert Sheldrake - 'A New Science of Life' - Interview by Iain McNay Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than ... 7:10 Rupert Sheldrake on Morphic Fields and Systemic Family Constellations by Dan Booth Cohen 4 months ago 2,601 views Biologist Rupert Sheldrake speaks about morphic fields and Systemic Family Constellations. He explains how all social animals ... 31:00 Rupert Sheldrake - Distant Mental Influence by metaRising 1 year ago 4,889 views Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the ... 1:14:36 Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis by loadedshaman 1 year ago 15,768 views Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis (1995) 1:05:49 Rupert Sheldrake: the Evolution of Telepathy by Brian Josephson 1 year ago 10,918 views The Perrott-Warrick Lecture by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (February 9th. 2011), in which were described phenomena indicative of the ... 4:38 Science Set Free -- Rupert Sheldrake by Bill Weaver 4 months ago 11,200 views HD 5:45 Rupert Sheldrake: Telephone Telepathy by Matthew Clapp 5 years ago 86,152 views The renowned biologist Rupert Sheldrake presents his recent findings, powerfully suggesting that part of us extends beyond our ... 10:24 Rupert Sheldrake - The Extended Mind - Telepathy. Pt 1/3 by xcite83 3 years ago 89,453 views Rupert Sheldrake is a British former biochemist and plant physiologist who now
The monadology is an extended reference on morphic forms.
Leibniz's monads = substances refer to phenomenological bodies which are of one part, that is to say, that have no internal boundaries. So his monads are morphic forms. If you study the nature of his monads, (through his monadology) you can learn more about the morphic fields from his mondaology. Leibniz's metaphysics is idealistic, so that he only considers the monads to be real, not the bodies they refer to, which are actually phenomena in the Kant sense. They aren't illusions, you can still stub your toe on a rock, to borrow Dr. Johnson's cirticism of Berkeley, Leibniz takes them, of all possible physical bodies, to be real, even though they are continully changing. because they are one of one part (can't be subdivided). The monadology (an encyclopdia of the the morphic fields) is given on http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/leibniz.htm I am not a marxist. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Deutsch on TIQM
Hi, I found an interesting passage in http://www.labyrinthina.com/multiverse.htm Another disguised many worlds theory, says Deutsch, is John Cramer's transactional interpretation in which information passes backwards and forwards through time. When you measure the position of an atom, it sends a message back to its earlier self to change its trajectory accordingly. But as the system gets more complicated, the number of messages explodes. Soon, says Deutsch, it becomes vastly greater than the number of particles in the Universe. The full quantum evolution of a system as big as the Universe consists of an exponentially large number of classical processes, each of which contains the information to describe a whole universe. So Cramer's idea forces the multiverse on you, says Deutsch. The explosion of the number of messages is not any more a problem that the explosion of possible world in the multiverse. It is just problematic for the chalk boards of human physicists. The 'messages' do not need particles to occur. The quantum wave function of a physical universe is sufficient to do the job, after all its superpositions track exactly with the number of messages in Cramer's TIQM. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 1/3/2013 10:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb Although a brilliant logician, Russell was far left (no doubt a communist and so anti-christian). His diatribe against Christianity is a prime example. It's totally misinformed and mistaken. Ethics is, at bottom, loving your neighbor as your self. Well that's easy. I don't love or even particularly like myself. Dear Telmo, That sounds like a personal pathology. I feel badly for you. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: a Sheldrake computer:: the universe as a random + mechanism--- habit computer
On 1/3/2013 10:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist My understanding of Sheldrake's results suggests to me that the universe is not like a deterministic great computer, or if it is, the deterministic or mechanical part acts like a filter to incline random motions to more regular ones which Sheldrake calls habits or morphic resonances. Hi, Could it be that what Rupert is observing is the statistical effects (in large numbers) of what quantum entanglement implies? ISTM, that at the quantum level two wave functions that are the same are one and the same and so forth for similar WFs. I never saw Sheldrake's work as contradicting any real physical laws, just the prejudices of classically trained minds. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 01:46:20PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote: While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012. Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf Richard I'm sceptical of Sheldrake's explanation in terms of morphic fields (or even monads). It makes no sense. However, the empirical effect he observed may well stand. We should probe such results, test for any methodological flaws, and if they continue to hold up, look for alternative explanations that might work. Of course it is a hard row to hoe. A few years ago, I had some empirical results that literally flew in the face of neutral evolution thoery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution). I could not get these results published, and got treated by scorn by journal referees. Then after about a year of thought, I worked out the mechanism - in the end it was quite a simple, but nevertheless real effect. This time, the paper was accepted without question. You can see the resulting paper at arXiv:nlin.AO/0404012 In spite of thise result having quite profound implications for things like the molecular clock idea, AFAIK, nobody has investigated whether anything like this happens in real biology. It does also stand as an example of what is required to publish contra-paradigmatic results. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/3/2013 10:47 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, How are morphic fields related to monads? Richard Hi, May I attempt an answer? Monads are not entities that are localized in a place, they are entire fields of experience. Morphic fields are a way to think of how monads synchronize and reflect their histories with each others using a substance based model. As any one kind of monad learns new experience, such is reflected in all other similar monads. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Morphic fields are a way to think of how monads synchronize and reflect their histories with each others using a substance based model Stephan, Could you elaborate? Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Conputer Code In String Theory Supersimetric Equations
On 1/3/2013 12:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It would still be amazing that nature use quantum correcting machinery at some fundamental level. That might be explainable with comp. The measure on the computational histories can be made higher if there are fundamental instructions for hunting the white rabbits. Dear Bruno, Have you noticed that Pratt's residuation automatically prevents White Rabbits by only allows new physical events that do not imply contradictions of previously allowed events? But his idea is based on a process ontology, not one that is a priori fixed. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 1/3/2013 1:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:44:32 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Chemotherapy is generally thought to be evil to the cancer (it tries to kill it) and good to the patient (it tries ultimately to cure him through killing the cancer). While chemotherapy works against the cancer, on the other hand, Christian believers such as me believe that the holy spirit, if so requested, can fill you with life and so defeat a cancer by that means. Yet being filled with the holy spirit cannot reverse an amputated limb, or protect against a tsunami? Hi Craig, The premise of this line of thinking seems not even wrong to me. Is is even logical to consider an entity that can both note the vocalizations of finite creatures and make chances for them? Santa Clause is more plausible... Can people not just grow up and see the world as something other than a supplication game? There is no man in the sky. Relics of monarchical ages need to be left behind. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Fwd: [FOM] Preprint: Topological Galois Theory
Hi Bruno, You might be interested in this! Original Message Subject:[FOM] Preprint: Topological Galois Theory Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 20:08:04 +0100 From: Olivia Caramello oc...@hermes.cam.ac.uk Reply-To: Foundations of Mathematics f...@cs.nyu.edu To: Foundations of Mathematics f...@cs.nyu.edu Dear All, The following preprint is available from the Mathematics ArXiv at the address http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0300 : O. Caramello, Topological Galois Theory Abstract: We introduce an abstract topos-theoretic framework for building Galois-type theories in a variety of different mathematical contexts; such theories are obtained from representations of certain atomic two-valued toposes as toposes of continuous actions of a topological group. Our framework subsumes in particular Grothendieck's Galois theory and allows to build Galois-type equivalences in new contexts, such as for example graph theory and finite group theory. This work represents a concrete implementation of the abstract methodologies introduced in the paper The unification of Mathematics via Topos Theory, which was advertised on this list two years ago. Other recent papers of mine applying the same general principles in other fields are available for download at the address http://www.oliviacaramello.com/Papers/Papers.htm . Best wishes for 2013, Olivia Caramello -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Fwd: [FOM] Preprint: Topological Galois Theory
On 1/3/2013 5:06 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Bruno, You might be interested in this! How about giving us a 500 word summary including an example of it's application. Brent Original Message Subject:[FOM] Preprint: Topological Galois Theory Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 20:08:04 +0100 From: Olivia Caramello oc...@hermes.cam.ac.uk Reply-To: Foundations of Mathematics f...@cs.nyu.edu To: Foundations of Mathematics f...@cs.nyu.edu Dear All, The following preprint is available from the Mathematics ArXiv at the addresshttp://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0300 : O. Caramello, Topological Galois Theory Abstract: We introduce an abstract topos-theoretic framework for building Galois-type theories in a variety of different mathematical contexts; such theories are obtained from representations of certain atomic two-valued toposes as toposes of continuous actions of a topological group. Our framework subsumes in particular Grothendieck's Galois theory and allows to build Galois-type equivalences in new contexts, such as for example graph theory and finite group theory. This work represents a concrete implementation of the abstract methodologies introduced in the paper The unification of Mathematics via Topos Theory, which was advertised on this list two years ago. Other recent papers of mine applying the same general principles in other fields are available for download at the addresshttp://www.oliviacaramello.com/Papers/Papers.htm . Best wishes for 2013, Olivia Caramello No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6007 - Release Date: 01/03/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/3/2013 7:33 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Morphic fields are a way to think of how monads synchronize and reflect their histories with each others using a substance based model Stephan, Could you elaborate? Richard Hi Richard, I don't have much time or brain power atm, but I'll try. Morphic fields are, IMHO, a theoretical construct, a means to give an explanation of a seemingly anomalous effect. If they do a good job being predictively good, if not to the rubbish heap with them. Monads are, similarly, another explanatory model. Monads treat experience as fundamental. Sheldrake sees fields as fundamental. So be it. There is not just one way of explaining our world of common experience. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
A paranormal prediction for the next year
I have been a member of the Extropian List for many years and at the beginning of the year it is my habit to send a message to that list about the paranormal and psi. Sense the subject of Rupert Sheldrake and other forms of infantile junk science has come up here I thought I'd send it to this list also. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. Happy New Year all. I predict that a paper reporting positive psi results will NOT appear in Nature or Science in the next year. This may seem an outrageous prediction, after all psi is hardly a rare phenomena, millions of people with no training have managed to observe it, or claim they have. And I am sure the good people at Nature and Science would want to say something about this very important and obvious part of our natural world if they could, but I predict they will be unable to find anything interesting to say about it. You might think my prediction is crazy, like saying a waitress with an eight's grade education in Duluth Minnesota can regularly observe the Higgs boson with no difficulty but the highly trained Physicists at CERN in Switzerland cannot. Nevertheless I am confident my prediction is true because my ghostly spirit guide Mohammad Duntoldme spoke to me about it in a dream. PS: I am also confident I can make this very same prediction one year from today. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year
Hi, So how ever many years ago you there confident that CERN would discover the Higgs? And this post proves? Pfft, do better, John. On 1/3/2013 11:29 PM, John Clark wrote: I have been a member of the Extropian List for many years and at the beginning of the year it is my habit to send a message to that list about the paranormal and psi. Sense the subject of Rupert Sheldrake and other forms of infantile junk science has come up here I thought I'd send it to this list also. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. Happy New Year all. I predict that a paper reporting positive psi results will NOT appear in Nature or Science in the next year. This may seem an outrageous prediction, after all psi is hardly a rare phenomena, millions of people with no training have managed to observe it, or claim they have. And I am sure the good people at Nature and Science would want to say something about this very important and obvious part of our natural world if they could, but I predict they will be unable to find anything interesting to say about it. You might think my prediction is crazy, like saying a waitress with an eight's grade education in Duluth Minnesota can regularly observe the Higgs boson with no difficulty but the highly trained Physicists at CERN in Switzerland cannot. Nevertheless I am confident my prediction is true because my ghostly spirit guide Mohammad Duntoldme spoke to me about it in a dream. PS: I am also confident I can make this very same prediction one year from today. John K Clark -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
A Summary of Peirce, Leibniz and Sheldrake on habits
A Summary of Peirce, Leibniz and Sheldrake on habits Habits are the results of of the taming of random ensembles -- Leibniz states that there are two kinds of logic, a) necessary logic, which is always true (the timeless logic of Heaven or Platonia), and b) contingent logic, which is the time-based logic of earth , also called modal logic. One puzzle is if there are a) things always true and b) other things only sometimes (or somewhere) true, couldn't there be a conflict ? Your concept of morphic resonance, or Peirce's Thirdness, might be the solution, namely that habits are link between these two fields above: Habits are the tendencies (but not quite the necessity) of things to be true down here. From a Christian perspective, the presence of the Kingdom of God in the Kingdom of Earth. -- Also, you can think of Peirce's categories using a classical black box model. Firstness = input signal (contingent world, chance) Secondness = the black box or filter, which does the signal processing or convolution of input signal of contingent phenomena against law or mechanism. Thirdness = output signal (habit or tendencyt for lawful behavior) This also works for evolution, one verswion of which might be: Firstness = randomly chosen gene Secondness = that gene tested in a real situation Thirdness= surviving gene or new habit IMHO morphic resonance could be understood as modification of lawless behavior subjected to a lawful universe They've put hidden optical speed detectors on my neighborhood streets to slow down traffic. If you don't see the detectors and speed through, the detectors will flash photo your license plate and electronically issue you a speed ticket. Gradually everybody tends to slow down to meet the legal speed limit. A wild speculation is perhaps quantum mechanics behavior gradually adapts to enstein behavior in such a way. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: chris kramer Receiver: mindbr...@yahoogroups.com Time: 2013-01-02, 17:43:50 Subject: Re: Re: [Mind and Brain] The Triune World: Various RepresentationsofPeirce's Triads Thanks Roger. What are your thoughts on his notions of belief and habit? Chris From: Roger Clough To: - mindbr...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:14 AM Subject: Re: Re: [Mind and Brain] The Triune World: Various Representations ofPeirce's Triads Hi chris kramer Keep in mind that pragmatism doesn't have a metaphysics or ontology (an overall picture of reality, in which the particular can be obtained analytuically from the general). Instead, Peirce's praqgmatism is an epistempology (a method of synthetically obtaining a general from a particular). Only the method is defined (the categories), not what they obtain. The method is essentially that of experimental science, not scientific theory. Closer to Aristotle. So I would class Peirce's statements on ontology or God as typical of any scientist today, namely pretty much of a personal belief. I prefer Leibniz for a more ontological picture of God as that platonic entity (the One) which views and works on reality through the Supreme Monad (which could possibly be Jesus, Leibniz doesn't say). [Roger Clough], mailto:rclo...@verizon.net] 1/2/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: chris kramer Receiver: mailto:mindbr...@yahoogroups.com,everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2013-01-01, 14:00:11 Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] The Triune World: Various Representations ofPeirce's Triads The attachments of the original message is as following: (1). peirce Roger, Does Peirce provide an understandable account of that which can exist wholly independent of anything (everything) else? I am assuming he refers to God; that which is ontologically independent. But what exactly can this mean? I am also interested in Peirce's notion of the fixation of belief and its contrast with the irritation of doubt. When habits form, it seems we are less inclined to experiecne that irritation of doubt; this could be good, the they are good habits, or beliefs that somehow track the truth, or more pragmatically, provide a cash value for the believer; but could it not also lead to dogmatism? Thanks, Chris From: Roger Clough To: everything-list ; - mindbr...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 6:39 AM Subject: [Mind and Brain] The Triune World: Various Representations of Peirce's Triads The
On morphic telepathy
On morphic telepathy Note that Leibniz for good reasons (similar to Kant) did not consider time and space to be substances, so the monads all exist as a dust of points in an inextended domain (to use Descartes' concepts) which is by definition outside of spacetime (is in mental domain). Space and time do not exist ion the mental domain, so it is like a nonlocal field. So had the monads windows, they would be in continual direct instant communcation with each other, which L disallows by not permitting them to have windows. The supreme monad however can see everything with perfect undistorted clarity from ts domain and instantly updates the perceptions of each monad. I use the since the actuaql perceptions are indirect as described above. It is as if they have continual direct communication with each other. But they do not have perfect or equal undistorted clarity of vision, so telepathy is individual and can be sketchy. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
The self-taming of the universe
IMHO Sheldrake's morphic fields are organizing fields which result in the self-taming or organization of random fields. So they are anti-entropic or energy-forming. We see such taming in the formation of planets from swirling dust particles, in the formation of tornadoes, and in the precipitation of ice crystals as water cools. Black holes are another possible example. Priogogine has discussed this phenomenon in great detail. This self-organization is caused by the overcoming of the kinetic energy of vibration of random dispersions of particles through cooling. In this process, kinetic energy is dissipated through the internal attractions between individual particles. The individual attracting forces could include electrical attractions and the forces of gravity. Thus chance movements are gradually overcome by the mechanism of attractions between particles to organized fields called habits or morphic fields. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi Russell Standish Most scientific publications are based on the 19th century religious cult of materialism, which dogmatically rejects mind and spirit for atheistic purposes (not reasons, there are none). It cannot deal with fields at all, for example the theory of relativity, since that theory asserts that there is no such thing as space (and yet it works). M does not believe in fields, for they are anathema: immaterial, purely mathematical. So of course monads and morphisms are nonsense to a materialist. He lives in a fantasy world. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 18:32:37 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 01:46:20PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote: While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012. Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf Richard I'm sceptical of Sheldrake's explanation in terms of morphic fields (or even monads). It makes no sense. However, the empirical effect he observed may well stand. We should probe such results, test for any methodological flaws, and if they continue to hold up, look for alternative explanations that might work. Of course it is a hard row to hoe. A few years ago, I had some empirical results that literally flew in the face of neutral evolution thoery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution). I could not get these results published, and got treated by scorn by journal referees. Then after about a year of thought, I worked out the mechanism - in the end it was quite a simple, but nevertheless real effect. This time, the paper was accepted without question. You can see the resulting paper at arXiv:nlin.AO/0404012 In spite of thise result having quite profound implications for things like the molecular clock idea, AFAIK, nobody has investigated whether anything like this happens in real biology. It does also stand as an example of what is required to publish contra-paradigmatic results. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: a Sheldrake computer:: the universe as a random + mechanism---habit computer
Hi Stephen P. King Entanglement is a major part of Sheldrake's ideas, which also allow for fields within fields, you might be happy to know. The fields can be mental and social fields, And includes resonance between fields such as telepathy.. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 18:28:26 Subject: Re: a Sheldrake computer:: the universe as a random + mechanism---habit computer On 1/3/2013 10:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist My understanding of Sheldrake's results suggests to me that the universe is not like a deterministic great computer, or if it is, the deterministic or mechanical part acts like a filter to incline random motions to more regular ones which Sheldrake calls habits or morphic resonances. Hi, Could it be that what Rupert is observing is the statistical effects (in large numbers) of what quantum entanglement implies? ISTM, that at the quantum level two wave functions that are the same are one and the same and so forth for similar WFs. I never saw Sheldrake's work as contradicting any real physical laws, just the prejudices of classically trained minds. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The evolution of good and evil
Hi Stephen P. King The only miracle that the holy spirit can work with is life, for it, like God, is life, or represents life. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 19:57:51 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On 1/3/2013 1:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:44:32 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Chemotherapy is generally thought to be evil to the cancer (it tries to kill it) and good to the patient (it tries ultimately to cure him through killing the cancer). While chemotherapy works against the cancer, on the other hand, Christian believers such as me believe that the holy spirit, if so requested, can fill you with life and so defeat a cancer by that means. Yet being filled with the holy spirit cannot reverse an amputated limb, or protect against a tsunami? Hi Craig, The premise of this line of thinking seems not even wrong to me. Is is even logical to consider an entity that can both note the vocalizations of finite creatures and make chances for them? Santa Clause is more plausible... Can people not just grow up and see the world as something other than a supplication game? There is no man in the sky. Relics of monarchical ages need to be left behind. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The best of all possible Worlds.
Hi meekerb, Heaven is not part of contingent creation, so your statement that there is no heaven is illogical or irrelevant. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 12:23:33 Subject: Re: The best of all possible Worlds. On 02 Jan 2013, at 20:31, meekerdb wrote: On 1/2/2013 5:21 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Leibniz's view, in his theodicy , which I hold to also, is that the world down here, that God created, is necessarily imperfect, so, as they say crap happens. This is because things can't be good everywhere at the same time. So there is no heaven. There might be a heaven, but the price is that there might be a hell too, and a complex Mandelbrot like boundary between. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
