Marriage is under fire!!

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Grise wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
...
It's another thing to turn that experience into god and to then set
about to tell others they have to believe, too, or that they might
be damned forever or to fight wars over these experiences.

Wait! If I've given the impression that I'm trying to tell you you
"have to" believe anything, then I'm way off base. All I'm trying to
say is that it really is there, for those who care to do what it
takes to explore it. I just believe that when a person says, "There
is no such thing as God," they're simply dreadfully misinformed. A
victim of a limited paradigm, so to speak.

You might well believe this, however, you would be about as wrong as
anyone can be.

"God" is a nonsense, meaningless word. As I have stated many times, a
big man in the sky that can do *anything*, be *everywhere* at once,
and know *everything* is about as likely as me getting a shag from
Brittany Spears.

Stand back dude... and smell the roses. You've been suckered, along
with around 3 billion others.

You're still thinking of "a big man." That's Santa Claus. I'm simply
claiming that the entire Universe is conscious,

And where is your evidence for this? What conscious action is this
universal conscious taking?

and there are
dimensionalities that we're not usually trained to perceive. And that
the nature of "stuff" isn't really what "they" think it is. But
it's as hard to explain in plain English as quantum mechanics would
be to explain in piglatin. Maybe a better analogy would be explaining
QM to somebody who's never even heard of any math higher than algebra,
or something like that. The words don't even mean the same things
that they mean in ordinary reality.

I leant something a long time ago. when one tries to explain things and
it gets like, a bit nebulous, like hard to put in words, its usually
wrong. I use it as a bullshit detector.

Clearly, I'm the crazy one, I've got no problem with that. Like I say,
I'm casting about (trolling?) for a kindred spirit, since it's lonely
at the outskirts of the lunatic fringe.

In the interim, I can see that it's absolutely necessary for you to
keep yourself convinced that there couldn't possibly be any such thing
as "god,"

Quite the contrary. It would be great if there was a god, and all the
associated stuff that went along with it was correct, i.e. life after
death. However, this *is* the reality dude:

There was a time when each one of us didn't exist. It was prior to when
we were born. There will be a time when each one of us will cease to
exist. This is when we die.

I'm sorry if you don't like this idea, and desire to gain comfort in
what ever delusion you need to avoid facing these simple facts, but it
doesn't change anything. Life is pretty much how we see it. There is no
big nebulous mystery involving unfathomable concepts. The human animal
is basically an electro-chemical machine. Its that simple.

because if there is, you're going to hell - if there isn't,
you might escape into mere oblivion. >:-

Wake up and smell the roses.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Grise wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

snip

... What I have experienced, and I mean
experienced, physically/emotionally/mentally, is evidence _to me_
that there are, in truth, "more things in Heaven and Earth than are
dreamt of in your philosophy". I really do seem to be able to see
things that other people can't, and I understand the mechanism.

At what level do you "understand the mechanism", merely
being able to elucidate each subjective step in the process,
or being able to express the process in terms of fundamental
physics (i.e. write equations)?

I even understand, and am learning to use, the mechanism of Reality
Creation. I want to share it like anybody wants to share the
wonderfullest thing ever - it's way cool, and plus, I'm hoping to
find somebody to whom this whole business is comprehensible, because
it's kinda lonely out here at the extremity of the lunatic fringe.

Then set up a webpage describing explicitly how you
achieved whichever understanding you have so that others can
attempt to duplicate your results. Try to keep it
economical, without referring to other philosophies (don't
expect people to spend years learning Kundalini during Step
Three, frinst).

I see what you're saying here, unfortunately, it _can_ take
years to learn some of the principles - what's even harder,
of course, is unlearning the old stuff.

And all the information is available in book form, and some stuff
live on the web:


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22right+use+of+will%22&btnG=Google+Search
cut-n-paste if it wraps.

Readers' successes and/or failures will help you refine
your understanding.

This is the most important, final step in the Scientific
Method; publishing. If you don't do it, nobody should be
expected to take anything you say seriously.

Yeah, that's it. But it's kind of daunting to try to express
"find and release your trapped unexpressed emotions, and
stay present for the movement of the magnetic essence, to
hear the message of the Divine Will..."

Its also quite meaningless.

If it's entirely subjective, you'll find that out because
certain people will be unable to replicate your results due
to their mental malfunctions. If it's objectively real, at
least some readers will be able to add their insights as to
how it physically works.

Now, that would be way cool - I don't have the math, physics,
or QM/QE background to do the equations,

Indeed, and that's the root cause of your delusions. You know nothing of
science, yet claim it is wrong.

and there's some stuff
that's completely outside any previously known paradigm that
the language simply doesn't exist yet

Nonsense. The stuff you descrbe, as I have noted before, its the same
old shit put forward over 1000's of years. Its all waffle.

Look, dude you don't have the background to understand why science is
"right" and why what you claim is "wrong". On the other hand, scientists
have the background to understand what is not science, and why it is
"wrong"

- I got some of the
"information" by reading stories designed to trigger certain
responses in my spirit/mind/body/will.

Ho hum... Like and you *really* believe this stuff?

The bottom line is, the object of the game is to arrange your own
life so it suits you. This apparently comes quite naturally for
lots of people.

Yes, it does. Unfortunately people's attempts to do so
interact, which is why Politics was invented. :>(

Ah, we've come full circle. If Free Will hadn't been so severly
damaged, about all that we'd need governments for would be nexi.

And according to the books,

Oh?

which claim to be channeled from
God in the first person,

Wow.. and your proof for this assertion would be?

the way things are needs to be healed or
everything and everyone will die forever. So there is some
urgency to it.

Anyway, there are just two basic principles, which have many
names:

Electric Magnetic
Spirit Will
Male Female
Yang Yin
Energy Matter
Thought Feeling
orthogonal fractal
rigid flexible

And the process is simplicity itself - Spirit inspires, Will
responds, and creation takes place at the balance point, called
Heart. And the fourth part of God is Form, so everybody can see
what got created. Spirit has responsibility to give unconditional
loving acceptance, and Will has responsibility to separate the
good from the bad.

This is all simple assertions with no basis whatsoever.

Just Light, expanding uncontrolled, doesn't
create - it destroys, and so it needs the magnetic Will to balance
with it, give its response to sort out what goes where and _what
to keep_ (which is where the problem has been since the beginning
of time), and together, with Form, they hold space open for the
creation to exist in.

Nothin' to it!

Thats correct, there is nothing to it.

As I keep saying, smell the roses dude. Go and learn about real science.

"That which is mostly observed, is that with replicates the most".

This replaces all of your drivel above. Now apply occums razor

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[andy]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:46:01 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

I don't accept it as I see no credible scientific evidence that it
actually works. Like, controlled independent double-blind experiments
using 10000's of people, by several independent qualified research
groups.

How would you do a double-blind trial on a therapy like shiatsu?

Double-blind means neither the doctor nor the patient know whether the
treatment being given is the correct one or a placebo. But shiatsu is a
hands-on therapy - like a form of massage but based on the principles of
chinese medicine. And to do it properly needs a long period of training
(at least 3 years) where the doctor learns how to detect imbalances in chi
using methods like feeling muscle tone in various parts of the body
(according to the chinese understanding there's more to it than that, but
I'll stick at that for the purpose of argument), looking at skin colour,
tone of voice etc. The treatment consists of pressure point massage along
the meridians, stretching limbs in particular ways, and similar things.

There's no way that you could do this properly without knowing whether or
not you were doing it properly, if you see what I mean - it wouldn't be
enough to have an untrained person read a chart and do the massages
because they might not do it in the right way, and the right treatment to
apply would vary session by session anyhow.

This is quite different to a drug trial, where nurses can be given drugs
and apparently identical placebos in unmarked containers, and then it's
just a question of the patient swallowing one or the other.

The best you could do for something like this would be either a
single-blind trial where the practitioner deliberately applies an
irrelevant treatment to some of the patients, or a non-blind trial where
you compare with some other kind of treatment like a normal massage.
But if it was done like this, then people might reject the results
just because it's not double-blind.

The point being that it's easy to say 'I won't believe it until I've seen
a double-blind trial', without really thinking about what this would mean
for a treatment like shiatsu. Which is an example of the point I'm arguing
- judging something like that by the standards of scientific medicine, and
expecting to be able to apply the same sort of tests that are used there
isn't necessarily going to be the best way to find out whether it really
works or not. It's not a case of special pleading - saying it's not fair
to apply those tests because they are too harsh or something, it's because
at least in this example, they are simply not appropriate to the situation.

--
http://www.niftybits.ukfsn.org/

remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with

 or [attachment] in the subject line.

 

[andy]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:02:15 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:24:22 +0100, andy
news4@earthsong.free-online.co.uk> wrote:


That's fair enough - but it's also part of the point that I'm trying to
make - that people trained in science are too ready to say that things
like chinese medicine cannot work, because they do not use the same
methods of proof and argument/theory as science does.

---
I don't think anyone's saying that Chinese medicine doesn't work, I
think what's being said is that the Chinese explanation for its
efficacy is painted with too broad a stoke for the reasons behind its
functioning to be more perfectly understood.

The way I see it is more to do with different ways of seeing and
understanding the world. In science, the methods of proof and argument are
more externalised and codified - you carry out an experiment using
tools of one sort or another, the results are recorded as numbers, graphs,
pictures or whatever, and then checked against theory using more or less
definable procedures - e.g. you make a calculation using standard
mathematical methods and see if the results add up right. So everything
has been brought more outside the human mind into the external world.
Whereas in chinese medicine, the theory exists more as a set of intuitive
associations between concepts like 'chi', 'the heart element', 'meridian'
etc, which are learnt through much more hands on, face to face methods of
diagnosis and treatment.

Which means it's hard to test the ideas of chinese medicine
scientifically, or associate those concepts with scientific ones in a
one-to-one way.

So no, it's not science in the way it's usually defined in the west, but
that isn't a good reason in itself to write it off as worthless.

Kind of like the difference between BASIC and assembler.

That is, write a line of .bas and you'll get something to happen, but
if you want to understand _why_ it happens you'll learn how to make it
happen by writing it in .asm

That doesn't seem quite right to me - it's assuming that every concept in
chinese medicine must be translatable into a set of equivalent concepts in
western medicine for it to be real. But as I was starting to say in my
second reply to you earlier, there are things which the
chinese medical language actually describes better than western medicine,
like patterns of association between emotions, body posture, tone of
voice, skin colour, and the characteristic illnesses associated with
these. Or the way different patterns of thought, action, and emotion
interact and play against each other.

I think that to make this argument properly, I would have to know a lot
more about both chinese and western medicine, so I'll leave it at that.

--
http://www.niftybits.ukfsn.org/

remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with

 or [attachment] in the subject line.

 

[Rich Grise]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

Well, in _my_ mind, it's they who have boxed themselves up. I simply
have the ability to see outside the box.

No you don't. You are completely indoctrinated in your arbitary
religious views, the same views that have been around for 1000+ years.
You are completely sealed up in your box.

Oh, come on, Kevin. You're so invested in protecting your precious
atheism that you've completely lost the point of what I'm trying
to say. I can see outside the boxes of all the religions too. And
the political systems, and a whole lots of stuff. I see both sides
of almost everything I look at, and if I don't, I go investigate.

That's figuratively speaking, of course. To see both sides of a
physical object, I obviously have to walk around it. But "both sides
of an issue," I hope you understand, is a much larger concept.

The democrats know the republicans are evil moneygrubbers who want
to take away all your personal liberties, and the republicans know
that the democrats are lazy freeloaders that want to destroy the
foundations of whatever. I, on the other hand, know that they're
all merely fools.

When I say, "there is more to life than microscopic billiard balls",
I see you react with "You are completely indoctrinated in your arbitary
religious views," which is simply not the case. There's nothing religious
about it, other than the fact that I practice the principles religiously,
much like you follow rigorous scientific method.

I say there's more to life and the way things work than we've so far
been able to describe in the terms we've come up with so far. You say
there isn't, and seem to claim that that's some kind of proven "scientific"
fact. I say you're misinformed. You're as religiously dogmatic about "There
is no God, and anybody who says so is a religious fanatic who doesn't have
two active neurons to rub together!" as any fundie proclaiming fire and
brimstone.

I ask, how do you _know_?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 03:01:00 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

snip
I know that's how you neatly box up such people in your mind. Doesn't
make it so.

Well, in _my_ mind, it's they who have boxed themselves up. I simply
have the ability to see outside the box.

A fact not in evidence, Rich.

That's because of the nature of the box. The person can't, or more
accurately, won't, see anything outside their box, by definition.
So, of course, when I notice something, they _have_ to dismiss me,
or lose the security of their box, since if they let themselves become
aware of their own denials/judgements, their whole card house will come
crashing down and they'll be lost, cast adrift in a sea of tormented,
abandoned souls.

Or, of course, I'm hallucinating. But if that's the case, what is there
to convince me that you guys aren't hallucinations too? Would you know
if you were? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

You're still thinking of "a big man." That's Santa Claus. I'm simply
claiming that the entire Universe is conscious,

And where is your evidence for this? What conscious action is this
universal conscious taking?

Oh, the evidence is all subjective. And I've been trying to tell you for
some time what action this universal consciousness is trying to take,
but he's having a little problem getting the word out because so many
people don't believe in him. ;-)

In a nutshell, he's trying to save the Universe from Evil. Just like the
rest of us.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

Yeah, that's it. But it's kind of daunting to try to express
"find and release your trapped unexpressed emotions, and
stay present for the movement of the magnetic essence, to
hear the message of the Divine Will..."

Its also quite meaningless.

Yeah, what I just said there. And the language of my new paradigm
is meaningless to you. No problem.

Now, that would be way cool - I don't have the math, physics,
or QM/QE background to do the equations,

Indeed, and that's the root cause of your delusions. You know nothing of
science, yet claim it is wrong.

Geez, Aylward! Lighten up! I'm sitting here trying to get out of arguing
with you, and now you're jumping into ad hominem falsehoods. From where
do you get the idea that I know "nothing of science"? And just exactly
when and where did I ever claim "[science] is wrong"?

Please, do tell.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 03:59:03 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

But to go into that would only further
convince everybody of my insanity, so I think I won't go there unless

Perhaps so. Given the stream of claims from you so far without any
evidential showing, I wouldn't be surprised if more of the same would only
worsen impressions.

My claim that there's more to reality that we usually think?

Of course there is no evidence, it can't be proved, and it's unscientific.

So what?

Can your idol, Science, answer this question:

How does a pile of quantum billiard-ball atoms come to contemplate its
own existence?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:20:36 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

The person can't, or more
accurately, won't, see anything outside their box, by definition.

And here is the crux, Rich. Science is about an objective reality. You are on
about what, as you admit, is only going on inside you and you cannot share
through language. Getting past this kind of thing is what science was all
about. And it has spread like wildfire through all societies exposed to it for
its manifest success.

I'm not the least bit interested in what you claim about the rest of the
universe on the basis of what is going on in your head, if you cannot express it
in rigorous language.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:38:03 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 03:59:03 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

But to go into that would only further
convince everybody of my insanity, so I think I won't go there unless

Perhaps so. Given the stream of claims from you so far without any
evidential showing, I wouldn't be surprised if more of the same would only
worsen impressions.

My claim that there's more to reality that we usually think?

No.

Now you are backing off of what I've read from you, so that you make it sound we
were talking about something else. That's not what you've been saying. Deal
with your earlier words, Rich, and don't retreat this way by trying to summarize
it all so reasonably.

Nice tactic, Rich. But it won't work.

Of course there is no evidence, it can't be proved, and it's unscientific.

I've always wondered why some people are so adamant about holding onto ideas
they cannot even defend at all.

I mean, it's bad enough to only be able to manage some weakly made points. But
to be unable to come up with any at all that can be communicated and to then
still have the unmitigated gall and brazen effrontery to act as though it's an
"of course" and "obvious" kind of thing is as terribly sad as it is gutsy.

So what?

Got me, Rich. I'm not terribly concerned what you believe. Especially those
parts you aren't willing to defend with objective statements.

The only turf I happen to care some about is when folks try and cloak their
insane beliefs as being tantamount to the scientific method, so that others
might then imagine their nutty ideas should be thought of with similar respect.

Can your idol, Science, answer this question:

How does a pile of quantum billiard-ball atoms come to contemplate its
own existence?

Couch the question in clear, quantitative objective language and maybe I'll see
if there is some source you can go to. What is a "pile?" What is a "quantum
billiard-ball atom?" What is "contemplate?" What is "own?" What is
"existence?"

Science is very modest, Rich. Most of the real work is in asking the right
questions. And by the time you have those pretty well worked out, you are only
about 1 centimeter from the answer. Science works by moving slowly in these
tiny steps.

The really BIG questions, as I reminded you earlier about, are for the
philosophers and religious pundits. Go ask them your vague, big questions. I'm
sure they will have some wonderful answers for you.

Jon

 

[Charles W. Johson Jr.]

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:3c48i01khp80nvv4o92jis0mkpp13ghko2@4ax.com...

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:20:36 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

The person can't, or more
accurately, won't, see anything outside their box, by definition.

And here is the crux, Rich. Science is about an objective reality. You
are on
about what, as you admit, is only going on inside you and you cannot share
through language. Getting past this kind of thing is what science was all
about. And it has spread like wildfire through all societies exposed to
it for
its manifest success.

I'm not the least bit interested in what you claim about the rest of the
universe on the basis of what is going on in your head, if you cannot
express it
in rigorous language.

Jon

Science is the act of finding ideas,ideas not facts, of the the cause of
things. As science has changed the method of looking for those causes we
have generally looked for smaller causes for each effect . Zeus and his
thunder bolts becomes an embalance in charge pattern resulting in electron
discharge through a conductive material. Posidon becomes gravitational
atraction of the water molicule to the moon. The light of the Sun goes from
Apollos shining shield to a fusion reaction held in a semi spherical form by
gravity.The Stars from pin holes in the night sky to suns burning far away.

Who's right? Ultimately does it matter? We believe what we believe, those
that believe there are forces moving things that we can not measure and
those that think we can measure anything that is "real" will always find it
a problem to accept 100% of the other.

Charles

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 05:48:14 GMT, "Charles W. Johson Jr." <qrus19@mindsprUng.com
past to present> wrote:

Science is the act of finding ideas, ideas not facts,

First, I didn't say it was the act of finding facts, as your retort might be
suggesting. I do, however, use the term 'fact' when discussing science
knowledge, advisedly. Second, although I do agree that science is about ideas,
that's not the whole of it. To simplify it to just that is to simply it to the
point of distortion.

of the the cause of things.

I wouldn't say the causes, themselves. To be honest, I've no idea how you
arrived at that idea, either. For example, consider the Stern-Gerlach effect.
It is a fact of modern science (subject to change, as always) that applying the
idea of electron spin to the electron mass, for quantum mechanical angular
momentum, to provide a means of prediction. But this is not finding a cause --
it is the application of imaginative theory and deduction from it.

And there is a further twist to the issue. On general grounds, any quantum
mechanical angular momentum that does have an angular velocity associated with
it *must* have integer multiple eigenvalues. However, the assigned electron
spins have eigenvalues of +/-(1/2)h. These cannot possibly arise out of an
object that is *actually* rotating, so the intuitive idea of some kind of
quantum spin must be rejected, let alone the idea of a classical spin.

The Stern-Gerlach effect is predicted by quantum mechanical theory. And such
theory is certainly part of 'science.' But what's the cause here?

Science is how facts are related to and conditioned by each other.

As science has changed the method of looking for those causes we
have generally looked for smaller causes for each effect . Zeus and his
thunder bolts becomes an embalance in charge pattern resulting in electron
discharge through a conductive material. Posidon becomes gravitational
atraction of the water molicule to the moon. The light of the Sun goes from
Apollos shining shield to a fusion reaction held in a semi spherical form by
gravity.The Stars from pin holes in the night sky to suns burning far away.

Can't agree with your thinking here, at all. This is not only simplistic, but
is also wrong and highly distorting.

Who's right?

No idea what you are asking here. You need to define 'right' in this context, I
suppose.

Science doesn't say anything about ultimate causes, though, if that is what you
are reaching for. If imaginative ideas are able to be put into objective
language, sufficient for rigorous deductions to be made, and if we have the
ability and interest to fabricate an experimental test for certain, specific
deductions that are made from it, then the methods of science can help decide
whether or not the theory is denied (falsified) by the test. If it passes, then
all that is said is that the theory has another deductive point of support. Of
course, another day may bring another test and, perhaps, either a final failure
of the theory or a new boundary put to it.

Ultimately does it matter?

Does what matter to what? Does anything matter? Again, not sure of where you
are taking this question, so no idea how to answer it.

We believe what we believe, those
that believe there are forces moving things that we can not measure and
those that think we can measure anything that is "real" will always find it
a problem to accept 100% of the other.

Cannot imagine what you are trying to say, here. Sorry.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 23:43:12 -0700, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com>
wrote:

so the intuitive idea of some kind of
quantum spin must be rejected

I should have said, 'so the intuitive idea of some kind of *actual* quantum
rotation for the electron must be rejected.'

Jon

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Grise wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

Well, in _my_ mind, it's they who have boxed themselves up. I simply
have the ability to see outside the box.

No you don't. You are completely indoctrinated in your arbitary
religious views, the same views that have been around for 1000+
years. You are completely sealed up in your box.

Oh, come on, Kevin. You're so invested in protecting your precious
atheism that you've completely lost the point of what I'm trying
to say. I can see outside the boxes of all the religions too.

Apparently not.

And
the political systems, and a whole lots of stuff. I see both sides
of almost everything I look at, and if I don't, I go investigate.

You cant possible, you don't have the technical background to examine
science critically.

When I say, "there is more to life than microscopic billiard balls",
I see you react with "You are completely indoctrinated in your
arbitary religious views," which is simply not the case. There's
nothing religious about it, other than the fact that I practice the
principles religiously, much like you follow rigorous scientific
method.

I say there's more to life and the way things work than we've so far
been able to describe in the terms we've come up with so far.

Indeed, there is much in physics that is currently unknown.

You say
there isn't, and seem to claim that that's some kind of proven
"scientific" fact. I say you're misinformed.

I said nothing of the sort. I have claimed that ideas such as pixies,
gods, esp, ufos, palm reading, ghosts, life after death is all baloney.
That is, life is *essentially*, how we see it. Walk down the street and
tell me how often god actually speaks to you. This should give you a
clue as to what's *really* going on. Sure, QM and the like have a few
strange attributes, but there is no magic.

You're as religiously

dogmatic about "There is no God,

I agree that on this particular point. I am indeed "dogmatic" in my non
acceptance, in any shape or form of an all knowing, everwhere at once,
can do everthing consciouness that created the universe. Its completly
crap and not debatable. Its about the most stupidest idea ever to have
came about.

and anybody who says so is a
religious fanatic who doesn't have two active neurons to rub
together!"

Not at all. Most are simple misguided as they haven't *really* though
about the issues involved. Religion was simply made up as people went
along. Its that simple.

as any fundie proclaiming fire and brimstone.

"Religion is a crutch for the simple minded" - Jesse Ventura, WWF and
governor of Minnesota

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Grise wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 03:59:03 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net
wrote:

But to go into that would only further
convince everybody of my insanity, so I think I won't go there
unless

Perhaps so. Given the stream of claims from you so far without any
evidential showing, I wouldn't be surprised if more of the same
would only worsen impressions.

My claim that there's more to reality that we usually think?

Like what?

Of course there is no evidence, it can't be proved, and it's
unscientific.

So, its entirely in your imagination nd you want us all to imagine your
same nonsense?

So what?

Can your idol, Science, answer this question:

How does a pile of quantum billiard-ball atoms come to contemplate its
own existence?

Science does not answer all questions. It takes *arbitrary* axioms as a
*starting* point, and explains everything from those axioms. From time
to time new axioms are required to be added. For example, the invariant
speed of light is an axiom not deducible from Newtonian mechanics, so we
now take it as a new one. It does not require a god to be a cause of
such a new axiom, in the same way as conservation of energy never
required a god for the statement to be originally made. Consciousness is
apparently a property of highly organised systems that can not be
derived from its parts. It is therefore a new property of physics that
we must add to our physics set of axioms, and likewise it doesn't
require a god or other consciousness to account for this new axiom.
Sufficiently complex inanimate matter, ub=nder suitable conditions,
simply becomes "aware". Awareness cannot be reduced any further. Its
just a fundamental property of complex systems, e.g.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/thehardproblem.html


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 05:48:14 GMT, "Charles W. Johson Jr."
qrus19@mindsprUng.com past to present> wrote:


And there is a further twist to the issue. On general grounds, any
quantum mechanical angular momentum that does have an angular
velocity associated with it *must* have integer multiple eigenvalues.
However, the assigned electron spins have eigenvalues of +/-(1/2)h.
These cannot possibly arise out of an object that is *actually*
rotating, so the intuitive idea of some kind of quantum spin must be
rejected, let alone the idea of a classical spin.

The Stern-Gerlach effect is predicted by quantum mechanical theory.
And such theory is certainly part of 'science.' But what's the cause
here?

Although the err.. "prediction" was on a second attempt

i.e. it needed the Dirac Equation, that is, formulating a shrodinger
matrix equation (not to be confused with the other QM matrices), that
satisfied special relativity, after then fact.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[andy]

It would be good if you would reply to this one, as it's one of the posts
where I feel like I'm getting more to the point of the sort of thing I'm
trying to say.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:18:59 +0100, andy wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:46:01 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

I don't accept it as I see no credible scientific evidence that it
actually works. Like, controlled independent double-blind experiments
using 10000's of people, by several independent qualified research
groups.

How would you do a double-blind trial on a therapy like shiatsu?

Double-blind means neither the doctor nor the patient know whether the
treatment being given is the correct one or a placebo. But shiatsu is a
hands-on therapy - like a form of massage but based on the principles of
chinese medicine. And to do it properly needs a long period of training
(at least 3 years) where the doctor learns how to detect imbalances in chi
using methods like feeling muscle tone in various parts of the body
(according to the chinese understanding there's more to it than that, but
I'll stick at that for the purpose of argument), looking at skin colour,
tone of voice etc. The treatment consists of pressure point massage along
the meridians, stretching limbs in particular ways, and similar things.

There's no way that you could do this properly without knowing whether or
not you were doing it properly, if you see what I mean - it wouldn't be
enough to have an untrained person read a chart and do the massages
because they might not do it in the right way, and the right treatment to
apply would vary session by session anyhow.

This is quite different to a drug trial, where nurses can be given drugs
and apparently identical placebos in unmarked containers, and then it's
just a question of the patient swallowing one or the other.

The best you could do for something like this would be either a
single-blind trial where the practitioner deliberately applies an
irrelevant treatment to some of the patients, or a non-blind trial where
you compare with some other kind of treatment like a normal massage.
But if it was done like this, then people might reject the results
just because it's not double-blind.

The point being that it's easy to say 'I won't believe it until I've seen
a double-blind trial', without really thinking about what this would mean
for a treatment like shiatsu. Which is an example of the point I'm arguing
- judging something like that by the standards of scientific medicine, and
expecting to be able to apply the same sort of tests that are used there
isn't necessarily going to be the best way to find out whether it really
works or not. It's not a case of special pleading - saying it's not fair
to apply those tests because they are too harsh or something, it's because
at least in this example, they are simply not appropriate to the situation.

--
http://www.niftybits.ukfsn.org/

remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with

 or [attachment] in the subject line.

 

[andy]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:10:00 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

You say
there isn't, and seem to claim that that's some kind of proven
"scientific" fact. I say you're misinformed.

I said nothing of the sort. I have claimed that ideas such as pixies,
gods, esp, ufos, palm reading, ghosts, life after death is all baloney.
That is, life is *essentially*, how we see it. Walk down the street and
tell me how often god actually speaks to you. This should give you a
clue as to what's *really* going on. Sure, QM and the like have a few
strange attributes, but there is no magic.

what do you think is happening, when someone thinks that what is happening
is that they are talking to God?

--
http://www.niftybits.ukfsn.org/

remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with

 or [attachment] in the subject line.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

andy wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:10:00 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

You say
there isn't, and seem to claim that that's some kind of proven
"scientific" fact. I say you're misinformed.

I said nothing of the sort. I have claimed that ideas such as pixies,
gods, esp, ufos, palm reading, ghosts, life after death is all
baloney. That is, life is *essentially*, how we see it. Walk down
the street and tell me how often god actually speaks to you. This
should give you a clue as to what's *really* going on. Sure, QM and
the like have a few strange attributes, but there is no magic.

what do you think is happening, when someone thinks that what is
happening is that they are talking to God?

Do you *really* want me to answer this?

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.