Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its not my theory or way of thinking , everybody is different when it comes to unknowns. Plus the discussing of patterns is good which I think is taken advantage of by some approaches.
Last edited by Sophronius; 01-23-2015 at 01:10 PM..
Its not my theory or way of thinking , everybody is different when it comes to unknowns. Plus the discussing of patterns is good which I think is taken advantage of by some approaches.
I have found that it helps to view Sophronious' posts as derived from a Google translate program. Many phrases and words simply do not have exact correlates and the best alternative is generally chosen. But it usually sounds odd. Take the post above. Assume Sophronius used a word in his native language and the phrase was meant to be "helpful to some approaches" . . . but the correlate phrase in English was chosen to be "taken advantage of by some approaches." Many of the weird phrasings that exist in his posts can be evaluated similarly as translation incompatibilities, IMO.
sop hit the nail on the head. Everybody has their own way of thinking. And patterns is an area that takes some real understanding. Too often people that don't know, don't know the patterns (or lack of) they see is based on lack of understanding
The problem is that people that don't really know what they don't chime know in like they do. Or offer stances that are anti-theist or anti-atheist and anything that goes against that way of thinking is wrong, irrelevant, or misunderstood. It is done here a lot. The main tactics are mis quoting, quoting out of context, or the ever popular do not address anything that goes against the posters agenda. The tried and true throwing insults or otherwise degrading a person is good too. Most of these conversations are over in a matter of minutes when face to face with people. In forums any house wife or accountant can chime in enough times to drown out people in the middle that just really are trying their best.
but I guess accepting others take when valid even though you don't agree is not normal these days. But of course we really have to understand way too many things to be able to do that effectively .
its ok to believe. Its not ok to tell others they have to believe what you believe or they are wrong.
I take offense at the repeated use of "made up" that characterizes my critics' posts simply because they do not understand my philosophical use of the math formulas as analogous measured indices of our underlying reality. In truth most mathematicians have little to no appreciation for the philosophical implications of their extremely useful and revealing formulations. Let's cut to the chase, Cruithne . . . you seem not to engage in philosophical speculation of any kind. But whether or not anyone likes it . . . ANY discussion of God is speculative philosophy . . . otherwise there would be no need for discussion. You and your cohort of critics of my views keep attacking them AS IF they were presented as proven. In fact my most annoying critic keeps asking for that proof despite repeated attempts to clarify it for him. That indicates deliberate baiting, IMO.
None of you unbelievers in God seem willing to engage in the philosophical reasoning of the SCIENCE that underlies my HYPOTHESES . . . with the exception of Gaylen. If you did we could find out why you disagree with my understanding of it. You attack my analogies AS IF they were literal and make no attempt to see them from a philosophical perspective as indices of the underlying structure and nature of our reality. My HYPOTHESES derived from the SCIENCE and my personal experiences . . . form the basis for my FAITH/BELIEFS. You and my other critics insist on asking for proof or evidence for my faith/beliefs . . . NOT for the derivation of my hypotheses or any errors in my understanding of the science you might think exists. IF you only see the physics as physics . . . and what it represents or can be used for . . . you are not open to any philosophical speculation about what its measured formulations actually reveal about the underlying structure of our reality. That is very sad because every measurement event captures the essence of our reality and reveals glimpses into its underlying structure and function.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
But you have made it up! Who else uses the word 'timespace'? Provide me with a link to one single peer reviewed scientific journal or abstract anywhere that uses the word in that way.
No most (all) mathematicians don't appreciate your philosophical implications. Why would they?
Oh I absolutely do engage in philosophical discussion.
Eugene Wigner, mathematician and physicist of the 1960's published his paper 'The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences', in which he both explains and speculates why it should be that mathematics is so precisely able to describe the universe, and why mathematical formula and able to be applied far beyond the contexts in which they were developed.
I think about this often. It is a truly remarkable and wonderful thing that we can slowly unlock the secrets of the universe by means of mathematics.
And this is perhaps why I can never take your synthesis seriously because until you start using the mathematics correctly, for me it's always going to be a non starter.
Me and my cohort of critics? (who would they be?)
Attacking? You have this wrong. There is a big difference between attack and defense. ALL I am doing is defending the science. Sorry that's just my nature. Where I see a mistake I can't help but point it out.
Sorry Mystic, but I will do this everytime. I can't help myself.
Okay well you have me there. Yes you are right. I am a very literal person. I deal in reality so there you have it.
There is nothing wrong with that, Cruithne. Life demands that kind of focus. I would have remained similarly positioned if my world had not been rocked by my experience (while totally sober and in full control of my senses). The impetus for my foray into the abstract and mystical is no secret. I had to filter out and reject TONS of mumbo jumbo and crapola using science as my standard. But it was always driven by the reality of my experience and subsequent efforts within the meditative state. It has been called confirmation bias . . . perhaps so. Even those who have had similar experiences in meditation have not reacted to or concluded the same things I have. I accept that. But the "knowingness" that accompanied my experiences is simply too real for ME to ignore.
Quote:
Mystic there are few things about all this that have me scratching my head:
From what I can work out, the vast majority of people who have taken a look at your synthesis have found that it concludes nothing. Wouldn't it then be safe to assume then, that you are very probably wrong?
Don't you ever question yourself?
I spent decades doing exactly that. I questioned everything and accepted nothing prima facie . . . except what I encountered. My explanations are what is left. Others here are not as trusting of their own perceptions and experiences as I am, apparently. But I refuse to think I am mentally ill or deluded . . . which is the only alternate explanation that would fit my evaluation of my experiences. I had no motivation to begin with and what expectations I did have were completely refuted.
Quote:
People have brains and are free to draw their own conclusions, so I don't understand why you get so bent out of shape about it. You might instead take it as constructive criticism. This is part of what it takes to get a PhD. You have to be able to take criticism on the chin, think about it, reflect on it and possibly draw a new conclusion yourself. Just a thought.
Whenever I defend the science you instantly lump me in with your 'cohort of critics'. Yet in the past we have seen eye to eye on many issues. We probably agree on more issues than we disagree on. I just don't accept the basis of your synthesis here. Another thing to think about.
My PhD defense was a cakewalk compared to the reactions my views get here. I am sorry to lump you in with my harsher and more virulent critics, Cruithne . . . but if you read just this thread . . . you will see that I have been literally savaged. I was abreacting to the onslaught you joined. I agree much more than disagree with you, mordant, and Arequipa.
I have found that it helps to view Sophronious' posts as derived from a Google translate program. Many phrases and words simply do not have exact correlates and the best alternative is generally chosen. But it usually sounds odd. Take the post above. Assume Sophronius used a word in his native language and the phrase was meant to be "helpful to some approaches" . . . but the correlate phrase in English was chosen to be "taken advantage of by some approaches." Many of the weird phrasings that exist in his posts can be evaluated similarly as translation incompatibilities, IMO.
Yes, I rather suspected that, and in fact I am quite good at reading the ideas behind pidgin Inglish, but that still left me at a loss.
There is nothing wrong with that, Cruithne. Life demands that kind of focus. I would have remained similarly positioned if my world had not been rocked by my experience (while totally sober and in full control of my senses). The impetus for my foray into the abstract and mystical is no secret. I had to filter out and reject TONS of mumbo jumbo and crapola using science as my standard. But it was always driven by the reality of my experience and subsequent efforts within the meditative state. It has been called confirmation bias . . . perhaps so. Even those who have had similar experiences in meditation have not reacted to or concluded the same things I have. I accept that. But the "knowingness" that accompanied my experiences is simply too real for ME to ignore.I spent decades doing exactly that. I questioned everything and accepted nothing prima facie . . . except what I encountered. My explanations are what is left. Others here are not as trusting of their own perceptions and experiences as I am, apparently. But I refuse to think I am mentally ill or deluded . . . which is the only alternate explanation that would fit my evaluation of my experiences. I had no motivation to begin with and what expectations I did have were completely refuted.My PhD defense was a cakewalk compared to the reactions my views get here. I am sorry to lump you in with my harsher and more virulent critics, Cruithne . . . but if you read just this thread . . . you will see that I have been literally savaged. I was abreacting to the onslaught you joined. I agree much more than disagree with you, mordant, and Arequipa.
I have always said that we agree on much more than we disagree on. It's a pity that (as usual) you take this personally. If you would only see the truth, really behind what we are all saying, then you could avoid all this. But of course you can't because it is based on a religion -type faith and you can no more stop believing that it is true and preaching it than you can stop believing that you exist.
You know that I have commented on your lofty way of disagreeing with people, if you could correct that and stop this sigh and headslap stuff aimed at people who are increasingly looking right where you are wrong - yes, even me with not a certificate to my name, saw it right from the beginning - there would be less reason to all get together to discuss what's wrong with Mystic and his posts.
maybe we can deliver our message using less personal abrasive adjectives. especially with people that are always here. Believe it or not I started looking at forums to find out about these bible thumpers. What I found is that "thumping" is not based on a belief system.
Mystic. what I am really saying to you is that we have to use the information correctly to build a base for the story you have. Most fundamentalist anti-religious people need a guy in the sky throwing fireballs. They won't take anything else. They really are not the target. But what they do is provide a great platform for you to tighten up your stance. And what they say is very valid many/most times. When they stop saying you are wrong about the facts and start throwing terms like "not fallible" or "irrelevant to me" you know have it pretty tight.
But I think others are willing to take what we have and apply it logically to what we believe. But we have to start with an honest approach to the data. For example: your use of time is not an accepted use so anything you say based off of that can't taken as more than "controversial conclusion". take gray. We wouldn't get of the first page in her theory using what is known. all 1000 pages after that are not "solid" if that first page is not right, Its literally build on sand.
There is no need for me to begin to look at and dissect the others pieces until "time" is tightened up. Mystic, I am truly a middle man. I don't care if god exist or not. I only care about people's believing stuff because they want to and not because the data says so. well, that and forcing beliefs of no-god or my-god-only on people that don't get a chance to learn.
I agree. In fact I (and I believe many atheists) do not in principle object to the idea of a creative deity of some kind. It really is organized religion and its pernicious influence that gets up our collective nose.
Atheists do not, as a matter of logic and evidence, believe in any such deity because the evidence is lacking, so I'd say we are the same page, there.
I hope your concilitary approach and appeal to reason obtains results where we have failed.
If not, you are welcome to join the growing band of those who feel that they may as well tell it like it is, as it seems to make no difference, anyway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.