Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-23-2015, 07:02 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 4,615,538 times
Reputation: 2202

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
I am cool with that. Until it is used to answer real questions. The fundamental field is a philosophy that that not only has no evidence, it counters everything we know. I only deal in da real.

I am an engineer.
Bentov was quite an accomplished engineer and of course Bohm was one of the preeminent physicists of the 20th century.

When you say "everything we know" you really mean "everything I know".

 
Old 09-23-2015, 07:10 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 4,615,538 times
Reputation: 2202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
hey ... I just realized all these pieces add up to "you". You have emerged from the list of these experiences and the interactions of the energy that make you up. The field that is you has "emerged". Use no adjectives when describing what you see, they tend to skew them twards personal meaning, personal emotional needs, or deeply wanted results. Worse than that they can turn what you know into all that is needed "to know ".

We are a soup of interactions. No interactions = No soup.

And you still haven't made up the base axiom. It looks like your axiom might be 'one's personal experiences are enough to answer all questions correctly" You see the flaw here? This is another reason I shy away from budhism. You and a teacher might not be enough either.

Mine is "layout the data and then try and come up with a story that ties it together." Then ask others about it. And repeat that ... again, and again. My "adjectives" would not indicate how I feel about it, but they would show that it is ok to change you mind based on a new piece of data. Never hold onto 100%. Unless you ride motocross.

see ya in few days, I got a real job again. sometimes I wish I could hide inside philosophy. I guess that's what the drink does.

Of course, one can only know as much as one knows. A person is a composite of all of one's memories, across all lives. However, is it possible to share memories of others without ever bring in physical contact? Possibly. This is where Jung's Collective Unconscious and Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance become interesting concepts.

While we are all independent waves in an ocean we are all connected to each other by virtue of being part of the same ocean. Some would call this quantum entanglements. Bohm referred to it as the Implicate Order. We are evolving separately but also as one.
 
Old 09-26-2015, 05:25 AM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,521,721 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
Bentov was quite an accomplished engineer and of course Bohm was one of the preeminent physicists of the 20th century.

When you say "everything we know" you really mean "everything I know".
no, I mean we. but "we" could = one of something else. Just like heart cells. That's what I think anyway. That's why I am not a fundamental type atheist. I feel it is ok to fight big religion. But running around claiming things that are nothing more than blind faith is stupid to me. And when these people start dehumanizing others with it what they believe and use science as the weapon ... that flat out bugs me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
Of course, one can only know as much as one knows. A person is a composite of all of one's memories, across all lives. However, is it possible to share memories of others without ever bring in physical contact? Possibly. This is where Jung's Collective Unconscious and Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance become interesting concepts.

While we are all independent waves in an ocean we are all connected to each other by virtue of being part of the same ocean. Some would call this quantum entanglements. Bohm referred to it as the Implicate Order. We are evolving separately but also as one.
I totally agree with this.

I don't know anything about Jung or bohm. But it sounds like they have a point. We are a collection of neurons. Ants are also very similar to a collection of neurons. The biosphere can be closely compared to a cell, or more generally, life. It is not self aware yet. lmao, because its neurons are stupid.

Your morphic residents is better described using notions of feedback. They can feedback on each other in a resonating manor producing the illusion that "more" is happing. Like a jumper on a diving board reaching resident frequency. Since everything is "waving" anyway something akin to a "rogue" wave can happen. Poof there it is ... life.

take this to your sage.
 
Old 09-26-2015, 06:15 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 4,615,538 times
Reputation: 2202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
no, I mean we. but "we" could = one of something else. Just like heart cells. That's what I think anyway. That's why I am not a fundamental type atheist. I feel it is ok to fight big religion. But running around claiming things that are nothing more than blind faith is stupid to me. And when these people start dehumanizing others with it what they believe and use science as the weapon ... that flat out bugs me.



I totally agree with this.

I don't know anything about Jung or bohm. But it sounds like they have a point. We are a collection of neurons. Ants are also very similar to a collection of neurons. The biosphere can be closely compared to a cell, or more generally, life. It is not self aware yet. lmao, because its neurons are stupid.

Your morphic residents is better described using notions of feedback. They can feedback on each other in a resonating manor producing the illusion that "more" is happing. Like a jumper on a diving board reaching resident frequency. Since everything is "waving" anyway something akin to a "rogue" wave can happen. Poof there it is ... life.

take this to your sage.
Exactly. .. Poof! Every materialist POV must at some point resort to live magically emerging out of non-life. This magic is intrinsic in the materialist POV. There is simply no way to escape it.

Now, why do scientists so desperately hang on to this magic? Why not simply take the opposite POV that non-material Intelligence (quanta) is fundamental and just do away with the magic? The reason is science embraces a fundamental belief system that is biased towards materialism. A belief system that ruptures any notion that science is seeking an understanding of Life and instead is interested only in continuing to support its own biases.

Note, in the quotes above this particular biologist claims that Evolutionary Theory does not preclude a God. That is a different POV.
 
Old 09-26-2015, 07:42 AM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,521,721 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
Exactly. .. Poof! Every materialist POV must at some point resort to live magically emerging out of non-life. This magic is intrinsic in the materialist POV. There is simply no way to escape it.

Now, why do scientists so desperately hang on to this magic? Why not simply take the opposite POV that non-material Intelligence (quanta) is fundamental and just do away with the magic? The reason is science embraces a fundamental belief system that is biased towards materialism. A belief system that ruptures any notion that science is seeking an understanding of Life and instead is interested only in continuing to support its own biases.

Note, in the quotes above this particular biologist claims that Evolutionary Theory does not preclude a God. That is a different POV.
basically agreed again.

but they don't, not all of us. I don't think you understand the word "quanta", I don't mean to be rude there. And, There are fundamental scientist. They only see what's in front of their face. They cannot see past what they right down on a piece of paper. Remember, many people treat fundamentalism wrong IMO. Fundamentalism is a set of personality traits. All groups have these types of people. We, the middle guy, don't have to be suckered in cause they wright/speek, dreass-up reel pretty. IDGAFF.

leave the adjective "magic" put. What I described is emerging but not with magic. You have a point in that when "they" claim , "it randomly just happened" that tells me they do not know enough to say anything else. It is exactly the same as 'goddunit". And the people that are the loudest with this claim normally have an issue past just "normal" human mistreatment of other human's. Like being popped in the pooper. Religion is not the "cause", it is the "effect of human interactions. Like a little boy, we turn anything, and everything, into a weapon. But many just can't understand that.

your "fundamental field" may be right, we all have said that, but you have no proof. My description of your belief is based on what "we" know. Not just what you or I , alone, understand or want.
 
Old 09-26-2015, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 4,615,538 times
Reputation: 2202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
basically agreed again.

but they don't, not all of us. I don't think you understand the word "quanta", I don't mean to be rude there. And, There are fundamental scientist. They only see what's in front of their face. They cannot see past what they right down on a piece of paper. Remember, many people treat fundamentalism wrong IMO. Fundamentalism is a set of personality traits. All groups have these types of people. We, the middle guy, don't have to be suckered in cause they wright/speek, dreass-up reel pretty. IDGAFF.

leave the adjective "magic" put. What I described is emerging but not with magic. You have a point in that when "they" claim , "it randomly just happened" that tells me they do not know enough to say anything else. It is exactly the same as 'goddunit". And the people that are the loudest with this claim normally have an issue past just "normal" human mistreatment of other human's. Like being popped in the pooper. Religion is not the "cause", it is the "effect of human interactions. Like a little boy, we turn anything, and everything, into a weapon. But many just can't understand that.

your "fundamental field" may be right, we all have said that, but you have no proof. My description of your belief is based on what "we" know. Not just what you or I , alone, understand or want.
There is no way to prove whether Intelligence out Matter came first. It is a belief that one begins with. Do materialists recognize this is part of their belief system that they carry into their research?

My belief stems from the observations that quanta is definitely not a particle. From there one can go in many different directions. Bohm calls it an Implicate Order into which information is enfolded and unfolded. I call it an Intelligence Field. It is all philosophical discovery. It is quite useful in the one goes about in their daily life, for me especially so when it comes to health practices.

Last edited by richrf; 09-26-2015 at 08:00 AM..
 
Old 09-26-2015, 08:52 AM
 
16,825 posts, read 17,682,573 times
Reputation: 20851
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
I see. Are humans just chemicals? This should be interesting.
Do you just make stuff up? Where did I say anything about humans?

Frequently the object is in the complexity and not in the material. The Taj Mahal is made of bricks made of mud. Do you think it is more than mud? Crystals are "just" chemicals. Diamonds are chemically identical to coal. It is the organization or complexity that occurred that makes diamonds so different than coal. And yes, complexity does naturally occur just the way crystals like diamonds naturally occur.

Humans are complex arrangements of chemicals but because we are alive does not mean that all chemicals are alive.
Diamonds are complex arrangements of chemicals but because they are crystals doesn't mean all chemicals are crystals.

Get it yet?
 
Old 09-26-2015, 08:57 AM
 
16,825 posts, read 17,682,573 times
Reputation: 20851
Quote:
Originally Posted by richrf View Post
There is no way to prove whether Intelligence out Matter came first. It is a belief that one begins with. Do materialists recognize this is part of their belief system that they carry into their research

My belief stems from the observations that quanta is definitely not a particle. From there one can go in many different directions. Bohm calls it an Implicate Order into which information is enfolded and unfolded. I call it an Intelligence Field. It is all philosophical discovery. It is quite useful in the one goes about in their daily life, for me especially so when it comes to health practices.
1. I can show you matter without intelligence. Can you show me intelligence without any matter?

2. A "quanta" (quanta is plural btw what you mean is quantum) is not a particle. It is a unit of energy. Do you mean a photon? Do you mean a quantum particle? What do you mean?
 
Old 09-26-2015, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 4,615,538 times
Reputation: 2202
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Humans are complex arrangements of chemicals but because we are alive does not mean that all chemicals are alive.
So humans are chemicals that are alive and chemicals are not alive?
 
Old 09-26-2015, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,559 posts, read 4,615,538 times
Reputation: 2202
Quote:
1. I can show you matter without intelligence. Can you show me intelligence without any matter?
Show you? You mean like "seeing" quanta? You cannot see the immaterial. You can only live and experience it, e.g. emotions, memories, etc. Again, asking to see something is a bias towards materialism. Can you the emotion sadness?


Quote:
2. A "quanta" (quanta is plural btw what you mean is quantum) is not a particle. It is a unit of energy. Do you mean a photon? Do you mean a quantum particle? What do you mean?
What exactly is quanta is still being debated. Here is one point of view:

Quantum physics: What is really real? : Nature News & Comment

Note the Pilot-wave Theory says nothing about what it is, just how it behaves and what it explains.

From my perspective, it is simply Intelligence creating things.
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:33 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top