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.
What you call moving the goalposts is simply using different perspectives on the science. You are using the perspective of a user or teacher of the science. I am using the perspective of a philosopher looking for clues to the ontology of our Reality. As a teacher or user, you have to accept the terminology and jargon as adopted in the field. But to ignore the fact that mass is measured differently in low energy physics from that in high energy physics despite using the same name is just bogus. When we ask what are we really measuring and what is its significance for the ontology of our Reality, the equivalence and measurement differences just cloud the issue. When you pretend that mass or matter is the "one stuff," it is or should be clear from the composition of the measurements that energy more accurately describes the vibratory field that comprises the "one stuff."
I think it would behoove us to refrain from describing our different interpretations of the science as lies. If you genuinely think I am not intelligent enough or knowledgeable enough about the science, THAT would hurt me because unlike Arq, you do seem to have knowledge and intelligence above the norm. Nevertheless, I have extensive and accurate knowledge of most of the science that impinges on questions about the ontology of our Reality and most of the philosophy as well.
and unlike you MPD, Transponder has courtesy, dignity, respect and emotional intelligence far far FAR above yours.
Trans also exhibits greater logic, greater rational thinking, greater kindness, greater ability to communicate, greater ability to track discussion, more open mindedness, less bias, and greater ability to see the big picture, than you. He is also smarter than you. Because smart people don't talk like you do.
Marvellous stuff I can understand Goldie's relish for kerfuffle and never mind whether it's useful or not. But this is useful too.
This is absolutely (if I may repeat myself, but it's the clue - or one of the clues - to sussing Mystic) the Fiddled Science he uses to support his Beliefs (T.M ) Scientific Prediction - Mystic will deny that the science is wrong until totally refuted, and then will claim (indeed, he amost did this in an earlier post) that it is just an "Analogy"of a real Mysterious Unknown science that hasn't been discovered yet, but which he somehow knows about.
I won't follow up the implications of that claim, but just to say that understanding his Theory, understanding his "Evidence" (T.M (1) for it and understanding how he has to use Creationist Methods to prop up his Beliefs, means that one can Suss our pal, and having Sussed him, - it's what I call "Seeing through the way the trick is done". And he cannot Bamboozle one ever again.
(1) Rejected by all the world registries other than the US office.
::Sigh:: The amount of unwarranted arrogance underpinning your massive ignorance about the real issues in your "sussing" of my views is beyond the pale. It suggests that you might as well "suss" the contents of your anus for all the good your "sussing anything does to understanding the real issues.
and unlike you MPD, Transponder has courtesy, dignity, respect and emotional intelligence far far FAR above yours.
Trans also exhibits greater logic, greater rational thinking, greater kindness, greater ability to communicate, greater ability to track discussion, more open-mindedness, less bias, and greater ability to see the big picture, than you.
Thank you for that assessment, Tzaph. I will give it the same attention that I give to Arq's "sussing."
and unlike you MPD, Transponder has courtesy, dignity, respect and emotional intelligence far far FAR above yours.
Trans also exhibits greater logic, greater rational thinking, greater kindness, greater ability to communicate, greater ability to track discussion, more open mindedness, less bias, and greater ability to see the big picture, than you. He is also smarter than you. Because smart people don't talk like you do.
Thank you, sweet, lady. You get a second bite of the cherry, despite overlooking my devastating good looks .
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Thank you for that assessment, Tzaph. I will give it the same attention that I give to Arq's "sussing."
You mean piddle all over it and ignore it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
::Sigh:: The amount of unwarranted arrogance underpinning your massive ignorance about the real issues in your "sussing" of my views is beyond the pale. It suggests that you might as well "suss" the contents of your anus for all the good your "sussing anything does to understanding the real issues.
Piffle, my dear chap so much denialist Hot Air. You so often play this "You don't understand" card, but i reckon I understand your Hypothesis (and its' implications) better than you do, and apart from a few tweaks to get over this or that problem, you simply ignore or deny the points and repeat your plonking faith - claims, while telling everyone (even Real experts educated in the subject. which clearly you are not) that they do not know what they are talking about.
Logical' was what I seem to recall you saying. In fact I'm sure of it. So whatever I meant is what you meant.
You said that you didn't think a mind could exist without a body ("After death") and I thought it could. Not becasue it was pure spirit or something but that the electric impulses that seem to the theory about how the brain works could (so it seemed to me) exist without the brain existing to support it.
"Logically" (as i was thinking at the time) was that I can't imagine a mechanism to make this work, and there is no good reason to suppose it could, but is we are loojing for a reason to declare it 'impossible' then I can't say that I can be that definite ("Logically") Does that explain what i meant by the term?
I also remarks (as i recall - but it might have been just now) that the idea of a mind (electric patterns, so to speak) existing without a brain (which is also matter, but obviously different matter from electricity, though it's all "Stuff" at base) e'g a god, is not logically impossible, but (to me) it IS logically impossible (or at least beyond even feasible possibility) that it could have come into existence without being part of a mind of brain -,matter to enable it to work. Which adds another problem to the always -existing god -concept.
I take back my previous criticism about your "sussing," Arq. By jove, I believe you almost get it. I will take one step toward your view by allowing that we can consider your material/physical to be the "one stuff." That makes what the brain produces a very special and specific form of the "one stuff" derived from the neural firings. Physical but very different from what we normally think of the manifestations of "one stuff" that are physical. Did I misread your post?
By Poseidon, you almost get it. I always said that we agree on more things than we disagree on. Yes it is all "One stuff" at a very basic level. But even at sub- atomic level, the "Stuff " does very different things. One could say that electrons and photons are doing "very particular things" that protons and Neutrons (staying in a sullenly unresponsive nucleus) do not while the more active particles Buzz about doing stuff.
Similarly, asteroids (which i presume do not have molten cores) are the same Stuff as stars, but, by Hermes, they are not doing the particular things that stars do, and indeed DNA is the same 'stuff' (at base) that water is, but by Horus, Life is a very particular form of what it does. Thusly, consciousness is the same stuff (or so I argue) as my Sunday Lunch, but it is a very particular type of that stuff. None of which requires that we drag a cosmic intelligence into it.
All that is required for us to be on the same page is
(a) to accept that your belief that a cosmic mind is involved is based on personal feelings, common in humans and cultivatable by practice, true, but demonstrably no more than feelings.
(b) to show that the feeling in this case are correct, you need to produce better evidence than Faith in your feelings and insistence that we accept them as true.
(c) if you can't, accept that we have good reasons for not buying the product you are advertising and stop telling us that we are stupid because we don't believe you.
I think it would behoove us to refrain from describing our different interpretations of the science as lies.
So science is open to "different interpretations."
Just like a holy book is open to different interpretations.
So science "open to different interpretations" includes chi, 12 strand DNA, chakras that correspond to the adrenals, and electromagnetic properties of DNA. You want to dismiss other ideas as woo while expecting your own woo to carry the lofty label of "different interpretations of science."
And you say don't call it lies "different interpretation" but then you do just that....
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That is such a blatant lie from someone who should know better.
Same with religious beliefs. You repeatedly tell others their religious beliefs are wrong they are mistaken. Instead of recognizing there are different interpretations.
You demand and expect from others that which you are unwilling to extend. Its called a double standard.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 06-05-2018 at 07:04 AM..
So science is open to "different interpretations."
Just like a holy book is open to different interpretations.
Same with religious beliefs. You repeatedly tell others their religious beliefs are wrong they are mistaken. Instead of recognizing there are different interpretations.
You demand and expect from others that which you are unwilling to extend. Its called a double standard.
"A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations.
"It is most commonly seen as a decisive psychological tool used to defend one’s ego or subconscious from the shortcomings of one’s own set of values or contrasting principals. It is the employment of a hypocritical and biased standpoint, with which to separate the seemingly bad in others from the bad in oneself by having two sets of rules for the same concept. Margaret Eichler, author of The Double Standard, explains that a double standard “implies that two things which are the same are measured by different standards” (Eichler 1980:15). "
So science is open to "different interpretations."
Just like a holy book is open to different interpretations.
So science "open to different interpretations" includes chi, 12 strand DNA, chakras that correspond to the adrenals, and electromagnetic properties of DNA. You want to dismiss other ideas as woo while expecting your own woo to carry the lofty label of "different interpretations of science."
And you say don't call it lies "different interpretation" but then you do just that....
Same with religious beliefs. You repeatedly tell others their religious beliefs are wrong they are mistaken. Instead of recognizing there are different interpretations.
You demand and expect from others that which you are unwilling to extend. Its called a double standard.
Double standards, for those who are not familiar with the term or the mindset, is explained in this mustwatch video
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.
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.
I can understand Goldie's relish for kerfuffle and never mind whether it's useful or not. But this is useful too. 
) Scientific Prediction 
You get a second bite of the cherry, despite overlooking my devastating good looks . 
You mean piddle all over it and ignore it? 