1927: realism and phenomenalism in math and the sciences
galathaea
realist theories of quantum mechanics
have struggled against more popular interpretations
despite having grown and solidified their mathematical basis
realist interpretations of mathematics
have always been the most widely accepted
this is a strange dichotomy in the fields
fundamentally
this is a question of existence
and the meaning behind existential claims
mathematicians regularly feel free to accept
a variety of foundational assumptions
unconstrained by experience and observation
they usually assume a more practical position
taking their formalism as an abstraction that lives within its own
rules
and are willing to explore how the derivations their symbologies
allow
lead them from assumption to conclusion
outside an interpretation that maps to experience
since copenhagen, 1927
physicist have fallen to phenomenalism
because early attempts at quantum realism
proved naive and unable to recapitulate the quantum formalism
it was abandoned early to phenomenalist positioning
where existents were denied outside experience
in that same year of 1927
the duc, louis de broglie
developed a realist interpretation of quantum mechanics
which recapitulated the predictions of quantum mechanics exactly
it gave existence to particles at all points in time
following earlier developments on initiating the formalism
1927 proved a fruitful year for phenomenalism in mathematics
finding the publication of luitzen brouwer's
" intuitionistic reflections on formalism "
and weyl's forceful refutation of hilbert in
" comments on hilbert's second lecture on the foundations of
mathematics "
these works forcefully argued that mathematics
must constrain existential assertions
to those statements which can be validated in mental construction
which limited mathematical existential statements
away from infinitisic limits in contradiction
and other unphysical derivations
weyl was dissatisfied
and the very next year found husserl's phenomenalism
to contradict his positions
phenomenalism was much more influential to weyl
than the kantian idealism of brouwer
and held sway for the rest of his mathematical and philosphical career
phenomenalism was also influential
to the polish logicians
who found much more synergy with the intuitionistic logic
outside the intuitionistic philsophising
all of this returns to plato and idealism
assumptions of a realm outside experience
were termed realism in physics
and idealism in philosophy
this has confused a long standing dichotomy
that is becoming more and more relevant to the 21st century
and its interpretations of math and science
intuitionism turned to constructivism
through the hard work of the russian school
and later computational constructivists
it began to understand its phenomenalist roots
through ultraintuitionism and the various finitists
physical realism grew
through bohmian research
and the later realist foundationalisms
two directions
two disciplines
which have begun to learn a theory of ought
physical theories ought allow
any model
realist or otherwise
that recapitulates experience
mathematical deduction ought not assume
derivation outside actualisable derivations
on physical symbols and their physical manipulation
is there contradiction here?
or is this a synergy in waiting?
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
Anandavala
> realist theories of quantum mechanics
> have struggled against more popular interpretations
> despite having grown and solidified their mathematical basis
>
> realist interpretations of mathematics
> have always been the most widely accepted
>
> this is a strange dichotomy in the fields
I think this dichotomy rests upon people's beliefs and their
unwillingness to question their beliefs. When mathematics stays in its
own domain people let it do what it wants, but if it makes claims that
impact on people's beliefs - such as is the case with quantum
mechanics, then people immediately revert to empiricism to protect
their beliefs.
This is because empiricism and the unquestioned acceptance of
perceptual experience as a foundation for knowledge and science is the
underlying belief upon which all their later beliefs rest. If people
look into the nature of perception and not simply take it as an
objective window onto reality, then they will see how erroneous,
limited and limiting the empiricist beliefs really are. Perception is
a window onto reality but the mind is a highly complex and non-linear
process, which we need to understand and use appropriately before our
perceptions and experiences can be relied upon and we can infer
accurate knowledge from them.
The low-level empiricist beliefs give rise to the ongoing idea that
quantum physics is just a bizarre calculational tool that miraculously
gives by far the most accurate answers to tens of decimal places but
which bears no relevance to reality because it contradicts our deepest
beliefs that are based upon human sensory experience. Empiricism
assumes that human sensory experience is the ultimate window on
reality and because of this all other forms of knowledge must conform
with the ideas that arise from human sensory experience. If quantum
physics says that objects are non-local and they are also waves, then
people assume that this is impossible because they don't experience
that themselves.
But if people questioned the nature of empirical experience and how it
arises they would see that the objective reality precedes the process
of perception. So any theory based solely on the content of perception
(empiricism) cannot comprehend the underlying process of perception or
the objective reality out of which that process arises. This is like
the hypothetical case of an AI being living within a VR universe who
experiences objects in space and time and they try and comprehend the
underlying VR program and computational space in terms of the objects
of their perception. Such an attempt is bound to result in confusion.
However if they developed a science that delved into the computational
space of the program, that science would be formulated in entirely non-
empiricist terms, there would be no objects in space and time, but
instead there may be probability distributions and non-local
interconnections. Indeed the idea of location in space only exists
within the context of the VR and in the computational space it is more
a matter of abstract states and state transitions.
Such a science is rationalist and scientific-realist but certainly not
empiricist. But it can still be empirical without being empiricist. It
can rely on experiment and theory that must ultimately connect with
our experiential worlds but it certainly doesn't enshrine our
unquestioned experiential concepts within its metaphysical foundation.
I call such a science a "holistic science" and discuss it at length in
my latest essay.
An Information Systems Analysis of Mind, Knowledge, 'the World' and
Holistic Science
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html
There are some relevant comments in my recent postings:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/501114b7d2b7dfe7
And I can also recommend some other sources of information:
Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
A Critique of the Empiricist Interpretation of Modern Physics (PDF)
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~gholling/home/quantumMechanics.pdf
Physicists bid farewell to reality? Quantum mechanics just got even
stranger.
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070416/full/070416-9.html
Empiricism (Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Empirical (Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_method
Empirical method (Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_method
Scientific Method (Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Epistemological Problems of Perception
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-episprob/
Empiricism in World Cultures (fragmentation of western empirical
science)
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/EMPIRIC.HTM
The Objectivity of Science: Does it stand examination?
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/objectivity/tradition.htm
The Objectivity of Science: Is mainstream science really objective?
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/objectivity/index.htm
Closeminded Science
http://www.amasci.com/weird/wclose.html
Observation, Measurement, Science, (Un) Consciousness and Occultism
(Various Quotes)
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/science/observation.htm
Best wishes :)
John Ringland
http://www.anandavala.info
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
If one were to query whether mathematics or physics is more open one
would ordinarily guess mathematics was the more open since it does not
operate within constraints as physics requires.
Yet as mathematicians have broken every crumb down to its constituent
parts to a nauseating degree of meaninglessness the openness of
mathematics has been squeezed. A variation on a given topic now has to
conform to the way the crumbs have been broken out of their slice of
the loaf of bread. Nonconformance is rejected. Mathematicians are
people who jump through hoops and the maze is laid already with a
trail of breadcrumbs to help you along the way. Even the deadends have
breadcrumbs and some even have large pieces of unsliced loaf to
appease the hungry for awhile. This is the student's role and to
become a hooper or a bread baker is about all that is left. The
mapping of the maze should yield what? It doesn't matter what to the
mathematician who wants nothing more.
-Tim
footprints in the snow
Bohr's skeptical statements about there being "no quantum world" in
1927. The phenomenalistic Machians didn't believe in atoms, but the
ongoing success of theoretical science and the instrument-based
detection of atoms and particles (in one sense or another) eventually
caused such skepticism to wane by the time positivism declined in the
1960s.
But much to David Deutsch's vexation, the former domination of the
empiricists does indeed still linger enough to hinder acceptance of
quantum realist approaches to explaining the weirder aspects of QM.
Yet just as Mach and his legacy of doubt about atoms got de-railed by
advances in technology, so the looming generation of devices based
upon the *weird aspects* (quantum cryptography, quantum computers,
minor particle teleportation?) will probably finally erode away much
of the Bohr influences.
footprints in the snow
epistemologically fundamental again by claiming that the brain
apprehends the external world in some transparent manner, but this
simply isn't supported by neuroscience. Empiricism undermines itself
by providing evidence that visual, auditory and etc sensations are
generated by brain processing. This opens the door once again to both
skepticism scientific realism, so that they continue to persist as
viable adversaries of naive realism.
Publius
news:1177247092....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> I think this dichotomy rests upon people's beliefs and their
> unwillingness to question their beliefs. When mathematics stays in its
> own domain people let it do what it wants, but if it makes claims that
> impact on people's beliefs - such as is the case with quantum
> mechanics, then people immediately revert to empiricism to protect
> their beliefs.
>
> This is because empiricism and the unquestioned acceptance of
> perceptual experience as a foundation for knowledge and science is the
> underlying belief upon which all their later beliefs rest. If people
> look into the nature of perception and not simply take it as an
> objective window onto reality, then they will see how erroneous,
> limited and limiting the empiricist beliefs really are. Perception is
> a window onto reality but the mind is a highly complex and non-linear
> process, which we need to understand and use appropriately before our
> perceptions and experiences can be relied upon and we can infer
> accurate knowledge from them.
You're correct in what you deny but mistaken in what you implicitly affirm.
Perception is indeed unreliable, but not because the phenomena of perception
are unreliable. It is unreliable because perception is an elaborate construct
of phenomena and belief, and the beliefs are unreliable. That will remain the
case if even current beliefs are replaced by new beliefs.
Perception is not a "window onto reality." Whatever we see in the window is
the only reality we will ever have. There is no door through which we can
step and to see whether our view through the window is "accurate." The best
we can do is refurbush or reconstruct our percepts, by modifying the
structure of beliefs embedded in them, so that the changing scene in the
window becomes more predictable.
Jeff…Relf
is anti-science at its worst, Galathaea.
Perhaps primitive tribes bought into that, but not today's scientists.
Physical processes determine absolutely everything.
The future is just as fixed as the past.
So time is spatial, static and immutable.
_ Apparent _ entropy is our _ Apparent _ God.
If you want the opinion of the leading scientists of our day
on the " Time is spatial, falsely directional. " issue,
see the quotes and links at " news:Jeff_Relf_2...@Cotse.NET ".
The Ghost In The Machine
<Jeff...@Yahoo.COM>
wrote
on 22 Apr 2007 22:34:49 GMT
<Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET>:
Tell that to Schroedinger's Cat and the electron doubleslit experiment.
:-P
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
for(;;) ;
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
galathaea
|
> Asserting that apparent randomness is anything but pseudorandomness
> is anti-science at its worst, Galathaea.
that is something we both agree on
assuming that the results have infinite information content
and that no finite model is possible
let alone complete determinism
is giving up
> Perhaps primitive tribes bought into that, but not today's scientists.
that is very optimistic for you
> Physical processes determine absolutely everything.
> The future is just as fixed as the past.
> So time is spatial, static and immutable.
>
> _ Apparent _ entropy is our _ Apparent _ God.
>
> If you want the opinion of the leading scientists of our day
> on the " Time is spatial, falsely directional. " issue,
> see the quotes and links at "news:Jeff_Relf_2...@Cotse.NET".
although i do appreciate the beauty
of geometric space-time
i think it is too assumptive of determinism
i know this seems to contradict what i said above
but i don't think it does
i think scientists must always continue to pursue determinist models
but they should not make the illogical leap
that the universe _must_ have a determinist model
they should not derive consequences from such an assumption
and assume their validity
and so i favor views of time that are computational
application of transformations of state
is the "movement" or increment of time
there is always a present state
these computational models
have a natural direction to time embedded in the description
and can handle deterministic and stochastic models
these intepretations of time
agree more with my subjective experience of time
obviously
if the universe turned out to be deterministic
then the computational view of time
has a natural translation to the geometric language
which is very pretty
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jeff…Relf
has nothing to do with the anti-science assertion:
" Apparent randomness is not pseudorandomness. ".
Eric Gisse
Hurry up and get evicted again, vacuum for brains.
Jeff…Relf
Maps are a reflection of both the user and the territory.
Observed or not, time is intrinsically spatial.
galathaea
> would ordinarily guess mathematics was the more open since it does not
> operate within constraints as physics requires.
>
> Yet as mathematicians have broken every crumb down to its constituent
> parts to a nauseating degree of meaninglessness the openness of
> mathematics has been squeezed. A variation on a given topic now has to
> conform to the way the crumbs have been broken out of their slice of
> the loaf of bread. Nonconformance is rejected. Mathematicians are
> people who jump through hoops and the maze is laid already with a
> trail of breadcrumbs to help you along the way. Even the deadends have
> breadcrumbs and some even have large pieces of unsliced loaf to
> appease the hungry for awhile. This is the student's role and to
> become a hooper or a bread baker is about all that is left. The
> mapping of the maze should yield what? It doesn't matter what to the
> mathematician who wants nothing more.
the conflict appears to be between meaning and mechanism
meaning only arises in exchangeable referent
and thus is constrained in phenomenalism
whereas proposing property realism
allows one to build property dynamics
and map out possible existence
either may find justification in technology
and either may lapse into speaking tongues
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Eric Gisse
No it isn't, stupid.
Stop posting shit to sci.physics.
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
I am still tuning in to your phenomenalism paradigm.
We do seek consequents (i.e. consequences) from constructs.
The physicist is forced to the term 'model' for all of his work so as
to insulate himself from the ultimatum that you are barking at. When
one of these models is so close as quantum mechanics claims to be then
there is the possibility that an accurate reconstruction of reality
has been achieved. Perhaps the 'model' paradigm is clouding my ability
to see phenomenalism. I suppose upon accepting such a model as truth
it has been converted to a religion. So long as the physicist
restrains himself to utterances like
"The predictions of quantum theory are consistent with reality"
then he is on the safe side of this boundary whereas the What The
Bleep people have crossed over the boundary. One would hope that the
crossers would do a better job but then they probably wouldn't cross
the boundary between model and reality in the first place.
We see the quantum physicists divorcing themselves from philosophy in
order to hold their course so perhaps this is convergent with your
paradigm. In all of quantum mechanics is there a pure mathematical
derivation of the electron? Instead they get rules of thirds leading
into a kaleidoscopic array whose natural consequent seem less natural
than it used to be. So long as they are open to splitting the electron
then I feel quite open to anything. As long as mass remains a mystery
certainly these problems are open.
Will it always be open? It's an individual problem. So long as one has
not become a convict then one is free to attempt to develop an
alternate conviction. Within this tension I would prefer to see an
electron yielded mathematically over a series of arithmetic
constructions that are consistent with an electron. The basis of
quantum mechanics is in spectroscopy and the pristine behaviors of
atoms. Yet do we really even have a convincing model of how the photon
is generated? Is it unwise to hope for such a thing? Should pure
mathematics provide such details then the truth about reality may be
discovered. Curve fitting aside this realm of physics is pure
mathematics. Beneath the dichotomy lies nature. Within this paradigm a
philosophy must be built rather than denied. Such a dogma predicts
that quantum mechanics will eventually undergo a transformation to
philosophical consistency that is lacking at this stage.
-Tim
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...
> Asserting that apparent randomness is anything but pseudorandomness
> is anti-science at its worst, Galathaea.
Your posts shouldn't even be allowed to have the word "science" in them...
> Perhaps primitive tribes bought into that, but not today's scientists.
Citation which supports this, not your spewing crap which misrepresents
everything everyone else says.
> Physical processes determine absolutely everything.
> The future is just as fixed as the past.
> So time is spatial, static and immutable.
Incorrect. Please try to learn some /basic/ physics.
> _ Apparent _ entropy is our _ Apparent _ God.
Apparently your abuse of underscores still means you are talking nonsense.
> If you want the opinion of the leading scientists of our day
> on the " Time is spatial, falsely directional. " issue,
> see the quotes and links at " news:Jeff_Relf_2...@Cotse.NET ".
That post does not show the opinion of leading scientists. You need to learn
to read, before you can try to reword what others say to support your
nonsense.
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...
> has nothing to do with the anti-science assertion:
> " Apparent randomness is not pseudorandomness. ".
Do you get paid by the letter?
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...
Really? Which ones?
Are you trying to talk about models which allow time to go in either
direction, or do you have a "certain 'physical' model" which is based on
time going backwards?
> Maps are a reflection of both the user and the territory.
Meaningless.
> Observed or not, time is intrinsically spatial.
Not in the sense of "dimensions."
Phineas T Puddleduck
JeffŠRelf <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Nonsense
--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).
Anandavala
>
> - Show quoted text -
< You're correct in what you deny but mistaken in what you implicitly
affirm.
I'm not sure what you think I am implicitly affirming, can you be a
little more specific?
< Perception is indeed unreliable, but not because the phenomena of
perception
< are unreliable. It is unreliable because perception is an elaborate
construct
< of phenomena and belief, and the beliefs are unreliable. That will
remain the
< case if even current beliefs are replaced by new beliefs.
That is exactly the manner in which I was implying that perception is
unreliable. Sorry for not specifying the details.
< Perception is not a "window onto reality."
That was just a metaphor and not a strict definition.
< Whatever we see in the window is
< the only reality we will ever have.
It is the only reality that the mind has access to. The ego is a
thought construct within the mind. Whilst ever we are identified with
the ego we are bound to operate only within the mind. Also if we are
attached to intellectual knowledge we are also bound to operate only
within the mind.
> There is no door through which we can
> step and to see whether our view through the window is "accurate."
Well, this is a bit of an assumption.
A word of warning: This following discussion may not seem like science
to some because it is not traditional empirical science, but it
conforms to the general approach of science. It rationally and
skeptically questions the beliefs that underly the empiricist
approach.
According to the traditional empiricist/materialist belief system you
are correct; there is no door. But if you think about it, beneath all
our perceptions and ideas there is 'something' that is real. In some
way we are a part of that something. When another 'something'
interacts with ourselves it manifests objects of perception within our
minds and we normally just accept those objects as being the actual
reality (commonsense realism). This is biologically programmed into us
and it is adequate for animal survival but it is not representative of
the ontological reality. By confusing the modifications of our minds
with the idea of "external objects" we build within our minds the
belief in a world of objects in space-time. But all we really know is
that we exist in some way, that something else exists in some way and
when these two resonate there arises phenomena within consciousness,
which we interpret as portraying a world of objects in space-time. If
one remains skeptical and does not resort to belief then one cannot
begin to talk about a physical universe. First we must reslove the
deeper issues of what is the something, what is consciousness and what
is the relationship between the something, consciousness and the world
that we experience.
>From this we see that we ourselves are the bridge or door between the
ontologically real 'something' and the phenomena of the mind. If you
are identified with the mind or the ego then you are unaware of the
underlying reality that is the real you, because the mind cannot
directly grasp reality, it can only reflect it in distorted ways.
So to step through the door is to return to your Self through growing
self-awareness and the overcoming of the mind made reflections that we
so often confuse for reality. We ARE the reality so by knowing
ourselves we can know reality. This isn't a mind based intellectual
knowing, because the mind cannot go there, it is a direct knowing
through awareness and personal experience. This can later be expressed
in words and ideas but these are just cognitive reflections of
reality. It is only through pure awareness that reality can be
directly known.
"The ego and vanity in man often stand in the way of his acceptance of
the position that super-ordinary consciousness, to which he is a total
stranger, can be possible for some members of the species to which he
belongs. This frame of mind is often pronounced in scholars who fondly
believe that more and more extensive knowledge of the world and its
infinitely varied phenomena provided by poring over vast libraries of
books, is the only expansion and advancement possible to the human
mind. It cannot but be repugnant to a polymath to be told that there
is a learning beyond his grasp, that the very nature of the mind can
change and can soar to normally super-sensible planes of being, which
are inaccessible to the keenest intellect, however well informed and
penetrating it might be." (Gopi Krishna from 'The Wonder Of The
Brain')
< The best
< we can do is refurbush or reconstruct our percepts, by modifying the
< structure of beliefs embedded in them, so that the changing scene in
the
< window becomes more predictable.
That is the first step. It clarifies illusions and confusions that
keep us looking in the wrong direction; outward into the objects of
sense perception rather than inward into the actual process of
perception and experience. To look outward is to be aware only of the
contents of consciousness and to believe that those contents are the
reality. To look inward is to clarify and develop consciousness
itself.
The first step in this clarification process is to question and
challenge naive realism or commonsense realism. To stop confusing the
objects of perception with the idea of ontologically real objects.
This is simply overcoming a biologically programmed belief as a
precondition for being able to think about things without constantly
slipping back into a naive realist, empiricist and materialist belief
system. This frees you to think clearly and skeptically about things.
There are many illusions that we succumb to because of the fundamental
constraints of our situation, because of biological evolution and
because of the historical evolution of ideas and beliefs. The process
of clarifying false ideas is the level that I mostly work on; using
skeptical intellectual analyses to clarify illusions and comprehend
the deeper nature of ourselves, the universe and existence in general.
I cover such a vast territory that my writings are a little difficult
to approach, they don't fit neatly into any particular domain. But if
you are game, check out:
http://www.anandavala.info
: general collection of ideas to explore in your own way
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html
: a single structured discussion that leads you through the ideas
And also do a search for 'Anandavala' on usenet to see what
discussions there are...
Best Wishes :)
John Ringland
Anandavala
deafening! :)
Doesn't anyone wish to try and defend empiricism? Or enquire into what
may lie behind the veil of empiricist beliefs? Or will everyone just
hide in denial in order to protect their beliefs and to maintain their
self-deception about their degree of skepticism and rationality?
Note that skepticism "is the application of reason to any and all
ideas" whereas cynicism is "An attitude of scornful or jaded
negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or
professed motives of others". So are you going to be skeptical or
cynical?
I have found that lay people and philosophers can be quite skeptical
on occasions but in my experience scientists only seem to run and hide
or respond with irrational fury - why? Aren't you guys meant to be
beyond belief and superstition??? So why do scientists resort to
denial and cynicism just like any prejudiced believer??? I know,
rationality is just the stereotypical image of science whereas in
reality it is mostly political and consensus based. Scientists are
often afraid of their cynical peers and afraid of losing funding and
ruining their careers - but what about science, shouldn't it come
first?
Science is only strengthened by facing challenges and overcoming them
but don't you see how fragile 'empirical' science is? Just a few facts
of psychology and information processing can derail centuries of
empiricist belief !!!!!!!!!!!!! This is because empiricism relies
solely on the objects of sense perception as its ontological
foundation and it does this without questioning the reality and true
nature of these objects of perception. It naively attributes those
objects of perception with ontological reality and then builds upon
that conceptual foundation - empiricism is a legacy of naive realism.
Rather than bury your heads in the sand, shouldn't you be skeptical
and face the facts? There is incredible discoveries just around the
corner if you only open your minds to the facts.
When I said: "If one remains skeptical and does not resort to belief
then one cannot begin to talk about a physical universe." I didn't
mean that silence is the only option! I simply meant that any concept
of physical objects is of phenomenological interest only and any
attempt to give those objects ontological existence is an artifact of
naive realism, so the idea of the physical universe is only a figure
of speech or a metaphor and not an ontological reality. This is the
realisation that is slowly coming through from quantum physics and
scientific realism.
I also said:
"beneath all our perceptions and ideas there is 'something' that is
real.
In some way we are a part of that something. When another 'something'
interacts with ourselves it manifests objects of perception within
our
minds and we normally just accept those objects as being the actual
reality (commonsense/naive realism). This is biologically programmed
into us and it is adequate for animal survival but it is not
representative
of the ontological reality. By confusing the modifications of our
minds
with the idea of "external objects" we build within our minds the
belief in a world of objects in space-time. But all we really know is
that we exist in some way, that something else exists in some way and
when these two resonate there arises phenomena within consciousness,
which we interpret as portraying a world of objects in space-time...
...First we must resolve the deeper issues of what is the something,
what is consciousness and what is the relationship between the
something, consciousness and the seemingly physical world that we
experience."
Once the concept of the ontologically real physical universe is
debunked as a naive realist belief we can then go about finding out
what is the actual ontological reality rather than remaining trapped
in an outmoded belief system. Just because you have believed it in the
past doesn't mean you should irrationally cling to that belief! As a
scientist you should look into the cracks in your theories and see
what lies beyond them. That is the only way that significant
scientific advances are made. Granted, this isn't just a crack - it
rips the foundation out from beneath empirical science, but it was a
false and unstable foundation anyway and the bigger the paradigm shift
the bigger the potential.
By accepting that the idea of the physical universe and the discipline
of empirical science are of phenomenological interest only we can
salvage the accumulated knowledge from its past misunderstandings and
then intelligently use it to work toward understanding the 'something'
that underlies the objects of perception and the consciousness that
creates those objects of perception. Quantum physics, once it is taken
seriously can help us do this. Due to the historical evolution of many
branches of science we are now in a position to undertake this
exploration and there is ENORMOUS potential in overcoming our limited
beliefs and realigning with reality.
A quote from Alfred North Whitehead:
"The old foundations of scientific thought are becoming
unintelligible. Time, space, matter, material, ether, electricity,
mechanism, organism, configuration, structure, pattern, function, all
require reinterpretation. What is the sense of talking about a
mechanical explanation when you do not know what you mean by
mechanics? The truth is that science started its modern career by
taking over ideas derived from the weakest side of the philosophies of
Aristotle's successors. In some respects it was a happy choice. It
enabled the knowledge of the seventeenth century to be formulated so
far as physics and chemistry were concerned, with a completeness which
lasted to the present time. But the progress of biology and psychology
has probably been checked by the uncritical assumption of half-truths.
If science is not to degenerate into a medley of ad hoc hypotheses, it
must become philosophical and must enter upon a thorough criticism of
its own foundations." -end quote
Here is a little bit of evidence that is analogous to the
photoelectric effect that blew classical physics apart and gave birth
to quantum physics... This article itself is not authoritative but if
you look into the details the evidence is undeniable and profound!
http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa062298.htm
I will continue to add posts to this thread to keep it alive so that
you cannot just ignore it! This isn't to be annoying, it is to honour
skepticism and truth! I respect only open skeptical minds and I
challenge all naive beliefs no matter how fervently they are held.
There is a general structured introduction to the ideas at:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html
And if you want to explore the ideas in your own way then see:
http://www.anandavala.info
To see some related comments from other recent newsgroup discussions
that I have had go to:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/RecentDiscussions_ISA.html
Good luck and best wishes :)
John Ringland
> John Ringland- Hide quoted text -
Art
<john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote:
>I have found that lay people and philosophers can be quite skeptical
>on occasions but in my experience scientists only seem to run and hide
>or respond with irrational fury - why? Aren't you guys meant to be
>beyond belief and superstition??? So why do scientists resort to
>denial and cynicism just like any prejudiced believer??? I know,
>rationality is just the stereotypical image of science whereas in
>reality it is mostly political and consensus based. Scientists are
>often afraid of their cynical peers and afraid of losing funding and
>ruining their careers - but what about science, shouldn't it come
>first?
Your observations remind me of the astrophysicist Carl Sagan who
in his book "Broca's Brain" proposed an explanation of the famous
Near Death Experience (NDE) phenomena. Astonishing Carl asserted
that the "travelling through a tunnel and approaching a loving
light" experience is merely a memory of birth. I thought astonishing
Carl would at least first ask if people born Cesarian experience the
"tunnel and light" when near death. Sure enough, later on, I read that
such persons also experience the "tunnel and light". Furthermore, if
astonishing Carl had any kind of clue at all, he would know that
people who have been regressed back to the memory of their births
describe it just as you might imagine ... it's obviously a traumatic
and violent experience .... not the transcendental, life-transforming
experience reported by many NDE persons.
I expect this kind of totally irrational and contemptable
behavior from those who set themselves up as "rational
skeptics", denying the existence of all paranormal and psychic
phenomena. But when a "scientist" like the famous astonishing
Carl behaves completely in a unscientific manner, he is beneath
contempt. He's just plain disgusting.
John Ringland
very open skeptical mind :)
Words are slippery things and clear facts ONLY exist when the context in
which they are spoken is able to be clearly defined and clearly known. Just
like in our recent discussion on alt.philosophy:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/501114b7d2b7dfe7/5e9058e11309b750
It seemed to you that we were in disagreement until I clarified the context
and once that was done it seems that we are in agreement...
This subject is rather off topic for sci.physics, sci.math and sci.logic,
and not really related to the subject of "Scientific realism vs naive
realism" but since Carl is no longer in the body to be able to clarify his
context - I'll stand up for him... Note that this is all just conjecture and
I don't put it forward as scientific truth. As I said in the other
discussions on alt.philosophy - when stepping into the realm of "relative
truth" there really is only conjecture because it is all just phenomena
within consciousness (what you see depends on how you look and what you
think depends on what concepts you use) thus there is NO absolute truth. I
hope this discussion doesn't push the scientists boggle factor too far! What
I am really here to talk about is "Scientific realism vs naive realism"
which is of vital importance to the development of modern science.
It seems to me that you are talking about the physical experience of birth
and the corporeal memories of that physical experience. But I seriously
doubt if that was what Carl was talking about.
I would suspect that he was talking on a deeper level. Words are difficult
here but I'll use some standard metaphors to work toward the point - don't
take these metaphors too literally - they just point at that which is really
beyond words.
I suspect that he was talking about the process by which the individual soul
accumulates the etheric sheaths that eventually build up into a vehicle of
manifestation. Once we are fully manifest we look through the senses and
think through the mind and come to call these sheaths a body and a mind, but
these are just sensory/cognitive interpretations that we confuse with
reality due to naive realism.
What Carl was talking about was probably the subtle process of descent into
manifestation, which is ultimately caused by samskaras (lingering desires
and attachments) that bring us back into samsara (the world illusion).
Because the individual soul is returning to that which it craves it could
quite likely be a pleasant experience.
Furthermore, this descent into manifestation most likely corresponds more
with conception than with the actual birth so the being finds itself in a
'perfect' environment (in the womb) where all of its needs are effortlessly
met. So it certainly isn't a traumatic experience.
The tunnel is quite possibly the minds way of interpreting the experience of
entering and exiting manifestation. It is not an ontological reality but
just a phenomenon within consciousness.
The actual process of physically being born is most likely a traumatic
experience but quite likely we are biologically equiped to either be mostly
oblivious to it or to rapidly forget it so that we don't all arrive in the
world totally traumatised.
I hope that clears this up and doesn't cause the scientists to totally run
away. I'd much rather discuss "Scientific realism vs naive realism" which is
of vital importance to the development of modern science.
Are there any scientists out there who are willing to explore the connection
between naive realism and materialism?
Best Wishes :)
John Ringland
On May 13, 3:56 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
> On 12 May 2007 05:11:48 -0700, Anandavala
>
> http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg- Hide quoted text -
John Ringland
realism?
It is one of the most important, cutting edge and world changing issues
around!!!!
Oh well - I'll just keep this thread alive.
I'll say more about it soon.
Maybe this can just be my own private monologue on the subject :)
Ciao
John Ringland
http://www.anandavala.info
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/RecentDiscussions_ISA.html
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~gholling/home/quantumMechanics.pdf
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070416/full/070416-9.html
Bob Kolker
Tell me that a solid brick hitting you in the head is merely the flow of
ideas in your "information space". Does your information space swell,
bleed and hurt?
Bob Kolker
John Ringland
It's Wonderful to get a response from someone! But I sense a little
hostility in your chosen example scenario :(
"Bob Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:5b87e3F...@mid.individual.net...
> This is all mystical bullshit.
>
> Tell me that a solid brick hitting you in the head is merely the flow of
> ideas in your "information space". Does your information space swell,
> bleed and hurt?
What you say is actually materialist / naive-realist nonsense :) I will
explain why it is non-sense below...
Although I get the feeling that you are rather cynical and probably wouldn't
listen to anything that I have to say, so for now I'll give mainly
authoritative quotes and only brief comments of my own to help contextualise
them.
I don't wish to attack you - but your position is so fragile that simple
truths can cause it great damage. I'm sorry for any discomfort that may be
caused!
I hope your interjection wasn't just an irrational outburst. I hope you are
capable of following these arguments and of arguing your own point of view.
I'd like to hear some coherent arguments for the "other side" - I have yet
to hear any! If you (or anyone else) can coherently argue your case I'd love
to hear it ;)
-----------
I mentioned cynicism just above - this is often confused with skepticism so
Ill clarify these terms:
"Cynicism: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general
distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others." (The American
Heritage Dictionary http://www.answers.com/topic/cynicism)
But I am simply being skeptical :)
Skepticism "is the application of reason to any and all ideas - no sacred
cows allowed... Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to
the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be
true. When we say we are 'skeptical' we mean that we must see compelling
evidence before we believe." (http://www.skeptic.com)
Furthermore "To some degree skepticism manifests itself in the scientific
method, which demands that all things assumed as facts be questioned. But
the positivism of many scientists, whether latent or open, is incompatible
with skepticism, for it accepts without question the assumption that
material effect is impossible without material cause." (The Columbia
Electronic Encyclopedia http://www.answers.com/topic/skepticism)
So materialism is NOT a skeptical position to take - because it is based
upon the unquestioned assumption and belief in the primacy of matter. I was
a materialist believer and I studied five years of university physics and
computer science and was an atheist, but I only gradually came round to
mysticism when the evidence through both skeptical intellectual enquiry and
personal experience was incontrovertible.
-----------
I'll also clarify "naive realism" for you:
"Naļve realism is a common sense theory of perception. Most people, until
they start reflecting philosophically, are naļve realists. This theory is
also known as "direct realism" or "common sense realism". Naļve realism
claims that the world is pretty much as common sense would have it. All
objects are composed of matter, they occupy space, and have properties such
as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour. [It is assumed that] These
properties are usually perceived correctly. So, when we look at and touch
things we see and feel those things directly, and so perceive them as they
really are." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism)
In its most common form a naive realist thinks "I ... am a human being.
There is this one physical world, the space where everything exists and the
time in which everything happens. There are many things in this physical
world, each largely separate from the other and persisting over a span of
time... My senses give me direct knowledge of reality. If I see a chair, it
is because there is a chair physically where and when I see it. There are
exceptions, like when I am dreaming or watching a movie, but these are rare
and obviously not real. I can know things through my senses, through
thinking about things, and through communication with other people. Other
people's beliefs may be correct or not, but beliefs of people I respect, and
beliefs held commonly by most people in my society, are usually true."
(http://www.boogieonline.com/seeking/first/yesterday.html)
It is a general tendency of naive realists to be unaware that their beliefs
are in fact beliefs. They consider them to simply be obvious facts about the
way things are. This is because they have not yet questioned their beliefs.
They are naive believers but they often also believe that they are
skeptical. It is a habitual credulous state of mind and the habit can be
very hard to overcome.
"Karl Popper (1970) pointed out that although Hume's idealism appeared to
him to be a strict refutation of commonsense realism, and although he felt
rationally obliged to regard commonsense realism as a mistake, he admitted
that he was, in practice, quite unable to disbelieve in it for more than an
hour: that, at heart, Hume was a commonsense realist. [And] Edmund Husserl
(1970), saw the phenomenologist in Hume when he showed that some perceptions
are interrelated or associated to form other perceptions which are then
projected onto a world putatively outside the mind."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume)
I.e. objects which are assumed to comprise the "external world" are really
objects of perception. To attribute them with external reality is an act of
belief for which there is no rational basis.
-----------
As for 'matter' and 'information':
"Let us now return to our ultimate particles and to small organizations of
particles as atoms or small molecules. The old idea about them was that
their individuality was based on the identity of matter in them... The new
idea is that what is permanent in these ultimate particles or small
aggregates is their shape and organization. The habit of everyday language
deceives us and seems to require, whenever we hear the word shape or form of
something, that it must be a material substratum that is required to take on
a shape. Scientifically this habit goes back to Aristotle, his causa
materialis and causa formalis. But when you come to the ultimate particles
constituting matter, there seems to be no point in thinking of them again as
consisting of some material. They are as it were, pure shape, nothing but
shape; what turns up again and again in successive observations is this
shape, not an individual speck of material..." (Erwin Schroedinger)
""materialism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account
of himself." (Schopenhauer)... an observing subject can only know material
objects through the mediation of the brain and its particular organization.
The way that the brain knows determines the way that material objects are
experienced." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism)
"Noumena (the reality that is the foundation of our sensory and mental
representations of an external world) do not cause phenomena, but rather
phenomena are simply the way by which our minds perceive the noumena... we
participate in the reality of an otherwise unachievable world outside the
mind... We cannot prove that our mental picture of an outside world
corresponds with a reality by reasoning."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schopenhauer)
"Because it is now a scientifically established fact that less than 4% of
the universe is composed of matter as commonly understood modern
philosophical materialists attempt to extend the definition of matter to
include other scientifically observable entities such as energy, forces, and
the curvature of space. However this opens them to further criticism from
philosophers such as Mary Midgley who suggest that the concept of "matter"
is elusive and poorly defined." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism)
Information is discernible difference and is thus a generalised concept for
any discernible feature of existence. It can therefore manifest in any
medium and be transformed between any mediums. When information flows in the
same information space it produces effects that are 'material' in the
current scientific sense of the word. This is the essence of quantum physics
where there is only the flow and interaction of quantum information.
Information is not 'matter' but what is matter? Can anyone coherently answer
that? A simple metaphor for the physicality of information is when a
computer game character tries to walk through a computer game wall it is
stopped in a very 'physical' sense. In this sense information is no less
material than energy!
> Tell me that a solid brick hitting you in the head is merely the flow of
> ideas in your "information space". Does your information space swell,
> bleed and hurt?
The information space doesn't "swell, bleed and hurt" but my head certainly
does if the brick and my head exist in the same information space such as
that which we naively call "the physical universe"! Information is
communicated from brick to head, the bulk transmission (or bandwidth) of
this information is what we call energy (i.e. the flow of non-material
substance (discernible difference) that produces material effects). The
dynamic flow of the communication is what we call causality. The resulting
effects of the communication is what we call swelling, bleeding and hurting.
"The old foundations of scientific thought are becoming unintelligible.
Time, space, matter, material, ether, electricity, mechanism, organism,
configuration, structure, pattern, function, all require reinterpretation.
What is the sense of talking about a mechanical explanation when you do not
know what you mean by mechanics? The truth is that science started its
modern career by taking over ideas derived from the weakest side of the
philosophies of Aristotle's successors. In some respects it was a happy
choice. It enabled the knowledge of the seventeenth century to be formulated
so far as physics and chemistry were concerned, with a completeness which
lasted to the present time. But the progress of biology and psychology has
probably been checked by the uncritical assumption of half-truths. If
science is not to degenerate into a medley of ad hoc hypotheses, it must
become philosophical and must enter upon a thorough criticism of its own
foundations." (Alfred North Whitehead
http://www.alfred.north.whitehead.com/witwiz/witwiz4.htm)
"Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which
attempts to model objective reality." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)
But "Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all
our concepts and knowledge" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/)
And because of this empirical science has succumbed to naive realism!
-----------
Now for empiricism (naive realism) vs. rationalism (scientific realism)
In this discussion I am the rationalist and you are the empiricist. Please
argue for your position if you can - I'd like to explore these ideas
deeper...
"Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue
that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge
outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. Second, they
construct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides that
additional information about the world. Empiricists present complementary
lines of thought. First, they develop accounts of how experience provides
the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first
place... Second, empiricists attack the rationalists' accounts of how reason
is a source of concepts or knowledge." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/)
Traditional empirical science addresses "the epistemological question [what
can be known and what is unknowable] by drawing a sharp distinction between
truth and empirical adequacy. [Empirical science claims] that a good theory
need only provide an empirically adequate description of observable
phenomena [it doesn't claim to be able to ascertain any kind of truth but
rather it only claims to have phenomenological adequacy]. Any unobservables,
such as electrons and quarks, are simply empirical tools for describing the
observable world... [hence] our epistemic knowledge is limited to the
observables... [However] Scientific realism claims that we can know about
objects beyond what we observe with our bare senses, and this knowledge is
what allows us to predict phenomena. The realist interpretation [of quantum
mechanics] shows that we can make knowledge claims about objects, such as
electrons, that are unobservable with our bare senses. This challenges the
empiricist claim that quantum objects are simply empirical tools to describe
observables. Thus, contrary to what we might at first think, the
wave-particle duality of quantum objects provides support for the
[scientific] realists. We now know that quantum objects behave differently
from everyday objects, and we can make an experimentally supported
epistemological claim about the quantum world, a very realist claim." (A
Critique of the Empiricist Interpretation of Modern Physics
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~gholling/home/quantumMechanics.pdf)
Regarding the issue of "empirical adequacy. [Empirical science claims] that
a good theory need only provide an empirically adequate description of
observable phenomena [it doesn't claim to be able to ascertain any kind of
truth but rather it only claims to have phenomenological adequacy]". This
means that empirical science is fundamentally unable to address any
questions of ontology (what actually is) and it can only address questions
of phenomenology (that which appears to the human mind). This derives from
the foundations of empiricism where "Empiricists claim that sense experience
is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge" (Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/)
But scientists generally ignore this fundamental limitation and the general
public is unaware of it. This causes empirical science to intrude into
questions of ontology where it is totally incoherent and irrational. This
leads to Scientism, which is a very crude form of religion - the most
obvious denomination of which is materialism.
"Sociologists coined the term "scientism" back in the 1940s, when they
realized that many scientists unthinkingly accepted many scientific theories
as simple, unquestioned Truths, just like believers in any "ism," and thus
we often acted like any prejudiced "believer," especially outside our
immediate areas of expertise." (The Archives of Scientists Transcendent
Experiences (TASTE) http://issc-taste.org/index.shtml)
From a recent article in Nature:
"we have to give up the idea of [naive] realism to a far greater extent than
most physicists believe today." (Anton Zeilinger)... By realism, he means
the idea that objects have specific features and properties - that a ball is
red, that a book contains the works of Shakespeare, or that an electron has
a particular spin. For everyday objects, such realism isn't a problem. But
for objects governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, like photons and
electrons, it may make no sense to think of them as having well defined
characteristics. Instead, what we see may depend on how we look."
(Physicists bid farewell to reality? Quantum mechanics just got even
stranger http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070416/full/070416-9.html)
-----------
As for what you call "mystical bullshit":
"The concepts of science show strong similarities to the concepts of the
mystics... The philosophy of mystical traditions, the perennial philosophy,
is the most consistent philosophical background to modern science." (Fritjof
Capra)
Aside from stereotyping, misrepresentation and demonisation of mysticism
from political/religious institutions, mysticism is the logical result of
deep skepticism and the overcoming of naive realism. Once we stop
irrationally believing that the objects of sense perception are material
external objects we realise that everything is information in flux - it is
all a type of low-level consciousness. This is a profoundly liberating and
empowering realisation that undermines all delusional entrenched power
structures and mechanistic hegemonies - hence the suppression of mysticism
in order to enslave, deceive and exploit vast populations.
Quantum physics is rapidly leading us to a mystic perspective. But most
convincingly in terms of scientific evidence, recent experiments provide
incontrovertible evidence for the influence of consciousness over matter!
See this article (http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa062298.htm)
that discusses experiments that incontrovertibly prove that mind has direct
influence over matter, thus shattering the illusion of materialism. The
article is not authoritative but the experiments are!!!!
The following four quotes are taken from that article to express the new
scientific understanding coming through.
"If you consider the world an extension of yourself, it becomes a better
place." (Brenda Dunne, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory
(PEAR) http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epear/index.html)
"The only way I can explain the phenomenon is that it's occurring... outside
of space and time." (John Haaland, president and CEO of Mindsong Inc., an
electronics firm developing mind-matter machines
http://www.mindsonginc.com/)
"Consciousness is the ground of all being." (Amit Goswami, professor of
Physics at the Institute of Theoretical Sciences at the University of
Oregon)
"The universe is one and we are one with it." (Victor Stenger, professor of
physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii)
The ultimate test of any world view is the impact that it has one our lives
and the world at large over time, and empiricism has produced unbounded
unstable growth of exploitative monstrosities that are on the verge of
destroying all life on this planet as well as the human spirit within each
of us. Politicised religion was no better either. Both are empiricist
delusions, one dressed up as science and the other dressed up as religion -
neither is true science or true religion. It is empiricism and naļve realism
that is their fundamental flaw, which is protected by orthodoxy and
cynicism. Mysticism destroys illusion and overcomes this flaw; it conceives
of the Whole and our place within the whole and thereby keeps all things in
balance and harmony.
"Indeed, to some extent it has always been necessary and proper for man, in
his thinking, to divide things up, if we tried to deal with the whole of
reality at once, we would be swamped. However when this mode of thought is
applied more broadly to man's notion of himself and the whole world in which
he lives, (i.e. in his world-view) then man ceases to regard the resultant
divisions as merely useful or convenient and begins to see and experience
himself and this world as actually constituted of separately existing
fragments. What is needed is a relativistic theory, to give up altogether
the notion that the world is constituted of basic objects or building
blocks. Rather one has to view the world in terms of universal flux of
events and processes." (David Bohm)
"In contrast to the mechanistic Cartesian view of the world, the world-view
emerging from modern physics can be characterized by words like organic,
holistic, and ecological. It might also be called a systems view, in the
sense of general systems theory. The universe is no longer seen as a
machine, made up of a multitude of objects, but has to be pictured as one
indivisible dynamic whole whose parts are essentially interrelated and can
be understood only as patterns of a cosmic process." (Fritjof Capra)
This is the fundamental world view of mysticism and so too with system
theory - the two are almost identical in their fundamental principles and
they differ only in the language and metaphors used to express them. It is
mainly this parallel between system theory, quantum physics and mysticism
that I explore in my work. I do what I can to cross-fertilise them, to build
a conceptual bridge between them and to distil the best aspects of all of
them to help create the foundations of a holistic science.
"There is this hope, I cannot promise you whether or when it will be
realized - that the mechanistic paradigm, with all its implications in
science as well as in society and our own private life, will be replaced by
an organismic or systems paradigm that will offer new pathways for our
presently schizophrenic and self-destructive civilization." (Ludwig von
Bertalanffy)
The latest essay describing the work is:
Information Systems Analysis of Mind, Knowledge, 'the World' and Holistic
Science
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html
And the general website is:
http://www.anandavala.info
Androcles
"John Ringland" <john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote in message
news:8HK3i.1710$wH4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
: Hey Bob,
:
: It's Wonderful to get a response from someone! But I sense a little
: hostility in your chosen example scenario :(
:
: "Bob Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
: news:5b87e3F...@mid.individual.net...
: > This is all mystical bullshit.
: >
: > Tell me that a solid brick hitting you in the head is merely the flow of
: > ideas in your "information space". Does your information space swell,
: > bleed and hurt?
:
: What you say is actually materialist / naive-realist nonsense :) I will
: explain why it is non-sense below...
:
: Although I get the feeling that you are rather cynical and probably
wouldn't
: listen to anything that I have to say, so for now I'll give mainly
: authoritative quotes
Isaac Asimov wrote in "Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright" ,
ISBN 0-380-44610-3
(concerning life after death)
If you want to argue the point, present the evidence.
I must warn you, though, that there are some arguments I will not accept.
I won't accept any argument from authority. ("The Bible says so")
I won't accept any argument from internal conviction ("I have faith it is
so")
I won't accept any argument from personal abuse ("What are you, an
atheist?")
I won't accept any argument from irrelevance ("Do you think you have been
put on this Earth just to exist for a moment of time?)
I won't accept any argument from anecdote ("My cousin has a friend who went
to a medium and talked to her dead husband")
And when all that, and other varieties of non-evidence are eliminated, there
turns out to be nothing.
So much for authoritative quotes.
John Ringland
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:jOK3i.30201$Ug.2...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>> : Although I get the feeling that you are rather cynical and probably
>> wouldn't
>> : listen to anything that I have to say, so for now I'll give mainly
>> : authoritative quotes
>
> Isaac Asimov wrote in "Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright" ,
> ISBN 0-380-44610-3
> (concerning life after death)
> If you want to argue the point, present the evidence.
> I must warn you, though, that there are some arguments I will not accept.
> I won't accept any argument from authority. ("The Bible says so")
> I won't accept any argument from internal conviction ("I have faith it is
> so")
> I won't accept any argument from personal abuse ("What are you, an
> atheist?")
> I won't accept any argument from irrelevance ("Do you think you have been
> put on this Earth just to exist for a moment of time?)
> I won't accept any argument from anecdote ("My cousin has a friend who
> went
> to a medium and talked to her dead husband")
> And when all that, and other varieties of non-evidence are eliminated,
> there
> turns out to be nothing.
>
>
> So much for authoritative quotes.
You should actually read them and judge for yourself before making a
knee-jerk reaction to the word 'authoritative'.
> If you want to argue the point, present the evidence.
I do!
> I must warn you, though, that there are some arguments I will not accept.
> I won't accept any argument from authority. ("The Bible says so")
I don't!
> I won't accept any argument from internal conviction ("I have faith it is
> so")
I don't!
> I won't accept any argument from personal abuse ("What are you, an
> atheist?")
I don't!
> I won't accept any argument from irrelevance ("Do you think you have been
> put on this Earth just to exist for a moment of time?)
I don't!
> I won't accept any argument from anecdote ("My cousin has a friend who
> went
> to a medium and talked to her dead husband")
I don't!
> And when all that, and other varieties of non-evidence are eliminated,
> there
> turns out to be nothing.
This whole response is a no-brainer! Try thinking about it before
responding, please!
John Ringland
http://www.anandavala.info
John Ringland
> news:jOK3i.30201$Ug.2...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>>
>
Given Androcles' knee-jerk comments I should clarify that I only used the
word 'authoritative' in the sense of being more authoritative than my own
words.
And whilst Asimov may say "I won't accept any argument from authority" that
is totally untrue of scientists in general. Unless one is 'authorised' by a
PhD or some academic kudos it is virtually impossible to get scientists to
speak with you regardless of how clear and rational and relevant your ideas
may be.
Most scientists don't judge ideas on their merits, they judge the person on
their credentials first and only when they are satisfied by that will they
look at the substance of what is being said. That has been my own
experience, both as a scientific insider and then as an outsider. The
difference that 'authority' makes is drastic!
So by the word 'authoritative' I simply meant that the quotes are from
people who have been academically authorised to have an opinion - whereas I
am just a human being who is communicating rational ideas.
Regards,
John Ringland
"John Ringland" <john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote in message
news:6ZK3i.1713$wH4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>> : Although I get the feeling that you are rather cynical and probably
>>> wouldn't
>>> : listen to anything that I have to say, so for now I'll give mainly
>>> : authoritative quotes
>
> "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
> news:jOK3i.30201$Ug.2...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>>
>> I won't accept any argument from authority. ("The Bible says so")
>
>> So much for authoritative quotes.
>
>
> John Ringland
> http://www.anandavala.info
>
>
Phineas T Puddleduck
"John Ringland" <john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote:
> Most scientists don't judge ideas on their merits, they judge the person on
> their credentials first and only when they are satisfied by that will they
> look at the substance of what is being said. That has been my own
> experience, both as a scientific insider and then as an outsider. The
> difference that 'authority' makes is drastic!
Nonsense.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
John Ringland
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-0...@snews.octanews.com...
> In article <XnL3i.1717$wH4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> "John Ringland" <john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote:
>
>> Most scientists don't judge ideas on their merits, they judge the person
>> on
>> their credentials first and only when they are satisfied by that will
>> they
>> look at the substance of what is being said. That has been my own
>> experience, both as a scientific insider and then as an outsider. The
>> difference that 'authority' makes is drastic!
>
>
> Nonsense.
Well that has been my experience over many years and the experience of
countless other 'outsiders' that I have known.
I'll also tell you two things I was explicitly told whilst at university.
Firstly a philosophy lecturer told us regarding essays:
"I'm not interested in hearing your opinions because you are not qualified
to have an opinion. Anything you say MUST be backed up by authoritative
references and not just someone elses opinion." I.e. not just the opinion of
some non-academic.
Secondly the head of the physics department in which I was an honours
student said:
"I have two inboxes, one for reputable journals (pointing to a plastic tray)
and one for crackpots (pointing to the rubbish bin)" He considered anything
other than "reputable journals" to be 'crackpot'. That was a common attitude
in that department.
I understand their position - given the vast amount of nonsense floating
around and the tight constraints on academic's time they need to sift out
the rubbish somehow - but too often valuable ideas are prejudged and thrown
out before being properly assesed. Pure skepticism is the ideal but it is
impossible in practice.
So you might not agree with my comments in principle but as regards my
comments on my personal experiences it is not nonsense. Those were my
experiences and I am definitely the most qualified to comment on my own
experiences.
Would you like to change this personal experience by taking the ideas on
their own merit and not just judging them based on my lack of academic
credentials. Please do. Everyone is welcome to prove me wrong on this point
by acting skeptically - I would love to be proved wrong but so far that has
yet to happen.
Come on everyone, prove me wrong on this point. Think about the ideas and
judge them on their own merits.
I'm glad there are some comments coming in - I was wondering if anyone was
even reading this thread.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"John Ringland" <john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote:
> Well that has been my experience over many years and the experience of
> countless other 'outsiders' that I have known.
>
> I'll also tell you two things I was explicitly told whilst at university.
Personal experience does not scale up
Bob Kolker
> Most scientists don't judge ideas on their merits, they judge the person on
> their credentials first and only when they are satisfied by that will they
> look at the substance of what is being said. That has been my own
> experience, both as a scientific insider and then as an outsider. The
> difference that 'authority' makes is drastic!
If that were so, no one would have paid any attention to Einstein and
his work. After all, he was a lowly patent second class. Why did anyone
pay attention to Einstein?
Michael Faraday was Humphrey Davie's lab assistant. Prior to that he was
an unschooled bookbinder. Why did anyone pay attention to Faraday?
The answer, in both cases, was the nature and quality of their work
Bob Kolker
T Wake
>> "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
>> news:jOK3i.30201$Ug.2...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>
>>>
>>> I won't accept any argument from authority. ("The Bible says so")
>>
>>> So much for authoritative quotes.
>
> Given Androcles' knee-jerk comments I should clarify that I only used the
> word 'authoritative' in the sense of being more authoritative than my own
> words.
>
> And whilst Asimov may say "I won't accept any argument from authority"
> that is totally untrue of scientists in general. Unless one is
> 'authorised' by a PhD or some academic kudos it is virtually impossible to
> get scientists to speak with you regardless of how clear and rational and
> relevant your ideas may be.
>
> Most scientists don't judge ideas on their merits,
How many have you met to make this conclusion?
> they judge the person on their credentials first and only when they are
> satisfied by that will they look at the substance of what is being said.
How does peer review for journals work then?
> That has been my own experience, both as a scientific insider and then as
> an outsider.
Ah. An "outsider." Now it all makes sense.
T Wake
>
> "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:phineaspuddleduck-0...@snews.octanews.com...
>> In article <XnL3i.1717$wH4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>> "John Ringland" <john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote:
>>
>>> Most scientists don't judge ideas on their merits, they judge the person
>>> on
>>> their credentials first and only when they are satisfied by that will
>>> they
>>> look at the substance of what is being said. That has been my own
>>> experience, both as a scientific insider and then as an outsider. The
>>> difference that 'authority' makes is drastic!
>>
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> Well that has been my experience over many years and the experience of
> countless other 'outsiders' that I have known.
By countless do you mean you are actually unable to count them? Does zero
count as countless?
It certainly is not my experience nor the experience of countless other
insiders and "outsiders" I have known.
> I'll also tell you two things I was explicitly told whilst at university.
>
> Firstly a philosophy lecturer told us regarding essays:
> "I'm not interested in hearing your opinions because you are not qualified
> to have an opinion. Anything you say MUST be backed up by authoritative
> references and not just someone elses opinion." I.e. not just the opinion
> of some non-academic.
The joys of being an undergraduate. Which year were you told this in?
Do you know why this is the case? If not, your lecturer is wrong for not
explaining it properly.
> Secondly the head of the physics department in which I was an honours
> student said:
> "I have two inboxes, one for reputable journals (pointing to a plastic
> tray) and one for crackpots (pointing to the rubbish bin)" He considered
> anything other than "reputable journals" to be 'crackpot'. That was a
> common attitude in that department.
I wonder why someone would take that stance...
> I understand their position - given the vast amount of nonsense floating
> around and the tight constraints on academic's time they need to sift out
> the rubbish somehow - but too often valuable ideas are prejudged and
> thrown out before being properly assesed. Pure skepticism is the ideal but
> it is impossible in practice.
Yet there has to be some way of sifting the wheat from the chaff. The head
of your physics department may have actually held to what he claimed but
even so, there are others you can write to.
Would you suggest as an alternative he sift through every crackpot
suggestion, no matter of the source, before deciding it's merits? How many
hours are there in a day?
> So you might not agree with my comments in principle but as regards my
> comments on my personal experiences it is not nonsense.
As I am sure you can remember from your days at university, personal
experiences are just that. Personal. You can not take them and extrapolate a
trend.
> Those were my experiences and I am definitely the most qualified to
> comment on my own experiences.
>
> Would you like to change this personal experience by taking the ideas on
> their own merit and not just judging them based on my lack of academic
> credentials. Please do. Everyone is welcome to prove me wrong on this
> point by acting skeptically - I would love to be proved wrong but so far
> that has yet to happen.
>
> Come on everyone, prove me wrong on this point. Think about the ideas and
> judge them on their own merits.
Write them up and submit them to a journal. Or pay me a reasonable rate to
read them.
Art Deco
>"John Ringland" <john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote in message
>news:XnL3i.1717$wH4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
>>> news:jOK3i.30201$Ug.2...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I won't accept any argument from authority. ("The Bible says so")
>>>
>>>> So much for authoritative quotes.
>>
>> Given Androcles' knee-jerk comments I should clarify that I only used the
>> word 'authoritative' in the sense of being more authoritative than my own
>> words.
>>
>> And whilst Asimov may say "I won't accept any argument from authority"
>> that is totally untrue of scientists in general. Unless one is
>> 'authorised' by a PhD or some academic kudos it is virtually impossible to
>> get scientists to speak with you regardless of how clear and rational and
>> relevant your ideas may be.
>>
>> Most scientists don't judge ideas on their merits,
>
>How many have you met to make this conclusion?
One?
>
>> they judge the person on their credentials first and only when they are
>> satisfied by that will they look at the substance of what is being said.
>
>How does peer review for journals work then?
Yeah, undergraduate students are never allowed to get published in
journals.
>
>> That has been my own experience, both as a scientific insider and then as
>> an outsider.
>
>Ah. An "outsider." Now it all makes sense.
Translation: He has a stack of rejection letters.
>
>> The difference that 'authority' makes is drastic!
>>
>> So by the word 'authoritative' I simply meant that the quotes are from
>> people who have been academically authorised to have an opinion - whereas
>> I am just a human being who is communicating rational ideas.
>>
>
>
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief
"Of doing Venus in person would obviously incorporate a composite
rigid airship, along with it's internal cache of frozen pizza and
ice cold beer."
-- Brad Guth, bigoted racist
"You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco."
--Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something"
John Ringland
There's some life in this thread at last. Nobody was prepared to discuss the
actual issues but a bit of ego rousing and suddenly people have something to
say. Human nature is a funny thing :)
It's just a shame that it took irrelevancies to arouse people. That is the
last thing I have to say on this particular subject.
Now do people have anything relevant to say on the actual issues? Or do you
only respond to irrelevancies?
What do you think about scientific realism and naive realism?
For your benefit I will repeat some of the main arguments...
-----------
Regarding cynicism, this is often confused with skepticism so Ill clarify
these terms:
"Cynicism: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general
distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others." (The American
Heritage Dictionary http://www.answers.com/topic/cynicism)
I am simply being skeptical.
Skepticism "is the application of reason to any and all ideas - no sacred
cows allowed... Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to
the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be
true. When we say we are 'skeptical' we mean that we must see compelling
evidence before we believe." (http://www.skeptic.com)
Furthermore "To some degree skepticism manifests itself in the scientific
method, which demands that all things assumed as facts be questioned. But
the positivism of many scientists, whether latent or open, is incompatible
with skepticism, for it accepts without question the assumption that
material effect is impossible without material cause." (The Columbia
Electronic Encyclopedia http://www.answers.com/topic/skepticism)
So materialism is NOT a skeptical position to take - because it is based
upon the unquestioned assumption and belief in the primacy of matter. If
people were to question it and not simply assert their beliefs it could be a
skeptical position but any deep questioning soon shows it to be unable to
withstand such questioning.
-----------
I'll also clarify "naive realism":
"Naïve realism is a common sense theory of perception. Most people, until
they start reflecting philosophically, are naïve realists. This theory is
also known as "direct realism" or "common sense realism". Naïve realism
A fairly typical materialist / naive realist rejoinder is:
> Tell me that a solid brick hitting you in the head is merely the flow of
> ideas in your "information space". Does your information space swell,
> bleed and hurt?
The information space doesn't "swell, bleed and hurt" but my head certainly
In this discussion I subscribe to the rationalist perspective and most
people at present subscribe to the empiricist perspective. If anyone can
coherently argue for that position I'd like to hear it in order to explore
these ideas deeper...
-----------
As for what some cynics call "mystical bullshit":
"The concepts of science show strong similarities to the concepts of the
mystics... The philosophy of mystical traditions, the perennial philosophy,
is the most consistent philosophical background to modern science." (Fritjof
Capra)
Aside from stereotyping, misrepresentation and demonisation of mysticism
from political/religious institutions, mysticism is the logical result of
deep skepticism and the overcoming of naive realism. Once we stop
irrationally believing that the objects of sense perception are material
external objects we realise that everything is information in flux - it is
all a type of low-level consciousness. This is a profoundly liberating and
empowering realisation that undermines all delusional entrenched power
structures and mechanistic hegemonies - hence the suppression of mysticism
in order to enslave, deceive and exploit vast populations.
Quantum physics is rapidly leading us to a mystic perspective. But most
convincingly in terms of scientific evidence, recent experiments provide
incontrovertible evidence for the influence of consciousness over matter!
See this article (http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa062298.htm)
that discusses experiments that incontrovertibly prove that mind has direct
influence over matter, thus shattering the illusion of materialism. The
article is not authoritative but the experiments are!!!! Look into it; do a
search for REG and PEAR for a start.
The following four quotes are taken from that article to express the new
scientific understanding coming through.
"If you consider the world an extension of yourself, it becomes a better
place." (Brenda Dunne, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory
(PEAR) http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epear/index.html)
"The only way I can explain the phenomenon is that it's occurring... outside
of space and time." (John Haaland, president and CEO of Mindsong Inc., an
electronics firm developing mind-matter machines
http://www.mindsonginc.com/)
"Consciousness is the ground of all being." (Amit Goswami, professor of
Physics at the Institute of Theoretical Sciences at the University of
Oregon)
"The universe is one and we are one with it." (Victor Stenger, professor of
physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii)
The ultimate test of the holistic efficacy of any world view is the impact
that it has one our lives and the world at large over time, and empiricism
has produced unbounded unstable growth of exploitative monstrosities that
are on the verge of destroying all life on this planet as well as the human
spirit within each of us. Politicised religion was no better either. Both
are empiricist delusions, one dressed up as science and the other dressed up
as religion - neither is true science or true religion. It is empiricism and
naïve realism that is their fundamental flaw, which is protected by
Androcles
:> "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
: > news:jOK3i.30201$Ug.2...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >>
: >>
: >> I won't accept any argument from authority. ("The Bible says so")
Hey snipping ignorant tord!
Asimov wrote that. Quit lying, you bastard.
Androcles
:
: "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
: news:jOK3i.30201$Ug.2...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >
: >> : Although I get the feeling that you are rather cynical and probably
: >> wouldn't
: >> : listen to anything that I have to say, so for now I'll give mainly
: >> : authoritative quotes
I most certainly did NOT write that in message
news:jOK3i.30201$Ug.2...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk
You are a liar, you wrote it in *your* message
news:6ZK3i.1713$wH4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au
I wrote:
"John Ringland" <john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote in message
news:8HK3i.1710$wH4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
: Hey Bob,
:
: It's Wonderful to get a response from someone! But I sense a little
: hostility in your chosen example scenario :(
:
: "Bob Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
: news:5b87e3F...@mid.individual.net...
: > This is all mystical bullshit.
: >
: > Tell me that a solid brick hitting you in the head is merely the flow of
: > ideas in your "information space". Does your information space swell,
: > bleed and hurt?
:
: What you say is actually materialist / naive-realist nonsense :) I will
: explain why it is non-sense below...
:
T Wake
>
> Now do people have anything relevant to say on the actual issues? Or do
> you only respond to irrelevancies?
>
Personally, I try to stick to irrelevancies. I am not sure who your post was
a reply to, so I don't know what other response you want.
Life is too short for me to read 370odd line messages the day before I go on
holiday.
John Ringland
Why lie over something that is totally meaningless and irrelevant :)
It was just jibes at people's egos to try and stir up some response! I'd
previously treated people as rational and skeptical but that wasn't working
(they'd just ignore the issue) so I tried an ego-based strategy, which
certainly stirred up some responses - but not very coherent ones :(
I'm sorry one of those jibes accidently got attributed to you Androcles. I
wasn't very careful in that respect because I really didn't care exactly how
the irrelevant nonsense got chopped up. I snipped to spare people from too
much repetition of bullshit. But it was all bullshit anyway :)
But I do care about the denial, obfuscation and avoidance of the actual
issues!! Which is a classic cynical strategy for avoiding issues without
ever challenging them. It's a way of protecting unquestioned beiefs from
being questioned.
I hope that people on (sci.physics,sci.math,sci.logic,alt.philosophy) have
something rational and skeptical to say about the actual issues being
discussed. They are EXTREMELY profound, relevant and OPEN TO RATIONAL
ENQUIRY.
So what about the actual issues? Does anyone have anything to say about
scientific realism and naive realism?
-----------
Regarding cynicism, this is often confused with skepticism so Ill clarify
these terms:
"Cynicism: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general
distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others." (The American
Heritage Dictionary http://www.answers.com/topic/cynicism)
I am simply being skeptical.
Skepticism "is the application of reason to any and all ideas - no sacred
cows allowed... Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to
the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be
true. When we say we are 'skeptical' we mean that we must see compelling
evidence before we believe." (http://www.skeptic.com)
Furthermore "To some degree skepticism manifests itself in the scientific
method, which demands that all things assumed as facts be questioned. But
the positivism of many scientists, whether latent or open, is incompatible
with skepticism, for it accepts without question the assumption that
material effect is impossible without material cause." (The Columbia
Electronic Encyclopedia http://www.answers.com/topic/skepticism)
So materialism is NOT a skeptical position to take - because it is based
upon the unquestioned assumption and belief in the primacy of matter. If
people were to question it and not simply assert their beliefs it could be a
skeptical position but any deep questioning soon shows it to be unable to
withstand such questioning.
-----------
I'll also clarify "naive realism":
A fairly typical materialist / naive realist rejoinder is:
> Tell me that a solid brick hitting you in the head is merely the flow of
> ideas in your "information space". Does your information space swell,
> bleed and hurt?
The information space doesn't "swell, bleed and hurt" but my head certainly
In this discussion I subscribe to the rationalist perspective and most
people at present subscribe to the empiricist perspective. If anyone can
coherently argue for that position I'd like to hear it in order to explore
these ideas deeper...
-----------
As for what some cynics call "mystical bullshit":
"The concepts of science show strong similarities to the concepts of the
mystics... The philosophy of mystical traditions, the perennial philosophy,
is the most consistent philosophical background to modern science." (Fritjof
Capra)
Aside from stereotyping, misrepresentation and demonisation of mysticism
from political/religious institutions, mysticism is the logical result of
deep skepticism and the overcoming of naive realism. Once we stop
irrationally believing that the objects of sense perception are material
external objects we realise that everything is information in flux - it is
all a type of low-level consciousness. This is a profoundly liberating and
empowering realisation that undermines all delusional entrenched power
structures and mechanistic hegemonies - hence the suppression of mysticism
in order to enslave, deceive and exploit vast populations.
Quantum physics is rapidly leading us to a mystic perspective. But most
convincingly in terms of scientific evidence, recent experiments provide
incontrovertible evidence for the influence of consciousness over matter!
See this article (http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa062298.htm)
that discusses experiments that incontrovertibly prove that mind has direct
influence over matter, thus shattering the illusion of materialism. The
article is not authoritative but the experiments are!!!! Look into it; do a
search for REG and PEAR for a start.
The following four quotes are taken from that article to express the new
scientific understanding coming through.
"If you consider the world an extension of yourself, it becomes a better
place." (Brenda Dunne, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory
(PEAR) http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epear/index.html)
"The only way I can explain the phenomenon is that it's occurring... outside
of space and time." (John Haaland, president and CEO of Mindsong Inc., an
electronics firm developing mind-matter machines
http://www.mindsonginc.com/)
"Consciousness is the ground of all being." (Amit Goswami, professor of
Physics at the Institute of Theoretical Sciences at the University of
Oregon)
"The universe is one and we are one with it." (Victor Stenger, professor of
physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii)
The ultimate test of the holistic efficacy of any world view is the impact
John Ringland
"T Wake" <usenet...@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:PpCdnSa9dtdBps3b...@pipex.net...
At least you're honest with yourself. But if people claim to be rational,
skeptical scientists I'll challenge them to live up to that self-image.
Enjoy your holiday :)
John
The_Man
wrote:
> "T Wake" <usenet.es...@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
>
> news:PpCdnSa9dtdBps3b...@pipex.net...
>
>
>
> > "John Ringland" <john.ringl...@anandavala.info> wrote in message
> >news:7aQ3i.1818$wH4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> >> Now do people have anything relevant to say on the actual issues? Or do
> >> you only respond to irrelevancies?
>
> > Personally, I try to stick to irrelevancies. I am not sure who your post
> > was a reply to, so I don't know what other response you want.
>
> > Life is too short for me to read 370odd line messages the day before I go
> > on holiday.
>
> At least you're honest with yourself. But if people claim to be rational,
> skeptical scientists I'll challenge them to live up to that self-image.
No one has to "live up" to your expectations. Science runs a certain
way - a way that has made it the most efective human enterprise ever.
If you doubt me, try to place a phone call on the phone that was
invented by Socrates, or use that Jesus computer, or take a couple of
painkillers synthesized by Mohammed, or fly an airplane designed by
Jerry Springer.
Your "ideas" were just a random collection of quotes from Wikipedia,
Answers.com, and other web sites. This is not "research" at even a
middle school level.
If this is what your profs taught you, youshould ask for your tuition
back.
They should also showed you how to do SCIENCE research. If they
didn;t, go to the library, and study the articles in the best
journals, and imitate them.
Send your manuscripts to the journal. If it's good they'll help you
fix any bumps,; if it's shit, they'll tell you.
Keep working at it until it's not shit anymore.
>From my personal exprience, they want to publish what you write,
unless it's garbage, in which case they don't.
Androcles
: Sorry Androcles, there was no attempt to lie to you - LOL
: "Naïve realism is a common sense theory of perception. Most people, until
: they start reflecting philosophically, are naïve realists. This theory is
: also known as "direct realism" or "common sense realism". Naïve realism
Apology accepted. Thank you for your detailed response.
Now for points of disagreement, I shall leave points of agreement
unmolested.
/quote
I hope that people on (sci.physics,sci.math,sci.logic,alt.philosophy) have
something rational and skeptical to say about the actual issues being
discussed. They are EXTREMELY profound, relevant and OPEN TO RATIONAL
ENQUIRY.
/unquote
"Hope" is not rational. You may as well argue with the Vicar of Christ about
immaculate conceptions (he is after all the world's leading authority
on human and supernatural sexuality) as argue with the bigots you'll run
into in these newsgroups.
/quote
"Cynicism: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general
distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others." (The American
Heritage Dictionary http://www.answers.com/topic/cynicism)
I am simply being skeptical.
/unquote
The cynic is inevitably a sceptic, although a sceptic is not necessarily a
cynic.
I am a true cynic, as defined here:
http://www.i-cynic.com/
A sample:
"Diogenes of Sinope (c. 408-323 B.C.) Most celebrated of the ancient Cynics,
this pupil of Antisthenes is fondly remembered for his outrageous deeds and
sayings. (All of his writings have vanished.) In his pursuit of virtuous
simplicity, he gave away his belongings and took up residence in a tub. When
Alexander the Great approached him outdoors and asked if there was anything
he could do for him, the old philosopher simply replied, "You can get out of
my sunlight." According to legend, Diogenes carried a lamp by day in his
cynical search for an honest man.
Favorite quote:
"I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite
scoundrels."
/quote
If I see a chair, it is because there is a chair physically where and when
I see it.
/unquote
If I see a chair, it is because there is a chair physically where and when I
made it,
put it and sat in it.
/quote
Traditional empirical science addresses "the epistemological question [what
can be known and what is unknowable] by drawing a sharp distinction between
truth and empirical adequacy. [Empirical science claims] that a good theory
need only provide an empirically adequate description of observable
phenomena [it doesn't claim to be able to ascertain any kind of truth but
rather it only claims to have phenomenological adequacy].
/unquote
Empirical data:
A human being measures 18" at birth and 54" at age 10.
Scientific data reduction:
Human beings grow at a rate of 30 feet per century and Urbain Le
Verrier's grandmother lived to be 93 years old and 31 feet tall.
I mention this because the advance of longitude of perihelion
of Mercury is quoted as having an anomaly of 43 arc seconds
per century which cannot be accounted for with Newtonian
Celestial Mechanics.
I am of course being sceptical, facetious and cynical, but I'm
pleased that Albert Einstein's calculations are more exact than
Urbain Le Verrier's,
415 orbits * 360 degrees = 149400 degrees
149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes = 8964000 arc minutes
8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds = 537840000 arc seconds.
43
-------------------------------- x 100 = 0.000008%
537840000
and fully account for the miraculous anomaly.
Unfortunately nobody has shown me just how dear Albert
performed his miracle or Gesu H. Christi turned water into wine.
I have no qualms with empirical data, I only object to the theories
it produces.
Hulse and Taylor received a Nobel prize for their brilliant bullshit
in using a crackpot theory to discover a double pulsar, that's
how bad it has become.
The modern era of mysticism began in 1782, a punk kid of 18 years
of age (died at 21) started it.
The expose is here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
where you'll find a paradigm shift of the first magnitude.
I see you have mention of MMX. It is really rather simple.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm
and put to use with Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
John Ringland
I seem to have stirred up a hornets nest of true believers in Scientism. Oh
well, its better than silence.
What about the ideas huh?
> Your "ideas" were just a random collection of quotes from Wikipedia,
> Answers.com, and other web sites. This is not "research" at even a
> middle school level.
Some people attack me for saying the word 'authoritative' implying that they
only look at the ideas, but then others attack me for not using
'authoritative' sources. More denial, obfuscation and avoidance :(
It doesn't matter where the quotes come from - they are real quotes mostly
from philosphers and scientists. But that too is irrelevant. And these are
just brief postings to a newsgroup!!! What about the actual content and the
ideas???? We have a mind that can think about things and judge them on their
merits.
How many different stategies will people employ to avoid thinking about the
actual issues? If people actually thought about ideas instead of just
attacked people to defend irrational beliefs I wouldn't NEED to quote
anything - I could just talk about the ideas themselves and people could
judge them on the MERITS. But I generally use quotes in my work were I can
to indicate who else is saying such things; it is just extra information.
But in a warzone such as this even the words of Schroedinger, Bohm,
Schopenhauer and Whitehead and so on are treated with contempt so I doubt if
anyone would even be capable of thinking about anything that I said. That is
why I mainly used quotes in these postings. There is just too much
irrational hostility to be able to rationally discuss these things!
> No one has to "live up" to your expectations. Science runs a certain
> way...
>
> Send your manuscripts to the journal. If it's good they'll help you
> fix any bumps,; if it's shit, they'll tell you...
It's not about meeting MY expectations its about challenging people to be
honest with themselves - if they claim to be rational then for their own
sake they should try and be rational otherwise they are caught in
self-deception.
But if you want another opinion on how "science runs" have a look at
http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs58.html and yes it is just another
'opinion' and it is not an 'authoritative' analysis with "peer review"
appearing in a "reputable journal". So you don't need to point that out. But
their personal opinion does mean something because as they say, they have
had "thirty-nine years of professional experience - twenty-six as a
university professor, including fifteen at a major research university, and
then thirteen as a researcher, writer, and editor - in close contact with
scientists of various sorts, including some in the biological and physical
sciences and many in the social sciences and demography. I have served as a
peer reviewer for more than thirty professional journals and as a reviewer
of research proposals for the National Science Foundation, the National
Institutes of Health, and a number of large private foundations. I was the
principal investigator of a major NSF-funded research project in the field
of demography. So, I think I know something about how the system works. It
does not work as outsiders seem to think."
These responses are fascinating. So many people desperately struggling to
avoid the issues! I don't care about ANY of these irrelevancies. But all
these contortions only reinforce the jibes that I made - don't you see that?
I wasn't really serious when I made them but the responses have only proved
the point! LOL Hehehehehehehehehehe!!!! The record of responses on this
thread will make a fascinating sociological / psychological study :)
Are there any scientists on these newsgroups? Is anyone prepared to get past
their denial, obfuscation and avoidance of the issues and actually address
the issues themselves? Can anyone say anything rational in defence of
empiricism? Or do people here only use cynical tactics to protect their
beliefs?
Here is another quote for your edification:
"The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein
and resists it with similar energy. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to
say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. IF
WE WATCH OURSELVES HONESTLY WE SHALL OFTEN FIND THAT WE HAVE BEGUN TO ARGUE
AGAINST A NEW IDEA EVEN BEFORE IT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY STATED." - Wilfred
Trotter, 1941 (my capitalisation for emphasis)
Out of the respondents, who here has actually read the ideas and thought
about them BEFORE they became 'anti' and who here just became 'anti' only
moments after they started reading? You don't have to answer that - just be
honest with 'yourself'. Human nature is a tricky thing and self-honesty is
the best defence against being a mindless prejudiced believer - regardless
of what the particular belief system may be.
The nature of the responses indicates to me that the respondants are mainly
reacting to their prejudices and what they 'assume' I am saying - has anyone
actually thought about what is being said? You will be surprised :)
Regards,
John Ringland
"The_Man" <me_so_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179677905.5...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
T Wake
> More avoidance, this time from "The_Man" <me_so_h...@yahoo.com>
It wasn't avoidance. It was good advice.
John Ringland
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
>
> "John Ringland" <john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote in message
> news:rHZ3i.2086$wH4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Sorry Androcles, there was no attempt to lie to you - LOL
> >
> > Why lie over something that is totally meaningless and irrelevant :)
> >
> >
> > Best Wishes :)
> > John Ringland
>
> Apology accepted. Thank you for your detailed response.
> Now for points of disagreement, I shall leave points of agreement
> unmolested.
Thanks for being so reasonable :)
Here is another detailed response. Sorry if its a lot of info but take your
time if you're interested in it.
Plus some links in case any interest you or someone else.
> /quote
> I hope that people on (sci.physics,sci.math,sci.logic,alt.philosophy) have
> something rational and skeptical to say about the actual issues being
> discussed. They are EXTREMELY profound, relevant and OPEN TO RATIONAL
> ENQUIRY.
> /unquote
>
> "Hope" is not rational. You may as well argue with the Vicar of Christ
> about
> immaculate conceptions (he is after all the world's leading authority
> on human and supernatural sexuality) as argue with the bigots you'll run
> into in these newsgroups.
Despite the warning about bigots I'll try and respond to you openly and in
good faith. I won't let bigots stifle open debate!
Yes 'hope' is irrational but my hope wasn't part of the actual argument and
I don't claim to be rational ALL the time (I am human) - I only claim to be
capable of being rational when I really try - such as in the theoretical
content of my work. I was just expressing my hope that scientists might live
up to their self-image and engage in some rational discussions, but from the
nature of the discussions so far on this thread it was a rather naive hope.
Also from your choice of example I wonder if you might be thinking that I'm
a "fundamentalist Christian" or somehow related to the debate on
"intelligent design". I wouldn't be surprised if many people did assume
that, given the amount of confusion that surrounds these issues and the
defensive stance taken by scientists against anything that can be remotely
associated with non-materialism. I suspect that may be why I have met mainly
denial and hostility from scientists. However I consider the heated debate
between ScientISM and Christianity as a fool's debate; it can go round and
round in circles because they are both missing the point. Scientism is
'empirical' science which is out of its depth, trying to deal with that
which it is fundamentally unable to deal with (it is phenomenological by its
very definition, i.e. its reliance on sensory data so it cannot address
questions of ontology) and Christianity has been profoundly corrupted over
centuries by materialist political agendas and therefore doesn't really know
what it is talking about.
I'll briefly state a few personal details to hopefully clarify my position.
I have never taken part in any religion and I have been a staunch atheist
most of my life and I have had an instinctive revulsion of religion because
I'd only witnessed it as a form of crude social manipulation relying on
flimsy delusions. I can now see the core of truth in the heart of religion
but it is DEEPLY buried. I don't seek to defend any belief system but only
to understand for myself and to express my understanding to those who are
interested. I was a mindless materialist, capitalist, consumer for many
years. Then I spent 5 years at university in theoretical physics and
computer science. But I'd begun to see things from an information/system
theoretic perspective so I eventually left academia in late 2001 due to the
orthodoxy and pressure to conform. Since then I have been working full time
on private research, first working in abject poverty and later funded by a
generous gift giving me investments adequate to meet my basic needs. Hence I
cannot afford access to reputable journals and rely on what information is
available on the internet and occasional books - but most of my work
required only head-space in which to contemplate the systemic nature of the
world around me and within me.
My main approach can be described as "information systems theory" or
"computational metaphysics" and "information physics" and this eventually
led me into drawing extensively from mystic metaphors - which if one
interprets them materialistically they are utter nonsense but if one
interprets them through the 'lens' of computational metaphysics,
information/system theory and depth psychology they are an excellent guide
to the development of an information/system theoretic metaphysics.
> /quote
> "Cynicism: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a
> general
> distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others." (The American
> Heritage Dictionary http://www.answers.com/topic/cynicism)
>
> I am simply being skeptical.
>
> /unquote
>
> The cynic is inevitably a sceptic, although a sceptic is not necessarily a
> cynic.
> I am a true cynic, as defined here:
> http://www.i-cynic.com/
Thank you soooo much for informing me of this site. I had misunderstood
cynics! I recall that it was hard to find a good definition of cynicism back
when I was looking. From my own experience I thought cynics were mindless
believers subconsciously trying to protect their unquestioned beliefs from
being questioned. That is how they often seem. But it goes MUCH deeper than
that. They actually originate from a position of respect for truth, but I
would argue that it is a respect that is distorted by naive realism, which
can make them mindless believers without them realising it. I'll get to
explaining why I think that soon. I don't mean this as any kind of combative
attack - I'm just trying to understand. Please correct me if I am wrong :)
> The cynic is inevitably a sceptic, although a sceptic
> is not necessarily a cynic.
I would propose that the concepts skeptic and cynic are closely related.
However in their extreme forms they are mutually exclusive and in practice
they are often difficult to distinguish because they are both taking a
questioning stance but with different inner attitudes. Let me explain.
Cynics are disillusioned idealists judging by the site's own definition
where a cynic is: "an idealist whose rose-colored glasses have been removed,
snapped in two and stomped into the ground, immediately improving his
vision." (http://www.i-cynic.com/whatis.asp)
But a skeptic, in my own words, is a non-idealist, rationalist who doubts
their own ability to know anything with certainty but who seeks reliable
knowledge within uncertain epistemic constraints.
Firstly: "Extreme skepticism holds that no knowledge is possible, but this
is logically untenable since the statement contradicts itself." (The
Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia http://www.answers.com/topic/skepticism)
This accords with the comment: "no smug certainties of any kind."
(http://www.i-cynic.com/whatis.asp)
But a milder form of skepticism would be to: "respond to disputed questions
by adopting whatever position seemed most plausible after a thorough
examination of the arguments on all sides. One did so on the understanding
that one was not claiming to have established certain truth, or to know that
any doctrine was the truth. One only held a position as rationally
best-supported and, therefore, most worth believing. In this way, one held a
position to be true without claiming to know that this was so... this in
practice meant the adoption (in a tentative spirit)..." (Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/)
In this sense Socrates was skeptical when he would: "challenge unsuspecting
folks to good-natured debates and let their own foolishness trip them up"
(http://www.i-cynic.com/whatis.asp) without imposing his own judgements on
them.
But: "The Cynics were more blunt when it came to exposing foolishness.
They'd hang out in the streets like a pack of dogs ("Cynic" comes from the
Greek word for dog), watch the passing crowd, and ridicule anyone who
seemed pompous, pretentious, materialistic or downright wicked."
(http://www.i-cynic.com/whatis.asp)
So in their immediate certainty regarding who: "seemed pompous, pretentious,
materialistic or downright wicked" they are inherently anti-skeptic. They
have not performed a: "thorough examination of the arguments on all sides"
and they are: "claiming to have established certain truth". Unless they were
equally happy to ridicule innocent people based only on them 'seeming' to be
pompous.
This might explain why "People generally don't like to hear the hard truth
about themselves, especially in public [because perhaps in some cases it was
only the cynics perception of truth]. But the Cynics felt they were on a
mission from Zeus. As the Stoic philosopher Epictetus wrote several
centuries later, "A Cynic is a spy who aims to discover what things are
friendly or hostile to man; after making accurate observations, he then
comes back and reports the truth." (http://www.i-cynic.com/whatis.asp)
It is the cynic's certainty regarding their sensory / cognitive impressions
that makes me say there is an element of naive realism that distorts their
respect for truth and can inadvertently make it anti-skeptic. They believe
too strongly in their own ability to ascertain the 'truth'. If their
judgement is accurate they fight for truth but if their judgement is
inaccurate they fight for their own beliefs and opinions. It could go either
way and they wouldn't know which is the actual case.
I have a much higher opinion of cynics than I did before - but I would still
be wary of them because I would suspect that they can be prone to being
zealots "on a mission from Zeus" to "ridicule anyone who seemed pompous".
But have they taken the time and subtle, open-minded care to perform a:
"thorough examination of the arguments on all sides". If one develops an
initial impression and believes in it that can subtly warp one's experience
of any later words or actions that the person might put up in their defence.
The mind is a tricky thing - it is very subtle and non-linear in the sense
that we "look through our thoughts" and if we have prematurely judged
something and we naively believe it that will distort the mind and warp the
image that we experience. If this image is then taken as truth the
distortions only get worse. This is why I think naive realism is such a
profound issue, it warps the world that we experience and it spirals into
delusion and fanaticism.
In this context another definition of skepticism is a "philosophic position
holding that the possibility of knowledge is limited either because of the
limitations of the mind or because of the inaccessibility of its object."
(The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia
http://www.answers.com/topic/skepticism)
I analyse this in detail in my latest essay where I do an information
systems analysis of the flow of information from sense perception through to
collective knowledge, involving all of the main feedback loops and
non-linearity's. This clearly indicates how uncertain and arbitrary our
perceptions, experiences, ideas and cultural expressions can be. The mind is
a seer AND a lens - it looks through its own ideas and forms its ideas based
on what it sees. This feedback loop can lead us to see "the devil abroad" in
medieval Europe or "terrorism" in modern times or "angels or UFO's
descending from the sky".
A diagram illustrating the main information pipeline and the main feedback
loops can be seen here:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis_files/Image001.gif
In this sense: "With our thoughts we make the world" (Buddha). And a 'world'
is a subjective cognitive construct (a mind-made virtual reality) that, due
to naive realism, we confuse with reality. It is this flexibility of the
mind that is unknowingly leveraged by propaganda, dogma, advertising,
education and so on - but the greatest influences are subconscious because
we are unaware of its activity and the conscious mind takes the products of
the subconscious as unquestioned fact! For example, if I am hypnotised and
handed an onion with the suggestion it is an apple I will eat it and
experience an apple! By conditioning the mind we can influence (in a VERY
deep way) what people perceive, experience, think and do - we construct
cognitive worlds and then live in them as if they were reality. If our
illusions adequately correspond with reality we survive and if they are
inadequate we die. The major looming global crises suggest that our
collective illusions need a "reality check".
The analysis also highlights the fact that our belief in the "external
world" is really a compelling belief for which we have no rational basis in
fact. There have been philosophers saying this for centuries and mystics
saying it for thousands of years. This is a very disturbing realisation and
most people just deny it without questioning their denial but if we are
truly skeptical we need to look into what this really means and what other
avenues of enquiry there are to put our knowledge on as firm a footing as is
possible.
If you are interested, the analysis is in:
An Information Systems Analysis of Mind, Knowledge, 'the World' and Holistic
Science
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html
Do a search for the heading: The Process of Perception and Formation of
Knowledge
Also note that given the non-linear nature of mind where it is both the seer
and the lens - that is why I care about concepts such as cynic and skeptic
and Scientism because the state of mind in which a person approaches
something seriously effects how they experience it. Especially when it is
extremely controversial and extremely subtle ideas such as those that I am
trying to communicate. Any kind of pre-judgement can totally warp a person
understanding of what is being said making it impossible for them to
comprehend it.
I have noticed over the last two and a half years of communicating my
results that virtually everyone responds to their prejudices and assumptions
about what I am saying and very few people actually listen to what is being
said. I have detailed mathematical analyses but I doubt if anyone has
seriously looked at them. The scientists assume I am speaking superstitious
gibberish so that is what they hear and the spiritualists think I'm speaking
Scientism nonsense so that is what they hear. The standard conversations
consists of denial and obfuscatory tactics where the person invests great
effort to find things to object to and no effort to actually understand
anything. Because they don't understand what it is they are trying to object
to they don't even scratch the surface and only get worked up over
trivialities. I go on clarifying the trivialities until they run out of
objections at which point they usually run away or throw a tantrum. I have
found that the higher ranking scientists and philosophers were amongst the
worst. But the mystics understand me because they already know the essence
of what I am talking about. In half an hour of conversation we reach deep
understanding!
> Favorite quote:
> "I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite
> scoundrels."
I respect that :)
>
> /quote
> If I see a chair, it is because there is a chair physically where and
> when
> I see it.
> /unquote
>
> If I see a chair, it is because there is a chair physically where and when
> I
> made it, put it and sat in it.
On a purely everyday pragmatic level it serves the function of a 'chair' but
do we know what it is? There is definitely 'something' there but what is it?
Is it really made of matter?
We don't know what matter is, or what forces are, or time or space. But when
all these things come together into something that we perceive as a chair
most people assume they know what a chair is. But if they really thought
about it they would realise that they don't really know what it is other
than that it is something that manifests to their senses as a chair and that
they use a chair. To unquestioning assume that we KNOW it is a chair is
naive realism as well as anti-skeptic.
If the person has an understanding of everyday objects they know something
about how a chair behaves and if they have an understanding of physics they
know something about how matter, forces, time and space behave. But that
only informs them about how things behave. Empiricism cannot address
questions of ontology or the actual nature of the something that underlies
the appearances because it takes the appearances as its conceptual starting
point. When we say that it is made of matter what are we really saying - the
only truly honest answer is that we don't really know. The hypothesis of
matter is just a hypothesis that fills in a gap in our understanding. If we
seek deeper understanding we need to question this gap rather than just
fudge over it.
Given the fact that we know so little about the ontology of a chair,
consider the case of someone who sat down in front of a computer but they
had no idea what a computer is. They might see in front of them a web page
with textboxes and buttons. All they know are the objects as they appear.
They can become very familiar with that environment and learn a great deal
about how the objects behave and they might do many things in that
environment such as send emails and post to news groups and they would get
the feeling that they know that environment.
But if asked what are the objects they would respond that this object is a
button and here I write my email, when I push the button the email goes to
the address that I type in here, and so on. For most people this is a
satisfactory answer but what actually is the button? It looks like a button
and behaves like a button. In this computational scenario it is actually a
pattern of data/computation that manifests the virtual appearance of a
button. For everyday purposes this knowledge is not important, all that
matters is how it behaves but for deep and accurate knowledge it is vitally
important.
This example is just a limited metaphor because the person exists 'outside'
the computational space but in our own metaphysical situation we are forms
within the space that we are enquiring about. We have analysed our situation
very deeply. Empiricism is a very good starting point (I don't deny that, I
merely stress that it has limits) and empirical data is our ultimate point
of reference. But what lies behind the appearances? Do the objects just
magically exist and function exactly as they 'seem' to the senses? Physics
has clearly shown us that the answer is no and in the computer example the
answer is definitely no. So where can we go from empiricism? In the past
this issue was beyond direct rational enquiry and it was purely
philosophical, although some philosophers (e.g. Schopenhauer and Hume to
name two) made good headway. But quantum physics has taken our knowledge
beyond just the surface appearances. In this sense quantum physics has left
empiricism behind nearly a century ago but because of the profundity of the
paradigm shift people have resisted it and clung to empiricism via
instrumentalism, claiming that quantum physics is merely a calculational
tool. It is the most accurate science EVER developed but people refused to
take it seriously because it challenged deeply held beliefs. Quantum physics
still connects with our sensory experiences but we can now know a little
deeper than just the sensory appearances of things.
Whereas the buttons and textboxes on the web page are patterns of
data/computation, the forms that we perceive and that we are can be thought
of as patterns of quantum wavefunctions. But what are these? They are in
essence a kind of dynamical information construct or a kind of pattern of
data/computation. Not the same as in a computer but if one defines
information as discernible difference and computation as the coherent
transformation of information then it is not inaccurate to describe a
wavefunction as data/computation.
Indeed the nature of wave / particle complimentarity indicates that the
wavefunction is a deeper reality than the empirical appearances. Just as
frequency is a deeper reality than colour. Without eyes and a mind there is
no colour to speak of, there are only frequencies. So when asked the
question, what is a chair it is more accurate to say that it is a pattern of
wavefunctions or a pattern of data/computation. But what are these? We can
say how they behave but what are they? These ontological questions can only
go so far but we have yet to reach the end of their utility. But when we do
reach the end the best way to proceed is to turn to ourselves.
Although we perceive ourselves through our senses and form ideas about
ourselves just like with the chair, what are we? This question can take us a
long way because we are able to turn within and avoid the reliance on
sensory experience all together! Within our own consciousness we can
contemplate consciousness itself. Here there is no naive realism because
there is no sensory separation between the subject and object. Rather than
focus on the objects of sensory experience and assume that they are external
objects we can focus on consciousness and subtly come to know how it behaves
and what it is, we can experience our own consciousness directly. This is
the point of meditation, to turn the mind upon itself and delve down to the
root of consciousness.
Now this might all be nonsense if we actually lived in a material universe
or there really was a Cartesian dualist divide between mind and matter but
human experience throughout virtually all cultures and times suggests that
there is something to be found in this direction. Furthermore recent
experiments categorically prove that there is something wrong with both the
materialist and Cartesian dualist perspectives on reality. One obvious
example is the REG experiments where consciousness is shown to have real
measurable effects on physical processes. These effects are not attenuated
by distance. They are magnified by psychological bonds such as love and by
cognitive discipline such as focused non-agitated awareness that comes
through meditation. The effects have the same strength whether the events
are concurrent with the intentional influence or whether the event is in the
past or the future! This isn't some vague crackpot experiment, there is no
doubt as to the data. The only thing in contention is the interpretation of
the data.
I give links to info on and data from these experiments later in the post...
This experiment and other similar ones serve the same role as the
photoelectric effect at the dawn of quantum physics. It is something
undeniable that forces us to look beyond our current theories and to take a
"reality check".
In my own work I have spent years looking deeply into the new paradigm and
developing detailed mathematical methods that I call the math system matrix
notation or SMN. There are mathematical models and software simulations of
the basic information processing that may conceivably lie behind the surface
appearance of things. This is only just a start but the convergence is
encouraging. The simple matrix mathematics generates generalised virtual
universes that have quantum and relativistic properties. The universes have
a system theoretic structure that arises naturally from the information
processes. It constitutes a self-excited circuit (wheeler) or a
self-configuring self-processing language that functions as a reality
generative process (Langan). In every structural detail it corresponds with
the descriptions in the ancient mystic metaphors. And it produces a
mathematical / metaphysical foundation for the concept of cyberspace thus
giving a new technology for the creation of virtual realities and general
software.
For info on and links to the metaphysics of Langan and comments on the work
of Wheeler see this link:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/CTMU.html
Also see this long list of links to works related to computational
metaphysics:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#VRMetaphys
There's also more links to other people's related works at:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/Related.html
And some links to my mathematics and software: (please forgive the simple
format - I'm more interested in the metaphysics)
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/General%20Discussions.html#smn
I should clarify the current limitations of SMN. It is currently strictly
confined to working with ontological processes and the general properties of
the virtual reality and not on the contingent processes that give rise to
any particular virtual universe. I'll explain, SMN provides a new context of
enquiry, a new mathematical / computational approach with new system
simulation techniques. It provides a general model of the structure and
dynamics of the existential or reality generative process; it models the
metaphorical cosmic 'simulator'. SMN gives us a general model of the
simulator and its fundamental information and system theoretic constraints
but any kind of system or VR universe can be run on this simulator - it is a
truly general system simulator as well as a model of general distributed
massively parallel computaion and also a model of a particular type of
massively parallel high-level Turing machine (but I have yet to type that
bit of mathematics up). There is still a great deal to be learnt about how
to create a 'seed' model that evolves into a universe very much like our
own. However much can be learnt from it, the nature of the simulator imposes
fundamental constraints on the nature of the VR universe; it must be finite,
discrete, quantised, relativistic, systemic and so on, but within these
constraints any type of system model or VR universe can be created and
simulated. It also connects with and gives meaning to the fundamental Planck
constants of quantum physics. But the question remains, which particular
types of models evolve into universes much like our own? I have yet to
consider this in detail because the model still needs further development to
be able to properly address this and I personally am more interested in the
metaphysics at present.
Some more empirical data: (from the modern equivalent of the photoelectric
effect)
-------------------------
First some background:
----------------------
REG Experiments: Equipment and Design (A brief abstract for the experiments)
http://www.princeton.edu/~rdnelson/reg.html
Details of the methodology
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/methodology.html
Paranormal Meets Physics (General non-scientific article)
http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa062298.htm
Then some data:
---------------
List of PEAR Publications (Over 50 available directly on the net)
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html
Correlation of global events with reg data: An internet-based, nonlocal
anomalies experiment - Statistical Data Included
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_3_65/ai_83262438
The MegaREG Experiment: Replication and Interpretation
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/MegaREG.pdf
Field REG Experiments of Religious Rituals and Other Group Events in Paraná,
Brazil.
http://www.kisc.meiji.ac.jp/~hirukawa/paper/FieldREG.doc
Analysis of Variance of REG Experiments: Operator Intention, Secondary
Parameters, Database Structure
http://www.princeton.edu/~rdnelson/anova.html
> I have no qualms with empirical data, I only object to the theories
> it produces.
I agree! Data is useful and neutral but the interpretations often reflect
our beliefs. The same is the case with your observation of a chair. I accept
your data but question your interpretation of it as "being a chair". That is
of course if you are using the usual definition of 'chair'. The label itself
is okay but what do you really mean by the word 'chair'? If you mean a
material object in space and time then I would question your interpretation.
> Hulse and Taylor received a Nobel prize for their brilliant bullshit
> in using a crackpot theory to discover a double pulsar, that's
> how bad it has become.
I don't know the details of this but too often the crackpots who conform to
the dominant illusion get kudos and the skeptical seekers get ridiculed.
Have a look at:
RIDICULED DISCOVERERS, VINDICATED MAVERICKS - A LIST
http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
And a relevant quote from that page:
"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so
great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and
accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labelled as 'conceptual
necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for
long periods by such errors." - Einstein
I am saying that materialism has been a useful concept in the past by which
we have interpreted our sensory data but it holds us back in countless
ways...
> The modern era of mysticism began in 1782, a punk kid of 18 years
> of age (died at 21) started it.
Who do you mean?
Regarding the term 'mysticism':
"Mysticism (from the Greek (mustikos) "an initiate" (of the Eleusinian
Mysteries, (musteria) meaning "initiation"[1])) is the pursuit of achieving
communion or identity with, or conscious awareness of, ultimate reality, the
divine, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or
insight; and the belief that such experience is one's destiny, purpose, or
an important source of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism)
I use 'mysticism' as a generic term referring to the various approaches such
as Vedanta, Yoga, Daoism, Kabbalah, Shamanism, Eleusinian Mysteries and so
on. On the surface they all seem very different and to a superficial glance
quite naive and absurd but if you know how to interpret the metaphors they
are all conceptually equivalent and deep and subtle. They are not
materialist at all, but are instead information/system theoretic.
But mysticism has been demonised, suppressed and misunderstood by
materialists throughout much of history although it is making a big
comeback. Mysticism and religion are VERY different things. In fact
mysticism and authoritarianism (whether secular or religious) are polar
opposites. Authoritarianism instinctively suppresses and demonises mysticism
because it relies on the weaving of illusions within our minds and our
unquestioning belief in those illusions whilst mysticism encourages us to
question all illusions and it thereby destroys these illusions.
> The expose is here:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
> where you'll find a paradigm shift of the first magnitude.
>
> I see you have mention of MMX. It is really rather simple.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm
>
> and put to use with Sagnac.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
I've had a quick look but there is much to think about there so I'll think
about it properly tomorrow. They look interesting but it is getting late for
me right now.
Best Wishes Androcles :)
John Ringland
John Ringland
Which bit?
Do you mean:
> try to place a phone call on the phone that was
> invented by Socrates, or use that Jesus computer, or take a couple of
> painkillers synthesized by Mohammed, or fly an airplane designed by
> Jerry Springer.
Or maybe:
> youshould ask for your tuition back.
You couldn't mean this surely! Imitation? What's that got to do with
fundamental research and discussion of ideas?
> go to the library, and study the articles in the best
> journals, and imitate them.
Perhaps you mean:
> Send your manuscripts to the journal. If it's good they'll help you
> fix any bumps,; if it's shit, they'll tell you.
>
> Keep working at it until it's not shit anymore.
>
>>From my personal exprience, they want to publish what you write,
> unless it's garbage, in which case they don't.
See http://www.lewrockwell.com:80/higgs/higgs58.html
Trying to get it published in journals might be good advice if I was
currently looking to publish in journals but I've already published on the
internet and that is enough for now.
And it IS avoidance if I'm simply here to discuss particular issues and see
what arguments people can put up for empiricism. But nobody will put forward
a single argument! Can anyone? Another relevant question is why won't people
even discuss the subject and constantly hide behind irrelevancies? Is it an
unspoken taboo for scientists? You'll surely read this reply "T Wake", aside
from irrelevant comments do you have ANYTHING to say on the issue? Have you
ever given it any thought?
Answer me this, why should we believe that the objects of our sensory
perceptions are real ontological objects? Is there a rational basis for
centuries of empiricism? If not why should our belief in it be beyond
questioning? Shouldn't we at least accept or contemplate the fact that we
are being naive believers? Is it appropriate for science to just fudge over
such a fundamental and profound issue? I.e. the fact that its very
foundation is entirely unscientific!!!!
Is it purely a matter of belief and that is the part that I'm just not
getting? Am I rocking the boat when I should just fall into line? Sorry for
being so naive but I assumed that people would have some rational basis for
centuries of empiricism! Is it just that, that is what everyone else
believes so I should believe it too? I'm afraid I'm too skeptical for that.
So far nobody has put up a single argument - is it that indefensible? Come
on - people have believed in it for centuries, surely there is at least one
argument for it. I don't know of any myself but someone must. There must at
least be some simplistic rationalisations otherwise how do people cope with
the cognitive dissonance? Or do people just shut it out and never think
about it? Is that why I am getting either silence or hostile avoidance
tactics from these scientific newsgroups? Sorry for harassing your sacred
cow but you really shouldn't have one to begin with.
----------
Here are some things for people to challenge if they can just to have
something to talk about. I've also added new info regarding the REG
experiments at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab. But I'll
repeat it here at the top for your convenience...
Since 1979 there have been experiments that incontrovertibly prove that
consciousness has direct influence over physical processes, thus shattering
the illusion of materialism. This is analogous to the photoelectric effect
that signaled the dawn of quantum physics. The experiments categorically
prove that there is something fundamentally wrong with both the materialist
and Cartesian dualist perspectives on reality. The REG experiments at the
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab prove beyond doubt that
consciousness has real measurable effects on physical processes. These
effects are not attenuated by distance and they have the same strength
whether the events are concurrent with the intentional influence or whether
the event is in the past or the future! They are magnified by psychological
bonds such as love and by cognitive discipline such as focused non-agitated
awareness (e.g. meditation). The measurable effects also arise without
intentional influence and can be used to monitor the coherence of the
ambient field of consciousness. There is currently a network of machines
monitoring the moment by moment fluctuations in the global consciousness;
the overall statistics for the Global Consciousness Project (GCP), after
nine years of data accumulation, indicate a probability of about one in ten
million that the correlation of the data with the specified global events is
merely due to chance. These aren't vague crackpot experiments, there is NO
DOUBT about the data, the only thing in contention is the interpretation of
the data.
The results are: "empirical facts that are anomalies from the perspective of
standard (mainstream) scientific models."
(http://noosphere.princeton.edu/conclusions.html)
The PEAR REG experiments: (The modern equivalent of the photoelectric
effect)
-------------------------
First some background:
----------------------
REG Experiments: Equipment and Design (A brief abstract)
http://www.princeton.edu/~rdnelson/reg.html
Details of the methodology
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/methodology.html
Paranormal Meets Physics (General non-scientific article)
http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa062298.htm
Then some data:
---------------
List of PEAR Publications (Over 50 available directly on the net)
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html
Correlation of global events with reg data: An internet-based, nonlocal
anomalies experiment - Statistical Data Included
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_3_65/ai_83262438
The MegaREG Experiment: Replication and Interpretation
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/MegaREG.pdf
Field REG Experiments of Religious Rituals and Other Group Events in Paraná,
Brazil.
http://www.kisc.meiji.ac.jp/~hirukawa/paper/FieldREG.doc
Analysis of Variance of REG Experiments: Operator Intention, Secondary
Parameters, Database Structure
http://www.princeton.edu/~rdnelson/anova.html
The Global Consciousness Project: (GCP or the Electro-Gaia-Gram EGG)
---------------------------------
Main GCP website
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
Introduction
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/science2.html
The primary results
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/results.html
EGG data archive
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/gcpdata.html
-----------
-----------
As for what some believers in materialism call "mystical bullshit":
"The concepts of science show strong similarities to the concepts of the
mystics... The philosophy of mystical traditions, the perennial philosophy,
is the most consistent philosophical background to modern science." (Fritjof
Capra)
Aside from stereotyping, misrepresentation and demonisation of mysticism
from political/religious institutions, mysticism is the logical result of
deep skepticism and the overcoming of naive realism. Once we stop
irrationally believing that the objects of sense perception are material
external objects we realise that everything is information in flux - it is
all a type of low-level consciousness. This is a profoundly liberating and
empowering realisation that undermines all delusional entrenched power
structures and mechanistic hegemonies - hence the suppression of mysticism
in order to enslave, deceive and exploit vast populations.
Quantum physics is rapidly leading us to a mystic perspective. But most
convincingly in terms of scientific evidence, recent experiments provide
incontrovertible evidence for the influence of consciousness over physical
processes! Since 1979 there have been experiments that incontrovertibly
prove that consciousness has direct influence over physical processes, thus
shattering the illusion of materialism. This is analogous to the
photoelectric effect that signaled the dawn of quantum physics. The
experiments categorically prove that there is something fundamentally wrong
with both the materialist and Cartesian dualist perspectives on reality. The
REG experiments at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab prove
beyond doubt that consciousness has real measurable effects on physical
processes. These effects are not attenuated by distance and they have the
same strength whether the events are concurrent with the intentional
influence or whether the event is in the past or the future! They are
magnified by psychological bonds such as love and by cognitive discipline
such as focused non-agitated awareness (e.g. meditation). The measurable
effects also arise without intentional influence and can be used to monitor
the coherence of the ambient field of consciousness. There is currently a
network of machines monitoring the moment by moment fluctuations in the
global consciousness; the overall statistics for the Global Consciousness
Project (GCP), after nine years of data accumulation, indicate a probability
of about one in ten million that the correlation of the data with the
specified global events is merely due to chance. These aren't vague crackpot
experiments, there is NO DOUBT about the data, the only thing in contention
is the interpretation of the data.
The results are "empirical facts that are anomalies from the perspective of
standard (mainstream) scientific models."
(http://noosphere.princeton.edu/conclusions.html)
The PEAR REG experiments: (The modern equivalent of the photoelectric
effect)
-------------------------
First some background:
----------------------
REG Experiments: Equipment and Design (A brief abstract)
http://www.princeton.edu/~rdnelson/reg.html
Details of the methodology
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/methodology.html
Paranormal Meets Physics (General non-scientific article)
http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa062298.htm
Then some data:
---------------
List of PEAR Publications (Over 50 available directly on the net)
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html
Correlation of global events with reg data: An internet-based, nonlocal
anomalies experiment - Statistical Data Included
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_3_65/ai_83262438
The MegaREG Experiment: Replication and Interpretation
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/MegaREG.pdf
Field REG Experiments of Religious Rituals and Other Group Events in Paraná,
Brazil.
http://www.kisc.meiji.ac.jp/~hirukawa/paper/FieldREG.doc
Analysis of Variance of REG Experiments: Operator Intention, Secondary
Parameters, Database Structure
http://www.princeton.edu/~rdnelson/anova.html
The Global Consciousness Project: (GCP or the Electro-Gaia-Gram EGG)
---------------------------------
Main GCP website
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
Introduction
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/science2.html
The primary results
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/results.html
EGG data archive
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/gcpdata.html
--------------
The ultimate test of the holistic efficacy of any world view is the impact
that it has on our lives and the world at large over time, and empiricism
has produced unbounded unstable growth of exploitative monstrosities that
are on the verge of destroying all life on this planet as well as the human
spirit within each of us. Politicised religion was no better either. Both
are empiricist delusions, one dressed up as science and the other dressed up
as religion - neither is true science or true religion. It is empiricism and
naïve realism that is their fundamental flaw, which is protected by
orthodoxy and denial. Mysticism destroys illusion and overcomes this flaw;
it conceives of the Whole and our place within the whole and thereby keeps
Androcles
:
: "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
Of course. A cynic is a sceptic with a sense of humour.
: However in their extreme forms they are mutually exclusive and in practice
: they are often difficult to distinguish because they are both taking a
: questioning stance but with different inner attitudes. Let me explain.
:
: Cynics are disillusioned idealists judging by the site's own definition
: where a cynic is: "an idealist whose rose-colored glasses have been
removed,
: snapped in two and stomped into the ground, immediately improving his
: vision." (http://www.i-cynic.com/whatis.asp)
No, no, that's not the interpretation at all. How do you associate
"disillusioned" with "seeing clearly " (improving his vision)?
An oxymoron, surely? And do you not see the humour invoked
in the definition?
I'm an idealist, I want to produce the best I can, but as a realist I know
that whatever I produce it will fall short in someone else's view.
I am NOT disillusioned.
I am truly sceptical that my work will be well received. If I find I agree
with fair criticism then I'll make improvement. If I find the criticism to
be
erroneous or merely bitching from emotion such as jealousy or envy then
I ignore it.
When one teaches, two learn.
When two learn then both benefit.
: But a skeptic, in my own words, is a non-idealist, rationalist who doubts
: their own ability to know anything with certainty but who seeks reliable
: knowledge within uncertain epistemic constraints.
I have no doubts as to my abilities. I play chess well but I'm not
a Grand Master. I've remodelled two houses and know where
the flaws in each floor are. There is a law of diminishing returns
and I'm not remodelling again when I'll probably make more error.
I drove a 2 1/2" screw upwards through a counter top and it
penetrated the surface, I had to disguise it. However, nobody else
has spotted my flaws. I have some of the best animations on
the web, and try to improve.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
:
: Firstly: "Extreme skepticism holds that no knowledge is possible, but this
: is logically untenable since the statement contradicts itself." (The
: Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia http://www.answers.com/topic/skepticism)
Yep. The world is not black and white.
If the extreme sceptic holds that no knowledge is possible then
he claims to know that no knowledge is possible (Russell's Paradox).
: This accords with the comment: "no smug certainties of any kind."
You need a reality check on the existence of "major looming global crises".
http://www.roperld.com/graphics/LIAInsolation.jpg
The global warming of 130,000 years ago was probably caused
by Australian aboriginals riding around the Outback in 4x4s and
SUVs in search of uranium deposits to fuel their reactors before the
dream time, the crisis led to the insistence that they went on "walkabout"
instead.
: The analysis also highlights the fact that our belief in the "external
: world" is really a compelling belief for which we have no rational basis
in
: fact. There have been philosophers saying this for centuries and mystics
: saying it for thousands of years. This is a very disturbing realisation
and
: most people just deny it without questioning their denial but if we are
: truly skeptical we need to look into what this really means and what other
: avenues of enquiry there are to put our knowledge on as firm a footing as
is
: possible.
:
: If you are interested, the analysis is in:
: An Information Systems Analysis of Mind, Knowledge, 'the World' and
Holistic
: Science
: http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html
: Do a search for the heading: The Process of Perception and Formation of
: Knowledge
To be honest with you, I'm not very interested at all. Human nature
is but a small subset of Nature and whilst it may be of interest to you
to delve into the inner workings of the mind, I prefer the inner workings
of magnetism, electricity and gravitation, which to me remain fundamental.
Without them there would be no minds.
: Also note that given the non-linear nature of mind where it is both the
seer
: and the lens - that is why I care about concepts such as cynic and skeptic
: and Scientism because the state of mind in which a person approaches
: something seriously effects how they experience it. Especially when it is
: extremely controversial and extremely subtle ideas such as those that I am
: trying to communicate. Any kind of pre-judgement can totally warp a person
: understanding of what is being said making it impossible for them to
: comprehend it.
:
It seems to me that your "Information Systems Analysis" is just plain
old communication.
: I have noticed over the last two and a half years of communicating my
: results that virtually everyone responds to their prejudices and
assumptions
: about what I am saying and very few people actually listen to what is
being
: said. I have detailed mathematical analyses but I doubt if anyone has
: seriously looked at them.
In other words you are "an idealist whose rose-colored glasses have been
removed, snapped in two and stomped into the ground, immediately
improving his vision."
I've been communicating my results for 20 years. Very few people actually
listen to what is being said.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm
: The scientists assume I am speaking superstitious
: gibberish so that is what they hear and the spiritualists think I'm
speaking
: Scientism nonsense so that is what they hear. The standard conversations
: consists of denial and obfuscatory tactics where the person invests great
: effort to find things to object to and no effort to actually understand
: anything. Because they don't understand what it is they are trying to
object
: to they don't even scratch the surface and only get worked up over
: trivialities. I go on clarifying the trivialities until they run out of
: objections at which point they usually run away or throw a tantrum.
Standard Operating Procedure. I shall probably "run away" too, though
I have no objections to the majority of your analysis. It simply doesn't
interest me. Likewise, I have failed to interest you and neither one of
us can hold a candle to football or pornography.
: I have
: found that the higher ranking scientists and philosophers were amongst the
: worst. But the mystics understand me because they already know the essence
: of what I am talking about. In half an hour of conversation we reach deep
: understanding!
Goody for the mystics.
: > Favorite quote:
: > "I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite
: > scoundrels."
:
: I respect that :)
:
: >
: > /quote
: > If I see a chair, it is because there is a chair physically where and
: > when
: > I see it.
: > /unquote
: >
: > If I see a chair, it is because there is a chair physically where and
when
: > I
: > made it, put it and sat in it.
:
: On a purely everyday pragmatic level it serves the function of a 'chair'
but
: do we know what it is? There is definitely 'something' there but what is
it?
: Is it really made of matter?
"Matter" is my subject of enquiry.
Newton was puzzled by action-at-a-distance, but took matter for granted.
Newton knew of magnetism but know nothing of electricity.
: We don't know what matter is, or what forces are, or time or space. But
when
: all these things come together into something that we perceive as a chair
: most people assume they know what a chair is. But if they really thought
: about it they would realise that they don't really know what it is other
: than that it is something that manifests to their senses as a chair and
that
: they use a chair. To unquestioning assume that we KNOW it is a chair is
: naive realism as well as anti-skeptic.
I know what a chair is. So do you. We do not know what matter is.
Matter has a property called "mass" and we measure mass by
applying a force and measuring acceleration.
I know what a force is by its behaviour.
I therefore propose a paradigm shift, accept action-at-a-distance
as empirical and axiomatic, then inquire what matter is rather than
follow the dead end we've always chased.
If matter is made of molecules and molecules are made of atoms
and atoms are made of protons and electrons, what are electrons
made of? Ok, its a dead end, but we explored a long way.
Electrons have charge. Do they have mass? Mass is measured by force.
Are electrons made of "matter"? I refuse to assume they do.
Thompson invented the electron and it is a useful model for
cathode rays, and then Millikan measured its mass. Or did he
merely assume that the electron has the property of mass?
:
: If the person has an understanding of everyday objects they know something
: about how a chair behaves and if they have an understanding of physics
they
: know something about how matter, forces, time and space behave. But that
: only informs them about how things behave. Empiricism cannot address
: questions of ontology or the actual nature of the something that underlies
: the appearances because it takes the appearances as its conceptual
starting
: point. When we say that it is made of matter what are we really saying -
the
: only truly honest answer is that we don't really know. The hypothesis of
: matter is just a hypothesis that fills in a gap in our understanding. If
we
: seek deeper understanding we need to question this gap rather than just
: fudge over it.
:
Of course it is the honest answer, but we will never know as long as
we assume matter exists in the first place. So try a new approach.
Forces are not matter, but they exist.
: Given the fact that we know so little about the ontology of a chair,
: consider the case of someone who sat down in front of a computer but they
: had no idea what a computer is. They might see in front of them a web page
: with textboxes and buttons. All they know are the objects as they appear.
: They can become very familiar with that environment and learn a great deal
: about how the objects behave and they might do many things in that
: environment such as send emails and post to news groups and they would get
: the feeling that they know that environment.
A web page, like a book, is information. The ink on the paper has patterns
we call letters which communicated concepts. It is not tangible matter.
Matter is the boundary condition of force.
:
: But if asked what are the objects they would respond that this object is a
What wave?
This is a wave:
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html
The wave is in time, not space.
Goodricke.
:
: Regarding the term 'mysticism':
Perhaps you should start here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm
Art Deco
>Trying to get it published in journals might be good advice if I was
>currently looking to publish in journals but I've already published on the
>internet and that is enough for now.
Obviously you don't know the purpose of peer review.
John "C"
"Art Deco" <er...@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:210520070839063839%er...@caballista.org...
> John Ringland <john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote:
>
> >Trying to get it published in journals might be good advice if I was
> >currently looking to publish in journals but I've already published on
the
> >internet and that is enough for now.
>
> Obviously you don't know the purpose of peer review.
>
HJ
John Ringland
>
>>Trying to get it published in journals might be good advice if I was
>>currently looking to publish in journals but I've already published on the
>>internet and that is enough for now.
>
> Obviously you don't know the purpose of peer review.
Hi Art Deco,
Yes I do, and I value peer review greatly, but rather than engage in
bickering:
(1) I give a few definitions of idealised peer review,
(2) then a couple comments on peer review in practice,
(3) then I explain my position in regards to peer review and
(4) then I explain my actual peer review activities.
(1) Simple Definitions:
-----------------------
"Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other
people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the
work or performance in that field.
It is based on the concept that a larger and more diverse group of people
will usually find more weaknesses and errors in a work or performance and
will be able to make a more impartial evaluation of it than will just the
person or group responsible for creating the work or performance.
Peer review utilizes the independence, and in some cases the anonymity, of
the reviewers in order to discourage cronyism (i.e., favoritism shown to
relatives and friends) and obtain an unbiased evaluation. Typically, the
reviewers are not selected from among the close colleagues, relatives or
friends of the creator or performer of the work, and potential reviewers are
required to disclose of any conflicts of interest."
(http://www.bellevuelinux.org/peer_review.html)
"Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of
subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who
are experts in the field."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review)
"Peer review: Scrutiny by one's peers (equals)."
(http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4820)
(http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Peer_review)
(http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4820)
"Peer review is a process used for checking the work performed by one's
equals (peers) to ensure it meets specific criteria. Peer review is used in
working groups for many professional occupations because it is thought that
peers can identify each other's errors quickly and easily, speeding up the
time that it takes for mistakes to be identified and corrected."
(http://searchsoftwarequality.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,290660,sid92_gci936459,00.html)
"Having one or more programmers review the source code of a program written
by someone else. Peer review produces much better code, since others have
already tried to understand it. Indecipherable routines are eliminated
before they get buried into the fabric of the program."
(http://www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/defineterm.jhtml?term=peer+review)
"peer review - evaluate professionally a colleague's work"
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/peer%20review)
"Peer review is evaluation, by colleagues or peers, of all teaching related
activities for either formative (for development) or summative (for
personnel decision) purposes."
(http://www.ncsu.edu/provost/peer_review/definereview.htm)
(2) Two Comments on peer review:
--------------------------------
"Peer review, on which lay people place great weight, varies from being an
important control, where the editors and the referees are competent and
responsible, to being a complete farce, where they are not. As a rule, not
surprisingly, the process operates somewhere in the middle, being more than
a joke but less than the nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny that
outsiders imagine it to be. Any journal editor who desires, for whatever
reason, to reject a submission can easily do so by choosing referees he
knows full well will knock it down; likewise, he can easily obtain favorable
referee reports. As I have always counseled young people whose work was
rejected, seemingly on improper or insufficient grounds, the system is a
crapshoot. Personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional
jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion, and a great
deal of plain incompetence and irresponsibility are no strangers to the
scientific world; indeed, that world is rife with these all-too-human
attributes. In no event can peer review ensure that research is correct in
its procedures or its conclusions. The history of every science is a
chronicle of one mistake after another. In some sciences these mistakes are
largely weeded out in the course of time; in others they persist for
extended periods; and in some sciences, such as economics, actual scientific
retrogression may continue for generations under the misguided (but
self-serving) belief that it is really progress."
(http://www.lewrockwell.com:80/higgs/higgs58.html)
"PEER REVIEW is not perfect, and when it is done sloppily, journals publish
research that is flawed. Even when peer review is rigorous, flawed research
sometimes gets into the literature. Journals have long relied on peer
review, yet concerns about its limitations have often been expressed.[1] [2]
[3] [4] Critics point out that some reviewers are unqualified and others,
because of personal or professional rivalry, are biased. Editors may even
select reviewers on the basis of the reviewers' biases. Furthermore, two or
more reviewers may have widely discrepant opinions about a study. Critics
also make the point that peer review not only fails to prevent the
publication of flawed research but also permits the publication of research
that is fraudulent. Some have described peer review as arbitrary,
subjective, and secretive. In addition, many critics (including some of the
popular press) maintain that it is simply unnecessary and slows the
communication of information to the public."
(http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/7_13_94/pv3089x.htm)
(3) My position regarding peer review:
--------------------------------------
I totally agree with the concept of peer review and consider it a VITAL part
of all scientific work in the sense that "a larger and more diverse group of
people will usually find more weaknesses and errors in a work or performance
and will be able to make a more impartial evaluation of it than will just
the person or group responsible for creating the work or performance."
(http://www.bellevuelinux.org/peer_review.html)
But I have doubts about how it is often put into practice, i.e. it is
restricted to small, closed and deliberately chosen individuals; it is often
"arbitrary, subjective, and secretive"
(http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/7_13_94/pv3089x.htm). In regards to
controversial issues: "Any journal editor who desires, for whatever reason,
to reject a submission can easily do so by choosing referees he knows full
well will knock it down... the system is a crapshoot. Personal vendettas,
ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological
disagreements, sheer self-promotion, and a great deal of plain incompetence
and irresponsibility are no strangers to the scientific world; indeed, that
world is rife with these all-too-human attributes."
(http://www.lewrockwell.com:80/higgs/higgs58.html) Also: "some reviewers...
because of personal or professional rivalry, are biased. Editors may even
select reviewers on the basis of the reviewers' biases."
There are three main reasons why I have no interest in following the
"standard academic" peer review process.
Firstly, because of the controversial nature of the work and the constant
irrationality of academics in regards to it (two and a half years of
communicating the ideas has proven this irrationality beyond all doubt)
there is no chance of it getting a fair and rational review. It is
exceedingly difficult just to get people to calm down enough to be able to
think straight about it - they become instantly hostile before they even
know what it is that I am saying. Observing this fact has been a fascinating
lesson in human nature.
Secondly, due to the inherently omni-disciplinary nature of the work there
is no group of peers to turn to. The work is so low-level that it affects
EVERY domain of knowledge including ALL scientific disciplines, common
sense, general knowledge, mystic wisdom and so on.
Thirdly, whilst the primary aspects of the work are mathematical and the
secondary aspects are metaphysical, the vast majority of the work is
accessible to anyone with an open intelligent mind. It need not be
restricted to a small group of 'experts', even if such experts existed,
which they don't.
(4) My peer review activities:
------------------------------
I explicitly call for general peer review from anyone who has an interest in
any aspect of the work. There is nobody who is 'qualified' to address all
aspects but everyone can comprehend some aspects and I take on board any
rational coherent comments from anyone. For example, I also say in the
general introduction to the website:
"As well as seeking to disseminate this information for the benefit of
humanity, the other purpose of this website is to encourage some open minded
critical analysis of these ideas, i.e. to incite some peer review, in order
to clarify, verify and generally improve this work, to separate the wheat
from the chaff, as well as to help integrate it into other works. I seek to
elicit critical feedback from anyone with enough interest to respond but
especially from people in related fields, such as mathematics, computer
science, various spiritual / mystic traditions, physics, information theory,
system theory, metaphysics, philosophy and so on. The full mathematical
details are provided here, the metaphysics is made explicit and the software
can be seen to be functioning coherently (aside from a few bugs in the
interface, which are irrelevant to the proof of the coherence of the overall
paradigm). The scientific world should not protect its traditional
materialist beliefs behind a wall of denial and mystics should not ignore
the importance of the scientific approach to the modern world. I challenge
people to either, find any fundamental flaws in the conceptual approach
presented here or to assist in verifying and clarifying it, I would welcome
any open minded attempt to do so and would gladly assist in any way I can. I
seek only the refinement of knowledge, not the irrational maintenance of
belief systems.
If you have expertise or interest in any related field I challenge you to
look into this work and I will assist in any way I can, just let me know how
I can be of assistance. If you know anyone with related expertise or
interest, then please inform them of this website. There is information
here, which when fully realised may be of great significance. If scientists
can overcome their prejudice against mysticism and mystics can overcome
their prejudice against modern science, the two will discover that they have
a great deal in common and may be able to be of great assistance to one
another. The world needs both in balance for a holistic world view, just as
we each need both left and right hemispheres in balance to have a whole
mind." (http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/GeneralIntro.html)
I also state in the document "The Scientific Basis of this Work", which is
one of the first documents that people are directed to (see
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/General%20Discussions.html#overview):
"At its core there is a mathematical model of general systems and general
distributed computation. This is a conjecture but it is fully verifiable by
expert peer review - if you look into the mathematics you can assess this
for yourself. This modelling methodology is called System Matrix Notation
(SMN) and it has significant theoretic and practical applications. It uses
generalised matrix algebra to represent, simulate and analyse systems
ranging from individual simple systems up to vast networks of complex
systems with many levels of sub-systems and super-systems. As well as
systems where the hierarchy of sub/super systems is not predefined but is
instead a perceptual phenomenon whereby different systems perceive and
experience different systemic structures depending upon their perspective;
this latter case is the most realistic. SMN can model linear and non-linear
systems as well as classical and quantum systems. Furthermore the
mathematical modelling methods give rise to advanced analysis techniques
that can be applied to the system models.
A further verifiable conjecture is that ANY finitely representable system
can be represented within SMN. See Computational Processes
(http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/Computational%20Processes.html) which
is a mathematical and conceptual proof that SMN can model any finitely
representable system and it also indicates that all physical systems are
likely to be finitely representable, hence physical reality can be thought
of as a computational process."
(http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/ScientificBasis.html)
I also state on the page "The Mathematical Analysis", which collects
together the main mathematical aspects of the work:
"The ideas presented here are the more explicitly mathematical aspects of a
much broader work (http://www.anandavala.info), which is an exploration into
an information/system theoretic metaphysics of the nature of reality. This
mathematics and its software implementation is the foundation of what I call
the computational paradigm and is the main information that this website
seeks to disseminate. It also seeks to incite open minded critical peer
review, to help separate the wheat from the chaff.
The core of the mathematics has been directly implemented in software
(http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/SMN%20Code.html) thereby recreating
the central algorithm and showing that it constitutes a transcendent
information process that manifests coherent experiential contexts or virtual
realities. Arising from this algorithmic core there are several analyses
that lead to very interesting results and everything else presented on this
website rests upon this mathematical foundation and arises as the
ramifications are extrapolated, contextualised and deeply contemplated."
(http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/The Mathematical Analysis.html)
I also say at the very top of the latest essay: "An Information Systems
Analysis of Mind, Knowledge, 'the World' and Holistic Science":
"Regarding feedback: This document is an ongoing work in progress and is
constantly evolving as better ways to express things are found. Feedback is
an essential aspect of this process so please, if you feel like it, let me
know about your experiences reading this and any ideas that occurred to you
(john.r...@anandavala.info). It is helpful if you let me know what parts
you found unclear, unconvincing or incorrect. It is especially helpful if
you can explain why you found them so. Then I will take that into
consideration. It is also helpful to let me know what parts you strongly
agree with, what parts were challenging, what parts you found irrelevant
(unnecessary complication) and any ideas you have to improve the accuracy
and effectiveness of this discussion. Let me know if it's just feedback or
if you wish to discuss the issues because I do not have time to answer all
emails, but I take them all into consideration. Oh and make the subject line
clearly distinguishable from spam, otherwise it might accidentally get
deleted. If you feel like providing feedback it will help put these ideas to
the test and clarify them, thereby honouring truth. Thank you in advance."
(http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html)
I also state in the preface to that essay:
"This discussion touches upon extremely controversial and off limits
subjects - subjects about which there is extreme misrepresentation and
misunderstanding, subjects about which most people have hard and fast
beliefs and prejudices and they never dare look into and question them, many
people's minds just slide off the subject and they don't seem to ever
contemplate it directly. They show neither understanding nor any argument
against it. Peer review is a vital aspect of any scientific enquiry but
people mainly form opinions of 'interesting' or 'rubbish' but go no further.
There seems to be a fundamental clash of paradigms; these ideas challenge
certain core beliefs that most people have not seriously questioned so they
are unable to defend them by rational means so their instinct is to retreat
into denial. But I say many profound things and I am just one voice amongst
many and if these things were true the ramifications would have far reaching
benefits for everyone and help us comprehend and avert major systemic
crises. Given the vast potential benefit I feel that these ideas should be
made available to be independently and rationally assessed to either refute
them or to help subject them to closer examination."
(http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html)
So I put my work forward for peer review from the whole internet community
and anyone who comes in contact with it. When dealing with issues and
omni-disciplinary and controversial and these I feel that "a larger and more
diverse group of people will usually find more weaknesses and errors in a
work or performance and will be able to make a more impartial evaluation of
it than will just the person or group responsible for creating the work or
performance." (http://www.bellevuelinux.org/peer_review.html)
I initially approached people to inform them of the work but in every
instance that put them in the wrong frame of mind to approach the work. The
internet is awash with utter nonsense and an email or posting out of the
blue is instantly assumed to be spam, or crackpot gibberish. People have
enough difficulty being rational on these issues without that added
prejudice so I now leave it to chance as to who comes across the work, but
many thousands of people have encountered it and the word is gradually
spreading.
All major aspects are published on the website (http://www.anandavala.info).
There are detailed explanations of the core mathematical methods and models.
There are software implementations of some of these models with full source
code and working programs that can be downloaded. The core mathematics is
verified by the fact that the software produces coherent computational
spaces within which generalised systems can exist and interact; this can be
developed into a revolutionary new technology that transforms computers from
fast calculators into portals into metaphysically complex virtual universes.
There are hundreds and hundreds of pages of essays that elaborate on the
metaphysics that arises from the mathematics and that explain and explore
the various aspects, intricacies and parallels with other metaphysical
models.
The website was first published in October 2005 and I have been
communicating the ideas in various forms since 2004. There are currently
over 1000 distinct individuals making 15000 hits every month, and there are
approximately 400 downloads of the software every month. The interest varies
and was much greater initially due to curiosity value, e.g. with 20,000
downloads in the first two months.
Over this time I have engaged in several hundred detailed discussions with
people ranging from general people through to some 'reputable' philosophers
and scientists. I wouldn't count any of these discussions in that statistic
yet because we have yet to get beyond the initial bickering. But in nearly
every instance they would become irrational and start storming about
grasping at things to objects to. I'll quote this again:
"The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein
and resists it with similar energy. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to
say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. IF
WE WATCH OURSELVES HONESTLY WE SHALL OFTEN FIND THAT WE HAVE BEGUN TO ARGUE
AGAINST A NEW IDEA EVEN BEFORE IT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY STATED." - Wilfred
Trotter, 1941 (my capitalisation for emphasis)
Because they were obsessed with finding things to object to and they
invested very little effort into understanding anything they only grasped at
surface details. But in every such case I would clarify their objections and
incorporate those clarifications into the body of the work so that I didn't
have to keep on clarifying them to other objectionists. In this manner the
work has grown rather large and detailed. The people would go on objecting
and I would go on clarifying and padding every term with explanation so that
it couldn't be so easily misconstrued. When they'd run out of things to
object to they'd either retreat into silence or throw a tantrum and storm
off.
So far no one has managed to put up a single coherent objection to the
ideas. Sure people can object to unrelated trivialities or the format or the
flavour or the way I express things (these are personal aesthetics) but the
actual ideas have yet to be scratched. I challenge people to try and do so,
simply to put the ideas to the test. I want to see them tested to the
fullest extent!!!! The are not my pet belief system that I protect from the
world. I fully expose them and dare people to tear them down if they can. I
facilitate people to try and counter the ideas, especially if someone who
was intelligent and open-minded enough to actually try and understand them
and then challenge them I would gladly help them in any way I could!
The mathematics, and the coherence of the paradigm as it sits within my mind
and infuses my life make me 'feel' certain about it, but the rational
skeptic in me doesn't trust this. I am still testing the ideas and I'm
calling out for others to test them too! I think these ideas are potentially
important and shouldn't be neglected just because of a prevailing belief
system.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"John Ringland" <john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote:
> The mathematics, and the coherence of the paradigm as it sits within my mind
> and infuses my life make me 'feel' certain about it, but the rational
> skeptic in me doesn't trust this. I am still testing the ideas and I'm
> calling out for others to test them too! I think these ideas are potentially
> important and shouldn't be neglected just because of a prevailing belief
> system.
There is no prevailing belief system. Your misconceptions about the peer review
process are just that - misconceptions.
Art Deco
>In article <Cbo4i.2464$wH4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> "John Ringland" <john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote:
>
>> The mathematics, and the coherence of the paradigm as it sits within my mind
>> and infuses my life make me 'feel' certain about it, but the rational
>> skeptic in me doesn't trust this. I am still testing the ideas and I'm
>> calling out for others to test them too! I think these ideas are potentially
>> important and shouldn't be neglected just because of a prevailing belief
>> system.
>
>
>There is no prevailing belief system. Your misconceptions about the peer
>review
>process are just that - misconceptions.
The screed is strong with this one.
The_Man
Your argument comes down to "Peer reviews isn't perfect, therefore
it's worthless."
Jury trials have come to incorrect conclusions, therefore the jury
system should be dumped.
Some physicians harm their patients by misdiagnosis, therefore we
shouldn;t have doctors.
Airplane crash every once in a while, therefore I'll never fly.
A girlfirend 20 years ago cheated on me, therefore, I am become a
monk.
The reason most papers are rejected is that they are not new, not
right, or poorly written. Editors have so many mansucripts to get
reviewed that they have neither the time nor inclination to take a
personal interest in them, one way or the other. Your opinions verge
on paranoia and a persectuaion complex.
Advice (which you won't accept): learn how to write. You pontificate,
and avoid using one word where 300 words will do. No one can be
bothered to read long-winded blather. You would get a better reception
if you learn to get to the point.
John Ringland
Another detailed response (it's rather long, mainly due to a long list of
links related to "global crisis", just a quick sample of what info is out
there) but other parts of this post might interest you more!
Here is something you might find interesting - there's more later...
"That the speed of light is always c=300,000km/s relative to any observer in
nonaccelerating motion is one of the foundational concepts of physics.
Experimentally this was supposed to have been first revealed by the 1887
Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of Einstein's key postulates
of Special Relativity in 1905. However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift
data was analysed for the first time with a theory for the Michelson
interferometer that used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect, as
well as the effect of the air in the interferometer on the speed of light.
That analysis showed that the data gave an absolute motion speed in excess
of 300km/s. So far six other experiments have been shown to give the same
result. This implies that the foundations of physics require significant
revision. As well data shows that both Newtonian gravity and General
Relativity are also seriously flawed, and a new theory of gravity is shown
to explain various so-called gravitational `anomalies', including the `dark
matter' effect. Most importantly absolute motion is now understood to be the
cause of the various relativistic effects, in accord with the earlier
proposal by Lorentz." (The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy:
1905-2005, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051)
It also fits with the COBE data too (v = 365 +/- 18 km/s)!
I'll respond to your post below - along with some comments on your work, I
too criticise Einstein but in a different way. Search forward for the phrase
"We haven't discussed your work at all - sorry!" if you want to jump to the
relativity comments... As I say elsewhere - my work touches on EVERYTHING -
it's not only about naive realism / scientific realism and the mind - that's
just what I'm exploring right here and now. And what an ugly process it has
been :(
But first some words about naive realism - that is what I'm on this thread
to talk about :) and it's FAR more important than people think it is. This
is partially for you and also for whoever happens to read this.
Something has just fallen into place in the back of my mind!!! It was
triggered by our conversation and also the general hysteria on this thread.
It's about naive realism.
I've been thinking about naive realism directly for a few years and
indirectly for about fifteen years but now I see exactly how central it is.
Every instance in which you and others misunderstand me is directly and
99.99% related to naive realism. And most of the denial and hostility over
the years is too.
Basically if someone is a naive realist they are fundamentally unable to
understand what I am saying - I understand why now. They are totally and
fundamentally unable to understand! I can't imagine what my words seem like
to them - probably either gibberish or highly dubious and unrealistic - but
that is because their whole concept of what is 'real' is conditioned by
naive realism! We are speaking totally different conceptual languages and
the only point of contact is that we are using English - that is all that we
have in common, except when discussing mundane subjects.
For a vague hint at the difference in conceptual languages, have a look at
this glossary of redefined words from my latest essay:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#_Glossary
Here's an example if you don't look; the re-definition of the term
"physical universe": (many of the words used here are also re-defined, such
as universe, physical, virtual, world etc so it's best to go to the glossary
where it's hyperlinked but this gives a hint)
In the OLD-PARADIGM "physical universe" means an ontological existential
context that just exists and behaves without any underlying causal context
and which is believed by materialists to be the a priori (miraculous)
foundation of all existence.
In the NEW-PARADIGM "physical universe" arises when the universe is
experienced from a perspective within the universe and it is conceptualised
from within a materialist empiricist belief system, then and only then does
the idea of the physical universe arise. It is a particular idea about the
universe that is constructed from shared subjective experiences within a
virtual reality but which is conceived of within a materialist empiricist
conceptual framework. When virtual beings structure their minds using the
idea-of-the-physical-universe they subconsciously interpret and experience
and conceptualise everything through that paradigm or cognitive lens so they
come to experience and know themselves as physical beings within a physical
universe. So the "physical universe" is really just a particular kind of
personal world (subjective experiential context) that people experience when
they adopt a particular kind of cognitive lens. Part of the illusion is that
people assume that their individual worlds are actually the same objective
world so people believe that they all dwell within a common objective
physical universe.
If this doesn't make sense or it seems dubious and unrealistic that is
probably because of naive realism...
I sincerely apologise for calling people irrational - they were quite likely
being rational to the best of their abilities within a naive realist
context - no wonder they took offence. What I said was true, they were
irrational, but they weren't capable of seeing that so it was inappropriate
and unproductive to say that to them. It was true though because even though
they were rational within a limited context, outside of that in the wider
context they were being irrational. But they can only operate within the
bounds of what they know - it's not their fault! So I am sorry.
The metaphysical ideas that I discuss are actually a good test for naive
realism - if it is clear and obvious then the person is not a naive realist
but otherwise they are a naive realist. Assuming of course that they have
the basic education and intellect to be able to engage with such ideas. They
could perhaps be simple minded holistic realists like many mystics are and
the scientific/philosophical nature of the discussion would confuse them.
Overcoming naive realism isn't about intellect or education; it's about the
low-level structural information processing that goes on in the deep
recesses of the mind. Overcoming it is about retraining the nervous system.
I'm going to have to restructure my website and the essays to incorporate
this understanding - it's not that people need to be 'skeptical' or
'rational' - they can be these to the best of their ability but still
operate within a concept of what is 'real' that is fundamentally
incompatible with these ideas. I need to discuss naive realism first before
getting onto anything else. Only if they are a scientific realist, holistic
realist or mystic realist (labels for the same thing) can they have a chance
of understanding me. Indeed then it would be easy - it's really so simple
once you get past naive realism. I've puzzled for years about "how can I say
something as simple as 1+1=2 and supposedly intelligent rational people just
boggle at it then become totally irrational?" I have now solved that puzzle!
It so simple once you get over naive realism but getting over it isn't
easy!!! David Hume devoted a significant amount of his philosophical career
and his intellectual life to seeing through and debunking naive realism but:
"although Hume's idealism appeared to him to be a strict refutation of
commonsense [naive] realism, and although he felt rationally obliged to
regard commonsense realism as a mistake, he admitted that he was, in
practice, quite unable to disbelieve in it for more than an hour: that, at
heart, Hume was a commonsense realist."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume)
Naive realism is an intrinsic part of the functioning of the nervous system
of all higher animals. It is an evolutionary innovation built upon
fundamental systemic principles that helped animals mirror their general
environment within their minds and then treat that as if it was actually the
external reality. It is an adequate illusion for animal survival and it is
DEEPLY programmed into our minds. It is one of the most deeply seated core
beliefs that is intrinsically programmed into the structure of the mind. The
fundamental purpose of meditation is to overcome naive realism but it takes
decades of focused sincere commitment to fully overcome it!
If one is truly skeptical and willing to sacrifice all of one's sacred cows
and accept any cost then one can approach an understanding of it via
intellectual and philosophical enquiry but even then it takes years of
subtle sincere contemplation without any kind of agenda to distort the
process. But this understanding is only a shallow overcoming of naive
realism - it is only conscious overcoming. That is the stage that Hume and
myself have attained - in my everyday life I am still fully naive realist
but intellectually I am not. Only by deep meditation (or equivalent methods)
can one make it a deep and subconscious overcoming. If one does this even
one's perceptions and raw experiences are freed from illusion, not just
one's ideas and expressions. Such a thing is a truly world changing
transformation - that is what people call enlightenment! This is what is
meant by "cut the root of the mind and stare naked" (Tilopa). Normally it is
said that the I-thought or ego is the root of the mind but naive realism is
the root of the I-thought!
I've discussed all this at length in my latest essay but now I understand it
on a much deeper and holistic level. Thank you Androcles and everyone on
these newsgroups for playing a part in triggering this deeper understanding.
I don't hold any grudges for the hostility - it was all fun and games :) -
but I was getting a bit frustrated that nobody had anything rational to say
in defence of empiricism.
But you guys were probably just smart enough to not even try because there
is NO rational basis to it - it is purely a naive realist belief system that
only has currency until one questions it whereon it immediately falls apart.
I was being a bit mischievous when I goaded people to try and defend it - it
would have been futile on their part - but I just wanted to know what kinds
of arguments people put up for it. Now I know that the only defence is
denial and avoidance. Thanks for clarifying this for me
Sorry for speaking nonsense - I suspect that it seems nonsense to many
people :)
Now for some responses.
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:zLd4i.41738$Ch.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "John Ringland" <john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote in message
> news:Pia4i.2236$wH4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> :
> : "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
> : news:8Y_3i.40508$Ch.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> : >
[SNIP]
> : >
> : > The cynic is inevitably a sceptic, although a sceptic is not
> necessarily
> a
> : > cynic.
> : > I am a true cynic, as defined here:
> : > http://www.i-cynic.com/
> :
> : Thank you soooo much for informing me of this site. I had misunderstood
> : cynics! I recall that it was hard to find a good definition of cynicism
> back
> : when I was looking. From my own experience I thought cynics were
> mindless
> : believers subconsciously trying to protect their unquestioned beliefs
> from
> : being questioned. That is how they often seem. But it goes MUCH deeper
> than
> : that. They actually originate from a position of respect for truth, but
> I
> : would argue that it is a respect that is distorted by naive realism,
> which
> : can make them mindless believes without them realising it. I'll get to
> : explaining why I think that soon. I don't mean this as any kind of
> combative
> : attack - I'm just trying to understand. Please correct me if I am wrong
> :)
> :
> : > The cynic is inevitably a sceptic, although a sceptic
> : > is not necessarily a cynic.
> :
> : I would propose that the concepts skeptic and cynic are closely related.
>
> Of course. A cynic is a sceptic with a sense of humour.
I disagree and I explained why in the last post, the central issue is naive
realism, but comments here should also explain why.
But I should make it clear that I don't seek to challenge ANYONES personal
beliefs. Only those who are willing to overcome their beliefs are able to do
so. It is impossible to convince a naive realist that they are a naive
realist because their core belief is that they "know the facts". That is the
essence of naive realism and that core belief is unshakable.
If you wish to confront that belief then think about what was said, but if
you wish to preserve that belief then you should just avoid people like me -
I will only create discomfort for you :)
> : However in their extreme forms they are mutually exclusive and in
> practice
> : they are often difficult to distinguish because they are both taking a
> : questioning stance but with different inner attitudes. Let me explain.
> :
> : Cynics are disillusioned idealists judging by the site's own definition
> : where a cynic is: "an idealist whose rose-colored glasses have been
> removed,
> : snapped in two and stomped into the ground, immediately improving his
> : vision." (http://www.i-cynic.com/whatis.asp)
>
>
> No, no, that's not the interpretation at all. How do you associate
> "disillusioned" with "seeing clearly " (improving his vision)?
> An oxymoron, surely? And do you not see the humour invoked
> in the definition?
The sense in which I used the word 'disillusioned' was:
"freed from illusion"
(http://www.wordreference.com/definition/disillusioned)
(http://www.ninjawords.com/disillusioned)
"to free from illusion; also : to cause to lose naive faith and trust"
(http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=disillusioned)
"To free or deprive of illusion"
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disillusioned)
"being disillusioned is to be free from illusion or false ideas, to have a
true perception, conception, or interpretation of what one sees."
(http://www.slobody.com/becomingdisillusioned.htm)
So in what way is this different from "'seeing clearly' (improving his
vision)"?
But you are right, a cynic is not freed from illusion as I explained in the
last post regarding naive realism. So the word 'disillusioned' was
inappropriate.
Another interpretation of "seeing clearly" is simply becoming more certain
about their perceptions and judgements and thereby becoming more naive
realist and less skeptical. In that case it would be appropriate to use the
word 'illusioned' rather than 'disillusioned'.
Another word that might fit is 'disgruntled':
"annoyed and dissatisfied"
(http://www.allwords.com/word-disgruntled.html)
"To make discontented."
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disgruntled)
I'm just following the logic here - don't take it personally :)
> I'm an idealist, I want to produce the best I can, but as a realist I know
> that whatever I produce it will fall short in someone else's view.
> I am NOT disillusioned.
> I am truly sceptical that my work will be well received. If I find I agree
> with fair criticism then I'll make improvement. If I find the criticism to
> be
> erroneous or merely bitching from emotion such as jealousy or envy then
> I ignore it.
> When one teaches, two learn.
> When two learn then both benefit.
>
>
> : But a skeptic, in my own words, is a non-idealist, rationalist who
> doubts
> : their own ability to know anything with certainty but who seeks reliable
> : knowledge within uncertain epistemic constraints.
>
> I have no doubts as to my abilities. I play chess well but I'm not
> a Grand Master. I've remodelled two houses and know where
> the flaws in each floor are. There is a law of diminishing returns
> and I'm not remodelling again when I'll probably make more error.
> I drove a 2 1/2" screw upwards through a counter top and it
> penetrated the surface, I had to disguise it. However, nobody else
> has spotted my flaws. I have some of the best animations on
> the web, and try to improve.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
This sounds great, you are quite 'able' to operate within the context of
what you know but it has nothing to do with epistemology and your
fundamental ability to 'know'. When signals flow through your senses and are
interpreted by your mind to construct the objects of sense perception and
the objects of thought - how certain are you that those objects correspond
with the true nature of the source of the signals? Therein lays the doubt.
We can only know via the senses so there is no way to prove the validity of
the sensory experience so skepticism is an intrinsic and totally reasonable
doubt.
We all have basically the same apparatus for perceiving and knowing but some
of us have unquestioned faith in our apparatus and some of us accept that it
is not infallible. The latter people are skeptics but cynics seem to have
unquestioned faith in their ability to know so they are INHERENTLY
non-skeptic and the two groups are mutually exclusive. There are of course
many partial and pseudo skeptics and cynics that blur the boundaries so as I
said in the last post: "in their extreme forms they are mutually exclusive
and in practice they are often difficult to distinguish because they are
both taking a questioning stance but with different inner attitudes."
I explain this in more detail in the following comments from the last post.
The above discussion was directly relevant to what you were claiming above -
don't you wish to comment on it? In that discussion I explained why cynics
weren't skeptics; it is quite clear and obvious I think. You should say
something about it, rather than just claim that cynics are skeptics - on
what basis do you make that claim other than personal conviction?
Do you agree in general that "If our illusions adequately correspond with
reality we survive and if they are inadequate we die."? The case of many
schizophrenic and psychotic people clearly shows this. If they believe they
can fly from tall buildings or stop fast moving traffic they die. Regarding
adequate illusions, I knew a guy back in the early nineties, he had a
psychological problem that meant that he continuously experienced himself to
be in an 80's disco with lights and music and phantom people that he would
talk to. You could ask him what music was playing and it was always some
kind of 80's disco music, and he'd sometimes start talking to people who
weren't really there. But all the main features of his environment also
appeared in that hallucination too, only in amongst the disco setting. He
could talk to 'real' people, go shopping, cross the road and so on but all
the time he was also "in an 80's" disco. He survived okay.
> You need a reality check on the existence of "major looming global
> crises".
> http://www.roperld.com/graphics/LIAInsolation.jpg
>
> The global warming of 130,000 years ago was probably caused
> by Australian aboriginals riding around the Outback in 4x4s and
> SUVs in search of uranium deposits to fuel their reactors before the
> dream time, the crisis led to the insistence that they went on "walkabout"
> instead.
Very funny. They had far too much wisdom and respect for the land to be as
silly as we are!
But yes I know there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding human
involvement in global warming. I have witnessed and taken part in numerous
discussions on the society for scientific exploration discussion forum. The
issue of global warming is one of the hottest debates there at times between
scientists all over the world. This dissonance rarely spills over into the
media but there is great contention between scientists - it's not just the
interpretation of the data but even the data itself is highly suspect in
very subtle ways. There are sometimes heated arguments over the nature of
'measurement' and the statistical processing that is involved to produce the
data.
The SSE is a group of academics, scientists and general people - you might
be interested in it. A quote from its mission statement:
"The SSE provides a critical forum of rationality and observational evidence
for the often strange claims at the fringes of science. The primary goal of
the international SSE is to provide a professional forum for presentations,
criticism, and debate concerning topics which are for various reasons
ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science. A secondary goal
is to promote improved understanding of those factors that unnecessarily
limit the scope of scientific inquiry, such as sociological constraints,
restrictive world views, hidden theoretical assumptions, and the temptation
to convert prevailing theory into prevailing dogma."
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SSE)
And by the phrase "major looming global crises" I wasn't referring to any
particular global crisis but to a general systemic crisis that manifests
through many different particular symptoms. I am coming from the perspective
of an analysis of the holistic systemic functioning of complex dynamical
systems not from traditional arguments about particular issues. I tend to
look at the woods first and then the trees later in the context of the
woods. But to give you just a small glimpse of what I was referring to as
"global crisis", below are the results of a brief internet search to see
what particular issues people are focusing on in regards to the concept of
"global crisis" (I only spent one hour trawling for information, but it took
longer to put the list together).
A brief aside: a friend saw me putting together the list and commented
"that's a bit of king-hit isn't it?" (meaning a shocking blow) but that
hadn't occurred to me. I don't seek to protect beliefs and hide from
information, I simply seek to understand and I guess I naively assume that
other's do too, these things don't shock me. But I can imagine that some
people might see it differently. I hope you just take it as information and
not as an aggressive argumentative strategy. I took the time because it is a
useful list to look into in the future and to include in the further reading
list of my latest essay.
As to the immediacy or inevitability of any particular crisis or the
validity of the websites, data and comments I make no judgement here at all,
I obviously have not had time to study all the minute details that were
dredged up and obviously I do not necessarily endorse them. And it's just a
small sampling of the net - nothing 'authoritative' or exhaustive.
The idea of "global crisis" permeates this civilisation. Never before has
the possibility of massive global catastrophe been so likely because never
before has the global system been so inter-connected, far-reaching and
unbalanced! It is really quite fragile in ways. The underlying dis-ease goes
deep into our world-views, personal beliefs, philosophy, metaphysics,
science, politics, economics, social policies and so on (its root cause is
naive realism) and it has been present in some form or another since the
beginning of recorded history. It has caused the demise of civilisations in
the past via different symptoms from resource depletion to decadence and
stagnation leading to overthrow.
I have hope (yes it's irrational) for the current civilisation. There is
considerable knowledge, awareness and communication but we need to utilise
these to face the challenges. And yes in this particular context I am an
idealist.
The possible contemporary symptoms are manifold and often identified as
debt, third world poverty, first world decadence, environmental devastation,
militarism, indigenous rights, unemployment, destruction of workers' rights,
delusion, fanaticism, nuclear annihilation, resource depletion, rampant
consumption, waste management, inequality and all kinds of instability. When
this civilisation is considered as a whole complex system it is quite
schizophrenic and bordering on psychotic.
In the context of the complex dynamical system that we call 'civilisation'
the individual issues are just elements of a much larger pattern that can
only be properly understood as part of a major systemic dysfunction. In
themselves they seem unrelated but they all stem from the same root cause -
illusions within our minds that crystallise into collective delusions that
bring us into conflict with reality. It is in this sense that I say that
naive realism is the root of the systemic crisis because it is the source
and driving force of all of our individual illusions. It is the deepest and
most fundamental illusion that is built into our nervous systems and its
feedback loop spirals into delusion, fanaticism and psychosis - both
individual and collective. Thoughts warp perceptions which warp thoughts
which warp perceptions. The only way out is to question our thoughts and
perceptions - i.e. skepticism leading to holistic realism.
The most pressing issues in my opinion are political and economic. They
probably won't destroy all life on Earth unless they flare up into massive
nuclear warfare, but they are the most likely to bring an end to 'this'
civilisation. There is widespread talk of a massive global systemic collapse
with the initial phases beginning in 2006 and accelerating throughout 2007.
The initial detailed modelling and predictions have already been proven
correct for 2006 but only time will tell.
THE DOOMSDAY LIST:
------------------
Ecosystems:
-----------
MASS EXTINCTION UNDERWAY - The World Wide Web's Most Comprehensive Source of
Information on the Current Mass Extinction (hundreds of links)
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html
/quote/
Human beings are currently causing the greatest mass extinction of species
since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. If present
trends continue one half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in
less than 100 years, as a result of habitat destruction, pollution, invasive
species, and climate change.
/unquote/
BIODIVERSITY & THE GLOBAL CRISIS
http://www.bionet-us.org/
Deforesting the Earth: From Prehistory to Global Crisis
http://www.amazon.com/Deforesting-Earth-Prehistory-Global-Crisis/dp/0226899268
WHAT IS GLOBAL WARMING?
http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
Global Crisis
http://activism.greenpeace.org/amazon/crisis/index.html
/quote/
While the Amazon is the largest remaining tropical forest in the world,
ancient forests globally are under threat. Every two seconds, an area the
size of a soccer field is destroyed.
/unquote/
Seagrass ecosystems at a 'global crisis'
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-12/uomc-sea112906.php
Data proves global fisheries crisis
http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/media/releases/1998/mr-98-15.html
/quote/
A UBC researcher has hard evidence to back up what many scientists have long
suspected -- marine fisheries are in a global crisis.
/unquote/
AMAZING FACTS ABOUT THE GLOBAL FISHERIES CRISIS
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/fish/amaze.html
Overfishing
http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/our-oceans/overfishing
Global Fisheries Crisis - National Geographic Magazine
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0704/feature1/
Global climatic and environmental crisis and its solution
http://www.psrast.org/globecolcr.htm
Global Climate Crisis - Screening of "An Inconvenient Truth" and Panel
Discussion
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/climate/2006/1003crisis.htm
Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Sky-Morning-America-Environment/dp/0300102321
Resources / Accessibility:
-------------------------------
The Coming Global Oil Crisis
http://www.oilcrisis.com/
Oil watch
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watch/Oil_watch.html
Sustainability - The Coming Global Oil Crisis
http://www.oilcrisis.com/sustainability/
Addressing the global sanitation crisis
http://www.unicef.org/media/media_39569.html
Water, environment and sanitation
http://www.unicef.org/wes/index_newsline.html
"clean water beyond the reach of 1.1 billion people"
Addressing the global sanitation crisis (UNICEF press release)
http://www.unicef.org/media/media_39569.html
Global Water Crisis
http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/water/index.html
/quote/
More then one billion people in the world lack access to clean water, and
things are getting worse. Over the next two decades, the average supply of
water per person will drop by a third, possibly condemning millions of
people to an avoidable premature death.
/unquote/
SOLVING GLOBAL WATER CRISIS 'MORAL IMPERATIVE', ACCESS TO WATER HUMAN RIGHT
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/envdev847.doc.htm
Global Water Crisis
http://www.water.org/solution/crisis.htm
Water page
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Water/Water_page.html
Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis (UN Human
Development Report 2006)
http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/
/quote/
In a world of unprecedented wealth, almost 2 million children die each year
for want of a glass of clean water and adequate sanitation.
/unquote/
Global Warming Will Make Water Crisis Intolerable
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-22-01.asp
The Global Water Crisis: Our Inevitable Fate?
http://blogs.princeton.edu/chm333/f2006/water/
Seventh enemy: the human factor in the global crisis (Energy)
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6446065
/quote/
During the next twenty-five years, Higgins says we and our children will
face a world of mounting confusion and horror, including hardship, disorder,
war, and the starvation of millions.^Daring to see mankind`s rapidly
converging crisis for what it is, he starkly forecasts the course it is
likely to take.^He shows that there are six immense impersonal threats to
the human future: overpopulation, famine, resource shortage, environmental
degradation, nuclear abuse, and technologies racing out of
control.^Theoretically these six challenges are not beyond solving; but,
asks Higgins, do we have the time, or the will, or the capacity to organize
against them.^The frightening inertia of our political institutions and our
obstinate individual blindness to the realities of the late twentieth
century are the critical factors.^To avoid a holocaust, we need a remarkable
transformation of the moral basis of our politics.^The Seventh Enemy can be
defeated, argues the author, and he concludes with a thoughtful and
controversial discussion of the qualities of consciousness that mankind must
bring to bear so urgently on its extraordinary situation.^Thus, this cogent
analysis ends on a note of cautious hope.
/unquote/
General Sustainability:
-----------------------
GLOBAL CRISIS AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: THE INSPIRATION FOR THE EOLSS
(UNESCO)
http://www.eolss.net/eolss_inspiration.aspx
/quote/
At present, as never before, the future of life on our planet has become a
matter of great concern. We are confronted with several warnings emphasizing
the growing fragility of the Earth's life support systems.
/unquote/
Global Vision: United Nations: Communicating Sustainability
http://www.global-vision.org/un/index.html
WORKING FOR TRANSITION FROM CONSUMER SOCIETY TO A SIMPLER, MORE COOPERATIVE,
JUST AND ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY
http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/
THE LIMITS TO GROWTH: Collected Documents.
http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/DocsTLG.html
THE SUSTAINABLE, ALTERNATIVE SOCIETY: Collected Documents
http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/DocsALTERNATIVES.html
Urban Crisis: Culture and the Sustainability of Cities
http://www.ias.unu.edu/sub_page.aspx?catID=7&ddlID=211
The global sustainability crisis - The implications for community
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/006/1997/00000024/00000011/art00005
Local Action and Grassroots Reponses to the Global Crisis of Sustainability
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~antpfb/GlobalLocal.html
Epidemiology - Pandemics:
-------------------------
The Global Crisis Advisory
http://www.arkinstitute.com/global_crisis_advisoryAugust2005.htm
HIV/AIDS The Global Crisis
http://www.samaritanspurse.org/HIVAIDS_GlobalCrisis.asp
TRUE TALES FROM THE GLOBAL CRISIS
http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/summer2003/features/global_crisis.php
Africa Still At Ground-Zero Of Global HIV/AIDS Pandemic
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=57442
AIDS pandemic threatens planet
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/49621_aidsafop.shtml
The Global Aids Crisis - A Stategic Simulation
http://www.boozallen.com/media/file/150631.pdf
UN Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS - "Global Crisis - Global Action"
http://www.un.org/ga/aids/coverage/FinalDeclarationHIVAIDS.html
Social:
-------
The Global Crisis - The Crisis of World Civilization
http://socevol.blogspot.com/2006/11/global-crisis.html
/quote/
as long as the global society is not egalitarian, there will always be
massive populations of non-elite and frustrated non-elite intellectuals who
need to vent their frustration against the elite. The crisis is that there
does not seem to be a way to make the transition between Western
Civilization (and the various versions of Authoritarian societies that fill
the rest of global civilization) and a society that is egalitarian on a
global basis. This may be because nobody is looking for the transition or
because it doesn't exist. If there is no gradual transition the alternative
is to destroy Western Civilization and start over in such a way that
egalitarianism is "built in" to the successor civilization from the
beginning. We don't even know how to do that, but it is possible that the
trauma associated with the Decline and Fall of Western Civilization will
stimulate us to figure it out.
/unquote/
Structural Adjustment Programs at the Root of the Global Social Crisis: Case
Studies from Latin America
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/40/003.html
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS: REDEFINING THE GLOBAL SOCIAL CRISIS
http://www.pcdf.org/1994/suslive.htm
The Dead Parrot Society: Global Social Warming, and Secure Medical Care
http://www.deadparrots.net/archives/social_security/0507global_social_warming_and_secure_medical_care.html
Global Crisis Update #168 (free speech)
http://community.freespeech.org/node/4109
Value wars: inside the global crisis.(WORLD)
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-5060535_ITM
/quote/
More and more studies tell us from different standpoints that--in the words
of Lord Roxborough, a former research scientist for Shell Oil and its
British non-executive chairman--that the planet's "boat is sinking." The
icecaps melt and the climates destabilize with record floods and hurricanes.
Three American men possess more market wealth than the total incomes of all
of the 48 least developed countries put together. Social infrastructures of
every kind are underfunded and privatized across the world with cumulative
decline in public life services of health, education, environmental
standards, welfare support, low-income housing, and shared public spaces. In
market-rich Ontario, the signs are unprecedented. People are increasingly
dying in thousands because the air is too polluted to breathe. Homeless
people and child poverty have precipitately climbed since "market reforms"
were promised to make life better. Students are made debt-slaves to access
higher education by private investment-debt schemes replacing the public
education model. Waste packaging and polluting fuel are annually produced in
tons for every market consumer. Commodity noise destroys the greatest
natural lake heritage in the world in big-motor dragstrips for rich buyers.
/unquote/
Politics - Empire - Violence:
----------------------------
The Global Crisis of Violence - Common Problems, Universal Causes, Shared
Solutions (book)
http://www.naswpress.org/publications/books/intl/global_crisis_violence/2766.html
/quote/
The Global Crisis of Violence sets forth the concepts of violence in
systemic terms in the context of culture and institution.
/unquote/
Joint Vision 2020 Emphasizes Full-spectrum Dominance (US Department of
Defense)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45289
Search at US Department of Defense for "Full Spectrum Dominance" returning
over 200 documents
http://dodsearch.afis.osd.mil/search?btnG=Search&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&client=defenselink&proxystylesheet=defenselink&site=defense_link&q=Full-spectrum+Dominance
U.S.Foreign Policy and Pentagon
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy/US_ForeignPolicy.html
/quote/
"Get some new lawyers" - US Secretary of State Madeline Albright to British
Foreign Secretary Robin Cook when he told her he was informed that the NATO
bombing of Yugoslavia was illegal under international law
/unquote/
/quote/
"From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40
foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist
movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US
bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people,
and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair." - William
Blum
/unquote/
The Global Crisis of Legitimacy of Liberal Democracy
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/democracy/2005/10legitimacy.htm
/quote/
I have been asked to speak on the crisis of American hegemony. In my book,
Dilemmas of Domination, I identify three dimensions of this crisis. The
first is the crisis of overextension, or the growing gap between imperial
reach and imperial grasp, the most striking example of which is the US's
being drawn into a quagmire in Iraq... Hugo Chavez' scintillating defiance
of American power would not be possible without the Iraqi resistance's
successfully pinning down US interventionist forces in a war without end.
The second is the crisis of overproduction, overaccumulation, or
overcapacity. This refers to the growing gap between the tremendous
productive capacity of the global capitalist system and the limited global
demand for the commodities produced by this system. The result has been,
over time, drastically lowered growth rates in the central economies,
stagnation, and a crisis of profitability. Efforts by global capital to
regain profitability by more intensively exploiting labor in the North or
moving out to take advantage of significantly lower wages elsewhere have
merely exacerbated the crisis... The third dimension of the crisis that I
identify is the crisis of legitimacy of US hegemony. This, I think, is as
serious as the other two crises, since, as an admirer of Gramsci, I do think
that legitimacy, more than force or the market, is the lynchpin of a system
of social relations. One dimension of this crisis of legitimacy is the
crisis of the multilateral system of global economic governance owing to the
US' no longer wanting to act as a primus inter pares, or first among equals,
in the WTO, World Bank, and the IMF, and its wishing to unilaterally pursue
its interests through these mechanisms, thus seriously impairing their
credibility, legitimacy, and functioning as global institutions.
/unquote/
First Chapter: "Hegemony or Survival" by Noam Chomsky
http://contemporarylit.about.com/cs/firstchapters/a/hegemony.htm
Dominance and Its Dilemmas: The Bush administration's Imperial Grand
Strategy - Noam Chomsky
http://bostonreview.net/BR28.5/chomsky.html
Full Spectrum Dominance
http://www.russfound.org/Enet/FSD.htm
Full Spectrum Dominance: U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond - by Rahul Mahajan
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/New_World_Order/Full_Spectrum_Dominance.html
Fighting Fascism Then, And Now - John Pilger
http://www.world-crisis.com/analysis_comments/1175_0_15_0_C/
The Project for the New American Century
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
/quote/
The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational
organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American
leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such
leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to
moral principle.
/unquote/
Project for the New American Century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Project for the Old American Century - 14 Points of fascism
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
/quote/
In his original article, "Fascism Anyone?", Laurence Britt (interview)
compared the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet and
identified 14 characteristics common to those fascist regimes. This page is
a collection of news articles dating from the start of the Bush presidency
divided into topics relating to each of the 14 points of fascism.
/unquote/
Project for the New American Century
http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/neo-conservatism/pnac.html
/quote/
Project for the New American Century is a neo-conservative think-tank that
promotes an ideology of total U.S. world domination through the use of
force. The group embraces and disseminates an ideology of faith in force,
U.S. supremacy, and rejection of the rule of law in international affairs.
The group's core ideas are expressed in a September 2000 report produced for
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and Lewis Libby
entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a
New Century. The Sunday Herald referred to the report as a "blueprint for
U.S. world domination."
/unquote/
/quote/
This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their
making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to
control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should
have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing. - Tam Dalyell,
British Labour MP, father of the House of Commons
/unquote/
The Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2002-2003
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/
The #1 rated story was:
The Neoconservative Plan for Global Dominance
http://www.projectcensored.org/Publications/2004/1.html
/quote/
Over the last year corporate media have made much of Saddam Hussein and his
stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. Rarely did the press or,
especially, television address the possibility that larger strategies might
also have driven the decision to invade Iraq. Broad political strategies
regarding foreign policy do indeed exist and are part of the public record.
The following is a summary of the current strategies that have formed over
the last 30 years; strategies that eclipse the pursuit of oil and that
preceded Hussein's rise to power:
/unquote/
Project Censored - The news that didn't make the news
http://www.projectcensored.org/
WHEN FEDERAL DECEPTION BECOMES REALITY
http://www.newswithviews.com/Levant/nancy14.htm
/quote/
It's hard to imagine the level of paranoia that the federal government must
be experiencing. Between the insanity of badly orchestrated lies, which
precipitated our involvement in all the wars in the Mid-East,
bureaucratically induced environmentalism, and now the "storm" induced
military-turned-policed-nation, including an executive-level suggestion that
American people quit driving, one senses that as lies continue to build upon
lies, danger ensues as dangerous people continue to fall flat on their
platforms of deceptive leadership and pathological propaganda.
/unquote/
Distortion, Deception, and Terrorism
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/Distortion.asp
Deception and Constitutional Crisis
http://www.focusweb.org/deception-and-constitutional-crisis.html
New World Order - The Conspiracy Theory is Now a Conspiracy Fact.
http://www.theanalysis.net/
/quote/
The New World Order is no longer a conspiracy theory, it is a fact
publically acknowledged as an official agenda by governments and world
leaders. The following web pages will show you exactly what the New World
Order is, who it involves, and what it means. The New World Order has been
described in many ways, ranging from the most serious and disturbing
explanations to the most bizzarre and unbelieveable conspiracy theories. We
will show you the truth about the mysterious New World Order.
/unquote/
New World Order
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/New_World_Order/New_World_Order.html
/quote/
Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the
nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all. - John Maynard
Keynes
/unquote/
Exposing the NWO Global Governance Conspiracy for Setting up a One World
Government.
http://newworldorderinfo.com/
New world order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order
New World Order (conspiracy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy)
Propaganda Matrix
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/
The Bush Crusade
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6165
The Battle for Global Civil Society
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8069
OUR EMPIRE; Its Nature and Functioning: Collected Documents
http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/DocsOUREMPIRE.html
Global Crisis by Edward Said
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles2/Said_GlobalCrisis.htm
/quote/
As I write, much of the world is being bludgeoned into a restive submission
by (or, as with Italy and Spain, an opportunistic alliance with) the US, as
it readies itself for a deeply unpopular war... a brazen act of un opposed
domination... some have awakened to the fact that the US, or rather the few
Judeo-Christian white men who currently rule its government, is bent on
world hegemony. What are we to do?
... this latest empire astonishingly affirms its sacrosanct altruism and
well-meaning innocence. This alarming delusion of virtue is endorsed, even
more alarmingly, by formerly leftwing or liberal intellectuals... (the image
of the lonely sentry is favoured), using styles from tub-thumping patriotism
to cynicism.
The US is the world's most avowedly religious country. References to God
permeate national life, from coins to buildings to speech: in God we trust,
God's country, God bless America. President George Bush's power base is made
up of the 60-70 million fundamentalist Christians who, like him, believe
that they have seen Jesus and that they are here to do God's work in God's
country... what matters more is the nature of the religion - prophetic
illumination, unshakeable conviction in an apocalyptic sense of mission, and
a heedless disregard of small complications.
/unquote/
US Empire Abroad - List of Articles
http://www.world-crisis.com/analysis/C0_33_15/
Terror at Home (US) - List of Articles
http://www.world-crisis.com/analysis/C0_40_15/
Global Outlook - Seeking to Reveal the Truth About 9/11
http://www.globaloutlook.ca/
THE GLOBAL-GOVERNANCE DECEPTION
http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven15.htm
American Empire page: U.S. Imperialism, Neocolonialism , and Militarism in
the 20th and 21st centuries
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Empire/American_Empire_page.html
International War Crimes & Criminals
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/International_War_Crimes.html
Torture watch
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Torture/Torture_page.html
Weapons page
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Weapons/Weapons_page.html
/quote/
" In the councils of government, we must guard against unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will
persist." - President Dwight Eisenhower
/unquote/
Fascism watch
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Fascism.html
Project Censored page
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Project%20Censored/Project_Censored.html
War on Terrorism page
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/War_On_Terrorism/War_On_Terrorism_page.html
Dominion & Deception
http://www.world-crisis.com/analysis_comments/639_0_15_0_C/
Calling for a Media Crimes Tribunal
http://www.gvnews.net/html/Crisis/gvabs186.html
/quote/
In the best of all possible worlds, there would be a war crimes
investigation into this dreadful war. And a media crimes tribunal should
accompany it, investigating the U.S. media sins of commission, omission and
unexamined patriotism.
/unquote/
Global Systemic Crisis : NATO 2006 - Year of global dilution and of EU/USA
decoupling
http://franck-biancheri.blogspot.com/2006/04/global-systemic-crisis-nato-2006-year.html
The New Totalitarianism: Cyber-hegemony and the Global System
http://i-p-o.org/perdue.htm
Economic:
---------
Global solutions for a global crisis
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/subjindx/122pers2.htm
The Americanization of Globalization: Reflections of a Third World
Intellectual
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8935
What Should we Fear Most
http://www.zmag.org/Instructionals/GlobalEcon/id52_m.htm
Embryonic African anti-capitalism
http://www.zmag.org/lac/bondmove.htm
Asia and the Global Crisis: The Industrial Dimension report by OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development 2000 c. 145pp.
http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/clientpr/oecd/global_crisis.htm
/quote/
The report further shows that the Asian breakdown had far-reaching
structural global implications extending beyond the financial sphere.
Learning the lessons from the crisis will be important for continued
recovery in Asia, and may be crucial for reducing the risk of similar
crashes in the future. The OECD argues that far-reaching industry-related
reforms are needed to accompany the measures being taken to address the
financial aspects of the crisis.
/unquote/
Democracy's Global Crisis: Not the Promised Cure-All
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/democracys_global_crisis_not_t.html
/quote/
Not so long ago we were told that democracy would sweep the world. A new age
of governmental decency would dawn for hundreds of millions. Peace,
constructive trade and general good-will would follow. Now, as the number of
real and nominal democracies continues to grow, we see little improvement in
the human condition, no diminution of corruption, burgeoning
discontents--and turmoil where we meant to implant peace. Even in the West,
where democracy is deep-rooted, there's a crisis of mediocrity and will.
Elsewhere, democracy has been taken as a license to loot, as a launching pad
for demagogues, or as a means of settling old scores.
/unquote/
The Other Crisis - Speech by the President of the World Bank
http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/am98/jdw-sp/am98-en.htm
IMF Identity Crisis
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/imf/2006/1212imfidentity.htm
/quote/
The evidence that its members states are seeking to escape from the
International Monetary Fund's "jurisdiction" continues to mount.
/unquote/
Debt and the Global Economic Crisis of 1997/98/99
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/EconomicCrisis97.asp
Global Economics (Global Economics Crisis site)
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Globalism/GlobalEcon.cfm
ECONOMICS: Collected Documents.
http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/DocsECONOMICS.html
GLOBALISATION: Collected documents.
http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/DocsGLOBALISATION.html
THIRD WORLD DEVELOPMENT: Collected Documents.
http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/DocsTHIRDWORLD.html
The Crisis of Global Capitalism: Open Society Endangered
http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Global-Capitalism-Society-Endangered/dp/1891620274
Capitalism in Crisis - List of Articles
http://www.world-crisis.com/analysis/C0_32_15/
Economic Crisis Links
http://www.neravt.com/left/crisis.htm
Responding to the Global Financial Crisis - Social Consequences of the East
Asian Financial Crisis
http://smealsearch2.psu.edu/14316.html
Are We in a Global Economic Crisis?
http://www.econ.yale.edu/alumni/reunion99/eichengreen.htm
Trade Summit: Bad Trade Policies Could Create Global Depression
http://blog.aflcio.org/2006/07/12/trade-summit-bad-trade-policies-could-create-global-depression/
Another World Depression?
http://www.focusweb.org/another-world-depression.html
Global crash fears as German bank sinks
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/economy/story/0,1598,805683,00.html
Global Financial Crisis Ushering in "Third Way" - World Markets Collapse --
Meltdown Serving as Battering Ram for Global Change
http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/1998/09/financial_crisis.html
The Global Scale of the Great Depression
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/depression/section9.rhtml
GLOBAL GREAT INFLATIONARY DEPRESSION ALERT - KEY ARTICLES
http://www.moneyfiles.org/alert.html
Financial Crisis: Global systemic crisis in 2007, "Another bubble" close to
bursting
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20061221&articleId=4225
The Global Systemic Crisis and the End of `Free Trade'
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/site_packages/2002/june_brazil_events/adesg_speech.html
Africa's Hunger - A Systemic Crisis - More Than Half of Africa Is Now in
Need of Urgent Food Assistance
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/africa/2006/0131sistcrisis.htm
BBC Analysis: Africa's Hunger - A Systemic Crisis
http://www.globalhealth.org/news/article/7102/
Global systemic crisis - December 2006 - Dollar-Real Estate-Stock Markets
http://www.newropeans-magazine.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4906&Itemid=110
June 2006 - Beginning of phase 2 of the global systemic crisis: the phase of
acceleration
http://www.newropeans-magazine.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3983&Itemid=84
GEAB N°10: Global systemic crisis in 2007 - Financial sector: « Another
bubble » close to bursting
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=728
GEAB N°12: Impact phase of the Global Systemic Crisis: April 2007: Inflexion
point of the phase of impact US economy enters recession
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=983
Global Economy (Center for Research on Globalization)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=theme&themeId=2
Who is Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. ?
http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/z_other_files/about_lhl/lhl_biography.htm
/quote/
The recent, fresh demonstration of his exceptional qualifications as a
long-range economic forecaster, has placed him at the center of the
presently erupting, global systemic crisis of the world's economy.
/unquote/
USA-Dollar-Iran / Confirmation of Global Systemic Crisis end of March 2006
http://franck-biancheri.blogspot.com/2006/03/usa-dollar-iran-confirmation-of-global.html
Global systemic crisis in 2007 - Financial sector: « Another bubble » close
to bursting
http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-10-is-available!-Global-systemic-crisis-in-2007-Financial-sector-Another-bubble-close-to-bursting_a317.html
November 2006: beginning of the phase of impact of the global systemic
crisis
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/109047
Emerging Roles of the IMF
http://economics.about.com/cs/moffattentries/a/imf.htm
LEAP/E2020: acceleration phase of global systemic crisis
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Ghost%20Dog/5
/quote/
A global systemic crisis develops following a complex process where 4 phases
can be distinguished, overlapping one another:
# in the first so-called "trigger" phase, a variety of until then un-related
factors, start converging and interacting in a way that is perceptible
mostly by careful observers and central players
# in the second "acceleration" phase, a large majority of players and
observers suddenly become aware that a crisis is there and that it has
already begun to affect a growing amount of the system's components
# in the third so-called "impact" phase, the system starts to transform
radically (implosion and/or explosion) under the strain of cumulated
factors, simultaneously affecting the whole system
# in the fourth and last "decanting" phase, the features of the new system
born from the crisis begin to appear.
/unquote/
LEAP/E2020 Global Systemic Rupture prediction
http://www.peakoil.com/post275562.html
Global systemic crisis / Housing, financial institutions, stock markets,
consumption, currencies: The contagion is spreading!
http://www.leap2020.eu/Global-systemic-crisis-Housing,-financial-institutions,-stock-markets,-consumption,-currencies-The-contagion-is_a505.html
/quote/
As anticipated by LEAP/E2020 in the past months, the United States are
really sinking into the 2007 « very great depression », with a tipping point
of the global systemic crisis coming up in April as indicated in last
month's GEAB (GEAB N°12). In the coming weeks, the contagion will spread
from real estate to the whole of the financial sector and to US household
consumption, bearing severe consequences on the results of various economic
sectors in the US and on the US market. Simultaneously, these tendencies
will accelerate the winding up of the trans-Pacific trade war which, as
early as December 2006, LEAP/E2020 anticipated would be a dominant feature
of the year 2007.
/unquote/
December 2006 - Dollar / Real Estate / Stock Markets: US consumer's
insolvency, a catalyst of the impact phase of the global systemic crisis
http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-9-is-available-!-December-2006-Dollar-Real-Estate-Stock-Markets-US-consumer-s-insolvency,-a-catalyst-of-the_a233.html
GLOBAL CRISIS - Online News Hour with Jim Lehrer
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-dec98/global_crisis_10-9.html
/quote/
PHIL PONCE: Finance ministers and central bankers from 182 countries spent
this week in Washington trying to stem what is now widely deemed the most
serious financial crisis in half a century. The financial turmoil began in
Thailand a little more than a year ago and then spread throughout Asia. The
Asian flu, as it came to be known, spread to Russia and now threatens some
Latin American countries. On Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Greenspan gave his prognosis.
ALAN GREENSPAN: As the belief that the Asian contagion had moved into
remission has been proved quite wrong -- the result of this, as I'm sure
you're all acutely aware by now, has been a very dramatic change in the
whole risk profile of the world.
/unquote/
The Asian Financial Crisis: Systemic Instability or Global Growing Pains?
http://www.nsi-ins.ca/english/publications/review/v2n2/02.asp
/quote/
Over the past two decades the global economy has been shaken by an
increasing number of financial crisis in different parts of the world. The
most recent--and most serious by far--centred in the previously robust Asian
economies has threatened to spread depression worldwide. Are these recurring
financial crises caused by economic or political mismanagement, as the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) would have it?
/unquote/
GLOBAL SYSTEMIC RUPTURE UNDERWAY
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/04/20/18165891.php
Global Justice and Anti-Capitalism
http://www.indybay.org/globalization/
Fw: EUROPE 2020 ALARM / Global Systemic Rupture March 20-26, 2006:
Iran/USA - Release of global world crisis
http://www.ci.corvallis.or.us/council/mail-archive/mayor/msg15844.html
Systemic Instability or Global Growing Pains? - Implications of the Asian
Financial Crisis
http://www.nsi-ins.ca/english/publications/asia.asp
/quote/
Small, open economies are like rowboats on a wild and open sea. Although we
may not be able to predict when the boat will be capsized, the chances of
eventually being broadsided by a large wave are significant no matter how
well the boat is steered. - Joseph Stiglitz, Chief Economist, The World Bank
/unquote/
Global systemic crisis - Heading for a USA-China trade war: US desperately
trying to avoid being turned into 'Chinese paper' tiger!
http://www.newropeans-magazine.org/press-review/?p=782
Canada's Leadership Role in International Negotiations: The G7, IMF and the
Global Financial Crisis of 1997-9
http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/scholar/kirton199901/crisis1.htm
The Current Global Economic Crisis
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/9811/0074.html
November 2006: Beginning of the phase of impact of the global
systemic crisis
http://www.nogw.com/download/2006_phase_of_impact.pdf
December 2006 - Dollar-Real Estate-Stock Markets: US consumer's insolvency,
a catalyst of the impact phase of the global systemic crisis
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/systemic.html
/quote/
The development process of the global systemic crisis has resumed its
course, artificially stopped last July due to the upcoming mid-term
elections, as shown by the recent changes in the Dollar's value and by the
latest US economy indicators. In parallel, a series of topics which had
curiously disappeared from the pages of financial media these last months is
reappearing, such as the end of the "carry-trade" based on the Yen [1],
increasing fears of the risk of implosion of the market for derivatives and
"hedge funds" [2] and of course the uninterrupted fall of US real estate [3]
with its procession of negative consequences on American growth[4] (all
these developments generating from now on increasing reflection as to the
health of the US banking sector, one depending more and more on unsound debt
[5]). For the team of LEAP/E2020, all these trends, which mark the beginning
of the impact phase of the global systemic crisis, have a common catalyst,
and that is the insolvency of the US consumer in the framework of a
generalized degradation of the quality of credit to all US financial and
economic operators [6].
/unquote/
The Asian Financial Crisis: Causes, Cures, and Systemic Implications
http://bookstore.petersoninstitute.org/book-store/22.html
A Chronicle of America's Very Great Depression - Two growing trends: A
historical reversal of global financial balances / An implosion of the US
society
http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-14-is-available!-A-Chronicle-of-America-s-Very-Great-Depression-Two-growing-trends-A-historical-reversal-of_a570.html
/quote/
America's 2007 Very Great Depression has indeed begun; and represents the US
dimension of the phase of impact of the global systemic crisis LEAP/E2020
anticipated early 2006, knowing that the US are the central pillar of the
global order created after 1945. The structural weakening of the US is
therefore both the cause and consequence of the global systemic crisis,
international trends directly influencing the US domestic situation. At this
stage, LEAP/E2020 researchers identify that two aspects of this « very great
depression » are now established and emerge clearly from the current
statistical, economic, financial and strategic chaos:
I- A historical reversal of global financial balances: For the first time
since 1913, the US lost their status of world's largest financial centre
II- An implosion of the US society: The middle class is sacrificed between
the endless collapse of housing prices and a revenue disparity ratio now
above that of 1928.
/unquote/
GEAB N°15 is available! LEAP/E2020 Alert - The US economy went into
recession in the first quarter of 2007
http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-in-English_r25.html?PHPSESSID=7285926610d375e43f9cfb2a77f5013e
WORLD-SYSTEMIC CRISIS AND CONTENDING POLITICAL SCENARIOS
http://people.umass.edu/ymunif/index.htm
/quote/
The current global condition of widespread violence, enduring economic
difficulties for both capital and labor, and a vacuum of hegemony that is
expressed in the adventurist war initiatives of the U.S. imperial state are
symptoms of crisis in the modern world-system. Though this crisis has
produced disruption and suffering on a wide scale, it may also reveal the
limits of the current global order and create opportunities for collective
agency toward transforming it.
/unquote/
Triangular view of systemic risk and central bank responsibility
http://www.bis.org/cgfs/conf/mar02h.pdf
Phase of Impact: Global Systemic Crises
http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=421894
/quote/
The European think tank LEAP recently published it's Global Europe
Anticipation Bulletin N°8 for November 2006 which contains a startling
prediction that a global economic crisis will impact next month. This itself
isn't remarkable (there's no lack for naysayers), except that back in May
this group predicted that an economic accelaration would begin in June and
spread out over the ensueing months and so far they have been proven
right... The short of it is that they are predicting a financial meltdown to
rival the Wall Street Crash of 1929. They predict that a series of crisis
will contaminate the entire system, that it will last from six months to a
year, and that the end result will be a radical and permanent change to the
system... While the establishment media hasn't picked up on this news (and
won't likely for fear of sparking a panic), alternative media from both the
economic right and left have.
/unquote/
GLOBAL GREAT INFLATIONARY DEPRESSION ALERT - KEY ARTICLES
http://www.moneyfiles.org/alert.html
Looking toward a global financial crisis?
http://www.hamptonroadspub.com/blog/2006/12/21/looking-toward-a-glabal-financial-crisis/
Global Self-Organization - The systemic structural challenge of the exchange
of meaning, dramatized by the Asian financial crash
http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs/finance.php
FINANCIAL MARKETS
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/financial.html
/quote/
"What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
/unquote/
General:
--------
Impact phase of the Global Systemic Crisis: Six aspects of America's 'Very
Great Depression'
http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-11-is-available!-Impact-phase-of-the-Global-Systemic-Crisis-Six-aspects-of-America-s-Very-Great-Depression-_a377.html
/quote/
Very Great Depression, i.e., the rare historical conjunction of a severe
economic depression, a strategic collapse and a major political and social
internal crisis, at the centre of the phase of impact of the global systemic
crisis. Housing crisis, financial crisis, economic crisis, trade war,
military escalation and political crisis are the six aspects described in
GEAB
/unquote/
Search for "global crisis" at www.un.org returning over 500 documents
http://secap480.un.org/search?q=%22global+crisis%22&num=10&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&client=UN_Website_English&proxystylesheet=UN_Website_English&site=un_org
Search for "global crisis" at www.unicef.org returning over 40 documents
http://www.unicef.org/search/search.php?q=%22global+crisis%22
Search at the Encyclopedia Of Life Support Systems (EOLSS - a UNESCO project
for global sustainability) for the phrase "global crisis" - url was too
long, so go to:
http://greenplanet.eolss.net/EolssLogn/browsedt_form.aspx
and search for the exact phrase "global crisis" (over 40 articles)
Global Issues - Social, Political, Economic and Environmental Issues That
Affect Us All (many issues)
http://www.globalissues.org/
World Crisis Web - The Best Crisis Analysis
http://www.world-crisis.com/
Global Flashpoints - List of Articles
http://www.world-crisis.com/analysis/C0_35_15/
The Global crisis : sociological analyses and responses (book)
http://worldcat.org/oclc/11946631?tab=details
Global Crisis Watch
http://www.globalcrisiswatch.com/
THE UNITED NATIONS, RELIGION, AND GLOBAL PROBLEMS: FACING A CRISIS OF
CIVILIZATION
http://www.globalnonviolence.org/docs/buddhism/chapter6.pdf
Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risks_to_civilization,_humans_and_planet_Earth
FUTURE CRISIS
http://www.futurecrisis.com/index.php
Is a global crisis necessary?
http://www.earthsky.org/blog/50818/another-world-is-possible-but-how
Global Crisis Center
http://www.globalcrisiscenter.com/
Global Crisis
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/resolve/globalcrisis/
Global Crisis Solutions
http://www.globalcrisissolutions.org/
Global Crisis Control International
http://crisis-control.com/
END OF THE DOOMSDAY LIST:
-------------------------
> : The analysis also highlights the fact that our belief in the "external
> : world" is really a compelling belief for which we have no rational basis
> in
> : fact. There have been philosophers saying this for centuries and mystics
> : saying it for thousands of years. This is a very disturbing realisation
> and
> : most people just deny it without questioning their denial but if we are
> : truly skeptical we need to look into what this really means and what
> other
> : avenues of enquiry there are to put our knowledge on as firm a footing
> as
> is
> : possible.
> :
> : If you are interested, the analysis is in:
> : An Information Systems Analysis of Mind, Knowledge, 'the World' and
> Holistic
> : Science
> : http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html
> : Do a search for the heading: The Process of Perception and Formation of
> : Knowledge
>
>
> To be honest with you, I'm not very interested at all. Human nature
> is but a small subset of Nature
That belief is a direct result of naive realism and also Cartesian dualism -
the world out there is not as separate from the mind as many people assume -
how do you know what a 'human' or 'nature' is without your mind - your
understanding of anything at all is a construct of your mind - to what
extent is that understanding conditioned by the structure and functioning of
your mind. How do you know it is really made of 'material' external stuff
that is totally separate from you mind. The PEAR REG/GCP experiments prove
that it isn't separate. A naive realist thinks their mind is a perfectly
transparent lens with a magical ability to grasp things "as they are" but
all it really knows is its own interpretation of sense data. That is why
naïve realists can be so prone to delusion and fanaticism because they have
no understanding of how everything that they perceive, experience, think and
do is directly a construct of their mind, which is only 'driven' by sensory
information.
The sense data is like electricity and the mind is like a complex non-linear
circuit. If the circuit gets twisted the result is delusion and fanaticism
ultimately leading to psychosis. Another metaphor is that the mind is like
If you are interested in 'knowing' in any way at all should you know about
your "primary instrument of knowing" - the mind. Otherwise you are like an
experimental scientist who has no interest in or understanding of his
experimental apparatus. You cannot know clearly unless you understand and
calibrate your apparatus of knowing. Furthermore, you are a human so
understanding human nature (at least the aspects that directly relate to
your activities) is an essential part of being an effective human. If you
work with the mind you should understand the mind.
> whilst it may be of interest to you
> to delve into the inner workings of the mind, I prefer the inner workings
> of magnetism, electricity and gravitation, which to me remain fundamental.
> Without them there would be no minds.
Minds arising from matter is a debunked naive realist belief. There has
never been a shred of evidence in its favour and there is categorical
evidence against it (e.g. the PEAR REG/GCP experiments are one piece of
evidence). I accept the data regarding "magnetism, electricity and
gravitation", they are very fundamental but you cannot comprehend them
coherently whilst still trapped in illusion. I question your interpretation
of them as 'external realities' that 'make' the mind because it is arbitrary
and it originates from an absence of proper enquiry. Because virtually
everyone believes this is not a good reason to also believe it. You only
know about these things because of the functioning of your mind. Beyond that
they are just theories that exist only in the mind. It is a totally
understandable belief system - I explain why in the analysis of the mind in
my latest essay.
> : Also note that given the non-linear nature of mind where it is both the
> seer
> : and the lens - that is why I care about concepts such as cynic and
> skeptic
> : and Scientism because the state of mind in which a person approaches
> : something seriously effects how they experience it. Especially when it
> is
> : extremely controversial and extremely subtle ideas such as those that I
> am
> : trying to communicate. Any kind of pre-judgement can totally warp a
> person
> : understanding of what is being said making it impossible for them to
> : comprehend it.
> :
>
> It seems to me that your "Information Systems Analysis" is just plain
> old communication.
In essence it is really that simple. I've puzzled over why people haven't
enquired into it deeply before. I suspect it is the power of belief that
clouds people's minds and the operation of naive realism that makes it
impossible for them to rationally entertain these ideas or even realise that
they are there to be entertained.
Just like after the dark ages so many beliefs were debunked and people
wondered "how could they have been so foolish", the same goes for this. It
is so simple and the ramifications are so profound!
> : I have noticed over the last two and a half years of communicating my
> : results that virtually everyone responds to their prejudices and
> assumptions
> : about what I am saying and very few people actually listen to what is
> being
> : said. I have detailed mathematical analyses but I doubt if anyone has
> : seriously looked at them.
>
> In other words you are "an idealist whose rose-colored glasses have been
> removed, snapped in two and stomped into the ground, immediately
> improving his vision."
In that context yes - I had a naive idealistic assumption that people would
at least be open to hearing the argument but yes I was disillusioned as in
"freed from illusion". In many aspects of my life I am a hopeless idealist
but regarding the content of my work, metaphysics and the nature of the
sensory world I am a rationalist in the sense that I cling to no beliefs and
I seek only understanding without knowing beforehand what that understanding
will be. In that sense I was drawn from being a staunch atheist /
materialist into being a mystic but I didn't resist because skeptical
rational enquiry demanded it of me. But yes, in regards to human nature I
still wear "rose-colored glasses" but they have got rather scratched.
> I've been communicating my results for 20 years. Very few people actually
> listen to what is being said.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm
I sympathise. You have put a lot of work into this and it is very clearly
expressed. Just one suggestion that would make it easier for me personally.
Perhaps an initial summary of what it is that you are about to explain. I
generally like to have an overview first so I can put all the details into
context. Especially since it is a while since I put my mind to assimilating
this kind of knowledge. I will look into your work though - you definitely
seem to be getting at something profound. There are deep flaws in people's
understanding of these things and there is a lot of belief that it has all
been worked out so we should just trust the 'authoritative' interpretations.
But that is too often a trap.
> : The scientists assume I am speaking superstitious
> : gibberish so that is what they hear and the spiritualists think I'm
> speaking
> : Scientism nonsense so that is what they hear. The standard conversations
> : consists of denial and obfuscatory tactics where the person invests
> great
> : effort to find things to object to and no effort to actually understand
> : anything. Because they don't understand what it is they are trying to
> object
> : to they don't even scratch the surface and only get worked up over
> : trivialities. I go on clarifying the trivialities until they run out of
> : objections at which point they usually run away or throw a tantrum.
>
> Standard Operating Procedure. I shall probably "run away" too, though
> I have no objections to the majority of your analysis. It simply doesn't
> interest me.
Fair enough :) it has been very enjoyable and productive chatting with you.
You've been a GREAT help :) If I can be of any help to you I will do what I
can.
> Likewise, I have failed to interest you
We haven't discussed your work at all - sorry! Today I had a chance to have
a better look at your ideas and start thinking about them - I was too tired
yesterday to 're-tool' my mind to contemplate something so different from my
usual work. The link you gave
(http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm) was very
interesting but the emotiveness got in the way of my thought processes a
little - human nature again :)
But I gather that the main point, at least in the link you gave was that you
say that the principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light
are inherently irreconcilable. I agree in principle, especially since it
seems likely that there is an absolute reference frame, but I think I also
disagree with some of your arguments. It's tricky... My issue with your
analysis is related to naive realism once again but I might just be a bit
obsessed by that issue at the moment; it relates to some possible
assumptions about the nature of space, time and matter. But I won't go into
any details here - I need to think about it some more. But I'll give some
links that might interest you and then hint at aspects of my work that
relate to these issues.
As a critic of special relativity you might be interested in this site:
http://www.btinternet.com/~sapere.aude/
It is a bit of an anti-relativity community nexus point with a long list of
other researchers who disagree with Einstein in various ways, with links to
their work.
And here are more links to Michelson-Morely related work:
MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENTS REVISITED and the COSMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION
PREFERRED FRAME
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS9.pdf
/quote/
We report a simple re-analysis of the old results from the Michelson-Morley
interferometer experiments that were designed to detect absolute motion...
after allowing for several systematic errors in the original analysis... The
re-analysis here of the Illingworth experimental data, after correcting for
the refractive index effect of the helium, reveals an absolute speed of the
Earth of v = 369 +/- 123 km/s, while the Miller experiment (1933), after
correcting for the refractive index effect of the air, now gives a speed of
v = 335 +/- 57km/s, which are in agreement with the speed of v = 365 +/- 18
km/s determined from the dipole ¯t, in 1991, to the NASA COBE satellite
Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) observations. These experimental results
refute Einstein's assertion that absolute motion through space has no
meaning, and require a re-assessment of the interpretation of Special and
General Relativity. This re-analysis was motivated by developments in a new
information-theoretic modelling of reality, known as Process Physics
/unquote/
The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051
Cosmic Ether-Drift and Dynamic Energy in Space - Bibliography and Resources
http://www.orgonelab.org/energyinspace.htm
The recent MMX research arose out of more general research into a branch of
computational metaphysics; they are intimately related! Cahill's work, in
its essence is very like my own but on the surface they are very different -
he comes from the angle of studying parallels between quantum physics,
neural networks and process studies in a very academic manner whereas my
work involves quantum physics, computer science, process studies,
information system theory, metaphysics, philosophy, psychology, mysticism,
life and so on, in a rather free-form creative manner.
We have a very different emphasis and approach but we are talking about
basically the same thing. Same goes for Langan (http://www.ctmu.org). In
regards to connecting with traditional physics Cahill is VASTLY ahead of
me - that has been his primary focus whereas mine has been mainly
metaphysical, philosophical, psychological and mystic (personal direct
experience of reality). One MAJOR difference is that he is 'authorised' by
the scientific establishment so people listen to him whereas only isolated
individuals listen to me and what I talk about is usually WAY over their
heads or just very alien to them. But even though he is head of a university
department he has been attacked, vilified and demonised by many of his
peers. So many people seem to just HATE a profound new idea; they only like
safe minor extensions to old ideas, that way nobodies ego's are aroused.
His main website for what he calls "process physics" is:
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
/quote/
In Process Physics we start from the premise that the limits to logic, which
are implied by Godel's incompleteness theorems, mean that any attempt to
model reality via a formal system is doomed to failure. Instead of formal
systems we use a process system, which uses the notions of self-referential
information with self-referential noise and self-organised criticality to
create a new type of information-theoretic system that is realising both the
current formal physical modelling of reality but is also exhibiting features
such as the direction of time, the present moment effect and quantum state
entanglement (including EPR effects, nonlocality and contextuality), as well
as the more familiar formalisms of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. In
particular a theory of Gravity has already emerged.
/unquote/
Process Physics: From Information Theory to Quantum Space and Matter (A
short paper)
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-312/aflb312m530.pdf
More papers by Cahill on eprintweb.org:
http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/physics/ca/Cahill
I won't go into any details about my work right away but I'll just let you
know that my own mathematical models reproduce most of special relativity,
quantum physics, system theory, the direction of time, the present moment
effect, virtual realities, generalised computational processes and they also
inherently require an absolute coordinate frame - i.e. an ether. They also
suggest how and why quantisation, time dilation and length contraction
exist. They arise from the fundamental information theoretic constraints on
the computational processes that underlie time, space and matter (these
things are just appearances within a kind of virtual reality and naive
realism causes us to believe that it's a material universe).
The main benefit of Cahill's approach over mine is the connections with
mainstream physics and the main benefit of my approach over his is the
connections with system theory, computer science, personal experience of
being in the world and mysticism. His is good for micro models of reality
and mine is good for macro models of reality. His work can potentially model
the formation of space, time and matter out of a quantum information 'foam'
thereby restructuring the whole of physics and putting it on a
non-empiricist / information theoretic foundation. My work can potentially
create virtual realities, complex general software systems, a mathematical
science of complex systems and also explain the meaning and purpose of
mysticism thus helping people toward a deeper understanding of themselves
and personal liberation from illusion thus nudging civilisation toward
freedom from delusion, fanaticism and oppression.
> and neither one of
> us can hold a candle to football or pornography.
Very true - profound and subtle ideas don't register in minds that are
trapped in illusion and controlled by industries with vast resources and
vested interests that feed off our baser instincts - much of modern
civilisation fits into that category in someway - that too is a symptom of
the systemic global crisis discussed above. It comes down to the nature of
the mind, it sees through its thoughts and if those thoughts are focused in
one direction things in any other direction are invisible. People often
underestimate the power of conditioning to shape the whole world that they
experience because they don't understand the mind. The mind constructs the
world that we experience so ENORMOUS effort and ingenuity is employed to
control people's minds. Multi billions of dollars worth of research have
gone into it in the past century and there is a fine art to it that is used
to manipulate and subvert entire populations on a routine basis thereby
breeding delusion and fanaticism for profit and power. Football and
pornography are a small part of it - the 'news' is just another kind of
football and advertising is another kind of pornography.
> : I have
> : found that the higher ranking scientists and philosophers were amongst
> the
> : worst. But the mystics understand me because they already know the
> essence
> : of what I am talking about. In half an hour of conversation we reach
> deep
> : understanding!
>
> Goody for the mystics.
Well it is trivial for those who have previously taken the effort to
overcome naive realism - it is really as simple as 1+1=2 but only if you can
get past the naive realism! They have trouble with some of the scientific
ideas and that is why it takes at least half an hour for them to get it. But
for those who have yet to tackle naïve realism it is a very abstract and
philosophical stretch of the imagination and for those only seeking to
neutralise the idea to protect their beliefs, they have no hope at all of
understanding it - but they also have no desire to understand it.
But most of my work is directed towards people who aren't mystics but who
are open-minded rational seekers of deep understanding of themselves and the
world. If I was talking only to mystics I'd maybe write a short poem on a
piece of paper and pass it around but I seek to make it comprehensible for
philosophers, scientists and general people who are willing to employ the
effort and self-honesty that is required to come to at least an intellectual
understanding. But this isn't trivial! Hence the hundreds of pages of
detailed metaphysical, mathematical and scientific analysis on my website.
It's not all necessary, but different people might connect with different
parts of it. Perhaps future generations might be open-minded enough to look
through it but if not I don't care - I'm not attached to the result - it's
just something I do because I'm inspired to do it, that's all. It's an
abstract expression of love and love doesn't seek rewards it is its own
reward. I guess I am an idealist in nearly every respect except the enquiry
into metaphysics, where I am a ruthlessly uncompromising hard-headed
skeptical rationalist.
> : > Favorite quote:
> : > "I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite
> : > scoundrels."
> :
> : I respect that :)
> :
> : >
> : > /quote
> : > If I see a chair, it is because there is a chair physically where and
> : > when
> : > I see it.
> : > /unquote
> : >
> : > If I see a chair, it is because there is a chair physically where and
> when
> : > I
> : > made it, put it and sat in it.
> :
> : On a purely everyday pragmatic level it serves the function of a 'chair'
> but
> : do we know what it is? There is definitely 'something' there but what is
> it?
> : Is it really made of matter?
>
> "Matter" is my subject of enquiry.
> Newton was puzzled by action-at-a-distance, but took matter for granted.
> Newton knew of magnetism but know nothing of electricity.
If matter is your subject of enquiry then you really should contemplate
naive realism because that is the real origin of matter. It is an idea that
we use to fill naive realist gaps in our understanding. That which underlies
what we call 'matter' has no material substance. This is clearly shown by
quantum physics and modern physics is on the verge of truly recognising this
fact. Not to mention the growing wave of computational / information
theoretic metaphysical paradigms that are coming out of the woodwork. That
is why scientific realism is becoming a very relevant issue.
> : We don't know what matter is, or what forces are, or time or space. But
> when
> : all these things come together into something that we perceive as a
> chair
> : most people assume they know what a chair is. But if they really thought
> : about it they would realise that they don't really know what it is other
> : than that it is something that manifests to their senses as a chair and
> that
> : they use a chair. To unquestioning assume that we KNOW it is a chair is
> : naive realism as well as anti-skeptic.
>
> I know what a chair is. So do you. We do not know what matter is.
> Matter has a property called "mass" and we measure mass by
> applying a force and measuring acceleration.
> I know what a force is by its behaviour.
These are just appearances in our minds, descriptions of those appearances
and ideas derived from those appearances.
If you subscribe to the naive realist belief that those appearances are
actually "out there" rather than in your mind then you will believe that
those appearances are the reality and that you know the reality. But when
you look at something it is not the case that your mind reaches 'out' and
grasps the "things as they are". It subconsciously collates and interprets
sense data and presents an image to consciousness. This process has evolved
through biological necessity to create an image that is an adequate illusion
for animal survival (e.g. feeding-fighting-fucking) but it doesn't give us
any deep knowledge about that from which the signals originated from. It
simply guides us in our actions within a biological context.
If you are satisfied with animal existence then that is all you need - it is
totally adequate for everyday life - just like the guy hallucinating he was
in an 80's disco I mentioned earlier - he survived fine. But if he tried to
claim that reality was actually an 80's disco I would disagree with him for
the same reason that I disagree with you. It is only an 'adequate' illusion
occurring within your mind.
> I therefore propose a paradigm shift, accept action-at-a-distance
> as empirical and axiomatic, then inquire what matter is rather than
> follow the dead end we've always chased.
Quantum physics proves and accepts this and the PEAR REG/GCP experiments
also prove it beyond doubt. Action (such as intentional influence using
focused consciousness) is not only at a spatial distance but also into the
past and future. Experiments have clearly proven that such things occur.
Also one of the central issues that I am talking about is the question of
"what is matter?" Given that you say you are primarily interested in matter
it seems strange that you have no interest in these ideas. But I guess we
have mainly discussed the mind and you don't know about how low-level my
work is and how it impacts on issues such as matter, space, time, energy,
force, etc. I guess you seem to subscribe to a fairly traditional naive
realist concept of matter, space and time - but isn't that the "dead end
we've always chased"?
The paradigm shift that you just proposed is the same paradigm shift that I
am talking about. And it is happening in many places and many ways in
parallel. See this long list of links to works related to computational
metaphysics:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#VRMetaphys
> If matter is made of molecules and molecules are made of atoms
> and atoms are made of protons and electrons, what are electrons
> made of? Ok, its a dead end, but we explored a long way.
> Electrons have charge. Do they have mass? Mass is measured by force.
> Are electrons made of "matter"? I refuse to assume they do.
> Thompson invented the electron and it is a useful model for
> cathode rays, and then Millikan measured its mass. Or did he
> merely assume that the electron has the property of mass?
The empirical data suggests that when we perform measurements that are
designed to ascertain the empirical observable that we call 'mass' then
electrons do have 'mass'. But what is mass? And when we perform measurements
that are designed to ascertain the empirical observable that we call
'wavelength' they also have wave length. This is because they are both
particles and waves but the are not really either - those are just how they
appear in certain contexts - their deeper reality seems to be that they are
what we call 'wavefunctions' or in other words information constructs within
a wider computational space (information is discernible difference and
computation is the coherent transformation of information). The data isn't
in question, it's just the interpretation of the data that needs to be
reviewed and that is what is happening with scientific realism - it is
superseding naive realist concepts like particles in space. Whereas
instrumentalists have clung to particles and waves and boggled over the
paradox of something being both - some people are beginning to take quantum
physics seriously and claim that they are actually wavefunctions. This takes
us beyond empiricism because it doesn't unquestioningly enshrine concepts
derived from sensory experience within the fundamental physics.
> : If the person has an understanding of everyday objects they know
> something
> : about how a chair behaves and if they have an understanding of physics
> they
> : know something about how matter, forces, time and space behave. But that
> : only informs them about how things behave. Empiricism cannot address
> : questions of ontology or the actual nature of the something that
> underlies
> : the appearances because it takes the appearances as its conceptual
> starting
> : point. When we say that it is made of matter what are we really saying -
> the
> : only truly honest answer is that we don't really know. The hypothesis of
> : matter is just a hypothesis that fills in a gap in our understanding. If
> we
> : seek deeper understanding we need to question this gap rather than just
> : fudge over it.
> :
> Of course it is the honest answer, but we will never know as long as
> we assume matter exists in the first place. So try a new approach.
> Forces are not matter, but they exist.
Very true. Many people are trying new approaches and that is what I am doing
too. In my own words interaction is the communication of information, the
bulk flow of information is energy and the resulting influences of that
interaction is force. In my mathematics there is a clear definition of the
relationship between information and energy but I have yet to seriously
consider force in detail - I've been focusing more on other aspects such as
the general metaphysical ramifications and impacts on our personal
understanding of ourselves and our place in the world.
Here is a long list of links to works related to computational metaphysics:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#VRMetaphys
> : Given the fact that we know so little about the ontology of a chair,
> : consider the case of someone who sat down in front of a computer but
> they
> : had no idea what a computer is. They might see in front of them a web
> page
> : with textboxes and buttons. All they know are the objects as they
> appear.
> : They can become very familiar with that environment and learn a great
> deal
> : about how the objects behave and they might do many things in that
> : environment such as send emails and post to news groups and they would
> get
> : the feeling that they know that environment.
>
> A web page, like a book, is information. The ink on the paper has patterns
> we call letters which communicated concepts. It is not tangible matter.
> Matter is the boundary condition of force.
As I said in the last post, information is discernible difference and
computation is the coherent transformation of information.
A person, like a particle, is an information system, which is a coherent
pattern of information that structures the processing of information. An
information space is a field of discernible difference, whether ink on
paper, bits in computer memory, probability distributions within a
wavefunction or particles in space. The particles in space have patterns we
call objects which communicate to our minds the experience of a physical
universe. It is tangible because we occupy the same information space.
Understanding this hinges on seeing through naive realism - the mind doesn't
grasp "things as they are", it simply interprets the information and creates
the experience so we 'feel' it (which is a cognitive state) and call it
'tangible'. And what is matter other than an unknown, undefined idea that we
vaguely associate with tangibility and with which we fill gaps in our
understanding.
> What wave?
All 'particles' are also waves. Just as photons are waves, so too electrons
are waves. Surely you know that? :)
> This is a wave:
> http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html
>
> The wave is in time, not space.
Well that's one way to describe an oscillating system. But a wavefunction is
quite different, it is a wave of probability that is not really in time or
space although empirical descriptions of them necessarily use time and space
as reference points but these are really just descriptions. This is what
Cahill means by formal systems, but these are limited. The process approach
is not descriptive, it is constructive. E.g. one could create equations that
describe the perceived behaviour of a computer program (empirical science)
or one could construct a computer program (process science).
I think of a wavefunction like a wave (simple propagating pattern) of
information within an information space. It operates in state space and
process time rather than physical space and experiential time. When that
information interacts with the information that we are made from there
arises other patterns of information, some of which correspond to cognitive
states of mind which in turn represent to us experiences of objects in
space.
>
>
>
> Just as
> : frequency is a deeper reality than colour. Without eyes and a mind there
> is
> : no colour to speak of, there are only frequencies. So when asked the
This is a simple test for naive realism - e.g. look at something red and ask
yourself "is it red?" If your instinctive answer is "of course" then you are
a naive realist. If your instinctive answer is "it looks red" then you might
be moving out of naive realism. If your instinctive answer is "of course
not, red is a state of mind, how can it BE red" then you are not a naive
realist.
Here's some more info on the experiments:
Since 1979 there have been experiments that incontrovertibly prove that
consciousness has direct influence over physical processes, thus shattering
the illusion of materialism. This is analogous to the photoelectric effect
that signalled the dawn of quantum physics. The experiments categorically
prove that there is something fundamentally wrong with both the materialist
and Cartesian dualist perspectives on reality. The REG experiments at the
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab prove beyond doubt that
consciousness has real measurable effects on physical processes. These
effects are not attenuated by distance and they have the same strength
whether the events are concurrent with the intentional influence or whether
the event is in the past or the future! They are magnified by psychological
bonds such as love and by cognitive discipline such as focused non-agitated
awareness (e.g. meditation). The measurable effects also arise without
intentional influence and can be used to monitor the coherence of the
ambient field of consciousness. There is currently a network of machines
monitoring the moment by moment fluctuations in the global consciousness;
the overall statistics for the Global Consciousness Project (GCP), after
nine years of data accumulation, indicate a probability of about one in ten
million that the correlation of the data with the specified global events is
merely due to chance. These aren't vague crackpot experiments, there is NO
DOUBT about the data, the only thing in contention is the interpretation of
the data.
The results are: "empirical facts that are anomalies from the perspective of
standard (mainstream) scientific models."
(http://noosphere.princeton.edu/conclusions.html)
The Global Consciousness Project: (GCP or the Electro-Gaia-Gram EGG)
---------------------------------
Main GCP website
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
Introduction
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/science2.html
The primary results
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/results.html
EGG data archive
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/gcpdata.html
> :
Do you mean:
1784: John Goodricke makes the first identification of a Cepheid variable
star (Delta Cephei) ????
(http://home.att.net/~tangents/tech/timeline.htm)
Best Wishes :)
John Ringland
Phineas T Puddleduck
"John Ringland" <john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote:
>
> In the NEW-PARADIGM "physical universe" arises when the universe is
> experienced from a perspective within the universe and it is conceptualised
> from within a materialist empiricist belief system, then and only then does
> the idea of the physical universe arise. It is a particular idea about the
> universe that is constructed from shared subjective experiences within a
> virtual reality but which is conceived of within a materialist empiricist
> conceptual framework. When virtual beings structure their minds using the
> idea-of-the-physical-universe they subconsciously interpret and experience
> and conceptualise everything through that paradigm or cognitive lens so they
> come to experience and know themselves as physical beings within a physical
> universe. So the "physical universe" is really just a particular kind of
> personal world (subjective experiential context) that people experience when
> they adopt a particular kind of cognitive lens. Part of the illusion is that
> people assume that their individual worlds are actually the same objective
> world so people believe that they all dwell within a common objective
> physical universe.
>
> If this doesn't make sense or it seems dubious and unrealistic that is
> probably because of naive realism...
Or perhaps it just doesnt make sense. Its pretty arrogant to make the
assumption that anyone who disagree's with you is stupid.
Androcles
: Hi Androcles,
:
: Another detailed response (it's rather long, mainly due to a long list of
: links related to "global crisis", just a quick sample of what info is out
: there) but other parts of this post might interest you more!
:
: Here is something you might find interesting - there's more later...
:
: "That the speed of light is always c=300,000km/s relative to any observer
in
: nonaccelerating motion is one of the foundational concepts of physics.
: Experimentally this was supposed to have been first revealed by the 1887
: Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of Einstein's key postulates
: of Special Relativity in 1905. However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe
shift
: data was analysed for the first time with a theory
I'm snipping the rest of this diatribe of verbal diarrhea, don't insult my
intelligence.
: Sorry for speaking nonsense - I suspect that it seems nonsense to many
: people :)
So you should be.
: Now for some responses.
> : > The modern era of mysticism began in 1782, a punk kid of 18 years
> : > of age (died at 21) started it.
> :
> : Who do you mean?
>
> Goodricke.
: Do you mean:
No, you pathetic schizoid bastard, I mean King Kong, which is why I said
Goodricke. Why don't you try reading instead of ranting?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
John Ringland
intelligent person. It was only the things that you totally failed to
comment on that was starting to give it away. I'd already figured the others
were nutcases, i.e. The Man, T Wake, Art Deco and Phineas T Puddleduck.
I'd just finished doing a search and read of many of their pathetic posts
and I'd realised that you too were just as insane and that your like a gang
of asylum escapees roaming usenet. I really pity all you guys :(
But even though you only seem to vent hateful confused bullshit - somehow
you've been very helpful to me. So thanks a lot. I mean that :)
But I also mean it when I say that now I know what lunatics you guys are I
will have nothing more to say to you and I will read nothing more that you
have to say. It is tragically pathetic drivel that you spout on usenet and
you are a menace to yourselves and others. I won't waste any more time on
you.
Just one parting comment:
You guys are only responding to the warped apparitions in your minds. Enjoy
confusing the disturbed contents of your minds for reality, there are
endless years of illusion that you can experience that way. Bu for your own
sakes try and make your illusions a bit more uplifting if you can, that way
you might avoid the worst of the delusions, fanaticisms and psychosis that
are an inevitable part of the path you are treading... but maybe you have
lessons to learn that way. Whatever you do - it's all good! We are just
pieces of the cosmos having fun in the game of forgetting. Enjoy!!!!
Best Wishes and Good Luck :)
John Ringland
If anyone wants to know what these five trolls are like just have a look at
the following links (in order of decreasing sanity). I'd recommend avoiding
them if you can unless you wish to engage in inane meaningless bickering.
Androcles <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>:
User Profile:
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=391800
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=413523
Search:
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web/Engineer%252540hogwarts.physics
The Man <me_so_h...@yahoo.com>:
User Profile:
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=300426
Search:
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web/me_so_horneeeee%252540yahoo.com
T Wake <usenet...@gishpuppy.com>:
User Profile:
http://mathforum.org/kb/search!execute.jspa?userID=281295
Search:
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web/usenet.es7at%252540gishpuppy.com
Art Deco <er...@caballista.org>:
User Profile:
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=395029
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=306672
Search:
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web/erfc%252540caballista.org
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@gmail.com>:
User Profile:
http://www.mathforum.com/kb/profile.jspa?userID=301027
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=403891
Search:
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web/Phineas%252BT%252BPuddleduck
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web/phineaspuddleduck%252540gmail.com
Androcles
: You know Androcles you almost had me fooled that you were a rational
: intelligent person.
You write reams of your own crap and read nothing of mine.
Fuck off.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"John Ringland" <john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote:
BWAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHA
All I said to you John was that it was very arrogant to claim that people who
don't understand you are stupid. And then you come up with this screed.
The_Man
wrote:
> You know Androcles you almost had me fooled that you were a rational
> intelligent person. It was only the things that you totally failed to
> comment on that was starting to give it away. I'd already figured the others
> were nutcases, i.e. The Man, T Wake, Art Deco and Phineas T Puddleduck.
Do you need a diaper change?
>
> I'd just finished doing a search and read of many of their pathetic posts
> and I'd realised that you too were just as insane and that your like a gang
> of asylum escapees roaming usenet. I really pity all you guys :(
Your mommy started to wean you, yet?
>
> But even though you only seem to vent hateful confused bullshit
Otherwise known as "the truth"
> - somehow
> you've been very helpful to me. So thanks a lot. I mean that :)
We actually responded to you, unlike the real world, where everyone
else finds you dull, tedious, and boring?
>
> But I also mean it when I say that now I know what lunatics you guys are I
> will have nothing more to say to you and I will read nothing more that you
> have to say. It is tragically pathetic drivel that you spout on usenet and
> you are a menace to yourselves and others. I won't waste any more time on
> you.
You should take up chatered accountancy - it is the only profession
where being as uncreative as you is positive boon.
>
> Just one parting comment:
Grow up - be a man, and not a whiny little girl. Is your dress too
tight? Someone stolen your panties?
>
<snipped rest of temper tantrum>
galathaea
wrote:
> You know Androcles you almost had me fooled that you were a rational
> intelligent person. It was only the things that you totally failed to
> comment on that was starting to give it away. I'd already figured the others
> were nutcases, i.e. The Man, T Wake, Art Deco and Phineas T Puddleduck.
>
> I'd just finished doing a search and read of many of their pathetic posts
> and I'd realised that you too were just as insane and that your like a gang
> of asylum escapees roaming usenet. I really pity all you guys :(
they are worthy of a myth
they are an archetype in action
bringing us a morality tale
cautionary to our own lives
that is one way to forgive them
but to keep alive the core of the thread so far
i wanted to mention that i agree
if i understand one of your points properly
that the distinction between realism and phenomenalism
is one that affects the nature of meaning
and that this can create perspective gaps
that hinder communication
but to be provocative
i would also mention:
the information theoretic approach
is operationalist in foundations
the old stoic/buddhist epistemic inversion
is an important step in such a formalism
but this does not of necessity bring meditation
or any other ceremonies
into the formalism
in my opinion
ceremony is a very personal aesthetic
that can take many forms
and can be harmful or beneficial varying per person
dependent upon many idiosyncracies
i try to avoid the entreat
of such deontics
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar