[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:260, topic:7931”]
If you could find me that quote where Chopra says thirty years ago that, “cell’s memory itself is a function of microtubules” I might take this more seriously. (although even then I’d wander, so what?)
No, it is sufficient to say that cells have memory which was itself controversial at that time.
I made all sorts of predictions and connects 30 years ago that have also been shown to be more accurate than not. So what?
It shows that your intuitive understanding was “on point” and that all further efforts in that direction were not wasted. All science begins with an educated intuitive proposition and is then examined, tested and if possible, falsified.
This is why I said earlier that our perspectives do not clash, but rather complement each other.
The interesting part in all of this is that MT have not evolved for billions of years which proves their extraordinary efficiency and utility in the actual evolution of sentience in living organisms.
Um, I seriously doubt other animals discuss god- any god. Humans are the only ones who have created a deity as far as we know, but if you know more than scientists do about other animals, then by all means let the scientists know so they can research it.
Update: It has come to my attention that I was not addressing the poster I thought I was addressing. Sorry. I wasn’t meaning this to you. I was thinking of another poster, who trolls, as saying this, when I read it and meant it to him. I need to pay more attention to the handles. Sorry. I truly did not have you mind when I posted it.
For those who don’t know, Occam was moderator here, a very good one. Yes, he would celebrate restraint.
But, let’s examine the non-restraint. “your brain won’t let you understand”. This is a slightly nicer version of “you’re too stupid to get it”, or “you’re blind to the reality”, and other similar comments. They are a double logical fallacy, mind-reading and special pleading. It’s been around since forever, used by people who think they have a new insight into psychology, or think they have inside knowledge about a conspiracy, or that they are being beamed information from aliens or wherever. They’ll be nice, sometimes, and say if you just “open your mind” or “let go of your blocks to intuition” then you too can gain this knowledge.
It’s not a question of whether or not whatever they have is valid or provable. The problem is, they aren’t offering a path to it. Buddhists have trainings, practices, retreats, lengthy scripture, and modern versions of presenting the logic of moderation and techniques for peace. They don’t claim that it’s simple.
Oh I believe I understood what you were saying. That was the reason for my suggestion you familiarize yourself with David Bohm’s work in context of your missive.
Shame on you for outright rejecting my suggestion that you familiarize yourself with David Bohm’s work, one of the “great minds” of the last century. What does that tell me about you?
Despite my informing you otherwise and explaining my intended meaning (best I could) from several angles. (who qualifies as the authority on this matter?)
Mainly you complained about how I was using particular words, without apparently understanding that language is words working in concert.
I chose not to be drawn off into futile unrelated arguments, based on my previous experiences, here.
If I’m not the kind of person you want participating on your forum, not intellectual enough, or my style doesn’t fit, just say so. But I do get to say if you have missed the point being expressed. Which wouldn’t be a problem unless you redefine everything to match your expectations, and have arguments at the ready for.
I was referencing the famous one with the razor. Nothing more and nothing less.
Or, sums up the experience of finding yourself talking to a politician whose policy in regard to someone using the term “God” with earnest intent (and a valid metaphysics), is reflexive and rote. (i.e. on autopilot)
[quote=“brmckay, post:241, topic:7931”]
Is what you have described what you intuit as Reality? That being my point. The reference to “the undivided Whole” and “non-relative infinitude” were in support of my understanding of Reality (as it actually is).
Are you proposing that you have solved the mystery of reality solved? That makes you the only person in the world who truly understands REALITY AS IT ACTUALLY IS.
I guess that should merit a Nobel prize, no? Has your hypothesis been peer reviewed?
If so , do you have a link?
Ultimate simplicity expressing as interdependent synchronicity from our relative points of view. The entirety of Reality unchanging.
Can you clarify the phrase “Reality unchanging”, when reality appears to be ever-changing, which is the fundamental dynamic causality of stochastic determinism?
(see Causal Dynamical Triangulation…CDT)
Ultimate simplicity as found in “relational values” and mathematical information processes (universal laws) in a dynamic environment?
Max Tegmark believes that 32 values and a handful of generic mathematical equations (constants) can solve the mystery. How simple can you get?
p.s. I used to have excellent discussions with Occam. He always brought out the best in my research on the subject under discussion.
An observer once remarked : “CFI at its best”!
It is not an inquiry if you reject all responses out of hand as “unrelated”.
You the questioner are acting as the judge of what is responsive or not. Neat!
Name me one valid metaphysical property of God that can be falsified.
As far as I know from "common understanding of Scriptural God, God is unfalsifiable but also unnecessary.
Remove God and nothing changes.
Falsifiability and physics
Popper wrote in his classic book The Logic of Scientific Discovery that a theory that cannot be proven false—that is, a theory flexible enough to encompass every possible experimental outcome—is scientifically useless. He wrote that a scientific idea must contain the key to its own downfall: It must make predictions that can be tested and, if those predictions are proven false, the theory must be jettisoned.
