From: Matt Paul (lizardblue@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 25 2009 - 00:47:57 MST
On Nov 24, 2009, at 11:38 PM, "John K Clark" <johnkclark@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 "Matt Paul" <lizardblue@gmail.com> said:
>
>> I'm not talking about a soul.
>
> BULLSHIT!
>
>> I'm speaking on components ofconsciousness
>> that may not reside in a physical manifestation.
>
> I see, so you're talking about a aspect of being alive that can not be
> detected by the scientific method that is nevertheless of enormous
> importance. And that differs from the medieval dogma of the soul
> precisely how?
>
>> I don't know if you see the distinction here
>
> Nope, I don't see the distinction here, I don't even see a shade of
> distinction.
>
>> It is experimentally provable that there is some sort of non-local
>> aspect to our access to information.
>
> Bell's inequality has been proven experimentally to be violated, and
> that is a stunning fact, but what has that got to do with what we were
> talking about? There is absolutely no evidence that meat computers
> make
> use of this fact, but if they do I see no reason silicon computers
> couldn't too.
>
>> I take it you don't believe morphogenetic field theory
>
> I can't imagine where you got that idea.
>
>> even though experimentally it seems to be valid...
>
> BULLSHIT! Rupert Sheldrake had that brain fart about 30 years ago
> but in
> all that time his idea has not advanced one inch, not one nanometer,
> not
> one Plank length. This doesn't need a multi billion dollar
> accelerator,
> if it were true high School students could prove the existence of
> morphogenetic fields in their science fair exhibits, but they haven't.
> The scientists at CERN haven't demonstrated the existence of this
> thing
> either, not even with their billion dollar budgets and boiling water
> IQ's. Don't you find that a little bit strange if the thing actually
> existed?
No I don't find it strange that there are aspects of existence that we
can't currently detect or measure. This has always been the case and
as science advances we find ways to detect and measure things
previously unknown, but often suspected. Just because we can't find
something now doesn't mean it isn't there and doesn't mean that we
will never find it. Generally that is how we do find things, we
suspect/hypothesize and search, developing technologies and methods
along the way.
I'm not an idiot and I'm not a fool even though your tone suggests
that I am.
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT