Author Topic: ACME vs OMM  (Read 14240 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #116 on: May 25, 2010, 10:33:54 AM »
Thanx Tykster, as the video points out laughter helps the learning process.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #117 on: May 25, 2010, 11:06:45 AM »
OMM is a whole lot more useful for predicting the future than ACME. I don't really care about how depressing it is as a worldview. Because the human brain is made to rationalize happiness. OMM just gives you more natural happines because you can now get what you want more often. Because seriously, if you were to objectively count how many times irrationally hoping and rationally thinking/acting got you what you want, rationality would win hands down.

The video was saying that about 60% our PFC "thinking" (wrong word -but there's that short term memory prob of mine) was not rational.

Whatever the case, I am saying that I believe that intuition precedes logic. It certainly seems to be so in my case. But then, I am not sure I understand what I 'know' about it!

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5380
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #118 on: May 25, 2010, 11:28:44 AM »
Firstly sorry for the delayed reply Immed   my provider had punished me for using too much data stream.

I haven't read all the rest of the new posts this thread so if I am repeating anything already broached just point me at the suitable #reply.



Which leads me to the meat, the heart,
the hard core of your intent, which I in turn am going to subtitle "woo as a useful life tool" and of course a second subtitle "taking the pith".
I would say "it's important to understand woo from the inside, so that you can learn how not to project it onto the material world too much.' - the same is true for OMM, important to understand it empirically, and important to keep it on the outside and not project it in'.

Do you not think this is a very large reversal of previous looonnng threads where you fought very strongly for woo to be adopted by science, for woo to become the next best (directive/informative) thing for science?
Now you've become an advocate of woo lite, as a tool to enable us to not let too much woo in.
I know you are clever enough to see what a radically different pitch you are now making.
Have your ideas changed in the past few threads?
If so why do you think you've changed so significantly?


Quote
Quote
As I and others have repeatedly asked you in other threads Immed,  have you even one practical suggestion of how to use woo in one's life, let alone in science?
I honestly have no recollection of anyone asking me for anything which I did not deliver rapidly upon the next response. Except Omen, who decided that demanding I produce definitions for dozens of common words. Sorry, I don't do definitions spats.


The repeated requests were asking you (from memory, as I cannot be buggered going back and finding them) for some practical method that you might suggest that woo could be used by science. (the fact science is so separate from woo was what you were decrying)
You may have no recollection of failing to put forth a suitable method, but I do recall that you never did describe a process of that sort. Why do I recall this? because I waited eagerly for your replies, and was to date disappointed.

Quote
To answer your question, first of all imposes OMM right away.
Of course it does mate.
So now asking questions imposes science? Yes Yes Yes       Is this a negative thing? No, it is how we communicate.  
Woo of course would demand that you read my mind, or some cards, or the like, and our resultant conversation??? should not touch upon realities via logical communication, but be continued by our palpable good will to one another our suspension of disbelief and our willingness to GUESS what the other meant/wanted/expected/thought.

Quote
The OMM takes for granted that life exists for strictly practical reasons,

Why? Where is this written in stone?   What possible practical application could life have in an rationalist world? I am not talking about life being a tool for furthering genes, I am talking about the more basic question. What use is life at all?  A vehicle for transporting water was the best explanation I ever heard.

Now of course woo can answer that question by energetic use of GUESS, unfortunately the woo answers are never the same twice nor mean the same to any two people.

Quote
which, particularly for the hard problem of consciousness, is far from established. Practical suggestion of what? What do you want? 'Excercise more. Avoid refined carbs.'
Now this is unfortunate.   It was not I, who came to this forum demanding woo be adopted by science, so it is very sad to see you dodging this. You came saying you wanted respect for woo from the scientific world, but when asked yet again how this might occur, not only do you fail to suggest any serviceable method, but you attempt to disguise the request for your practical suggestions as pointless or foolish.
I have to say, I am wondering if you are capable of admitting error when you have erred?  
This is not an attack, but an observation made after watching you shift your position quite subtlety but quite often when your respondents have made your position awkward ...........again I cannot be bothered thread mining, and will hope you are capable of acknowledging this(ACME) without me having to drag out evidences(OMM).

Quote
It's not about 'using woo in one's life', it's just about adding a layer of intuitive awareness so that you make fewer mistakes and cause fewer problems.

Again something of a position shift Immed, limiting woo's usefulness and method, without actually even beginning to explain how we might use it (practically),  
 ...it is somewhat awkward to come to grips with shifting positions.
Regarding intuition, I believe there is at least one school of thought that feel intelligence is a product of grouped micro intuitions, and this can be indicated by the intuitive processes of normal everyday existence walking talking etc.
 
Elsewhere  googling showed that science and science educators are aware of the value of intuition, but seem unable/unwilling to pursue any practicable method of training in the use of intuition. At least for the generation following the conference.
I'm sorry this is only a short preview of the paper
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=u2405131t3172647&size=largest


How do you see intuition being encompassed and used by science so as to achieve fewer mistakes and fewer problems?
How do you see intuitive awareness being taught successfully?

If you really cannot give a specific method Immed, will you acknowledge that it is just a wish, like one might wish for a generic cancer cure?

I am not knocking the sentiment, I am just indicating to you that your wishful thinking is great as a cause celebre, but is to date a bit light on the ground regarding practicable application.

Quote
It's about patience, and honesty, and not having to turn time into money every second of your life --- because it's ruining civilization.

So more beautiful dreams that don't seem to show any real world method.
Of course one hesitates to rail against the unjust implied accusation that scientists are impatient and dishonest, and are incapable of not seeking money and ownership, nor that any might be working to save civilization.

Truthfully this sentence of yours is noise that doesn't remotely answer the question either.

Have you considered that your verbosity is a tool that is capable of winning arguments by default where the sheer noise hides the flaws, and where the sheer amount wearies the respondents? Again I ask sincerely .....it is not an attack, I have witnessed the process before.
The death of a thousand cuts is extremely hard to describe in any meaningful way, as each individual cut is barely noteworthy, but the sheer number overwhelms.

Quote
Quote
Have you one instance to show that your impassioned wishful thinking, and emotional investment can be justified with just one practical use for woo of any sort (aside from panacea).

Practical Use is all OMM. Human consciousness has no practical use for the universe. Woo awareness, properly integrated in healthy proportion, provides layers of meaning which cross reference between time, yourself, friends. The other day I had a friend of mine I hadn't seen in 20 years call me to read her teenage son's chart (who I never met) and so I did and I modeled the conflicts she and he have for her in astrological and plain English. She asked me for advice on how to deal with their fights and I told her about the difference between people with charts like hers and charts like his. A couple weeks later she thanked me effusively for that reading and said that her and her son were really back on the same page again.

So let's see, an hour free friendly telephone call and a free chart from a free program vs perscription drugs, surveillance, dysfunctional family environment, negative life altering consequences for mom and teen alike. Yeah, that Woo stuff is awful.

How excellent that you are so skilled at your woo.  And what a shame that you seem so unable to explain how to pass those skills on.
So is this the woo that you described above as
Quote
It's not about 'using woo in one's life', it's just about adding a layer of intuitive awareness so that you make fewer mistakes and cause fewer problems.
?

The story is a bit trite though, and of course unsubstantiated, but that cannot be helped.
What would be impressive is if you could explain just once how woo can be taught. How is the skill passed on, how is intuitive awareness measured? By what feels right at the time? Or is there a manual.


Quote
Quote
I am very uninterested in pursuing any defence of the legitimacy of rational thought and science as tools, you are more than aware of these, and I will take it as given that you are not denying that legitimacy and worth/value.

What I will state is that woo = GUESS.  
Gnostic's universal evidential search solution.

It's not the gnostic who searches for solutions in evidence...it's OMM.

Come on mate  aren't we all seekers of knowledge, or are woo practitioners finally acknowledging there is no real knowledge to woo?


Quote
I know that it seems to you that I'm dodging something, but to me, every time you ask that it just fulfills my description of OMM. If you are locked in a closet of materialism, all I can do is play you music or talk to you through the door. You are the only one that can open the door and take a look at the rest of the psyche - the part that doesn't just to make money, spread the genome, or disprove that there's anything outside the closet.

Of course the sad thing about the internets is the isolation. You don't know me past my words, you cannot have the faintest idea of what I may have lived to get me to here and now.
I am quite the schizo when it comes to intuition, running in parallel to rationalist examination.
I don't deny the capability of the mind to process more and faster than linear thought, I just deny the right of those who GUESS to demand their ir-repeatable findings be treated with anything other than healthy scepticism until their woo is shown not to be woo.
I find your generic defence (ie until you believe there is no point in me trying to convince you)banal and presumptuous, and ............generic.
It really is a runaway line disguised as a throwaway comment.
What is really to point, is that the emperors robes aren't always convincing, and the warp and weft are imaginary.



Quote
Quote
Woo is the epitome of GUESS
Matryoshka dulls receding in beautifully fractaled ignorances and silly superstitions.
like a priceless heirloom? Yeah, gotta get rid of that...there's leaking oil rigs to build, populations to grow.
You are starting to sound sulky mate.
So are you suggesting that woo did better when science did not exist?

There is no denying we have the potential to make greater messes than ever, but I am yet to see how you have shown that intuitive awareness is not present in all humans to a degree, and that it doesn't play a part in ongoing works in all and any field of human endeavour.
And if woo was so efficacious at guiding us to better decisions, how the hell did we end up with science?   And where did woo go?

I think you are mixing up a disdain for rampant capitalism and a need for more woo.


Quote
Quote
As much as I like your flights of fancy Immed, I am bored with your reluctance to acknowledge that woo and science I am bored with your reluctance to acknowledge that woo and science do not mix, cannot mix, and never will mix.

do I'm pretty sure that they are two opposite sides of the same thing. We are the mix.

OK here I am very close to agreeing, as woo is no more than a human construct the same as science, both are tools that  measure us in our universes.


 
Quote
 
Quote
This has been pointed out by myself and by better thinkers than I here many times to you, but you dodge, twist and make partial adjustments to supposed meanings, partial allowances to opposition's accuracies.

For example? If I'm dodging anything I'm not aware of it. I'm just putting this information out here and really have no vested interest in being 'right' about it. Unless someone is going to make a point I haven't heard 1000 times before - then I'm very interested. Otherwise, don't bother trying to make close my eyes and go OMM, I've been there and know it inside out. Nothing anyone has said here has given me anything but validation of the model I describe.
Good on ya.  Assert Assert Assert, but you still haven't translated your stated desire into a considered process of how to achieve your stated desire.


Quote
Here's the conversation I keep having to have with people, so you can't tell me about dodges and twists.

"Color does not physically exist, yet it is a subjective truth"
    "No, Color is wavelengths"
(proves it isn't)...what is color?
     "signals in the brain"
(proves it isn't)...what is color?
     "it's just an interpretation"
"what is an interpretation? What is it made of?"
...

Patterns, forms, icons, gestalts, images...what are these things that our consciousness literally consists of and why does the OMM deny their relevance if not existence?

You don't find them in the brain. There is no miniature studio with actual color holograms of the sights and stereo audio of the sound of our life. There's nothing but neurons in the brain. We know where conscious comes from, but we don't know where it physically is enacted. Where all of those neurochemical processes unfold into, what the OMM believes is 'all of the order and beauty that has ever been in the Cosmos'.

It's ridiculous.

What makes sense to me is that color is a purely interior subjective experience which can be encoded as an analog to transmit through wavelengths of light, then stepped through another layer of encoding/switching as a biochemical-optical text, then a neuro-electric signal, then as a brain text of complex neural orchestration (none of these look like color from the outside, mind you'), then finally as a reconstituted, decoded subjective experience of color in consciousness, 'white' for example.

The implication of this is that color is being experienced 'subjectively' in other places besides in side us. It could very well be that plants are green, but just not physically green. The light frequencies they kick back remind our brain of what consciousness was when it was light itself, when green was invented. Really not much different than holding invertebrate DNA copies in every cell. The spectrum is a living memory, evidence of order in the cosmos. The fact that whiteness holds the entire spectrum within it invisible points to the nature of memory and information access in the essential world. Solid state, timeless, ordered, meaningful to us.

By extension, all of our senses feed us information from the cosmos. Order. Like color, it is transduced and decoded through physical media, but the physical media is the exception - it's the gaps from the BB. Fragments of matter and energy now have to touch each other through encoded physical processes, a few of which we can consciously detect through our optical, aural, olfactory, tactile, gustatory, vestibular probes - which are just specialized nerve endings. The content is all the same going to the brain, and it's the brain that has to recognize patterns and generate patterns which we can recognize. The brain is quite familiar with the pattern it receives from the cosmos and generates to us, so much so that when a new variation shows up, special attention is paid to it.


Nice visuals  there is no doubt in my mind that any human antenna is subjective, it's just not easy to see how the above vision gets us to improved intuitive awareness.



Quote
Quote
If woo of any sort was capable of being used by science, read by science, embraced by science, in any way, then it would not be woo.

If woo was even capable of being taught in any meaningful way, it would just not be woo.
That's like saying, Quantum Mechanics were able to be used as music, added as spice, embraced by zoologists in any way, then it would not be Quantum Mechanics.
You've misunderstood me mate   I meant, that if any of your woo could be demonstrated repeated verified and or taught, then it would be science.  it remains as woo, not because it has no potential relevance, but because it, to date, can not be read/studied in any repeatable reliable way.

Quote
Quote
I have watched with interest your other posts around the site Immed, you have certainly generated some interesting thoughts/perspectives.
Why would they be interesting if there's no truth to them? :) Do you like reading Woo?
No I enjoy interesting peoples thought processes. Of course my subjective antenna chooses whom it finds interesting.

Quote
Quote
I am interested if you can actually deconstruct the internal mechanism that causes you to be the obsessive one trick pony when it comes to this particular subject.
Not a cause, but yes, there is a particular astrological correlation that gives me a specific map of this moment in my life. Not that I'd choose it. I'd stop if I could, this is brutal on my nervous system. Besides, I've got nothing else to do. Makes it easy.

if you feel that fated bloke, blame it on the big bang, not these passing momentary astrological whimsys. ;)

« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 11:35:19 AM by kin hell »
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #119 on: May 25, 2010, 11:38:04 AM »
Accidents connote surprise. If you are willing to learn and are tying to learn, nothing is an accident. You are waiting for said "accidents." When scientists discover think up a certain principle or application, it isn't by accident that it matches reality but an expected outcome. With enough time and attemps, you can do just about anything without the need for "accidents."

There are situations where it is more appropriate to minimize accidents (running an oil rig comes to mind), and others where surprises and serendipity does what no amount of attempts over time can accomplish (discovery of gravity, benzene ring).

That's why I say that the Cosmos is both logic and imagination, inertia and surprise.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #120 on: May 25, 2010, 02:41:19 PM »
Do you not think this is a very large reversal of previous looonnng threads where you fought very strongly for woo to be adopted by science, for woo to become the next best (directive/informative) thing for science?
I've never advocated that woo be adopted by science at all, I just want science to recognize imagination as the opposite end of the continuum from matter. Woo I would describe as the overreaching of imagination into the realm of matter.
 
Quote
Now you've become an advocate of woo lite, as a tool to enable us to not let too much woo in.
I know you are clever enough to see what a radically different pitch you are now making.
Have your ideas changed in the past few threads?
If so why do you think you've changed so significantly?
I call logical fallacy; loaded question. No, my ideas haven't changed as far as I can tell. I've learned more about what they are, particularly through the unintentional contents that showed up in putting together that collage map, but no, I've never advocated brain surgery using Tarot cards or something like that.

Quote
You may have no recollection of failing to put forth a suitable method, but I do recall that you never did describe a process of that sort. Why do I recall this? because I waited eagerly for your replies, and was to date disappointed.
I have always maintained that science will and should continue as it has, but that by recognizing the relation of imagination to logic, and the reinstatement of order and consciousness in the very fabric of the Cosmos, we should expect a renaissance in many disciplines as well as the development of entirely new disciplines.

I have found this collage making exercise to be enormously elucidating for me, and I would recommend it highly as a way to augur the Self. Far superior to either Tarot/I Ching or logical outline. That's one method for combing intuitive function with logic. If you look on either side of the collage you'll see a prominent 'i', which were completely unintentional but they seem to illustrate the contrast between the conception of what consciousness is as seen from different side of the spectrum. Do you see what I'm talking about in there?

Quote
Woo of course would demand that you read my mind, or some cards, or the like, and our resultant conversation???
Woo doesn't demand anything. You have to approach woo voluntarily or it doesn't work (which is part of what makes it opposite to science - it hinges on volition rather than overrides it or makes it irrelevant).

Quote
What possible practical application could life have in an rationalist world? I am not talking about life being a tool for furthering genes, I am talking about the more basic question. What use is life at all?  A vehicle for transporting water was the best explanation I ever heard.
That's what I'm saying, life has no practical purpose from an OMM perspective, therefore the OMM has a very limited grasp of what life is. Do you feel like a vehicle for transporting water? Does civilization seem like a collection of canteens?

Quote
Quote
which, particularly for the hard problem of consciousness, is far from established. Practical suggestion of what? What do you want? 'Excercise more. Avoid refined carbs.'
Now this is unfortunate.   It was not I, who came to this forum demanding woo be adopted by science, so it is very sad to see you dodging this. You came saying you wanted respect for woo from the scientific world, but when asked yet again how this might occur, not only do you fail to suggest any serviceable method, but you attempt to disguise the request for your practical suggestions as pointless or foolish.
No, that's your presumption. I have never demanded that woo be adopted by anyone, and I see the reliance on woo as being just as inappropriate as reliance on strict materialism to understand the Cosmos. That was my whole point of this thread - showing the extremism on each side and the equivalence in their lack of explanatory power. I'm not dodging anything at all, other than chunks of strawman being thrown in my general direction for ideas I've never heard coming from me.

You're not asking me for a practical method at all, you're just saying that because your criteria of validity is practical methodology. Mine is not. You are just trying to demonstrate that since we all know that everything that's real is practical, then what I describe can't be real because it has no practical value. So if life needs no practical methodology, then why do I?

Quote
I have to say, I am wondering if you are capable of admitting error when you have erred?
 
Have you wondered the same thing about yourself, for the same reasons?

Quote
Again something of a position shift Immed, limiting woo's usefulness and method, without actually even beginning to explain how we might use it (practically),  
 ...it is somewhat awkward to come to grips with shifting positions.

If you want, show me where I say that woo has unlimited usefulness, or that I have shifted position. It's not always possible to state your entire position, so it's entirely possible that I have revealed more of my position that could seem like a shift, but honestly I don't think I've shifted at all, I've only gotten stronger in it.

Of course I could be wrong, and I'm not above ego-politics at all, but in this case I have no real interest in defending my position. It's others who need to defend theirs. Why do we feel things? How does consciousness tell matter what to do? How does meaning arise spontaneously? What is color? Why can't we imagine a square circle? What is pattern?, etc. These are the important questions, not whether or not someone's misinterpretation of my ideas constitute an act of rhetorical heresy on my part.

Quote
How do you see intuition being encompassed and used by science so as to achieve fewer mistakes and fewer problems?
Once intuition, imagination, and consciousness are understood to be part of the fabric of our identity, and that identity and matter are both understood to be part of the fabric of the Cosmos, some scientific disciplines may choose to experiment with looser epistemologies, but the real potential of this is to allow non-scientists to more deeply and pervasively accept science and to present a viable alternative to traditional spirituality.

The mistakes and problems I'm talking about have to do with prioritizing economic or technical abstractions over human lives; treating people like pieces of meat, objects, digitized characteristics. If the subjective side of us were honored equally, I think that a lot of simple, powerful solutions to intractable problems would come into focus.

Quote
How do you see intuitive awareness being taught successfully?
The photoshop collage technique I did seems promising. I don't know that intuitive awareness can be taught, but it can be learned. Again, it has to be voluntary. You have to ask the universe a question rather than just demanding an answer.

Quote
If you really cannot give a specific method Immed, will you acknowledge that it is just a wish, like one might wish for a generic cancer cure?
Here you follow your own trail of straw back to your wish for my idea to be a wish. I'm not acknowledging anything, because there is no knowledge to reflect. I don't know what it is, and you don't either, but I suspect that this is only the beginning, the tip of the iceberg.

Quote
I am not knocking the sentiment, I am just indicating to you that your wishful thinking is great as a cause celebre, but is to date a bit light on the ground regarding practicable application.
If that's true, it's because the whole point of it is to get beyond the need to reduce everything to a practicable application. As you said, life has no practicable application.

Quote
Have you considered that your verbosity is a tool that is capable of winning arguments by default where the sheer noise hides the flaws, and where the sheer amount wearies the respondents?
Maybe people get weary when part of them knows they aren't right? It seems to me like I never get tired of talking about this stuff. Not because I live to win arguments, but because it seems to me that I'm right. I really don't argue with people for sport. No debating team, etc.

I don't care about being right particularly, unless it's in this one area. Sports teams? Meh. Politics? Mmm, yes, but not American make-believe party politics. I couldn't make myself care about contracts or court cases if you paid me. It's not me that you are arguing against, it's the ideas I'm talking about - which are by no means unique to me btw.

Quote
Again I ask sincerely .....it is not an attack, I have witnessed the process before.
The death of a thousand cuts is extremely hard to describe in any meaningful way, as each individual cut is barely noteworthy, but the sheer number overwhelms.
It is exhausting, and I find that I am having to limit my time on here to protect my brain (literally). It's curious though that I'm not feeling overwhelmed by the number at all. It's fatiguing, and I wish that people could more easily see where I had answered the same question to someone else, but rather than feeling a death by a thousand cuts, I'm feeling stronger and stronger. I feel like people are running out of questions and are falling back to just accusations or giving up altogether. I might be just getting started. I'd make this my whole career if I could.

Quote
Have you one instance to show that your impassioned wishful thinking, and emotional investment can be justified with just one practical use for woo of any sort (aside from panacea).
Unrelated to your irrelevant subjective judgment on my thinking or investment, and ignoring your repeated attempts to put words in my mouth about 'practical woo', the photoshop collage method seems enormously promising to me as a legitimate therapeutic tool of greater value than the Rorschach test. That alone could improve psychology.

Quote
What would be impressive is if you could explain just once how woo can be taught. How is the skill passed on, how is intuitive awareness measured? By what feels right at the time? Or is there a manual.
I'm not the expert on intuition. I just naturally pay attention to it. What feels right at the time is important, and being open to recognizing patterns of all sorts is another. If you imagine that your life is being filmed for an audience of immortal beings, being intuitive is about looking toward the camera and seeing reflections in the lens. Sometimes there will be cue cards you can read if you want.

Quote
Come on mate  aren't we all seekers of knowledge, or are woo practitioners finally acknowledging there is no real knowledge to woo?
Knowledge? No. Truth and meaning, yes, some, depending on what woo you're talking about. There is some rudimentary knowledge - learning the language of astrology to read a chart, learning how to throw the I Ching, etc, but it's an inconsequential part of it.

Quote
I am quite the schizo when it comes to intuition, running in parallel to rationalist examination.
If you're saying that you're intuitive then why are you asking me about how intuition works?

Quote
So are you suggesting that woo did better when science did not exist?
Not at all. I'm just saying that some of the consequences of science have been more toxic and catastrophic than all of the woo in the world put together.

Quote
There is no denying we have the potential to make greater messes than ever, but I am yet to see how you have shown that intuitive awareness is not present in all humans to a degree, and that it doesn't play a part in ongoing works in all and any field of human endeavour.
Why do you think I'm saying that intuitive awareness isn't present in all humans? That's why I put it on my continuum, I think it's present in all life. I would say that sense organs are made of specialized cells which merely amplify and transmit specific intuitions which all cells possess.

The fact that it plays a part in ongoing works in human endeavor is precisely the reason that it needs to be represented as such in our human cosmology.

Quote
And if woo was so efficacious at guiding us to better decisions, how the hell did we end up with science?   And where did woo go?
In an either/or situation, science trumps imagination if you are dealing with a material phenomenon. Bridge building might require 99% OMM and 1% ACME, but changing your life and finding an entirely different destiny could require one minute of 99% ACME to initiate a change. It doesn't always make better decisions, it's hard to even know what makes a decision better. In my own life I can't really think of any decision I made which was unambiguously good or bad. No regrets, but no great choices which wouldn't have probably happened anyways.
Quote
I think you are mixing up a disdain for rampant capitalism and a need for more woo.
I think you're missing the connection between the two (OMMM). Economics is the objectification of human behavior. The antidote for excessive objectivity is not woo, but a move toward the subjective direction. In the case of economics, it would be better served by being paired with ecology (on the macro) and psychology on the micro. You don't have to put a fortune teller in the Treasury Dept, but a climate scientist would help. Your accountant doesn't have to be a psychic but if you had a family consultant who did your taxes as well as worked with you to budget and inform you of successful strategies for managing domestic life...we could begin to explore some interesting options.

Quote
Good on ya.  Assert Assert Assert, but you still haven't translated your stated desire into a considered process of how to achieve your stated desire.
Desire to change the worldview to be this essential/existential deal? Yeah I don't know how to achieve that other than to communicate it. People have written books along these lines. Not sure that's what I'll try to do.

Quote
Nice visuals  there is no doubt in my mind that any human antenna is subjective, it's just not easy to see how the above vision gets us to improved intuitive awareness.
I think you're projecting this agenda on to me. I don't know that intuitive awareness, is in intuition, needs to be improved so much as it needs to be recognized and integrated as a counterbalance to materialism.
Quote
You've misunderstood me mate   I meant, that if any of your woo could be demonstrated repeated verified and or taught, then it would be science.  it remains as woo, not because it has no potential relevance, but because it, to date, can not be read/studied in any repeatable reliable way.
Right. That's why our worldview needs to be redefined to incorporate patterns and phenomena which are specifically subjective.

Quote
if you feel that fated bloke, blame it on the big bang, not these passing momentary astrological whimsys. ;)
Blame is one thing, it's the power to coherently explain my situation that the big bang lacks.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #121 on: May 25, 2010, 03:00:34 PM »
Simplify: Leave no man behind!

Words mean things, Sometimes those meanings are defined differently by different people. Sometimes saying the same thing, sometimes saying something entirely different. The meaning depends on what the person’s intention is.

According to wikipedia …Here is the meaning of Definition:
A definition is a passage describing the meaning of a term (a word, phrase or other set of symbols), or a type of thing.
And
Like other words, the term definition has subtly different meanings in different contexts. A definition may be descriptive of the general use meaning, or stipulative of the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.

Here is the definition of meaning:
Meaning (linguistics), meaning which is communicated through the use of language
Meaning (non-linguistic), extra-linguistic meaning (intentional communication without the use of language), and natural meaning, where no intentions are involved at all
Meaning (semiotics) has to do with the distribution of signs in sign relations
Meaning as a relationship between ontology and truth
Meaning as a reference or equivalence
Meaning (philosophy of language)
Meaning as values, a value system or as derived from value theory
Meaning (existential), as it is understood in contemporary existentialism
The meaning of life, a notion concerning the nature of human existence
Meaning (House), an episode of the TV series House
 
Accident= unintended
(Auto) accident= car crash
Cerebrovascular accident= stroke
Accident= pissed my self

If I am involved in an automobile collision. When describing the event to my insurance agent, I may say:     I was involved in an auto accident. He may ask, whose fault was it?

How could something be unintended but still imply liability? In court the opposing attorney will say the defendant collided with my client because he was driving carelessly while talking on the cell phone, causing the accident.

According to wiki:
Experts in the field of injury prevention avoid use of the term 'accident' to describe events that cause injury in an attempt to highlight the predictable and preventable nature of most injuries. Such incidents are viewed from the perspective of epidemiology - predictable and preventable. Preferred words are more descriptive of the event itself, rather than of its unintended nature (e.g., collision, drowning, fall, etc.)

How can a stroke be  accidental, was there intention, was there liability? Perhaps, if the person was not living a healthy lifestyle. But what if they were doing all the right things, but genetically predisposed for stroke? How is that an accident?

Words mean things, but the more words used to define a meaning the less I think I understand.

Sometimes in this thread I think there is agreement but misunderstanding of terms. I'll have to sit the rest of this out on the sidelines and nurse my aching head. i AM TRYING WAY TO HARD!
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 07:08:00 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #122 on: May 25, 2010, 07:17:25 PM »
Words mean things,
I even question that description  :P. 'Words mean things' is fine as a casual axiom, but I think it's technically more accurate to say that words (try to) communicate meanings. The process of communication is semiotic, so that the meaning must be transduced into a thought which then is communicated as a message of words, context, non-verbal content, medium, etc. All of these layers are permeable to each other and words can influence and inform meanings as much as the other way around.

"Language is a virus from outer space." - William S. Burroughs

Quote
How can a stroke be  accidental, was there intention, was there liability? Perhaps, if the person was not living a healthy lifestyle. But what if they were doing all the right things, but genetically predisposed for stroke? How is that an accident?
A stroke could be read as having accidental aspects as far as it being unintentional, particularly in the timing of the event. My comments earlier about my own life are use accident just as a basic distinction between deliberate or not. In that context, everything unintentional counts as an 'accident'.

An OMMM facing explanation of a health emergency is that it is caused by preexisting conditions plus environmental factors plus chance. An ACME facing explanation could be that the emergency was a synchronistic expression of personal destiny and social narrative - ie, they happen to families, and even to the collective zeitgeist as well as individuals.

Both have validity and are not mutually exclusive. A lot of Americans are obese because they have poor diets, but they have poor diets because of the fast food, high stress economics of OMMM. Obesity is a symptom of the prevailing ideas of this time and place as much as it is an individual's mistakes.

Quote
Words mean things, but the more words used to define a meaning the less I think I understand.
Yes! I think that's because you are actually understanding more about what words actually are. They don't "have" definitions at all. The more you put them under the microscope, like all artifacts of subjectivity, the blurrier and more ambiguous they become. They are the opposite of object-particles, they communicate meaning but have no meaning. When we try to make language completely discrete and unambiguous, what we end up with is legalese - dead, monotonous, unpleasant.

Quote
Sometimes in this thread I think there is agreement but misunderstanding of terms. I'll have to sit the rest of this out on the sidelines and nurse my aching head. i AM TRYING WAY TO HARD!
Yeah, I don't blame ya. It's ok if there's not complete agreement or understanding. I'd be surprised if there was.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #123 on: May 25, 2010, 07:57:04 PM »
I'd guess you know it's not you, it's me being out of my depth.

Some folks (like me quite often) are just all word salad. You've got style and substance. Others here as well.

I just need to rest and cogitate on it all for a while.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #124 on: May 25, 2010, 08:08:32 PM »
I'd guess you know it's not you, it's me being out of my depth.

It's cool, I was just co-miserating. I didn't realize that starting a thread can turn into a part time job, heh.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #125 on: May 26, 2010, 10:03:41 AM »
"Pseudoskeptics Science is just another religion"
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqcNJ1KDq_Y[/youtube]

Peer reviewed Oxford scientists Dr Rupert Sheldrake and Dr Peter Fenwick discuss the major impact of Rene Descartes on the scientific method from 1619.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #126 on: May 26, 2010, 10:26:48 AM »
Sheldrake is a joke and has never published any peer review material regarding the claims he's made.  He is simply lashing out at others for pointing out that his material lacks any criteria to even be considered 'scientific'.  The same equally applies to Fenwick, where the best 'material' they have to offer as far as 'science' goes is a few publications entirely directed to an audience of laymen and not a single scientific shred of evidence, research, or experiments in any of it.

It seems they have entirely abandoned science itself, in favor of publishing popular 'woo' books and maligning anyone that points it out.  Exactly what you would do if you wanted to completely rely on make believe.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #127 on: May 26, 2010, 12:04:29 PM »
^^There we have the orthodox OMMM facing view.
Here is an equally truthful ACME facing perspective

Of course, I see both sides as partial truths about Sheldrake as a resercher/author/storyteller, however what Sheldrake and Fenwick talk about here isn't particularly controversial or unscientific - they just reiterate what I and many others observe about the disenchanted materialist worldview and it's excessive asceticism.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2010, 12:10:39 PM by Immediacracy »
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #128 on: May 26, 2010, 12:20:30 PM »
^^There we have the orthodox OMMM facing view.

No, we have the only available question from the starting point,"how do you know?"

The dichotomy has nothing to do with your fantasy of OMM vs ACME, it is instead the question of knowing vs make believe.

What can I know Vs Whatever we make up.

Quote
Here is an equally truthful ACME facing perspective

You can't claim it to be truthful since you lack any ability to describe it as 'true', you're claims are reduced to a qualification that makes it impossible to know what is true.  So no follow up assertion of 'knowing' can logically be made.

Plus, the criticism being applied at these quacks is that they claim they are doing science when they are not.   The link you provided just goes to a short article where Sheldrake pleads away the criticisms of another scientist.

Which is irrelevant because:

We still don't have any science from Sheldrake.

Quote
Of course, I see both sid...

Which is irrelevant, since you dismiss any means of knowing anything.  Your every claim is reduced to make believe and by your own rejection of any criteria for knowing, you can't make any assertion that logically follows.  Hence, every answer you give to someone that points out what you're missing or why you're wrong.. just results in you pleading your way around it again.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #129 on: May 26, 2010, 12:23:11 PM »
^^ Proves my point.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #130 on: May 26, 2010, 12:28:46 PM »
^^ Proves my point.

It proves that all of your claims are little more then sophistry and rhetoric.

Nothing you respond to others with includes an informative basis for anything you're saying and instead you fall back on the unknown and the ignorant, pleading more unexplained qualifications if someone bothers to ask.  There isn't even an intelligible idea being constructed in your own words, other then a diatribe of labels that are used as excuses to further say absolutely nothing useful at all.  Even if you had some claim or point to put across to others, your very use of language guarantees it will never be understood.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #131 on: May 26, 2010, 01:53:04 PM »
There's no point in arguing with fundamentalism. I can only observe the omniscient proclamations and frothing, naked hypocrisy.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #132 on: May 26, 2010, 01:58:58 PM »
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKuVoSNljF8[/youtube]
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #133 on: May 26, 2010, 02:04:01 PM »
There's no point in arguing with fundamentalism.

Special pleading.

What fundamentalism?

Quote
I can only observe the omniscient proclamations

Special pleading.

What omniscient proclamations?

Quote
and frothing, naked hypocrisy.

Special pleading.

What hypocrisy?

Notice that again, the retreat into excuse building, further distancing the initial unexplained claims with more qualifications to excuse providing answers.. not to mention to actively denigrate the act of having to ask in the first place.  It is unfortunate that again we are faced not with intelligible ideas, not even that which can convey a meaning to be understood, but simply the use of rhetoric as a tool of the claim itself.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #134 on: May 26, 2010, 02:13:01 PM »

The entire video is a single person babbling a nonsensical ad hominem in the company of various strawman descriptions of supposedly something called 'pseudoskeptics'.  He finally insists that the 'pseudoskeptics' are secretly unhappy and that there is only one way that they can be happy, plus if they do anything else other then what he claims.. then they won't be happy.

The question of knowing is as irrelevant to this person as it is to you, both of you rely completely on purely make believe.  I can't even know what is claimed in the video because nothing that is being claimed is either evident nor functionally 'information' that can be understood.  No attempt to explain is offered, not to mention that the entire video is based on dismissing the very people who would question the claims being made.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #135 on: May 26, 2010, 02:19:35 PM »
The approach is one necessitated by authoritarian beliefs, where any attempt is made to silence those who do not agree immediately or to reduce the relevant basis for which the claim is made to a point where the claimant insists that making the claim is comparable to lacking the claim.  Any ability to know anything is removed, discarded in favor for a list of assertions that can made purely at random and without limitation other then ones ability to simply make it up.

This is proven by a complete lack of an attempt to explain the claim one is making, especially in regards of questions that undermine the claim being made or require an informative basis for the claim to even be understood.  The resulting response we see here, both in Immediacracy and the video examples, is to reduce through dismissal and denigration anyone that even is perceived to disagree.  It is not at all concerned with the validity or merits of its own claim, offering ridicule to most basic questions and furthering the obfuscation by qualifying the claims being made with more 'make believe'. ( which simply beg the same questions if not more )
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #136 on: May 26, 2010, 02:39:34 PM »
It is unfortunate that again we are faced not with intelligible ideas, not even that which can convey a meaning to be understood, but simply the use of rhetoric as a tool of the claim itself.
You seem to be awfully worked up over ideas that you claim cannot be understood. Do you expect anyone to believe that your display of aggression doesn't fit the description of the pseudoskeptic precisely?

I claim nothing. I'm just laying out a hypothesis for people to interpret or investigate as they choose. I'm happy to answer questions about it or collaborate, but I only care about criticism if it reveals something I haven't thought of before.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #137 on: May 26, 2010, 02:45:23 PM »
You seem to be awfully worked up over ideas that you claim cannot be understood.

Ad hominem

Quote
Do you expect anyone to believe that your display of aggression doesn't fit the description of the pseudoskeptic precisely?

Circular.

What display of aggression?

What is a pseudoskeptic?

Quote
I claim nothing.

You've claimed tons of stuff, you've posted videos that have claimed tons of stuff, and you just finished claiming stuff.

Quote
I'm just laying out a hypothesis for people to interpret or investigate as they choose.

A claim.

Quote
I'm happy to answer questions

No, you are not.  You have ignored dozens of questions, including the questions just asked of you literally minutes ago.  The post you're responding too had questions, you omitted them.

Quote
about it or collaborate, but I only care about criticism if it reveals something I haven't thought of before.

Special pleading, what have you thought of already?  Describing it as,"I haven't thought of before.." creates a condition where you can assert anything as if you had or allows you to ignore criticism based on an internal qualification you just blankly use to dismiss anyone.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #138 on: May 26, 2010, 05:53:13 PM »
You seem to be awfully worked up over ideas that you claim cannot be understood.

Ad hominem

Sorry if you interpreted it that way. I was pointing out that it doesn't seem plausible for a person to sustain an attack on ideas which aren't intelligible. I think that most people would see the logic in that, that is if all of the processing power in their brain weren't tied up in primitive limbic response.

Quote
What display of aggression?
What denial of the obvious?

Quote
What is a pseudoskeptic?
Do you not have access to Google?

Pseudoskepticism:
Quote
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof

My ideas aren't claims or pleas, but rather they are one possible way of modeling the relationship of subject and object phenomena, and of the maladaptive pathologies associated with unbalanced consideration of one side over the other. I'm not a neuroscientist, but I would consider my hypothesis a legitimate, if early-staged neurophilosophy.

Quote
You've claimed tons of stuff, you've posted videos that have claimed tons of stuff, and you just finished claiming stuff.
A suggestion that something might be true, or seems true is just that, a suggestion for consideration. It's in no way a 'claim' that requires some sort of hypothetical evidence. In this case, non-subjective evidence may literally be impossible, since the map I'm working from clearly circumscribes objective evidence as a fixture of the objective end of our experience and not the subjective...by definition a map which posits subjectivity on a symmetrical footing cannot be defined by conditions of one half of the continuum. It's like saying 'give me proof of color in black and white'.

Quote
I'm just laying out a hypothesis for people to interpret or investigate as they choose.

Quote
A claim.
Pseudoskeptical

Quote
I'm happy to answer questions
Quote
No, you are not.  You have ignored dozens of questions, including the questions just asked of you literally minutes ago.  The post you're responding too had questions, you omitted them.

Just because I ignore your 'questions' doesn't mean that I'm not happy to answer polite questions from curious people. Are you really trying to prove to me that I'm not happy to answer questions? I'm not paid to do this ya know, I do it because I like answering questions (not debating about whether I like answering questions).

Your ad hominem estimate of how many questions I have ignored is hyperbole. I would guess maybe 10 or 12 of yours, because they weren't really questions but rather a tantrum with question mark shaped punctuation. Other than your own questions I am curious if you can find three questions I haven't answered. I can't think of any myself but there very well may be a few out there, I don't know. Certainly not 'dozens' as in multiples of 12.

Quote
about it or collaborate, but I only care about criticism if it reveals something I haven't thought of before.

Quote
Special pleading, what have you thought of already? Describing it as,"I haven't thought of before.." creates a condition where you can assert anything as if you had or allows you to ignore criticism based on an internal qualification you just blankly use to dismiss anyone.

If I were into OMMM debate fetish literalism, I would ask:
What's a condition?
What's assert?
What's an internal qualification?
What's blank use?

But I can't imagine anything more pointless or boring.

Time to bid you farewell again....













I dare you not to have the last word.
Go ahead and take it.
I know you want to.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2010, 05:57:05 PM by Immediacracy »
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #139 on: May 26, 2010, 06:24:24 PM »
I'd guess you know it's not you, it's me being out of my depth.

Some folks (like me quite often) are just all word salad. You've got style and substance. Others here as well.

I just need to rest and cogitate on it all for a while.

OK, I've thot about it now.

After the last round with Omen...I still think you have style, but not substance so much. Well you have substance but not the ACME/OMM model.

Those videos and especially that rambling anti-skeptic video didn't help your case at all.

In my final analysis, when distilled down to it's bare essence, ACME brings nothing to the table that OMM dos not ALREADY EXPLAIN.

And my head stopped hurting when I realized I was suffering from a bad case of cognitive dissonance while trying to incorporate those two incompatible ideas into my world view. I was sufficiently impressed by the style of your word-craft that I couldn't 'see the forest for the trees.'

But as my sig says: I don't understand what what I know about it!
« Last Edit: May 26, 2010, 06:30:11 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #140 on: May 26, 2010, 07:53:02 PM »
In my final analysis, when distilled down to it's bare essence, ACME brings nothing to the table that OMM dos not ALREADY EXPLAIN.

That's true, from the OMM perspective, but the whole idea of needing to explain is not ACME. The ACME side commits inappropriately to a completely opposite extreme - no substance.

ACME doesn't add anything practical (it detracts from it), it adds intensity of feeling and overconnectedness that OMM has no capacity to explain without collapsing it to it's material shadow.

What does bring something to the table is an awareness of the continuum so that you can see both objective explanation and subjective connectedness. It explains qualia, meaning, 'freewill', the hard problem of consciousness, semiotics, communication, values, and probably a lot more. Those subjects are ill served by OMM, to put it mildly.

Personally, I thought that the guy in the YouTube is correct about pseudoskepticism being neuropathological. I'm sure he seems obnoxious to people who identify with the what he is putting down, but to me he is just serving back what the loudmouth media skeptics have been dishing out.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2010, 07:54:36 PM by Immediacracy »
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #141 on: May 26, 2010, 09:09:24 PM »
In my final analysis, when distilled down to it's bare essence, ACME brings nothing to the table that OMM dos not ALREADY EXPLAIN.
That's true, from the OMM perspective, but the whole idea of needing to explain is not ACME. The ACME side commits inappropriately to a completely opposite extreme - no substance.

I thot that in the ACME/OMM model, consciousness, subjectivity, etc had it's grounding in matter and that's what appealed to me to dig deeper. But if there is no substance that can be measured and tested and that predicts things in the world of substance where I live and breathe and have my being, then I am not interested in pursuing it further. It is not unlike a god of the gaps argument if I understand it correctly. If ACME is not falsifiable, that is.

Quote
What does bring something to the table is an awareness of the continuum so that you can see both objective explanation and subjective connectedness. It explains qualia, meaning, 'freewill', the hard problem of consciousness, semiotics, communication, values, and probably a lot more. Those subjects are ill served by OMM, to put it mildly.

I don't know why that would be the case. I don't need to ascribe meaning where I have understanding. And I am gaining an understanding of consciousness, values and freewill, entirely within the OMM perspective. Where I have gaps in my knowledge, I am content to wait for that understanding without seeking out answers on the ACME side of things.

Quote
Personally, I thought that the guy in the YouTube is correct about pseudoskepticism being neuropathological. I'm sure he seems obnoxious to people who identify with the what he is putting down, but to me he is just serving back what the loudmouth media skeptics have been dishing out.

Well, I didn't really see him as obnoxious, just not providing anything I could connect to. "Clicking the amygdala forward" ....Holy shades of Art Bell's cloud busting. Attributing magic powers to an area of the brain that processes and stores emotions.


Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5380
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #142 on: May 26, 2010, 09:46:05 PM »
Do you not think this is a very large reversal of previous looonnng threads where you fought very strongly for woo to be adopted by science, for woo to become the next best (directive/informative) thing for science?
I've never advocated that woo be adopted by science at all, I just want science to recognize imagination as the opposite end of the continuum from matter. Woo I would describe as the overreaching of imagination into the realm of matter.


I'm sorry Immed but your own words show you to be at best confused.    Here are your first statements.

Instead, I wonder if the better way to go would be to address what religion addresses but with science as a partner. A science which embraces subjectivity and mystery as well as material and objectivity.

'That isn't science' you say. Well, science is just a word and when that word becomes something that limits the evolution of our lives personally and collectively, then it really is more of a religion. Just because intuitive principles can be pseudoscientific doesn't mean that scientific principles can't be pseudointuitive ....

Mysticism is not your enemy. The human psyche is a incomprehensibly complex and overflowing with unknowns and unknowables. Our contemporary astrophysics and evolutionary biology are at as much of a loss to elucidate the origin of the laws of physics or the evolution of evolution itself as the Godly are at explaining the power of the material world over faith. Seemingly preposterous indulgences such as Astrology and divination (both culturally universal and directly responsible for the development of science and medicine) are valuable and interesting places to access the deep structures of our human cosmos - time, order, the connection between the self and the universe, causality and synchronicity...etc.

I had thought to go through you post history and give evidence to your method of not remaining cornered by your endless shiftiness (which is a real shame given your obvious intellect) but what is equally obvious is that you have a "feeling" that you are really on to something, but are absolutely unwilling to direct any of that intellect onto what that something really is.

You expend energy in vigourous defence of something that if viable, should need little or no defence.
You create an artificial universe of scientists as robotic slaves with no awareness of the existence of subjectivity.
You hide from hard questions with hackneyed excuses such as "O than is so OMM!"  or "if you do not believe me I cannot show you" etc.  
It seems that what you are offering gets more watered down with your every telling as more and more specific questions are asked.

You would rather say we are people of a "type" and be safe behind that ignorant bastion, than consider that your "vision" may have no real use other than being a great cause celebre for you to dedazzle us here with your practised pitch.

This will'o'wisp you are presenting shows all the essential viability and integral solidity of a god of the gaps >I just read mm's  last post and he makes the same point but I will leave this in anyway<


I agree with Omen

As I have been saying in previous posts, it's all about noise and feelings.
You substantiate nothing, and making pointless mouth garbage is not an answer, so when you ask "what questions haven't I answered?" The simple reply is  every question that asked you for process, method, verifiable repeatable events.
 Or ....what possible use? and how to use it?

It seems as though you are there asking we perceive your position, your "feeling", but you appear incapable of even describing that feeling in any meaningful way.

If anyone else can be bothered (I cannot ....too busy at this stage) the really interesting exercise would to be to go through Immed posts/threads and chase the posts that indicate the whittling away of the original  embrace mysticism  
 
Quote from: Immed
A science which embraces subjectivity and mystery as well as material and objectivity

to

Quote from: kin hell
And if woo was so efficacious at guiding us to better decisions, how the hell did we end up with science?   And where did woo go?
Quote from: Immed
In an either/or situation, science trumps imagination if you are dealing with a material phenomenon. Bridge building might require 99% OMM and 1% ACME, but changing your life and finding an entirely different destiny could require one minute of 99% ACME to initiate a change. It doesn't always make better decisions, it's hard to even know what makes a decision better. In my own life I can't really think of any decision I made which was unambiguously good or bad. No regrets, but no great choices which wouldn't have probably happened anyways.

 































« Last Edit: May 27, 2010, 05:39:22 AM by kin hell »
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #143 on: May 27, 2010, 05:36:13 AM »
if there is no substance that can be measured and tested and that predicts things in the world of substance where I live and breathe and have my being, then I am not interested in pursuing it further.

What I'm trying to get across is that the world of substance (really substance end of our world) is where we breathe and have a body, but the world of meaning is where we live and have our being. I think that the universe is crunchy on the outside, gooey on the inside, and by inside I'm not talking about the kind of inside you get if you smash a brain with a sledge hammer. I'm talking about the order that's inside of matter and energy which expresses itself through patterns of substance and psyche. Maybe these will help:





Quote
I don't know why that would be the case. I don't need to ascribe meaning where I have understanding.
Understanding is a type of meaning that is a way of arriving at meaning. Everything that is not affected directly by the laws of physics is meaning. The laws of physics are, by this definition, meaning as well.

Quote
And I am gaining an understanding of consciousness, values and freewill, entirely within the OMM perspective. Where I have gaps in my knowledge, I am content to wait for that understanding without seeking out answers on the ACME side of things.
Yean I wouldn't look for answers from ACME - it's totally insane, but OMM is also skewed to only take into account immaterial phenomena as it pertains to serving physical conditions, which if it was ever true it certainly isn't true now. Think of how much time in your day you spend working with the gravitational and chemical realities, not just how they affect you but how much time you really have to care about their workings specifically compared to the hours and yours you spend wrestling with and sculpting cognitive patterns which have no substance at all. This is our life - not ACME (unless you're in a cult) but not OMM.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: ACME vs OMM
« Reply #144 on: May 27, 2010, 05:48:00 AM »
I can't really find  a problem with that at first read. So I'll not respond to that for now. Great graphics, BTW.

Let's try an experiment to see where things breaks down, no come apart?(for me).

My Sis-n-law sees and hears from angels. I don't know how to respond when she tells me these things, so I just try to change the subject or leave the room.

Cyndi:
I was on the highway when a 40 foot angel of the Lord stood in front of me holding out it's hands. I screeched to a stop, just in time to see the truck in front of me drop it's cargo on the road in front of me. God sent the angel that saved my life!

Me:
Kewl....did you see on the news last night that.......

How do you explain what she experienced within the ACME/OMM?
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.