XPost: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.consciousness, talk.origins
From: sfct@aol.com
Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 05:39:37 +0000 (UTC), stevefct
> wrote:
>
> >Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >> You dogded my guess that the Rudy Rucker event never happened.
>
> >Meaning what? Want the title of the book he wrote it in? Or are you
> >saying Rudy lied?
>
> When faced with a personal account of an event that violates physical
> laws it is entirely reasonable to suspect that the account is false.
> Flat out lies is one possibility, error is another. We know that
> people do lie and they do make mistakes.
>
> BTW, please learn to snip. 350 lines for a one line response is
> unreasonable.
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> Do in order to understand.
----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boy, come on you can do better than this. Your understanding of the
limits of science is zero. Inside joke.
You know better than this. Your quote, 'When faced with a personal
account of an event that violates physical laws it is entirely
reasonable to suspect that the account is false.'
That is exactly what all the experts in physics first thought when the
initial results of testing for the speed of light in different
directions came back and the speed of light seemed a constant no matter
what. Know what the experts did? When they thought in their little fixed
mental cages, experts who were not mentally agile enough to break out?
They first concluded the testing results had to be wrong. SO MUCH YOUR
CONCLUSIN ABOUT RUDY HERE, isn't it?
Even worse, their precious little 'had to be true theory about the
existence of ether' seemed to be wrong as well.
So the experts were wrong about what they assumed had to be true, ether.
And wrong about what they assumed couldn't be true, the speed of light
being the same no matter what the frame of reference. Only Einstein
showed the ability to break away from rigid and wrong ideas. There were
others equally able, equally smart, smarter in math, who could have done
the same as he did, but their minds were too rigid, too fixed with what
they thought had to be right. Its not intelligence, its a close cousin
mental ability. Edision had it, Rod Sterling had it, Einstein had it. My
pet theory is that this is what happens when a good right brain teams up
with a good left brain in hatching new ideas. Just a good left is
somewhat sterile. Like the minds of too many priests, or Priests, or too
many rabbis, or even lawyers. Trained hard to think in only in the world
of words. But if that is all they see, distance creative relationships
are invisible to their minds. What they see is mostly rules. They
suffer from rigid thinking if they're not careful. Being a patent clerk,
looking at inventions all day, helped Einstein train his right brain
along with his left. That made him the giant he was.. He had two good
brains working on the same ideas in his head, not just one. His two
brains helped each other, not fight over who would do what thinking
when.
I suspect this is the main weakness of the people in the mideast.
Mostly good left brain coupled with poor right brain thinking. Schooled
in books more than the art of inventing. And why their culture started
to lag behind the West when the culture of the West changed with the
arrival of the second anti-Christ in Europe. Napoleon. Who made the
required social changes in Europe by force to unleash the sheer
creativity of the right brain. Which also happens to be better in
creating certain types of music, and why many in the mideast find
western music somehow so disturbing, they often outlaw. Fearing it has
this socially corrupt power in the music. I like music,. All types.
Here must be balance between the two Gods within. Only Asians and whites
can do it properly. The rest slant too far, one way or another. But
back to your point.
There is no violation of physical law. We don't know all the laws yet.
If humans are smart enough to discover them to begin with?
I wrote this a long time ago. Circulated in canada.
The LIMITS of SCIENCE
----------------------
Science is most reliable way of probing into the physical laws of the
world around us. But how far can it probe into reality? All the way?
Let me give you an example.
When the best physicists work to discover the hidden laws of nature they
resort to experimental data and the formulae which best describe the
physical behaviors. But can mere formula capture everything there is to
know about the tiny stuff around us? Or for that matter, the big stuff?
You have to be careful about mental pictures sometimes. Since I use them
a lot I've learned to understand in my own limited way their
limitations. One assumption is that as we go down into the tiny realms
of sub-atomic particles the behavior of the particles begin to adhere to
mathematical laws. And they do. Sub-atomic particles behave according
to laws, not personal whims. So we begin to unconsciously assume that
all there is to know about them is their mathematical behavior. Then
they become their behavior. Becoming the laws themselves. Does this
capture everything there is about them?
Pretend we're cosmic giants. Taller than our solar system. And it is a
chess game we're examining. All we know about the pieces is the way they
move. The castles move horizontally and vertically. Queens move
everywhere except like knights. Knights make L shaped jumps. You're a
cosmic giant and you tell us all about the laws of the chess world and
how the pieces inter-relate.
Then a child comes along and picks up a piece and asks you,
"What is this?"
You say, "It is a knight. It moves in a L-shape."
He asks, "Yes, I know that, but what is this piece?"
You, " I told you. It moves in L shapes."
He asks, "I know that. I mean what is this piece, not the way
it moves, but what is it?"
And another child might ask us, "What is an electron? Not the way it
interacts with other particles, but what is it? And what is a proton
really about? And that and that and that? Or is everything only its
behavior deep down inside?"
See what I mean?
How far can science really go into the essence of reality?
When you ask this question long enough, eventually metaphysical thoughts
start to creep into your conceptual view of the physical. And your
mental eyes start to see in a new way. Then the way I see will become
obvious to you.
Yes, I love science. But it has inherent limits to how deeply it can
probe into what is. Where it excels at, is capturing the rules of
physical behavior. But deep down inside, is the behavior of an object
and what it is, the same thing? Do you think you know that? Do you think
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
