XPost: alt.dreams, alt.dreams.castaneda, alt.dreams.edgar-cayce   
   XPost: alt.dreams.lucid.entities, alt.out-of-body, japan.dreams.lucid   
   From: KC@none.invalid   
      
   Ann wrote:   
      
      
   > "the two animals closest to humans were pig and rat"... {Or so said the   
   > 'pharmaceutical' industry, I mean, some drug developers would probably   
   > love to have us convinced in our alleged "closeness" to their guinea   
   > "pigs".}   
      
   As a funny side note, did you know that guinea pigs and humans (and   
   other primates) share one common faulty gene no other animals have? It's   
   the gene that's supposed to produce vitamin c, so both humans and guinea   
   pigs have to get their c's from their nutrition. (But it's very likely   
   just a coincidence that both species had a similar (not identical)   
   unfortunate mutation at some point).   
      
      
   > Yet, as you might have guessed, the real 'killing'/trigger of the   
   > "chain reaction" was the astonishing ability to read (or rather,   
   > imagine) "rats dreams, just about mazes and stuff", I mean, how on   
   > earth would you know, and how do you expect me to react to such   
   > 'information'.   
      
   This was based on activity scan information from the rats' brains when   
   they were awake and running in a maze, and when they later were asleep,   
   showing the same activity patterns. No, it's not certain, but it makes   
   sense. Just don't be too quick to say "how on earth would you know" .)   
      
      
   >   
   > As regards to your cherished "belief [that] the scientific method is   
   > the best tool mankind has invented so far", you somehow tend to   
   > overlook/forget the tragic consequences (intended or unintended?,   
   > frankly, I couldn't care less, we're talking cold facts now:)... of   
   > say, military science, with its myriad of "advanced" researchers   
      
   Science doesn't wage war, people do.   
      
      
   > it as I could in previous a.d.c. threads. 'Unfortunately' :), I   
   > wouldn't like to bore the tolerant a.d.c. denizens any longer (they've   
   > been quite patient with me, you know), but if, as you say, you still   
   > haven't "given up the search for objective information" :) then you are   
   > welcome to "also see" older treatises of mine devoted to this topic,   
   > and to "practical alternatives" to "organized matter". For some   
   > references see the attachment below, at the very end.   
      
   Very well, let's end this conversation here then. Unfortunately I'm   
   afraid I'm not that interested in your particular views, partially   
   because your style of communication is somewhat incompatible with mine.   
      
      
   > ("Perceiving reality is all about choices", remember:). I even once   
   > jokingly formulated it as the seventh universal law of thermodynamic   
   > human nature: we 'see' what we would like to see, and vice versa, we   
   > overlook what we wouldn't like to see.   
      
   I agree, people often see only through their own hopes and fears.   
      
      
   >>Again, I can't make complete sense of what you're trying to say.   
   >>Working toward what end?   
   >   
   >   
   > The "objective testing" of the "world exists without humans"   
   > hypothesis, was it that difficult :).   
      
   Yes, it was. Please remember that English is not my native language. If   
   you have studied (several) foreign languages, I'm sure you understand   
   the difficulties I sometimes have. I also have a suggestion for you: How   
   about not typing out loud your thoughts as they come to your mind, but   
   instead taking time to formulate a concise message out of them?   
      
   >   
   > :) "probably" yes, and probably no, i.e. maybe there's only probable   
   > knowledge. Or are you sure "the world existed before humans, and will   
   > continue to exist without humans"? I mean certain like 100 percent or   
   > more?   
      
   Of course such a thing as "100% certain" can only exist in religion.   
      
      
     You see, that's the goal of scholastic rhetoric, to produce   
   > absolute certainty in our faith-based/trusting mind.   
      
   A scientifically-minded person will have had to abandon hope for   
   absolute certainty. Sometimes people outside the scientific community   
   don't seem to realize this, or perhaps they just mistake the phrase "it   
   seems certain in the light of current knowledge" for "it is certain". I   
   don't know, but any Philosophy of Science 101 course should cover the   
   basics.   
      
      
     Whereas a   
   > fact-based 'truth' (shown in previous a.d.c. threads) is that a 'fact'   
   > ain't the same as an 'educated guess', go figure. What "is significant   
   > proof" to some is just a bunch of anecdotal evidence to others (the   
   > "gravitational force" comes to mind), for more on that thought check   
   > the aforementioned law of thermodynamic human nature :).   
      
   Statistics help to show what is anecdotal and what is not. Measurements   
   (with instruments) help to avoid false perceptions. But somehow, I feel   
   that you already knew all this. I.e. I feel like we're talking about the   
   same thing, but can't get past the you know-i know -phase.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>To think of one's subjective reality as something more than an   
   >>emergent property of organized matter is without foundation.   
   >   
   >   
   > :) :) Wow, what a profound statement, "emerging property", "organized   
   > matter", "foundation".. can you elaborate a bit on it, just "for   
   > clarity's sake".   
      
   Yes. An organized whole is more than a sum of its parts, like let's say   
   a rat, is more than just x amount of carbon, nitrogen etc. From   
   organization emerge qualities you couldn't anticipate by just looking at   
   the constituents, for example, if you just looked at the letters of this   
   message unorganized, you couldn't know its meaning. It is possible that   
   consciousness also is just a property of organized matter, like life   
   seems to be. It would be a simpler assumption than assuming the   
   existance of soul or such an entity. Apply Occam's razor, and you see   
   that the material explanation is the better-founded one. Note that this   
   would mean that consciousness is an "inherent" property of matter, not   
   just living beings.   
      
   Did you ask this just to see if I was just copying text from a book, and   
   didn't know what I was talking about? If you did, then that's exactly   
   the kind of "communication" I don't much care about. If you were   
   genuinely asking, forgive my impatience.   
      
      
   Cheers, KC   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)