XPost: alt.dreams.castaneda   
   From: laura@nospam.me   
      
   "slider"  wrote in message   
   news:41950403$0$4026$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...   
   >   
   > Ann wrote...   
   >   
   > Hi Laura,   
   >   
   > we are talking again, nice.   
   >   
   > > On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Laura wrote:   
   >   
   > > More matrix. Yay :-|... the whole matrix spiel is getting tiresome.   
   > > Another rather poor hollywood excretion.. filled mostly with   
   > > sophomoric brawling with a jumbled sprinkling of pop-cyberpunk   
   > > philosophy.   
   >   
   > All right then, no more movie "spiel" just "proven facts" from now on,   
   > reality (show:) pure, I promise.. or at least let's see for how long   
   > I'll resist the temptation. By the way, did you notice you managed to   
   > hurt me big time this time round :)   
      
   I only did so because you wrote in a most condescending manner of the things   
   I had written, and I was offended.   
      
   >   
   > > That's religion, which you are free to have, but don't confuse it   
   > > with knowledge or science... Science is not meant to cover up the   
   > > truth. Religion, on the other hand, claims to know the final truth,   
   > > and thereby categorically denies any new information that runs   
   > > contrary to it... You are no skeptic. You are a true believer.   
   >   
   > In what?   
      
   Well, let's see... You certainly seem to be a true believer in that science   
   isn't right about practically anything at all.   
   Also, you seem to believe that dreams are the most real reality, and that   
   our waking reality is actually the product of dreams.   
   This runs contrary to everything that is observable, and hence isn't very   
   credible.   
      
   > Some Words, maybe, or true Logos theories made thereof (of the   
   > ultimate/divine set, combination, permutation of words:). That was the   
   > cheap shot, seriously though :), are you not "true___" yourself, or   
   > shall I repeat...   
      
   No, actually I am not, but I do refuse to dismiss anything. Dismissing   
   something without having absolute knowledge is arrogant and stupid, and   
   nobody has absolute knowledge.   
      
   >   
   > {..from the "new to group--with lots of questions" on dreams thread, 24   
   > Oct. I'm not sure my next honesty will be appreciated :), but will   
   > nevertheless share the subjective feeling with you: to me even now it   
   > still feels as if talking to the same person. I could just as well   
   > imagine talking to any other science apologist, Jeremy say. Do not get   
   > me wrong here, I'm well aware it was Kaycee back then, a rather   
   > different name from yours, and perhaps personality, but when it comes   
   > to discussions it feels that way, alike. To the extent that I now   
   > conjecture that the religious method wasn't in 'fact' (by its outcome:)   
   > that different from the scientific one, that maybe scientists' ultimate   
   > goal wasn't actually the attainment of absolute Truth, Information,   
   > Knowledge (Bliss, in short:) but rather the uniformity of thought and   
   > 'brain' patterns.  Now back to the independent testing and verification   
   > of the said hypothesis by repeating...}   
   >   
   > ..the long listing of cherished illusions, best educated guesses and   
   > truest beliefs. Surprise, surprise, but the real difficulty lies not in   
   > the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones which ramify into   
   > every corner of our minds. And that is what I'm going to check now, how   
   > easy it could be for "a scientifically-minded person to abandon hope   
   > for absolute certainty" (Kaycee:). If you manage to read to the end the   
   > following list of "proven facts" (although "There are no facts, only   
   > interpretations."  Friedrich Nietzsche:), a feat in itself, I'll then   
   > like to hear the objective probabilities you might assign to these   
   > 'events'.  {That in turn were selected as part of my quest for the   
   > answer to: What came first, 'spirit', 'matter' or the Word?} So here is   
   > an illustrative   
   >   
   >   
   > List of modern beliefs:   
   >   
   >     In the Beginning there was:   
   >   
   >     Chance before Choice,   
   >   
   >     Body before Soul,   
   >   
   >     Matter before Mind.   
   >   
   >     The world existed long before humans came about.   
   >   
   >     It were primordial gases, dead matter first.   
   >   
   >     In fact, it is at all possible to define the word 'matter'   
   >     unequivocally.   
      
   It has been done.   
   Interestingly, matter is really also energy.   
      
   >   
   >     And it is also possible to define 'living matter' unambiguously,   
   >     e.g. as just another "property" of matter.   
      
   It is possible to do so.   
   That does not mean it is necessarily true, but it is possible.   
      
   >   
   >     Life and consciousness are just an emerging property of "organized   
   >     matter".   
      
   Maybe, maybe not.   
      
   >   
   > {Or could it rather be the opposite, "Organized matter" a property of   
   > consciousness and perception. Or worse :), Any 'matter' or other Word   
   > of Logos a 'property' of consciousness. Of course, feel free to apply   
   > Occam's razors and such, or any other 'objective' tool/criterion   
   > that'll help you select between the two on the basis of say,   
   > simplicity, parsimony of assumptions.}   
      
   Maybe, maybe not.   
   However, with the idea that matter gave rise to consciousness, we at least   
   have a theory of how, whereas with the idea of consciousness before anything   
   else, we have to just believe (in God, ultimately).   
      
   >   
   >     There is this objective application of Occam's razor.   
   >   
   >     There is such a thing in simple Nature as "unorganized matter".   
      
   Yes. Well, more accurately, there is matter that has a very low level of   
   organization.   
      
   >   
   > {Like separate, isolated, completely independent parts, gases, chemical   
   > elements pure, for the idea of scientific splitting the h/air check   
   > "Derrida's philosophy of deconstruction" (a.d.c, Oct 24, 27)}   
   >   
   >     However, a dead body is still an "organized matter".   
   >   
   >     (Therefore, as such it possess its inherent, emerging property of   
   >     consciousness:)   
      
   A dead body lacks the electrochemical activity of the nervous system, so it   
   is less complex than a living body.   
      
   >   
   >     In the Beginning there was nothing, no Word, not even that   
   >     infinitesimal singleton of infinite mass.   
      
   Not nothing, but no matter or energy in the conventional sense.   
      
   >   
   >     Then suddenly there was a Big Bang, the cunning 'point' (Word:)   
   >     exploded..   
      
   For there to be a word, somebody has to speak it, no?   
   So then we're back to requiring God, and by extension, religion.   
      
   >   
   >     ..and started to expand greedily.   
      
   In order to be greedy, it would have to consume or displace something, but   
   the theory of the big bang has space itself expanding along with everything   
   in it, displacing nothing.   
      
   >   
   >     Gradually matter began to orginize itself, spontaneously.   
      
   Possibly. Look at something like a fractal. Its origin is an exceedingly   
   simple mathematical formula, yet when it is iterated many times complexity   
   emerges spontaneously.   
   From: Z = Z2 + C   
   To: http://www.softlab.ece.ntua.gr/miscellaneous/mandel/mandel.html (this is   
   interactive, btw)   
      
   >   
   >     Until one day eventually the miracle happened, the world saw   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)